      |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cat's Eye
Dirty tricks & invented puritanismThe world is in economic crisis. But the Right-wing politicians of the USA have formed themselves into a mob to 'lynch' President Clinton for his sexual escapade. Malaysia is melting down economically, but Prime Minister Mahathir creates a political crisis by charging his former deputy Anwar Ibrahim with homosexuality. And in Sri Lanka, the war becomes aggravated and the carnage multiplies, but the Government and the Opposition, in this moment of severe crisis, continue smearing each other with stories of homosexual activities, drinking, partying and dancing among naked women. Those who publish these stories intend to 'shock' the masses of Sri Lanka, who like the great people of the USA are no longer shocked or fooled by the oldest dirty trick in the world - the sexual 'trump' card. The good news is that it doesn't work anymore, if it ever did.
After the Killinochchi battle, where over a thousand men and women were killed in 72 hours, making it one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the war, the majority of Sri Lankans and a variety of organizations, such as the Association of Disabled Ex- service Personnel have come forward to ask that the two major political parties, the PA and the UNP, work towards a common framework to end the war.
The poster says 'In this year of Buddha Jayanthi, rescue your country, your race and your religion from the forces of evil.' In the picture are Oliver Goonetilake leading the UNP elephant, J.R.Jayewardene clinging to its tail, and Zou-Zou and Sir John on the elephant, flanked by Yankees, Catholics, beef eaters, and dancing and drinking women. What is alarming and sad about the sleazy political mudslinging is the reckless attitude of both the Government and Opposition at a time of national crisis. Instead of coming together to look for solutions to the war, they are promoting further antagonism by dumping garbage on each other. Hardly the way to bring about bi-partisan agreement on achieving peace.
In this context, it is indeed disturbing and disheartening that the Daily News, a supposedly responsible organ of the State, should engage in the type of journalism that was evident last week, in its spread of pictures taken at the UNP fund raiser in Los Angeles. We are not suggesting that the newspapers should censor themselves on such matters or that photos of women in cabaret are unacceptable. On the contrary, Cats Eye has been wondering why there were no semi-naked men in G-strings at this event. What about heterosexual women who support the UNP?
Deja vu
In Sri Lanka, politicians have been playing this sex-scandal game for a long time. Kalapathra (scandal sheets), obscene pamphlets, anonymous letters and faxes are part of our political culture. In 1956, the Opposition led by S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike pilloried Sir John Kotelawela, not only for having a barbecue of meat at a public event, but also for importing Zou-Zou Mohamed, an Egyptian belly dancer who performed in a Colombo night club. The anti-UNP propaganda was spear-headed by a cartoon poster with Sir John on an elephant with Zou-Zou, and assorted sinners behind. The title was the Buddhist one of Mara yuddhaya (The war against Mara, the evil one) led by Bandaranaike and the Buddhist forces.This populist line of political campaigning is still with us. In the 1950s when the papers published a photograph of Pieter Keuneman kissing his English wife on her arrival at the airport, the Community Party made a song and dance about this 'inappropriate' behavior of the Keunemans! When Wijeweera was arrested, the big news, shown on TV was that his house had some 'luxurious' furniture and bottles of whisky and brandy. It was this alleged 'high life' that was intended to shock, and not his politics.
Scorched Earth
The UNP campaign before and after 1994 has been to vilify Chandrika Bandaranaike by all means possible, and to denounce some Ministers for their homosexuality. The Government instead of deploring and ignoring such dirty tricks has resorted to 'scorched earth' tactics, publishing pictures of Ranil Wickremasinghe dancing at a Los Angeles fund-raiser where a cabaret act (strip-tease?) was part of the entertainment. Drunken orgy with American tarts? Hardly, just a typical Sri Lankan 'bajau' (party), this time in Los Angeles. In bad taste? May be. But this is not bad morals. Is the local 'bourgeoisie' shocked? Not at all - this is what they do all the time. Are the 'people' shocked? Not at all for 'eat, drink and be merry' is a good local proverb (and pastime) among all classes in Sri Lanka. Then who is supposed to be shocked? Perhaps the petty bourgeois puritans and pious humbugs who talk of morality, family values and even Asian values, whose avid interest in the goings on of the 'degenerate' rich and the famous is a bit suspect. The name of the game is Envy, Hypocrisy and Dishonesty. (As one wag said 'when we make money, we too will do the same and graduate from cheap baila to expensive night clubs)Women's Bodies and the Male Gaze
So what is the feminist 'party line' on women selling their bodies as prostitutes, or making money displaying their bodies as strip-teasers and night-club acts or appearing in beauty competitions, in advertisements, blue films and pornography? Today we can only speak of feminisms in the plural as there are several viewpoints on these issues. The 'classic' feminist view is that in patriarchal society dominated by men, women are often reduced to being playthings and sexual objects to be exploited by men. Prostitution whether forced or not, is seen as a form of slavery and pornography is violence against women; blue films and strip-tease are regarded as degrading forms of exploitation, and beauty competitions and advertisements featuring unclad women, are viewed as a misuse of women's bodies for commercial purposes. In these cases women are the victims, selling their bodies for the entertainment of men, in order to survive.The contrary feminist view is that women have choices and are free agents even under patriarchy. If by selling their bodies they can earn much higher rewards as opposed to slaving in homes, factories and offices, they should be free to do so. And since all workers are exploited, one form of wage labour is morally no worse than another and the rational economic choice would be to go for the highest earnings. Women are thought of not as victims but as persons having agency even in situations of patriarchal domination.
