      |
|
|
|
Sustainable disarmament and human development
Lalith Athulathmudali Commemoration Oration (Galle Face Hotel, No. 27) (Part 1) by Jayantha Dhanapala, Under Secretary General (disarmament) of the United Nations
Last year in addressing a similar gathering in Colombo I said I spoke as an extinguished Ambassador in temporary exile. All of us, for better or worse and to varying extreme, remain framed in the national and cultural context in which we were born and grew up. Today therefore I speak as concerned and, hopefully, conscientious citizens of Sri Lanka and the world. Let me emphasize however that the views I express do not necessarily reflect those of the organization I am proud to serve.Political assassinations have robbed Sri Lanka of leaders who, had they lived, may have changed the course of our history for the better. In 1959, it was SWRD Bandaranaike. In 1993, 34 years later, it was Lalith Athulathmudali. Had he lived - Lalith would have been 62 years old yesterday.
Lalith Athulathmudali was both a friend and later, as a Minister, my political superior. He made the transition from one role to another with grace and dignity. He did not have to assert his authority or advertise his Ministerial rank. He was confident in the knowledge of his ability and suffered no sense of insecurity as he encouraged his officials to tender their advice to him freely and frankly. Our paths first crossed at the 1995 Trinity - Royal debate held in Kandy - I as a desperately diffident fifth former debating for my school for the first time; Lalith confident as ever, consummately engaging in the cut and thrust of word fencing foreshadowing the forensic skills of later years. He left for Oxford shortly thereafter and to all the laurels too well known to repeat here including becoming the first Sri Lankan President of the Oxford Union. On his return to Sri Lanka we met in the company of mutual friends and again later during my first diplomatic posting in London where he had come to appear in a Privy Council case. Much later we met again - he a senior Minister now and I as an official in the Foreign Ministry. The bond remained one of friendship and mutual respect.
Lalith Athulathmudali's enduring legacy in the various facets of our national life has been amply documented. His Mahapola Scholarship Programme is only one of them. His work in international affairs especially through UNCTAD is another. I would like to dwell briefly on his relations with the public servant.
It was said of Lalith by his critics that he was pompus and arrogant. That was not my experience. Indeed he eagerly sought and heeded the views of the public servants who worked for him. I did not always agree with Lalith's views. As the Permanent Representative and Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva it was my unenviable task to be in the eye of the human rights storm from 1984 - 1987 - a storm the intensity of which dropped dramatically with the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord of 1987. Lalith was then a regular visitor to Geneva as a cogent advocate of the Sri Lanka Government's case. Privately I expressed to him my reservations over his policies as Minister of National Security. For this I was sent neither to Coventry nor to Siberia. Instead Lalith listened patiently, argued his case that, as Bismarck said, 'Politics is the art of the possible' and that I was too idealistic. We agreed to disagree accepting the civilized principle that honest men can have different opinions - a principle that makes us rational human beings living in a democratic society and not robots in a totalitarian world. For that I have always remained grateful to Lalith. Would there were more like him.
The concept of the professional integrity of the public service lies among the vast debris accuumulated in five decades of our independence. Perhaps the transition from the paternalism of the colonial administrator to the socially engaged, development oriented bureaucrat desperately needed or the independent era was too big a leap for us. But then, is it not true that India, making the same transition from the elitist Indian Civil Service to the more broad-based Indian Administrative Service within a similar political culture and amidst a greater ethnic and linguistic diversity has achieved some success? The fact is - the leap was achievable. We simply failed to make it. In a society where party politics has been so divisive that even basic social contact with one group of politicians stigmatizes you in the eyes of the opposition group, one hesitates to set down the many milestones in the slippery slope towards a supine bureaucracy so favoured by all parties today. But they do occur in the administrations of all parties.
The public excoriation of defenceless public servants; the sudden elevation and demotion of Secretaries of Ministries; the selective use and disregard of the seniority principle; the suborning of public servants in pursuit of political corruption and partisan ends and the many other acts of commission that have eroded the integrity of the public service are part of a sad litary. Some public servants have had to pay a price in the ritual of post-elections commissions of inquiry. Others have opted out. Still others have kept their heads down and stayed out of trouble. In the intensely competitive ambience of a developing society with fewer crumbs falling off the table than there are groping hands to grab them, the proximity and distance of a public servant from his or her political superiors becomes a measure of both favour and disfavour - both situations being as impermanent as the other in another vindication of the Buddhist doctrine of anicca.
The principle of recognising merit so vital in a modern society; the encouragement of initiative and independent thinking for the national benefit and the fundamental concept of a social contract in which all segments of society have a partnership role in the implementation of the manifesto of the elected party remain distant goals. It is one of our national characteristics that we swing from moods of self adulation to self-denigration. If we are not applauding ourselves as the greatest we wallow in self-pity. An objective assessment of our strengths and weaknesses is a necessary exercise especially as we are, in the 50th anniversary year of our independence, entering the 21st century and a new millennium in the Christian era with a horrendous fratricidal conflict tearing us apart at an irreparable human and material cost while the urgent social and economic needs of our people remain unfulfilled. It is a national task that cannot be left to the political leadership alone. Civil society must assert itself within democratic norms in the interpretation and implementation of our national interest undaunted by extremists on both sides who would like the carnage of conflict to continue.
