IMPLEMENTATION OF MAHINDA CHINTHANA
It appears that Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse's Mahinda Chinthana has created a cultural shock among some "advisors" of the Prime Minister. It is well known that Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga was not in favour of the policies on the unitary state, PTOMS, and also on the conditions linked to the so-called discussions with Prabhakaran and the LTTE, stated in the Mahinda Chinthana. However, at least for the media, she has said that there is no problem with Mahinda Chinthana and that she had no objection to it being launched. It is very unlikely that a person who was adamantly opposing the policy of unitary state would all of a sudden change her mind to support it wholeheartedly. It cannot be doubted that there are at least some among the advisors to the Prime Minister who are against retaining the unitary character of the state. This is further made clear by the words and deeds by some of them.
For example, at the launching ceremony of the Mahinda Chinthana there had been no speeches other than that by the Prime Minister, and those connected with formalities. However, there has been an attempt to include a speech by a well known academic, now retired after serving two Faculties of Medicine. This academic is certainly not the best friend of the unitary policy nor an advocate of SLFP adopting the policies of fifty six. It has to be emphasised that by policies of fifty six, we do not mean the policies of nineteen fifteen six as such, but policies based on the philosophy of fifty six. This attempt by some advisors to include a speech by this particular academic in the agenda for the launching ceremony of "Mahinda Chinthana" was not welcome by the 'children of fifty six, and was unsuccessful.
The "advisors" are more powerful than even the cabinet colleagues of the Prime Minister, and we cannot expect them to give up, and stick to the changes in the SLFP that are being attempted at present. They would attempt to go back to the policies of Chandrika Kumaratunga era, and Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse will have to keep an eye on them after the seventeenth of November. The unitary policy would be hotly contested with the backing of some advisors, not to mention the advisors to the President Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga, and all the other NGO "intellectuals" who are very busy with marketing peace not free of charge.
As we have very often said, a federal solution would not solve the so-called problems or grievances of the Tamils. Even if one assumed that there are grievances of the Tamils, then one has to find a solution to the so-called grievances of the Tamils in the whole island, and not only in the Northern and the Eastern provinces. The creation of a federal state or a confederation of the north and the east with the rest of the country, would not solve the so-called grievances of the more than fifty percent of the Tamils living outside those two provinces. The federal solution is a non starter, but the peace vendors and the others would continue with their power games even after the seventeenth of November.
The children of fifty six have to draw their attention to this fact while engaging in the campaign of Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse. It is the period after the Presidential elections that matters most, as it is not only the locals who market federalism and confederalism wrapped in peace, who would surround Mr. Rajapakse after the eighteenth. The western powers, co chairs of the so called aid group or ko ko federalists would come up with veiled threats to the Sri Lankan government, and it would be a challenge to the children of fifty six to face up to them , and to get ready to defeat their political, economic and cultural bullying. The bullies are also terrorists in a way, as they adopt such methods to carry out their policies.
The west sometimes imposes economic sanctions on a country of the so called third world when the latter's policies are not to the satisfaction of the former. This is nothing but terrorism under the pretext of safeguarding the human rights of the people in that particular country. The western countries for this purpose have redefined the sovereignty of a country, and according to the western political scientists, there is only "limited sovereignty" in the case of the so called third world countries. Of course, they would not specifically say in their "theses' that "limited sovereignty" is only for the "third world" countries. However, in practice that is how "limited sovereignty" is applied. A western country would rarely impose economic sanctions on another western country. Further the "limited sovereignty" is a one way process. While the western countries are in a position to adopt their terrorist activities on the countries of the so called third world, the latter are not in a position to impose economic sanctions on a country of the "developed world".
The western intellectuals who have a monopoly of theories and concepts, and the hegemony of knowledge would define "limited sovereignty" in words that appear to be impartial. The third world "political scientists" who do not create central knowledge, but only produce Ph. D. theses, which whether from the western world or the "third world" very often contain only some application of a theory or analysis of the works of somebody else, carried out in the periphery under the inflated claim of contribution to knowledge (this is the case in the other fields as well) are not in a position to "deconstruct" the "limited sovereignty" claims of their gurus in the west.
Though it is a mammoth task, it is up to the children of fifty six to create new knowledge not in the form of Ph. D. theses accepted in the west, but accepted first by the public in Sri Lanka, and then perhaps by the public in the other "third world" countries to challenge these "limited companies" of the "intellectuals" in the west. Occasionally they may get a paper published in a "reputed international journal" written in the jargon in a format which have been created in the west. However, their main task should be the creation of knowledge accepted by the fellow countrymen, which may even be ridiculed by the "intellectuals" of those countries, who have been "recognised" by the west.
It is the people who would finally struggle with western colonialism that would impose economic sanctions, and not the "intellectuals". The latter would often find employment in the civil society (as at present there is no civil service with "status" that used to draw good dowries, it is not a bad idea to be employed in the civil society that draws good salaries) and would write footnotes to the theories of their masters and mistresses. It has to be reminded that the present civil society in Sri Lanka, maintained by the western money, has been attempting to displace the old civil society of "Maha Sangha".
Implementation of the "Mahinda Chinthana" which is based on the Mihindu or Mahinda Chinthanaya, the most prominent component of the Chinthanaya of the country, is not an easy task, as the "advisors" to the Prime Minister, the NGO "intellectuals" spearheaded by one time in law of the Bandaranaike family, who has been against "fifty six" and not a child of fifty six (it is remarkable that not only the children of Bandaranaikes but their "children in law" have not been children of fifty six) and others would join forces against the "Mahinda Chinthana". The children of fifty six, all of whom are not as old as the old Trotskyites, should get ready to defend and implement the "Mahinda Chinthana" while campaigning for Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse. The present campaign is the ideal opportunity to prepare the public for the struggles against western colonialism yet to come.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>