Invented Puritanism in Sri Lanka?
We have often wondered if the shock and horror [not to mention the traditional lajja (shame) and bhaya (fear)] expressed in our local papers about stories and pictures of our leaders drinking and dancing to rock music, or cavorting in night clubs and five star hotels is 'invented'. After all, the Sigiriya fresoes are topless and we don't call for them to be clothed; women in clinging sarongs bathe with men in rivers, at wells and in the sea, and we are not shocked: the public has no problems about the skimpy sportswear of our women swimmers and athletes. And we have been drinking and dancing baila for centuries.Sri Lanka is fortunate in having a mixed culture that has aborbed all kinds of beliefs, practices, rituals, songs, dances and attitudes from many divergent sources, including a dose of Western culture, both popular and classical. Western pop has blended effectively with baila, and exposure to television has brought all kinds of cosmopolitan cultural imputs (including the Colonial Cousins and the fusion of Eastern and Western pop) into the small towns and villages of Sri Lanka.
Given this exposure, it is highly unlikely that people - except a few upasaka mahatayas, Sunday school teachers and diehard Puritans would be upset by the sight of their leaders having a fling. So who are these local Puritans? Our guess is that they are the self-righteous busy bodies who are the products of the missionary ethos in Victorian Sri Lanka - and that such attitudes were absorbed by the ideologues of the Buddhist and Hindu revivals. Gananath Obeyesekere has written of 'Protestant Buddhism'. We see it more as 'Puritan Buddhism,' a somewhat strange legacy of colonial rule. Unfortunately the media gives prominence to the ranting and raving of these local puritans and fundamentalists. We have many 'Watches' today. BJP Watch, Human Rights Watch, Women's Rights Watch etc. The need of the moment in Sri Lanka is a 'Puritanism, Fundamentalism, and Fascist Watch.'
The article, "V. K. Wickramasinghe and the Tamil Homeland Concept 'Known Parties' in the Midweek Review section last Wednesday had not been bylined due to an inadvertent error. It was by E. V. A. Naganathan.
The error is regretted.
Tamil separatism and the examples of Britain, Cyprus and Bangladesh
by Kamalika PierisThe Tamil separatist movement has, on occasion clung to the example of Cyprus, as a support for its separatist claims. Therefore let us look at the situation in Cyprus. Cyprus is a small island of 3,572 square miles, it is just below Turkey, in the Mediterranean sea. There are two main ethnic groups, Greek and Turkish. The Greek Cypriots, who constitute the majority, are descended from a mixture of aboriginal inhabitants, and immigrants from the Peloponnese who colonized Cyprus about 1100 BC and subsequent settlers upto the 16th century. The Turkish Cypriots are the descendants of the soldiers of the Ottoman army that conquered the island in 1571 and also immigrants from Anatolia. As at 1992 there were 599,000 Greek Cypriots and 95,000 Turkish Cypriots out of a total population of 714,000. The language of the majority is Greek and that of the minority Turkish. English is widely spoken and understood as a second language.
Cyprus was under some foreign power for most its history. Both Genoa and Venice tried to capture it, for trade purposes. It was a part of the Venetian Republic for 82 years. Thereafter, Cyprus came under the rule of the Ottomans empire. A Turkish invading force landed in Cyprus in 1570 and captured Nicosia. Ottoman rule lasted for more than three centuries thereafter. In 1878 the British took over Cyprus. Cyprus, while remaining under Turkish sovereignty was administered by the British government. Britain’s aim in occupying Cyprus was to secure a base in the Mediterranean. However in 1914, Britain and Turkey were at war, and Britain took the opportunity to annexe Cyprus. In 1925 Cyprus was declared a crown colony of the British.
