IS THE WEST AGAINST SRI LANKA? - II

The west supported the then existing governments to crush the JVP movement both in 1971 and 1989-92 without any protest against the loss of human rights of the JVP cadres, sympathisers and others who were mainly Sinhala Buddhists. Of course one could argue that the west did not support the JVP simply because the party was Marxist and the former did not want any change of the economic system. However, there were Marxists in the government of 1971 and the west did not have any inhibition in supporting the government at that time.

The west, especially the British have been anti Sinhala from the beginning of the nineteenth century and even today it is more a case of opposing the Sinhala nationalist movement rather than being against Sri Lanka. It is clear that even today they are against this government because they think the government represents what they call Sinhala supremacy. It is the Sinhala people in general who had been in the forefront of the struggle against colonialism, barring some protest movements from the Jaffna Youth League and the LSSP and CP. Even the latter parties had Sinhala nationalists who thought that anti imperialism or anti colonialism of the parties stemmed from a Sinhala nationalist point of view. There were some Sinhala school teachers and ayurvedic physicians in these parties who later joined the SLFP after that party adopted a more nationalistic position in 1953.

The west is not against Sri Lanka if the UNP is in power as they know that the leadership of the party is basically anti Sinhala and anti Sinhala Buddhist. The latter takes pride in the fact that the UNP is a member of the association of the conservative parties of the world and the leadership is more pro western than pro Sri Lanka. The party leadership now dances to the tune of the western powers and Solheims and Foxes have a very cordial relationship with the leaders of the party. The west is only anti Rajapakse government as in their opinion it represents Sinhala supremacy.

It is mainly the so called Sinhala supremacy that the west is fighting against at present and it is more cultural than economic. Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga has tried to preach me on colonialism and I am glad that he did so for two reasons. I can expose his economic determinism quoting from his article though he cannot establish that I base my arguments on cultural determinism. Throughout I have emphasised that there are three interdependent components of western colonialism and my position can be put down briefly in the following form.

Western colonialism from the very beginning had three interdependent components. They were cultural, economic and political. It may be said that the western colonialists came to this part of the world in order to exploit our resources and economics was at the bottom of it. However, economics was not their only concern. They needed the political power in order to exploit not only the natural resources but the land and also the human resources. They cultivated crops that could be exported and not interested in producing the essential items that were needed for the survival of the people. Later on they introduced reluctantly outcomes of the so called industrial revolution when they realised that certain goods could be produced with cheap labour available in the colonies.

However economic colonialism and the associated political colonialism were only two aspects of western colonialism. The third which was cultural has been oppressing us from the very beginning. The conversion of people to various sects of Christianity has been going on in the colonies from the very first day. The ships that carried governors and soldiers also had space for clergy. The Catholic priests did not sail only to preach the soldiers and others whom they accompanied. They had another mission and it was to convert the natives or the people in the colonies by various means very often in collaboration with the governors and the soldiers. Sometimes the soldiers themselves undertook the conversions when the soldiers threatened to kill the infants if the mothers refused to be converted.

Secondly I am glad that he has decided to show that there is a difference between my “Chinthanaya” and Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera’s Jathika Chinthanya. Though many people think that there is no difference between our positions there have been differences from the beginning which I thought Mr. Sivakumaran had grasped to a certain extent. I will reply in detail to Prof. Amaratunga hopefully next week giving my understanding of colonialism exposing his economic determinism and of course explaining why I have de Silva at the end and not before the end as in the case of Prof. de S Amaratunga. I will not miss this opportunity to state clearly as far as I can the differences between the two Chinthanayas and why a Sinhala Physics is not something to be laughed at. I have never tried to reduce knowledge to culture and I am not a cultural determinist even in the field of knowledge.

What Sinhala supremacy is not something that Solheim has introduced but a concept that has been created by the westerners knowing very well that it was they who were instrumental in giving supremacy to the English educated Tamils giving them privileges and positions in the professions and legislature. When the Tamil leaders knew that with some kind of franchise first and universal franchise later they would lose their positions and overrepresentations in the professions and in the legislature they with the connivance of the British governors and others wanted to stick to the advantages that they had gained through Tamil supremacy solely depending on their servility to the British. When Tamil supremacy began to lose ground the British created “Sinhala Supremacy” to explain why the privileges of the Tamils were lost. Tamils did not suffer at the hands of Sinhala Supremacy but the loss of undue privileges that the Tamils enjoyed was declared to be due to an invented Sinhala supremacy.

The Channel Four in UK which has effectively become a four letter word came out with the doctored video clips apparently from Germany. It has now been revealed that the filming has not been done by a mobile phone camera but from a sophisticated video camera. Even if one leaves the technical aspects of the problem one wondered from the very beginning as to how the “soldier” carrying the gun allowed his “soldier” friend to video the incident. If it was the work of a soldier then it should have been a joint effort by at least two soldiers. Who is the “soldier” that appears in the film? Did he know that his friend was going to betray him? Having found out that his “friend” has betrayed him what would have happened to their “friendship”? In any event do the soldiers take mobile phone cameras when they are at “war”? How did the human rights organisation without an address obtain this film? Did Channel Four verify whether the “information” that they had was correct?

This is not the first time that Channel Four has come out with anti Sinhala government propaganda. They call the government a Sinhala government as it suits their propaganda machinery. It is always the so called reputed news media like Channel Four, BBC, Independent, Guardian in UK that get involved with anti Sinhala propaganda. It is a calculated risk they take but there are always politicians such as Solheim to capitalise on the false propaganda of the “reputed media”. In Sinhala there is a saying that goes as “deekirata balalluth sakki”. Channel Four and Solheim could pay a little extra to one of the Sinhala journalists in the address less human rights organisation to get this translated into English.

Right on the heels of Channel Four fabrication comes the British high commission officer with the Tamil lady who has apparently violated the immigration and emigration rules of Sri Lanka with the might of the British high commission. What was the hurry for the high commission officer to pack this lady off to UK? We are not sure as to what the British high commissioner told the minister of foreign affairs but it creates suspicion and if the laws of the country have been breached then it calls for an inquiry by a high level committee.

In the meantime the western powers campaign for the immediate release of the IDPs without taking into consideration the fact that some of them did not leave the terrorists even at the last minute and that there are terrorists among them. It is clear that the western powers who now use the Tamils in their countries against the so called Sinhala supremacy want the terrorists in these camps to be released so that the latter could take up arms if possible and work against the government that represents the Sinhala supremacy in their eyes. There are some henchmen and henchwomen of the western powers that talk of the so called human rights of the IDPs. These people have to be reminded that the Sri Lanka government is more concerned of the sovereignty of the country than of western human rights of the terrorists in these camps. The west may not be anti Sri Lanka as such but they are definitely anti Sinhala and anti Rajapakse government which according to them represent Sinhala Supremacy.

Professor Nalin de Silva