Who are we? A matter of identity: Response to Dr. Nalin Swaris
By Dayan Jayatilleka
Dr. Nalin Swaris simply must learn to make his political and ideological criticisms without imputing personal motives and thereby descending into the realm of psychological speculation and gossip. He heavily hints that my criticism of the Govt’s handling of the Fonseka affair is a matter of sour grapes, meaning I didn’t get something I expected or asked for from the President or the administration. May I set the record straight?
In the middle of last December I was offered an ambassadorial posting to an important country of considerable significance to Sri Lanka—a message conveyed at the residence of a senior minister by a very senior official, which I politely but promptly declined. A month earlier, in November 2009 I had presented a paper by invitation at an international seminar at a respected think tank of highly rated university, been invited to spend two years as a Visiting Senior Research Fellow writing a book on the Sri Lankan crisis, and had accepted the offer. This I might add, took place after my rapprochement with President Rajapakse and my visit with him to Hanoi, so I was hardly bereft of options and was aware of the possibility of playing a diplomatic role once again in the near future. I indicated however that I would be ready to serve my country again in an appropriate posting, at a future date.
I met President Rajapakse once again in mid-January at the height of the election campaign and our relations were warm. I was hardly “out of favour”. However, at this stage of my life, I found the prospect of serious independent intellectual work more compelling, not least because many of my fellow ambassadors in Geneva and heads of UN/multilateral organizations had strongly urged me to write a book on the thirty years conflict in which I have been observer-participant. This is nothing new. In early 2006, when, just prior to the first round of talks with the LTTE in Geneva, newly elected President Rajapakse graciously offered me the post of Secretary General of SCOPP, with Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, Secretary Foreign Affairs Palihakkara, and Ministers Nimal Siripala and Bogollagama in the room, I politely declined and went overseas to complete my doctorate and book on Fidel Castro.
Dr Swaris says that he for one would not have accepted a trip to Vietnam after the manner in which I was treated. I shall not reciprocate with examples of Dr Swaris’ conduct which I would not choose to emulate or uphold. Suffice to say I did not initiate contact with the President upon my return to Sri Lanka for two months, precisely for that reason, but I was not churlish enough to refuse a invitation to breakfast, not least because I was able to serve my country at the UN in Geneva at a crucial moment in our current history, because of an invitation to do so by the President. Nor was I ungracious enough to refuse an invitation to join him on the visit to Vietnam, since, as he explained it was the first ever visit by a Sri Lankan head of state to Vietnam, and therefore in its own way, historic. As a student of Vietnam’s history it also gave me the chance to observe its leadership close at hand.
My initial endorsement of President Rajapakse over Gen Fonseka was in an Island article dated Dec 7th. My support for President Rajapakse in the electronic media was after I had been offered and instantly declined a posting, and had already accepted an overseas offer of independent scholarly work at a senior level.
As for Dr Swaris’ criticisms of my ten point critique of the government’s handling of the Fonseka affair, I hope I am wrong, but surely it is still far too early to tell? It took several years for the de-stabilising impact of President JR Jayewardene’s decisions which deployed legality without legitimacy, to make themselves manifest. I would argue that the jury is still very much out on this one.
More substantive is Dr Swaris’ double implication that I have softened my line on tactics and shifted my line on the West. This brings us to the very core of the question. To my mind, that which is appropriate and necessary when dealing with an enemy of the state -- especially an armed enemy of proven intransigence-- is completely inappropriate with dealing with a political foe, especially an unarmed rival and political competitor. Thus the strategy and tactics that I argued for in public and on the record for decades, as concerns the LTTE, is entirely the wrong mindset to have when dealing with General (Retd) Sarath Fonseka.
Dr Swaris likens the use of black masks by the troops outside the Cinnamon Lakeside hotel on Jan 27th, with their use by Indian commandos when storming the Taj hotel in November 2008. It may have escaped his notice that there was a gun battle blazing on the latter occasion with armed terrorists who had infiltrated Mumbai by boat and murdered several civilians were holing up and holding hostages in that Taj – as witnessed the world over by TV viewers. As the same TV viewers worldwide witnessed, there was absolutely no such situation outside the Cinnamon Lakeside after the Lankan elections!