British occupation was initially welcomed by the Greek population of Cyprus, who from the start expected the British to transfer Cyprus to Greece. The Greek Cypriots demanded union with Greece, (known as "Enosis") while the Turkish Cypriots wanted union with Turkey. There were petitions, discussions, demonstrations, violence.
Petitions to the United Nations failed to produce a solution. Finally the Greek and Turkish governments reached agreement among themselves in 1959. The Greek-Turkish compromise was accepted thereafter by Britain, and by representatives of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriots communities. And in 1960 Cyprus became an independent republic. It was not to be partitioned, and Greece, Turkey and Britain guaranteed the independence, integrity and security of the Republic. Ethnic quotas were to be maintained in the parliament, in civil service and army. By 1963, fighting had broken out between the two Cypriot communities. In 1964, the UN Security Council sent in a peace keeping force.
However, the Turkish Air Force intervened, and a fullscale invasion was threatened. Contingents of troops from Greece and Turkey were brought into the island clandestinely, together with officers to command and train the forces raised by the two communities. In 1974, Greece attempted a coup in Cyprus. It failed. Five days later, Turkish forces landed in Cyprus and took over the northern part of the island. The three guarantor powers, Britain, Greece and Turkey met in consultation in Geneva, but were not able to do anything to halt Turkey.
In 1975, the Turks announced that the Turkish occupied area was the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" saying that their intention was to create a federation, not independence. Then there were further rounds of inconclusive talks. In 1983 the Turkish Cypriots broke off the talks and proclaimed the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (TRNC). The UN Security Council condemned the move and repeated its demand, first made in 1974, for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus. UN peace proposal efforts of 1984 and 1985 were not successful. In 1985 the TRNC approved, by referendum, a constitution for the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Only Turkey recognises this republic.
The TRNC occupies about 33% of the island of Cyprus. There was ethnic cleansing and the Greeks in this area were obliged to re-settle in the south. Thus the South is now heavily populated and the North where the TRNC is, thinly populated. The currency in the TRNC is the Turkish lira. This breakaway state has its own flag, its own army, hospitals, schools, etc. In 1984 the UN declared all secessionist activities illegal. Several UN sponsored talks were held between 1985 and 1991 Without success.
In 1991 the UN rejected TRNC’s request for recognition as a separate state. Thereafter there were further discussion in order to settle the impasse between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriots, but without success. In July 1994, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution reaffirming its position that a settlement must be based on a single sovereignty and exclude any form of partition or secession. (‘Encyclopedia Britannica.’ 15 ed. 1995 and ‘State. man’s year book’ 1996-97).
It is easy to see what attracts the Tamil separatist movement in the Cyprus situation. Cyprus like Sri Lanka, is a small island, close to a big neighbour Turkey, with which its small Turkish Cypriot community has a historical relationship. Sri Lanka, is similarly close to India and Tamil Nadu, with a separatist Tamil minority which claims a link with Tamil Nadu. Turkey has affiliated itself with the Turkish Cypriots, supported it militarily, supported its initial arguments for partition, and finally, invaded Cyprus, partitioned it, and thereafter helped the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" to function as a separate state. None of this could have happened if Turkey did not help the Turkish Cypriots.
However, only Turkey has recognised this republic. The UN has refused to recognise it. Cyprus has a seat in the UN, but not the TRNC.
Now let us look at the vast difference between the situation in Cyprus and that of Sri Lanka. Firstly, Sri Lanka does not have two ethnic groups which are looking away from Sri Lanka, to union with two other covering states. The Cypriots wanted either to unite with Greece or with
Turkey. They seem to have been reluctant to form its own state, which is rather unusual in these days of ‘self-determination’. Both Greece and Turkey fought over Cyprus. In Sri Lanka the majority community, the Sinhalese together with the Muslim, India Tamils, Burghers and other minorities, are not looking to any other country. They argue that Sri Lanka is sovereign, has been so for a long time, and that they have been in Sri Lanka too so long that they have all integrated into an indigenous group. The only odd man out of this are the Tamil separatists, who alone, look hopefully towards India, for intervention. India was requested by the Tamil separatist movement to intervene and secure Eelam, in the 1980s, but India refused. However, they did secure, for the Tamils, the merger of the North and East, and provincial councils for same through the 13th Amendment. This is the first step towards the partition of Sri Lanka.
Now let us look at Britain itself. The British Isles are composed of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Ireland is a separate island. While Scotland, England and Wales constitute a second island. These regions were initially populated by various tribes, such as the Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Scots, Picts, Jutes. They set up petty kingdoms, which combined into larger groupings which formed eventually, the regions of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. Over time, these kings wished to conquer the adjacent territory and thus expand their kingdoms.
