PATTERNS IN ELECTIONS AND IN "PEACE"
Abstract pattern recognition is, I think, the most important component in western academic tradition based in the western Judaic Christian civilisation. When Newton formulated his theory of gravitation he was guided by the patterns of terrestrial falling bodies like apples, as well as of non terrestrial, "non falling" bodies such as the moon. It was his ability to see that the motion of both apples and moons have the same pattern that enabled him to formulate an abstract "universal" gravitational force. When Chomsky observed that children could make "infinite" number of sentences after being "taught" a few rules in any language he saw a pattern in all the languages and formulated his theory on a metagrammar. The children whether they are borne in Europe or in Asia, could recognise "unconsciously" patterns in constructing sentences and this innate ability is abstract. Though all humans have a capacity for abstract thinking it is the western Judaic- Christian civilisation that has given "prominence" to this ability. The other civilisations and cultures have been more "concrete" and it is reflected in the Mathematics produced by the great Bharath Mathematicians. In constructing abstract theory the west has a virtual monopoly and our "intellectuals" have been relegated to the "concrete" case studies. However, this does not imply that there are no intellectuals in the west who are not interested in case studies, but in general the theory making is the most important aspect of the western intellectuals, though it is done by relatively a few of them.
The UNF heavyweights, some of them being pseudo intellectuals who could not see any patterns, went to town with the results of the local government elections claiming a mandate for ceasefire, talks on talks etc. However, we must thank them for not interpreting it as a mandate for power cuts, increasing cost of living, unemployment and inefficiency in general (I understand that so far the government has not established parliamentary advisory committees.). They told us that never in the history the people have given anybody such a mandate. Apparently one of them had told the Sandeshaya of the BBC, whose news desk has the freedom of the press only to translate in to Sinhala and read the news written by some white journalist, that the local government elections were a referendum that endorsed the MOU signed by the Prime Minister and the murderer Prabhakaran. (One Rev./Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. C.R., is it C. Rudra by any means, has said in a letter to the editor on 23rd March that it is not proper to refer to LTTE as "terrorists" any longer as it has become indispensable for the peace process. He also says that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If a rose is a rose by any other name, a terrorist is a terrorist by any other name. CR doesn't say that the LTTE is not terrorist. He merely says that the LTTE is indispensable for peace. So why not use the familiar word terrorist if it is the same even if any other word is used. In any event the LTTE is not indispensable for peace. Peace can be achieved only at the dispense of the LTTE. However, I must add that I have different reasons to call the LTTE a terrorist organisation. I do not agree that a rose is a rose by any other name. "A rose is a rose by any other name" has been created in a culture that talks of objective "roses" independent of the mind. The word rose has certain connotations that no other word would give and also there is no substantial, objective rose that is independent of the word. There are no perceptions without conceptions. A rose is not a rose by another name. In any event, the heading "Eelam by some other name" of the article that appeared on 13th March, is not mine. Meanwhile, C. Rudra, in a different letter to the editor, has asked a number of questions on religion and culture, most of which I have replied in my article last week. He makes two additional comments. He refers to Hinduism and says it's based on vedas. My point is that it is an amalgamation of vedas, Buddhism and Jainism. Vedas do not preach ahinsa and there are animal sacrifices in the vedic religion. Secondly he quote Jawaharlal Nehru on the culture of India. Nehru refers to an Indian way of life and says "A Christian or a Muslim could and often did adopt himself to the Indian way of life and culture, and yet remained in faith an orthodox Christian or Muslim. He had Indianized himself and become an Indian without changing his religion." I agree with that and that is why I say that the culture and religion are different. However, what is interesting here is that Nehru does not mention of a Hindu adopting himself to the Indian way. Why? Because a Hindu is already following the Indian way of life! Indian culture is essentially a Hindu culture and even Nehru with all his sophistication acquired from the western Christian education could not hide that fact.).
There are two sets of figures corresponding to the local government election results. According to one set the votes cast were around 60% of the registered number of votes. The commissioner of elections himself admitted that it was around 60%. The UNF had apparently received 58% of the valid votes and even the Eelamnation website gave 58% as the vote for "peace". ( By the way Thamilchelvam has become the greatest "upasakaya" who is after peace. If the LTTE is so much for peace why don't they surrender their arms to the government or to their monitors, the Norwegians. He has also said that they do not want an inch of Sinhala homeland. What does he mean by Sinhala homeland? He should have been told that the so-called Tamil homeland did not exist before 1976 and it is an invention of the TULF.) The second set of figures claim that about 70% of the voters have cast their votes and the UNF has received 64% of the valid vote. Would the commissioner of elections Mr. Dayanada Dishanayake explain the discrepancy?
Whether the UNF received 58% or 64% of the valid vote it is interpreted as a mandate for the MOU and "peace talks". On a previous occasion when Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga received 62% of the valid vote at the presidential elections held in November 1994, it was also interpreted as a mandate for "devolution of power and peace". Now can we recognise any pattern in these two results? I know that a sample of two is inadequate in general to recognise patterns, but in certain cases we may be able to come up with a working hypotheses. Both November 1994 presidential elections and March 2002 local government elections were held "island wide" (though the latter was not held island wide we can take it to be so for calculating percentages as it was held in most of the country excluding the north and the east.) within months of general elections that toppled the existing governments. In August 1994 the PA government came to power, and in December 2001 the UNF toppled the PA government. At elections held soon after toppling a government, the voters identify themselves with the new government and vote for the party that formed the new government. It is not merely a case of joining the winners (vasi peththata hoyya) but identifying themselves with the new government in order to get jobs or small favours or even to live without being harassed. The percentages of the valid votes the new government get are in the region of sixties and this could even increase at the next elections held soon after toppling a government. If the people were really for "peace", MOU's and what not then they would have expressed their wish at the first election as well, not waiting for the second election held soon after the first. That is the people should have voted in large numbers for the PA at the August 1994 elections and for the UNF at the December 2001 elections. The PA should realise at least today, that the 62% of the votes that Ms. Kumaratunga received in 1994 was not for the "devolution of power and peace". This phenomenon could be called the post government toppling election trend and the pseudo intellectuals should not be working overtime to give interpretations to their liking.
