BOMBS, ELECTIONS AND HOWARDISM
If an innocent Canadian or Australian working in Colombo is killed by the Sri Lankan armed forces or the police, what would have been the reaction of the western world? How would those NGO intellectuals who are funded by the western countries react to the situation? How many posters would have appeared in Colombo and the major towns condemning the action of the Sri Lankan armed forces? How many seminars would have been organised by the seminar circuit, with the so called leading human rights people participating, to discuss the high handed action of the Sri Lankan armed forces or the police, and the inability of the Sri Lankan forces to order the Canadian or the Australian to stop in either English or French?
In Stockwell, London an innocent Brazilian was killed while he was running to get into the train. Apparently he had been asked to stop by the London police in English, and as he failed to comply with the order, he was shot dead. It is clear that if one is working in London or anywhere in Britain for that matter, one is supposed to know English and recognise the accents and the various types of English spoken in that country. Whether the Brazilian heard and understood the order is immaterial and nobody would think of asking the London police why the Brazilian was not given the order in his language. If one is in London one is supposed to know English.
The British would say that there would be an open inquiry into the whole tragedy, but we can be almost certain that the Brazilian would be found guilty of not complying with the order. If a similar incident happened in Colombo, the Sri Lankan forces would have been found guilty by an international committee consisting of eminent "international" lawyers and human rights leaders. The forces would be found guilty of many things including not giving the order to stop in a language that the dead man understood. If one is working in Colombo one is supposed to know any language but Sinhala. The Sri Lankan forces that use Sinhala would be branded as a Chauvinist army or police, as the case may be, trying to impose Sinhala not only on the Tamils but on the foreigners working in the country.
The last five hundred years have seen to it that in the final analysis only the white Europeans and their descendants in other place such as USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have the so called human rights. The others may have human rights if they are fighting for a "cause" that has been set up by the westerners, against a non western government or a government not supported or sponsored by the west. The moment the government gets the sponsorship of the western countries the poor individuals lose their "human rights", and they could easily be identified as terrorists.
It is in the light of the above that the statement by the Prime Minister of Australia to the effect that the Presidential elections in Sri Lanka should be held before the end of the year becomes more and more stinking. Of course one would argue that the conference of the so called democratic parties has the right even to adopt a resolution to that effect and the Australian Prime Minister has the right to utter those stinking words. After all the human rights and the other rights are defined by the "intellectuals" in the western culture, and they know their onions as well as their definitions. The Australian Prime Minister is known to make stinking statements, having previously made one such statement regarding Muttiah Muralideran.
Mr. Anura Bandaranaike had made a statement effectively asking the Australian Prime Minister to mind his own business. However, we cannot forget that the politicians as well as others in Sri Lanka have a habit of taking our problems to the so called international community. This does not mean that it is as a response to internationalizing our problems by the politicians that the westerners interfere with our affairs. The westerners think that it is their divine right to interfere with the affairs of the so called third world.
In fact the western political scientists who construct and deconstruct theories to suit the western states would claim that the sovereignty of a country is a bygone concept and that in the modern world, according to some hollow "thinkers" in the postmodern world, the countries and states are all twined into one whole, and that no country could have hundred percent sovereignty. The so called third world political scientists would pick up these bones thrown out of the western tables and imitate the "theories" before the locals who would not have any access to the "theories" of the westerners.
The irony is that in spite of these "theories" constructed by the western political scientists, USA, UK and other countries in the west enjoy the sovereignty. Nobody would dictate to Bush or Blair what to do, and certainly their countries and states have more sovereignty than those in the so called third world. The USA constitution is very rigid when it comes to presidential elections but who would advice the British Prime Minister on the date of the dissolution of the parliament. In Sri Lanka it is different and any Howard thinks that he has the right to decide and tell the public when the presidential elections should be held.
The countries in Asia and Africa lost their sovereignty to the western countries beginning in the fifteenth century. The Asian countries were given "independence" in the forties and the fifties and the African countries became "independent" in the sixties. However, there was no complete independence at any stage, and today with all knowledge created and handled by the west, the western world is prostituting the knowledge to see to it that the Afro Asian countries remain subservient to the west. Since the time of Bacon the west has known that knowledge is power, and now they know that knowledge, in the final analysis, is politics. It is essential for Afro asian countries to create their own knowledge if they are to finally gain independence.
Coming back to Howard, we may even identify this kind of colonialism as Howardism, whereby the west thinks that it is their divine right to rule the whole world appealing to some abstract western knowledge on democracy. Howard by his stinking statements has revealed the plans of the western leaders, and we could "honour" him by naming this particular colonialism after him. In any event, what the west wants, and what Howardism has designed as the fate of Sri Lanka, is a country with Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe as the president by January 2006.
It was Howardism that brought Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga from her self exile in London in early nineties to "package" an Eelam for Tamil racism. The west thought at that time the SLFP with Ms. Kumaratunga as the leader would do the trick of bifurcating the country. Their reasoning was that when Ms. Kumaratunga brings the legislation to the parliament to set up a confederation that would pave the way for an Eelam, the SLFP would keep quiet and with the support of the UNP they would be able to achieve what they want. However, in Sri Lanka they could not find the "order" that prevailed in the west, and their predictions and expectations were not to be realised.
Eleven years of Kumaratunga presidency has achieved very little for the west, in spite of the fact that Ms. Kumaratunga is a willing Howardist, and now Howardism has decided that Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe should be the next president of Sri Lanka. The promised funds for PTOMS by the west, insistence on PTOMS to give aid for tsunami relief work and applying pressure to get that document called the MoU on PTOMS according to which funds were to be given to the regional committee with a LTTE terrorist as the chairman, then declaring that no funds would be given as the LTTE is banned in some of the western countries, Canada insisting on giving funds to PTOMS in spite of the Supreme Court decision are all characteristics of Howardism.
The west wants to prove to the Sri Lankans that Ms. Kumaratunga is not a capable leader and the best candidate for the post of President of Sri Lanka is Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe. The LTTE could be called to take to the "war" path if it is necessary and explode a few bombs in Colombo in order to present Mr. Wickremesinghe as the Moses who could deliver peace to the country.
The Sinhala nationalists would have to take all these factors into consideration and their slogan should be "Oust Chandrika , No to Ranil" in the coming presidential elections. They would have to select their candidate in time for the Presidential elections and also to clean the SLFP of Mahajana Party politics of Ms. Kumaratunga. They should realise that the statement by Howard is not merely a rash statement by an outspoken inexperienced politician but a reflection of a deeper colonialism. The policemen in London could open fire at innocent people and get escaped, but in Sri Lanka the armed forces cannot open fire at terrorists who are being sponsored by the west. It is the terrorists in Sri Lanka who enjoy the immunity of the policemen in Britain.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>