The contradiction between the state and the LTTE, indeed between the people and the LTTE was an antagonistic contradiction with an existential enemy while the contradiction with Sarath Fonseka falls into the Maoist category of “contradictions among the people”; a “non–antagonistic” contradiction. To do otherwise is to elastically extend the category of enemies, and prevent the return to political normalcy and “harmony” (to use a key Chinese term).
In the run-up to the election, the possibility of an Orange Revolution strategy in play had already been signalled, days before Dr Swaris, by “Tania Noctiummes” (writing from Latin America) in Transcurrents, Sri Lanka Guardian and several websites. The point however, is that the Fonseka challenge was defeated by the people, peacefully, at a democratic election and this possibility aborted. In all probability this defeat would have been repeated at the parliamentary election. If there was any conspiratorial illegality on his part (which I do not doubt) this should have been dealt with exclusively by the regular, civilian courts.
I took a hard line on the armed JVP and LTTE, but a soft line on Southern political dissent and Tamil grievances. That is the liberal or more correctly social democratic approach. As for the West, my successful approach in Geneva (which always encompassed a dialogue with the US, especially under the Obama administration), was intended to thwart an attempt by powerful Western elements to prevent our final military offensive and subsequently to punish us for it; in short to prevent a UN resolution/mandate which could have been used for a R2P/Kosovo type intervention or interference. It was a battle in defence of our vital national interests and sovereignty. The issue of the handling of Sarath Fonseka has brought discomfiture even to our non-Western friends. It is one thing to resist the West when we must, and another to brush off constructive advice from all and go it alone, filled with self righteousness. Those who supported us on the issue of the Tigers and Western interventionism do not necessarily do likewise on the use of a heavy hand in domestic politics. If Dr Swaris thinks this is an exclusively Western concern he should access more Asian newspapers and journals on the internet, be it the Frontline, the Economic and Political Weekly or the Straits Times.
What is at stake here is this: do we or do we not belong to the system of representative pluralist democracy? Do we or do we not intend to play by the rules of the game? It was one thing to defend liberal democracy from the armed JVP and the Tigers – which latter the UNP and the SLFP “liberals” failed to – and another, to fail to restore that liberal, pluralist democracy ourselves. It is an abiding failure of Sri Lankan political discourse to identify liberal democracy with the West and to use a necessary Non Aligned identification either as evidence of deviation from liberal democracy or as warrant for it. What we have failed to do is learn from the examples of say, Brazil and India, to name but two, which do not play the Western game and build countervailing international coalitions, while at the same time, adhering to the rule of law and functioning as exemplary pluralist liberal democracies. Do we share those values of non alignment, sovereignty, progressivism and rights based-liberal democracy? That is the choice before Sri Lanka: one of political practice, ethos and identity.
12 Comments
While I do not agree with some of Dr. Jayatilleke's views, I must endorse this last paragraph wholeheartedly. The post-war scene should have been one of media freedom and political openness. Fonseka was defeated in an election. Why go after him now?
It is good that Dr DJ sets the record straight. I agree with most of his views. However I feel that this regime is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-minority as constituted with several ultra nationalist parties. Rajapakse too is almost in that category. There is no change in their policies before and after the presidential elections, only things have become more evident with the arrest of General Fonseka.
Thanks to Dayan for publishing the this in 'expressive' mode rather than been too intellectual. I also agree with the content of the last para with out reservations. It is time for the western democracies to realise, lip service to 'liberalism' alone is not enough to sustain stable societies.
Comrade Dayan,
Did you ever think about the fact that they were paying the other guy much more than what they paid you!
Please think about it.
It does make sense.
He is a certainly a better LICKER!
“I've never been an intellectual but I have this look.”
Woody Allen quotes
I did not have time to write a few comments on Dr. Swaris article though I wanted. So, I would like to express my ‘look’ at both of your article in my way (hope you intellectuals tolerate my comments).
Dr. Swaris is attacking Dr. Jayathilka’s comments on newly found truth (but still the same old ‘lies’) in Sri Lanka and also, Dr. Swaris expresses his anger by suggesting that Dr. Jayathilka’s disappointment over ‘quid pro quo’ may have led to Dr. Jayathilka to write about newly found truth about Rajapkases. In my ‘look’ I see that both ‘intellectuals’ are in Illusion about what is happening in Sri Lanka.