There is another pattern that can be observed with respect to "peace" talks. I am not thinking of Anton Balasingham whose LTTE is banned in Britain and Sri Lanka coming from Heathrow (or Gatwick) to Iranamadu weva. I would not ask embarrassing questions on passport formalities with respect to Anton Balasingham and his Australian born wife, who are members of a proscribed organisation. (As expected the "independent" commissioner of elections has postponed the local government elections in the northern and the eastern provinces except in the Ampara electoral district. I am glad that I am not in any one of the "civil administrative services".) I am sure that Eric Solheim who passes through Colombo would have got his VIP treatment at Katunayake.
I am only interested in the involvement of the USA in the "peace process". As "Hindu" had observed Norway is at the behest of USA. Norway was "invited" by the Sri Lankan government to facilitate first. However, Norway in no time became a mediator, a monitor and a "peace giver". Now Norway is being gradually pushed over by the USA. This happened sometime ago with respect to Palestine-Israel "peace talks". Norway came out with the Oslo agreement soon to be replaced by Camp David and the other agreements by the USA. There has been no "peace" in Palestine and the bloodshed is continuing. USA involvement in Sri Lanka has been increased in the last two weeks, with the arrival of Ms. Rocca and military officials. Some Sinhalas would have been happy with the statement made by USA warning the LTTE on the violation of the MOU. They are probably thinking that the sole super power is on their side and the LTTE would be in trouble hereafter.
However, the west had always taken the view that the Sinhalas are at fault. The west and their so-called experts in those countries as well as their imitators, including the third rate western political scientists (western political science, as a "science" limps behind western physics) who are only good at misreporting, in Sri Lanka have been propagating the myth that there are injustices to the Tamils. However, none of them has identified any grievance of the Tamils, merely because of being Tamils. The Tamils in Sri Lanka enjoy more rights and privileges than those in Tamil Nadu. The Tamils in Sri Lanka do not have grievances but aspirations. Their main aspiration is to deprive Sinhalathva its rightful place in this country. The concrete aspirations had been displayed in Pongu Tamil political rallies and they are nothing but the so-called Thimpu conditions. The Thimpu conditions were not formulated overnight but have a history going back to 1832 when the British appointed one member each to represent the Sinhalas and the Tamils in the legislative assembly. The Thimpu conditions have evolved through the Tamil nation idea of Ramanathan, more than equal representation for Tamils of Arunachalam, 50-50 demand of Ponnambalam etc. Prabhakaran, who has taken up arms to establish a separate state that Chelvanayakam wanted in 1947, is only "carrying forward" these demands.Ramanathan and Arunachalam may not have fought with cyanide capsules around their necks, but there would not have been a Prabhakaran if not for them. Only a third rate political scientist who is only good at vomiting western theories that were formulated up to and including the third quarter of the twentieth century, would fail to understand the connection between Ramanathan and Prabhakaran. (This does not imply that the western theories formulated in the last quarter of the last century are any better. It only means that the imitators do not have the even the capability of vomiting them.)
The westerners who created the Tamil racist problem in Sri Lanka, and their henchmen in the NGO's, in civil societies and in the universities would always blame the Sinhalas for the so-called injustices to the Tamils. The Sinhalas should not expect the USA to change this position and the so-called warning to the LTTE would only make the Sinhalas happy for a short time giving them some confidence in the MOU. The west will always say that they are against terrorism, against a separate state but a solution has to be found for the so-called ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. In their view the problem is due to the Sinhalas and their solution is to establish a confederation. It is not an Eelam by another name but de facto Eelam. It would become a de jure Eelam soon after the scandinavian countries recognise the Eelam declared by the terrorists. This time the LTTE wants to establish an Eelam through negotiations, with the help of the west. It is not a change of names but a change of means.
The Tamils the world over have been talking of a Tamil state for some time now. In India the Tamils wanted to have a separate state. In Sri Lanka due to the weakness of the Sinhala leadership the Tamils are demanding that an Eelam should be established in the northern and the eastern provinces demarcated by the British as late as 1889. As a result of the MOUs, talks on talks etc., if a confederation is established that would become a de jure Eelam in no time. With that we would be in a similar situation as Palestine and Israel are. Norway and later the USA have been coming out with agreements, ceasefire, peace talks but the bloodshedding continues in that region. We are going to end up with a similar situation. Tamil Eelam will become the Israel of South Asia. The rest of the country would be like Palestine. Eelam if established would have to depend on the west for survival. If instead of the negotiations sponsored by the west we were to continue with the operations against the LTTE we would have achieved peace even after twenty years by annihilating the LTTE. But now, as it is, if a confederation, that is a de facto Eelam is established, then a war that is going to last for more than a few decades would begin. The patterns are there for all to see.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>