In this respect, the English kings were the most successful, and eventually Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England were united under the English king. Despite this unification, Scotland, Ireland and Wales have retained a substantial part of their indigenous cultures. Gaelic and Welsh are recognised as indigenous languages, while English is the official language in the British Isles.
In 1175 AD England’s King Henry II was accepted nominally as king of Ireland. Thereafter, in 1210 a civil government was established in Ireland, independent of the feudal lords. English law was introduced, and medieval Irish parliament on the lines of the English one then in existence.
An Irish exchequer was set up. In the 14th Century, new Anglo-Irish Earldoms were set up and English control was reasserted through them. Ireland was hereafter ruled primarily by these Earls, who were the effective rulers till the 16 century. In 1494, the Irish Parliament was made subordinate to the English Parliament. Laws passed in the Irish Parliament had to be accepted by the English Parliament, and all laws passed in England applied to Ireland.
During the time of the Tudor monarchs of the 16 century, the Church of England was set up, and introduced into Ireland. Other Protestant denominations also took root. Since the Irish were considered to be uncouth, and also rebellious, the English had a specific policy of creating non-Irish colonies within Ireland. The most significant of these was the 1607 ‘plantation’ of English and Scots in Ulster. Over half a million acres of land were given to these settlers. In addition adventurers also flocked there and obtained grants of land. Thereafter there was an attempt to ‘plant’ the area of Connaught as well.
The Irish never took kindly to the English. They hated them. And remained rebellious and resentful of English control. Anglo-Irish relations are punctuated by serious rebellions and massacres in virtually every century. There were three notable rebellions during the time of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). These were put down with excessive brutality. The conquest of Ireland was declared complete and the first ‘plantation’ of English were started in small settlements in Munster. There was a rebellion in the plantation of Ulster in 1641 and fighting went on for the next ten years.
All Irish resistance was overcome by 1652. And in 1653 the union of the three kingdoms of Ireland, Scotland and England was proclaimed. Ireland was given representation in the English parliament and enjoyed the benefits of free trade with England. Ireland was however regarded as a conquered territory, and there had been massacres, and the confiscation of lands. Ireland was at this point of time in a pitiful condition. And fresh settlements of English were begun in Ireland.
There was a significant religious division between the English settlers and the Irish. The English were Protestants while the Irish were Catholics. And this was a period in Europe when Catholics and Protestants were at war with each other.
The Catholics in Ireland were persecuted and their lands confiscated. Thus, in 1640 two thirds of the land holders had been Roman Catholics, but by 1665, only one third of the land belonged to them. The Catholics were not allowed to vote, they were unable to sent Catholic representatives to Parliament, and various land laws made it impossible for Catholics to own land. Three quarters of the Irish land were owned by absentee English land owners. Catholic peasants were given small plots on rent and were evicted if they could not pay the rent or taxes.
In addition, the Anglican Church was recognised as the official church and Catholics also had to pay their contributions to this church. The Catholic religion was suppressed. Lastly, vast quantities of land were distributed to Protestant settlers. Thus by the 18 century, there had come about a "Protestant Ascendancy" of the 10% settlers who belonged to established Anglican church. All other Christians, including the Roman Catholics, were excluded from full political rights, through various laws such as the Test Act of 1704.
(Continued tomorrow)
Heading towards worst case scenario?
By Jehan PereraThese past two weeks government spokespersons, using the state media, have been trying to do the impossible. They have been projecting the losses suffered by the army at Kilinochchi as a relatively small price to pay for the capture of Mankulam.
On one occasion they even outdid themselves. The state media made the claim that the army had repulsed an LTTE attack on Kilinochchi with heavy losses to the enemy. This was several days after it was generally known to the world at large that Kilinochchi had fallen!
But these propagandistic accounts have had an impact.
Can the situation be really so bad? Will the government lie so blatantly? It was not for nothing that the the poet said, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast..."
The censorship on news coupled with government propaganda has caused a doubt to arise, mainly in people living in the cities.
Unlike their rural cousins, many of them do not have relatives at the northern front, and do not have access to the informal network of news gathering that exists in the rural sector.
Were our leaders of government like the royalty in France, who before the deluge had said, "If the people have no bread, let them eat cake."
It is not France, but Pakistan that provides the likelier doomsday scenario. The analogy is in terms of the erosion of democracy and the spread of militarisation.
There too it was democratically elected politicians, blinded by their desires for power at any cost, and a ruling establishment unable to make the necessary political accommodations with reality, who created a situation that led to the dismemberment of that country.