This is the truth happening in Sri Lanka:
1.If you are against ‘Rajapaksaism’, you are a traitor and/or unpatriotic.
2.Media persons are kidnapped, or murdered.
3.Media are indirectly sanctioned and controlled by president’s media unit.
4.Religious freedom is in danger (Recently, Sanga sammelanya was cancelled due to threat).
5.Opposition Presidential Candidate in jail without any charges (just because he ran against the president)
6.Economy is manipulated according to Rajapakshe’s whims and franchise (just before the election, the exchange control rules were changed to ease currency export).
7.Education and health sector are in grave danger. Entire economy is in grave danger and average people suffer.
8.Government is ‘marvinizationed’ by protecting thugs and punishing innocent.
9.Lawlessness in the country (politicization of the police and entire armed forces) out of control.
10.Listen to a parliament session, you could see bunch of animals are running in a zoo (no answers to the opposition questions). Ironically, very same bunch got the nomination to run for the general election.
11.Sri Lanka is going backwards to autocracy when the rest of the world cries for democracy and democratic government. Oldest Democracy in south Asia in danger.
And there are many more. Is this the liberalism you learned from west sir? It is time you to get out from unrealistic idealism in your imaginations and come down to the reality of Sri Lanka’s ground.
It is sad that Honorable ‘intellectuals’ fighting over their egos while average Sri Lankans are helpless and you (intellectuals) neglect to address their burning issues. It is ironic that most of the so-called Sri Lankan intellectuals get their doctorate from west and they send their kids (including nationalistic politicians’ kids) to study in western countries (not to China, Iran, Cuba or Burma) but most them attack everything about west to arouse nationalistic feelings among ‘rural villagers’ and ignore about Sri Lankan kids (whose education and health are in very catastrophic situation) who live in Sri Lanka. And also, they (Sri Lnkan kids) are not privileged as you are to get out the country and get the same education you received.
You should be shamed on you!!!! Because you argue with the theories which average people cannot eat and sleep with. Also, you both have forgotten JVP’s role in 2005 presidential election and your brains only could remember JVP’s so-called terror period. Sadly, that reflects your opportunistic ‘intellectual’ memorabilia. In my simple ‘look’, I see whatever good is good and whatever bad is bad according to the relevance of the time.
“An intellectual is a person whose mind watches itself”
Albert Camus quotes
“The intellectual advancement of man depends on how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth”
Robert Green Ingersoll quotes
Dear Editor:
Please correct 'whims and franchise' to 'whims and fancies' in my previous comment. I just realize the mistake
thanks
My apologies for bringing in something not on the on going topic. But thought this may be a good flatform to float this idea.
Now Argentina is trying UN path to curb British oil explorations in Folkland region, it is inevitable that some form of discussion will occur in UN at some level. This could be an opportunity for Sri Lanka to correct it's historic mistake against Argetina. After all they have never forgotten or forgiven that day.
As British foreign secretary Milliband is on a personal crusade against Sri Lanka, this may remind him that even a small country may get its chance one day.
Just an idea.
I was rather surprised at Dr. Swaris comments about Dr. Dayan Jayathilake. The question remains if he is after the same grapes knowing that Dr. Jayathilake is not in the field any more.
I do agree with Pat about the eleven points that need to be addressed if Sri Lanka is to prosper. None of the contenders claimed they were intellectuals and Pats comments are unnecessary and in a way Pat too appears to rely on quotations.
Dr. Dayan Jayathilake has a rare talent of thought and expression, which flows with tremendous conviction and energy. There is forthrightness about him, which I have always admired in spite of the many differences of opinion I hold. He is still young and on an evolutionary path. Mistakes are made and retrospective reflection will do a lot of good. Dr. Dayan Jayathilake has a lot to offer and so does Tisaranee Gunasekara.
I take exception to Dr. Dayan Jayathilake who does not seem to worry about the sacrifices our youths have made nor their slaughter. Yes, they might have been misled but what led them to do what they embarked on however wrong they may be? These insurgencies took shape after nearly three decades of independence. Can the body polity, its leaders and its intellectuals be absolved from responsibility? How long are they going to use colonialism as a scapegoat? Colonialism had existed and was the norm until the formation of League of Nations. Is this what that the most literate of South Asian Nation States can offer?
