LORD NASEBY SPEAKS
According to the Sunday Island Lord Naseby of the house of Lords, has said that the British government "is not doing enough to ensure that the ban on the LTTE is properly implemented". Speaking to the "Sunday Island" he has further said that Anton Balasingham, who is a British citizen, has no special rights to promote the LTTE. "If he (Balasingham) is breaking the law he has to face the consequences of that" have been the words of the good Lord. Meanwhile "The Sunday Times" reported that a Danish TV had exposed LTTE fund raising activities. One may think that things have begun to move in the opposite direction and the LTTE leaders, at least Balasingham would be arrested soon. While thanking the above mentioned Danish newspaper as well as people such as Lord Nasesby, unfortunately it has to be mentioned that the vast majority of the people in Europe and North America are either ignorant of the Tamil racist problem, and the majority of those who know something of the problem are on the side of the Tamil racists.
The Tamil racist problem in Sri Lanka is not something that would affect the lives of the ordinary people in the western world. Only a few academics, and so called human rights organisations show an interest in the situation in Sri Lanka. In any event the westerners come to know the problem through the media and the pronouncements of the respective governments. The million dollar question is how the western media perceive the problem. Do they have an "independent" "unbiased" opinion on the issues? There are no "independent" or unbiased views and the western media and governments especially in the English speaking world and the other Reformist countries in the west, are biased towards Tamil racism.
The "Sunday Island" has interviewed Lord Nasesby on the Tamil racist problem. How many mainstream media in UK would interview him on the problem? It is unlikely that any one of them would want to publish the views of the Lord on this matter. Anton Balasingham is a UK citizen and he is being protected by the UK government. Lord Nasesby has said that the UK government is not doing enough to implement the ban on the LTTE. We knew this all the time, and we know further that the ban that has been imposed on the LTTE is a farce. If the ban is not a farce the UK government should have arrested Balasingham long time ago. A citizen of UK is openly promoting an organisation that is banned in that country. Is that against the law of the country or not? Why are the so called respectable media in UK silent over this issue?
Recently there was an article in "The Island" on the policy of the BBC on Milosevic and Prabhakaran. Do we expect anything else from this organisation that claims to be very impartial in reporting news? Is there any news that is not contaminated with interpretation? The journalists take pride in claiming that they only report leaving interpretation to the readers, listeners and viewers. However, these claims were not thought about by the Sri Lankan journalists. They only repeat what the western journalists have been telling us for ages. The westerners think that they could separate reporting from interpretation or from their views on what is reported. This kind of separation though claimed by western modernity never happens in practise. The western culture would like to separate matters like these, and they succeed up to a point. For example they would inform us that the state is independent of the religion. However, in the final analysis it is not possible to separate as they claim, and as people are not independent of opinions reporting always depend on the personal and organisational views and attitudes. The BBC will never call the LTTE a terrorist organisation though they have no inhibitions whatsoever in calling the JVP a terrorist organisation in the late eighties. When the western media refer to Milosevic as a war criminal they have already passed judgement on the deceased President. However, the very same BBC is very academic when it pretends not to know that the LTTE has committed certain crimes. One can always pretend to be very academic and demand all the evidence when the one knows that the conclusion would be against one's opinion on a certain matter. Those in the west, and their agents in Colombo who want the Sri Lankan army to play a pacifist role would even argue that the army withdraw from the high security zones in the northern province for the sake of "peace". However, these people would utter no word against USA and UK sending forces to Iraq, after misleading the public on the weapons owned by the latter.
Many people in Sri Lanka are critical of the role played by Norway. However, they also think that UK and USA are still ignorant of the facts pertaining to the behaviour of the LTTE. If these countries are ignorant of what is happening they should be ashamed of themselves. It is not that they are ignorant of the facts (incidentally there are no facts without interpretation or independent of theories, contrary to the western claim for such separation) but that they have different opinions. They are of the opinion that the Tamils in Sri Lanka have been discriminated, and that there is a so-called ethnic problem in the country, and the only solution to the problem is some kind of federal state on an ethnic basis. Some would perhaps argue that the only solution is bifurcation of the country.
Then there are some Sinhalas living in Sri Lanka as well as abroad (especially the e-mail weerayas) who would say that the problem is only a terrorist problem and that there is nothing to discuss as to the evolution of the Tamil racist problem in the country. There are others who would claim that there cannot be a federal state in a country occupied only by the indigenous Sinhalas, on the assumption that there is no need for federalism in countries occupied by an indigenous population, and that in Sri Lanka the Sinhalas are the indigenous people. When Mr. Anandasangaree wrote to the JVP requesting them to drop the unitary state policy, claiming that even the JHU has accepted the Indian quasi federal state model (so far the JHU has not challenged Mr. Anandasangaree on this), there is no point in stating that there is only a terrorist problem in Sri Lanka, or that we do not want a federal state on an ethnic basis, as this is a country occupied by the indigenous Sinhala people. These statements are not answers to Mr. Anandasangaree, and are mere slogans. Mr. Anandasangaree has to be countered on his own argument. It can be done in two ways. One has to show that there is no ethnic problem based on injustices to a particular ethnic group(s) but a problem due to something else. However, mere slogans of the type that there is only a terrorist problem would not do. Terrorism is a mode and not an intrinsic problem as such. However, this does not mean that terrorism does not have to be eliminated and in Sri Lanka LTTE has to be defeated by military means. If the LTTE has selected terrorism as their mode, then it has to be defeated, accordingly.
The second approach is to counter Mr. Anandasangaree's argument that in Sri Lanka only a federal state will solve the "ethnic problem". One does not have to agree with the formulation of the problem to show that even if it is assumed that there is an "ethnic problem" a federal state would not solve the problem. We have on numerous occasions established that there is no ethnic problem based on so called injustices, and also that even if one assumes that there is an ethnic problem, a federal constitution will not solve the problem.
However, this does not mean that the western Christian (as opposed to Catholic) countries would agree with us on all those counts, as they have vested interests in the problem in Sri Lanka. In spite of Lord Naseby and a minority who oppose the governmental, bureaucratic, diplomatic and journalistic mainstream formulation of the problem and the associated solution, the western countries would continue to support Tamil racism in Sri Lanka. It is because the Tamil racist problem in Sri Lanka was created by Netherlands (old Holland) and Britain, Tamil racism was nurtured by Britain and today protected by Norway on behalf of USA and UK, and also due to the fact that the westerners want to see other cultures such as Sinhala Buddhist destroyed. The banning of LTTE in UK and USA should not deceive the discerning Sri Lankans as it is only a corollary of banning some Arabic organisation in USA.
One probable way to change the policy on Tamil racism, of the western countries that are hell bent on giving their culture, political institutions and political theories together with their economic structures and their economic theories to the others in the world, is to educate the general public living in those countries on the problem in Sri Lanka. The general public should be made aware that there is no ethnic problem based on injustices to one ethnic group, and that the Sinhala Buddhists are not the demons that the western media have portrayed during the last few decades, especially with the assistance of "intellectuals" who call themselves social anthropologists, and sociologists in general. However, it is easier said than done, and organising pickets in the open and meetings is not an easy exercise. The politicians finally have to depend on voters, and if voters could be trained to think differently on the Tamil problem, then there is a slight chance that state policy of those countries on the Tamil racist problem would change. However, we should not have any delusion that these methods would succeed nor that the interview that Lord Naseby gave to the "Sunday Island" would change the situation. Rather than depending on others we should try to stand on our legs, and in this regard we have to do a lot, especially in the field of constructing knowledge to achieve our independence.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>