Pakistan Example
In 1971, Pakistan consisted of the two non-contiguous wings of West Pakistan (today’s Pakistan) and East Pakistan (today’s Bangladesh) separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory.Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan had been led by the Punjabi elite in West Pakistan. Over the years, issues such as language and the allocation of economic resources had led to growing estrangement between the Punjabi-dominated West Pakistan and the Bengali-majority East Pakistan.
The general election of 1971 reflected the polarisation of Pakistani society. The Pakistan People’s Party led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto won a big majority of seats in West Pakistan. In East Pakistan it was the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman which swept the polls. As East Pakistan had a larger population than West Pakistan, this meant that the Awami League emerged as the largest parliamentary group and was now set to form the government of Pakistan.
But Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had an ambition to the the prime minister of Pakistan. He was only one step away, and certainly it was a very big step, but he wanted to be prime minister, come what may. The ruling West Pakistani elite also did not wish to let go of their dominance over the governance of Pakistan.
These personal and parochial interests prevailed over the interests of united Pakistan. They manoeuvered to sabotage democracy and the electoral verdict.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was denied the prime ministership of united Pakistan, setting in motion the events that were to swiftly lead to the dismemberment of Pakistan. But not only that. Four years later Pakistan was under military rule and Bhutto was imprisoned and later hanged by the military dictator General Zia ul Haq.
The role that Bhutto had played in the events of 1971 went against him in the ruthless manner of his demise.
Perhaps Sri Lanka is still some distance away from such a doomsday scenario.
But our leaders who are struggling for positions of power today, should remember that all actions have consequences. It has been alleged, both by respected defence analysts and the opposition that military decisions are being taken with political considerations in mind.
In addition, the road we are travelling on today has become one of censorship of the truth, surreptitious budget increases for the military, a strangulation of democracy through the postponement of elections and a surrender of civilian rule in the north-east. There are few if any positive signs at present that we are travelling on a road to greater unity and democracy.
Doomsday signs
For the past five months we have been under military censorship. Sri Lanka has known censorship of the media before. Often it had been for partisan political purposes. But never before have the armed forces been our censors.This censorship has helped the government to take us to a fantasy land where defeat is victory and the dead are said to be not dead but missing.
There are other signs as well of the road we are taking, though they may not come to our attention so regularly as the results of the censorship. The passage of the Rs 12 billion supplementary budget to the already swollen defence budget was an event of major consequence, especially in this time of economic downturn.
This amount exceeds the entirety of the budget for health, but it was passed by parliament with hardly any debate. If not for a few newspaper columnists bringing this event to the attention of the reading public, we might not even know about it. But no one wished to complain too bitterly, because no one wishes to begrudge the soldiers at the front the best that money can buy.
The indefinite postponement of the provincial council elections two months ago, was yet another significant event, justified on the grounds of military necessity.
Once again, the postponement was acquiesced in by the people without much debate, because few people would wish the massive sacrifices of the soldiers to be compromised. But as a result, democratic norms are being steadily eroded.
Though the ruling parties may not like their outcome, elections are the lifeblood of a functioning democracy.
The absence of effective democracy and civilian rule in the north-east has for long been acquiesced in, and for good reasons many will say, because of the presence of the LTTE. Despite certain trappings of democracy and elections, there is de facto military rule in those parts.
Civilian administrators have to function in line with military policy. But now we see in the south too that the power of the defence establishment is growing day by day, as it claims an ever growing portion of the country’s priorities and resources. The setbacks in the military arena may make elections at this time unattractive to the government.
Step by step it appears that the government is coming to a cross roads where it will have to choose between rule by parliament or rule that is ultimately determined by the defence establishment. Any further postponement of elections will be a clear signal of the direction in which the country is set to travel.