Our leaders have slaughtered about two hundred thousand of the most able youths from the Sinhalese and Tamil communities with the endorsement of its body polity and intellectuals. What do they have to show – begging to make cheap textiles and send the noblest of the country’s citizens from the paddy fields as maidservants? To threaten its citizens with its white vans, the symbols of kidnapping and disappearances? Gag voices of dissent? And in every way imitate the fascist tendencies that were abominable in the first instance.
As a Nation Sri Lankans will not forget this and its leaders need to be on guard. People would have tolerated this carnage because of the fascist and anarchic nature of these insurgencies. Nevertheless it is the slaughter of the young shoots of the nation. Dayan is right when he warns of systemic multiple fractionalisation of the state polity. He is wrong to attack the western nations.
Why this anti-western tirade? Whether it is Dr. Jayathilake or Dr. Nalin Swaris, they are products of western intellectual liberalism. Marx wrote, lived and died in Britain. Sri Lanka is the most westernised of South Asian states and western intellectuals have contributed to the national and cultural identity of Sri Lanka immensely. Be proud of it and don’t be short sighted. Exploitation is a human disease, but it is the League of Nations that conferred sovereignty to nation states and brought about the United Nations. It is mainly a western contribution.
The western nations have always been benevolent and meant well to Sri Lanka since independence. The proper governance of Sri Lanka is fundamental for its progress, peace and harmony. There is no South Asian model for us to emulate. It is still the west that can provide us with the models that are resonant with the nature of the spirit of our people. Dayan needs to be bold and the flirting must stop.
Nationalism and national boundaries - is it a creed of the past? Tiger Woods recently referred to the path of Buddhism and the consequences of his astrayal. Youths are turning to international recourses to enrich their lives and is the concept - parliament of man and the federation of the world an emerging ideology?
Introspection will do a lot of good to Dayan from whom many expect a lot.
Dr N. Satchi
I knew that you have always had it in you, but due to some intellectual conflicts you have been wavering. I think you are now matured and exposed enough to take a firm stand and be a leader of people in the right path. It happens to everybody with a sense of honesty, integrity and conscience! I am with you 200%!
Comrade Dayan,
Who are we? Are you in an identity crisis comrade ?If you have identity crisis I can tell you who are you, first of all you are a hypocrite then a chauvinist, living in luxury of Mahavamsa mind set.
Why have you wasted time in writing about Fidel Castro? Aren’t there any Cubans in the world good enough to write about Castro? And why it is relevant to your chauvinistic idea or Mahavamsa mind set? Or Srilankan Sinhala race you happen to belong?
There are lots you can write about happenings in Srilanka but you have omitted.
Why not write about your hero ‘Dr’.Mahinda Rajapaksa and his dynasty and its antics and get not just one but double or triple doctorate.
Even you can write about your patriotic Srilankan armies antics such as rape of Tamil girls and women (there are plenty of examples Chemmani , Sarathambal rape and murder,the list is end less, and last week another 9 year old girl in Batticaloe ), and how to hide it from public and curtain it off from international eyes and Srilankan judiciary. Or how to avoid war crime investigations, You can even write about The Mahinda chintanava about how effectively control and silence the ‘free’ Media and kill off journalists and avoid blames for it. The opportunities are endless comrade.
“The intellectual advancement of man depends on how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth”Robert Green Ingersoll quotes.
Are you capable of change ????????????
Dear Dr. Satchi:
Here is a quote from your coomment: 'Whether it is Dr. Jayathilake or Dr. Nalin Swaris, they are products of western intellectual liberalism'
So, you called them as ‘intellectuals’ too. Thanks for in agreement with me. I am in agreement with you about your analysis in present trend in the world, Nationalism vs. Humanism. Here are some more quotes for your amusement or/and pleasure of your intellect
“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer quotes
"The weaker the intellect, the stronger the belief”
James Dee Richardson quotes
“An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Thank you Pat for your comments. You have hit the nail on the head!!!
I think Dayan's "intelectualism" comes under the following classification:
“An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dayan confuses himself and the readers and nobody gains anything by what he wrote. May be that is what his pay masters wants him to do!!!