The problem with the opinion poll
by Nalin de SilvaAs soon as the results of the opinion poll carried out by the centre for anthropological and sociological studies at the University of Colombo were released, the peace merchants went to town with the conclusion that the Sinhala people want to stop the "war". A Sinhala tabloid, funded by an NGO, in an editorial claimed that the people have rejected the "militarists" (yudavadin). Presumably what the learned editor meant was that the people had rejected those who advocate that the LTTE should be defeated militarily. As there was no question in the opinion poll as to the rejection or otherwise of the so-called yudavadin it is difficult to understand how the editor came to this conclusion
However there are more serious problems that are connected with the opinion poll conducted by the centre for anthropological and sociological studies. The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung ( FES ) that has provided technical and financial assistance is linked with the Christian Democratic Party in Germany. The FES, as I have mentioned in my article on "The Role of the NGO’s" (July 15), quoting a paper read at the round table organised by the African Association of Public administration and the UN Economic Commission for Africa Special Action Programme in Administration and Management, in Nigeria, in December 1990, ‘tends generally to push the social democratic perspective on Africa’. It cannot be assumed that the FES is very impartial in its activities in Asia in general and in Sri Lanka in particular. The NGO bandwagon in Colombo including the editors, the research directors and the others of newspapers and organisations financed by the donors in the west were overjoyed by the results of the opinion poll
On the other hand the University of Colombo has centres and institutes financed by foreign agencies. I am aware of such organisations proposed and established during the tenure of Dr. G. L. Peiris’s vice chancellorship. In any case the universities in Sri Lanka are not that autonomous, as we all know
No opinion poll is unbiased and objective. If there is no objective Physics it cannot be imagined that there is an objective Sociology. The so-called methodologies adopted cannot eliminate the subjective factor that comes into these surveys. The formulation of questions, the opinions of those who interview the people, the relationship between the ‘educated’ interviewer and the person who is interviewed, especially if that person is ‘uneducated and village type’, all these come into the picture
In Sri Lanka especially among the Sinhala Buddhists there is another very important factor that has to be considered. They tend to give answers that please the interviewer, even if it is only a case of writing down the answers or ticking boxes. Of course, I have not conducted a survey to come to this conclusion but this is something that I have observed over the years. The moment the interviewer says the ‘janavargika prashnaya’ (ethnic problem) most of the people know by instinct the answers they have to give. An extreme form of this behaviour of the Sinhala people can be observed during the elections when the voter will vow that ‘api mahaththayata/nonata thamai’ (we are with you) and vote for somebody else.
Let us look at some of the questions that have been asked in this survey. One of the questions was "do you know about the government proposals on the devolution of power?" 55.9 percent have answered yes and 44.0 percent have said no to this question. With all the government propaganda using the state media, which includes two television channels, a number of radio frequencies and the Lake House newspapers, the state schools, the sudu nelum movement, dharma yathras, a special unit set up in the ministry of Justice, etc., and after more than three years, 44.0 percent of the people (assuming that the survey is correct) are ignorant of the proposals. We would like to know how much public money was spent on this exercise and how much did the government get from the foreign agencies as donations. It is now well known that the Norway government has contributed financially to take the ‘package’ to the people. When one considers the fact that on many occasions even the Rupavahini news bulletin was used for this purpose one realises the inefficiency of the government propaganda machinery
Another question that has been asked is "will the proposals help to solve the problem?" The problem is presumed to be the so-called ethnic problem that the government proposals on devolution of power envisage to solve. The most curious feature is that 32.6 percent of the people have said yes while 49.0 percent have stated no. In other words 81.6 percent of the people, according to the opinion poll, have formed their opinion on whether the government proposals would solve the problem ornot. But if we are to go by the answers given to the previous question only 55.9 percent know about the government proposals on devolution of power. How did the other 25.7 percent come to any conclusion on the government proposals without knowing about them
A plausible answer is that the meaning of the word know is not clear. In the first question it may be argued that the word know means that the people have heard about the package but not necessarily that they know the contents of the proposals. If we accept that interpretation then it could mean that at least 25.7 of the people have made an opinion on the proposals without knowing the contents but relying on the propaganda and the opinion expressed by the others. It is not unreasonable to assume that most of them would have said that the proposals would solve the ‘problem’, as that is the opinion they would have heard through the one sided propaganda of the radio and the rupavahini
Also it is possible that many of those people who did not know the contents of the government proposals, along with some others, in order to please the visitors who came with the questionnaire said that the proposals would solve the problem. Even if they did not know the contents they would have heard the words such as the package, the ethnic problem, and the devolution of power and could have easily found out which side the interviewers were on
Next take the question " Do you see more opportunities for people to solve their problems under the PC system as compared to before?" Now what is meant by ‘their problems" in this question? As far as the Sinhala people are concerned there cannot be any "grievances" or "ethnic problem" that the provincial councils would help to solve. They would have thought about their problems such as getting their passports, driving licences, paying certain taxes and fees and nothing else. This question only reinforces the idea that devolution is nothing but decentralisation, among the Sinhala people who formed the majority of the people who were questioned. Some Sinhala people are in favour of the government proposals as they are under the impression that the package only decentralises the administrative powers. In fact on many occasions devolution is translated into Sinhala as ‘vimadhyagathakireema’ meaning decentralisation
It should be noted that 23.7 percent of the people have said that the problem in the North could be solved through some kind of military action (yuda hamuda kriya maargayakin) while 9.3 percent have stated categorically that the LTTE has to be defeated. This means that, after all the propaganda by the peace merchants and the inclination to please the visitors, 33.0 percent of the people are definite that the military actions have to continue. Also it cannot be concluded that those who gave the other options in their answers want the military actions to stop forthwith. In fact the options given were not mutually exclusive and many would have liked to give more than one option as their answers. In some cases important options had not been listed
23.2 percent of those interviewed have said that racism is one of the causes for the ‘war’ in the north. It is not clear whether this is Tamil racism. This option should have been stated more specifically. Perhaps the members of the centre for anthropological and sociological studies do not think that there is Tamil racism in the country. If racism does not mean Tamil racism then this option overlaps with genuine grievances and it would not be possible to interpret the answers to this particular problem. In spite of all the propaganda and interpretations by the NGO lobby only 29.2 percent think that there are ‘genuine grievances’ that have caused the problem
The questions were not only loaded but formulated on the basis of certain assumptions. No question was asked to the effect that the military actions should be stopped immediately and if so how the ‘problem’ should be solved. Most importantly there was no definition of the ‘problem’. It took different forms from one question to the other and there was no consistency. There were questions on the conflict in the north, the war in the north, the ethnic problem, and the problems of the people in their areas etc. Even if one were to assume that there is an ethnic problem the ‘war’ situation in the north should not be confused with the so-called ethnic problem. The options suggested in these two cases did not bring out this difference and the public would have been baffled. Even if one were to assume that there is an ethnic problem, the options listed in the question on solving the "ethnic problem" should have been clearly distinguished from those given in the question on stopping the ‘war’ in the north
However the most important factor regarding the opinion poll, that cannot be overlooked, is the hidden basic assumption that there is an ethnic problem. The people have been fed with this wrong formulation and they are bound to respond in a particular way when an opinion poll is conducted based on this particular hypothesis. The opinion poll conducted has tried to reinforce this assumption and any claim by the administrators of the poll to any objectivity collapses like a pack of cards. In these so-called opinion polls nobody can formulate unbiased questions, as they will be based on certain theories, hidden assumptions or hypotheses. Some of these theories like that of an ethnic problem and grievances are full of contradictions and myths and have to be discarded
The problem with the opinion poll conducted by the centre for anthropological and sociological studies is that the basic assumption of an ethnic problem is wrong. These opinion polls which ignore that the problem is due to Tamil racism which has evolved over a period of more than a century will not help the country. They will, of course, be an additional item in the curriculum vitae of some of the academics.
Perspective
The electoral stakes
The UNP’s advantages: The externalisation of internal problemsby C. A. Chandraprema
One of the major factors in favour of the UNP at a forthcoming election is the elimination of internal problems. For the past few years after its defeat in 1994, the UNP experienced internal turbulence to such an extent that people were beginning to compare the post 1994 UNP with the post 1977 SLFP. It was thought that in the wake of its defeat, the UNP would languish for years without being able to present a united front even at an election. But since of late, the UNP has somhow managed to get round this problem. All internal dissension has been effectively stamped out. At any forthcoming election, the UNP will be able to present itself as a single unit, moving to the command of a single head. There will be no pulling in different directions as in the recent past.
Whether even this unity will be sufficient to overturn the well entrenched PA is a different matter. But if the UNP is defeated, it wouldn’t be for the lack of unity. It would just be that the time is still not appropriate for the UNP to make a comeback. In a sense it is quite remarkable that the UNP managed to achieve such a degree of cohesion just four years after its shattering defeat. To those UNFAMILIAR with politics, the UNP at present appears to be as splintered as the SLFP was four or five years after it was defeated in 1977. On the one hand you find Mr. Sirisena Cooray threatening to contest the Presidential elections as an independent candidate. Then there is Mr H.R.Piyasiri who has formed a new political party with an anti-UNP bias. Then again we find the Premadasa family making noises on the sidelines. The UNP does appear to be riven with splits.
But the difference is that all these so called splits are not really splits at all. All these are completely extraneous to the party. Neither Sirisena Cooray, Hema Premadasa or H.R.Piyasiri stand a chance of a snow flake in hell of getting nominations from the UNP. The noises made by these people are just the grumblings of jilted politicians. One year ago, the threat from Sirisena Cooray was a serious one. Every time he returned to the country after one of his frequent jaunts abroad, his house would be full of UNP MP’s and lesser dignitaries who had come to pay homage to HIM. If Cooray barked a command many UNP MPs rushed to obey. They were like frightened rabbits in his presence. But thanks to the efforts of many people, this fear that the UNP MPs had of Sirisena Cooray has now been eliminated.
Nobody today would consider Mr Cooray to be a potential leader of the UNP nor would they imagine that getting Mr. Cooray back was a sure path to power. The realisation has dawned on many in the UNP (its better late than never) that confronting the PA from the opposition side is a diffrent ball game altogether. Having people like Mr Cooray in the ranks of the UNP will ruin the chances of the UNP ever making a comeback. Which is why the PA ia so intent on forcing Mr Cooray back into the UNP. The PA obviously wants to force Cooray back into the UNP and to use Cooray’s presence in the UNP for its propaganda purposes. Had Mr Cooray been in the UNP today, it would have been a bonanza for the PA. They could have attacked the UNP with the misdeeds of the Premadasa era. Today, the PA does not have a proper issue to flog the UNP with and to keep it in a state of seige. The UNP has moved away from the Pre-madasa mould. Its image has improved enormously since those dark days. And there is nothing in the UNP which the PA could use to remind people of the dark past. Moreover, if the PA manages to force Mr Cooray back into the UNP they will have a free hand to use thuggery on the UNP and to claim they were doing it in self defence,... because this is what the Sotthi Upali types did,... In other words, if Mr Cooray is forced back into the party, the PA could thrash the UNP with impunity and even the public would not sympathise with them. Whereas now, with a different image, they cant, thrash the UNP without a public outcry. With Mr Cooray in the UNP, the PA could depict THEMSELVES as the victims rather than the other way about. A few years ago I had to shout myself hoarse with my UNP friends telling them, "You stupid buggers,..Cooray can’t stop the PA from thrashing you, on the contrary, his presence will only increase the frequency and severity of the floggings you are already getting,.."
Many people have commented sardonically on the enormous sympathy for Mr. Cooray and for the Premadasa family evinced by the government owned media. It would appear that since of late the people most concerned about the state of the UNP’s fortunes are in the government owned media. To give a helping hand to the fallen giant! To help a disorganised UNP to organise itself! How moving! How touching! Haw Haw.
While the government owned media managed to give Mr Cooray some publicity among the general public with their articles, this very same publicity killed Mr Cooray’s standing among the UNP’ers who had earlier flocked to Mr Cooray’s house at the slightest of a political comeback. They are business-minded types,.. these UNP’ers. The sole preoccupation of many UNP’ers especially the type of people who used to earlier frequent Mr Cooray’s house, is that of consolidating his own position in the party. Not one of them would support anybody if it didn’t in some way help them in their self-serving quest. Altruistic motives are hard to find in any political party. And those who frequented Mr. Cooray’s house never knew the meaning of the word. For them, self-interest meant getting the UNP back into power so that they could savour of the fruits thereof. Anything that stood in the way of this holy quest was an enemy. Mr. Cooray, by lending himself out as a cats paw of the PA government has now positioned himself directly across that path of many of his own erstwhile admirers. To Mr. Cooray, what he is doing would appear to be a simple "shaking the tree". But it would not appear to be such to anybody whose interests, dreams, aspirations are bound up with the UNP. To them, Mr. Cooray appears as an apparition come to snatch food from their mouths.
If Mr. Cooray actually dares to contest the Presidential elections as an independent candidate under the sponsorship of the PA government in a bid to "break" the UNP vote block, he may well find that his erstwhile admirers in the UNP have turned into raging enemies overnight. In any event, Mr Cooray’s contesting as an independent candidate is no longer an internal matter of the UNP but an extraneous matter over which nobody in the UNP has any control. What has transpired now is that this is an issue between the UNP and ALL ITS EXTERNAL ENEMIES. Having a multiplicity of enemies is hardly a new experience for the UNP since it has for the past fifty years been running against a whole host of enemies commonly categorised under the rubric of the anti-UNP" slogan. In 1982, when J.R.Jayewardene contested the Presidential election there were many candidates against him, Kobbekaduwa, Colvin, Vasu, Mudiyanse Tennakoon... all these people were against each other but the one factor they had in common was that they were all anti-UNPers. The only instance that a UNP had a friendly opponent was in 1988 with Ossie and in 1994 with Hudson Samarasinghe. Other than this it has always been a battle of ALL AGAINST THE UNP AND THE UNP AGAINST ALL. A future election with or without Mr Cooray will be the same. Only, this time, Mr. Cooray would have taken the anti-UNP side.
This does not mesh with the aspirations of Mr. Cooray’s own erstwhile admirers who see any challenge to the UNP to be an obstacle in their path, since their interests are irrevocably bound up with the UNP. Mr. Cooray would have stood a better chance of challenging the UNP leadership if he had steered clear of government patronage. But the moment he accepted government patronage, Mr. Cooray ceased to be a factor. The entire anti-government voting base of the country would see Cooray as a cats paw of the government and not as an alternative to the PA.
MORE.