My tribute to the memory of Lalith Athulathmudali cannot end here. His intellectual candlepower and relentless quest for new ideas would have demanded that I do more than look back nostalgically at a bygone era. And so I have decided this evening to speak on a subject within my area of professional competence and experience. I have frequently been accused by my critics of selfishly seeking the esoteric and, supposedly irrelevant field of disarmament ignoring national priorities. Despite my work for Sri Lanka in Sinology, Non-alignment, human rights, trade and investment promotion and the many other facets of diplomacy there is no doubt that I have derived enormous moral and intellectual satisfaction from my work in disarmament. I do not have to apologize for it. Disarmament essentially is about human survival. If the right to life is threatened by weapons of mass destruction and by conventional weapons how can we not address this issue? How can we have our priorities mixed up if we protest over the threat of nuclear weapons, now right at our doorstep in addition to working for the eradication of chemical and biological weapons and an end to the proliferation of small arms?
I have arrived here in Colombo directly after declaring open a conference in Nagasaki on the theme 'Towards a Nuclear Weapon-free World.' There once again I met the Hibakusha - survivors of the 1945 Atomic bomb attack on that Japanese city. How can we rest assured that this will not be our fate or the fate of our children and grandchildren? Disarmament is also about human development and the quality of our lives - a theme, I wish to emphasize in my remarks today as we weigh the opportunity costs of arms expenditure. In the United Nations I am privileged to work for a Secretary-General whose idealism, integrity and independence has been deeply inspiring. Eighty per cent of the work of the UN system which he leads is devoted to helping developing countries build up the capacity to help themselves. Not long ago on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of UN peacekeeping Kofi Annan said of that unique UN endeavour 'it was an attempt to confront and defeat the worst in man with the best in man; to counter violence with tolerance, might with moderation and war with peace.' That description is as valid for UN peacekeeping as it is for our collective task in disarmament.
Peace Talks - meaning what, please?
By 'Doubting Thomas'
The hills that Julie Andrews traipsed about in Austria years ago may have been alive to the sound of music, but Colombo today is certainly alive to the sound of 'peace talks'. Taking the lead from Mr. Ranil Wickreme-singhe, one supposes, everyone who would be someone seems impelled to have recourse to the phrase, mantra-like, in their daily discourse. Some others, presumably taking their lead from President Kuma-ratunga, who has termed those opposed to her very own peace package of devolution proposals an extremist, traitor or barking dog, seek to judge a person's moral and intellectual worth by the frequency and vehemence with which the latter subscribe to the mantra. When captains of industry, commerce and finance deviate from talking of interest rates, share prices and pre-tax profits, to talking of peace talks, things may be said to have reached critical mass.But what does it all mean? Who is to talk to whom, on whose behalf, about what and to what end? What is the political language to be used in the talking - that of democracy or of fascism? What is to be the framework for talking - national unity that is inviolable, a polity based upon democratic plurality, federalism as a roadside stopover en route secession, or what? With a view to concentrating the light and sharpening the focus, the better to pick one's way through the prevailing fog of obfuscation, it may be no bad thing to have recourse to that marvellous Jesuit tradition of discourse: that is, to answer one question with another, or even several more for that matter.
The received wisdom is to refer to talks between the Government and the LTTE. If so, what spectrum of national opinion is the Government supposed to reflect and represent, given that there are differences of opinion in the matter discernible within the PA Cabinet itself? What of other strands of opinion, reflected by recognised political parties, identifiable NGOs, professional and societal associations, and even engaged and articulate individuals? How is that to be reflected in the talking process - or is all of that to be deemed irrelevant?
Take the LTTE: whom are they to be deemed to represent - all Sri Lankan Tamils? If so, on whose word - Kumar Ponnambalam's, Thondaman's, Neelan Tiruchelvam's, or whose? What of the views of that silent Tamil majority that has traditionally lived outside the traditional Tamil homelands, so called? What of them - Tamil professionals, business persons and others, who have lived, loved and prospered all their lives outside the northern and eastern provinces: are they to be called upon even now to stand up and be counted, or be allowed to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds as they have hitherto done - UTHR(J) notably excepted?
On another plane, the President and Government seek peace through war. The LTTE have never made any bones about seeking Tamil Eelam through the barrels of their guns. So, any talking has to take cognizance of the prevailing war. If so, is there to be a cease-fire, cessation of hostilities, call it what one may? If so, are there to be clear and agreed ground rules to prevent any change in the balance of forces? If so, are these to be monitored against breach? If so, by whom and how? Given that hitherto, on both sides, political objectives have gone hand-in-hand with military actions, what is to be the relationship between an evolving talking process and actual lines of control on the ground: who is to give up what, and where?
Finally, what of us poor plebs, who presently stand uninformed and possibly bemused about the implications of these and myriad related questions and issues? Do not the President and the Leader of the Opposition have an obligation towards those whose votes they seek, to address these questions, clarify issues arising, and state their respective positions thereon before embarking on an undefined talking process? Is public opinion deemed relevant, and if so, is it to be canvassed before, during or after a talking process? And how?
President Clinton was quite right, in that other matter of his alleged antics with Ms. Monica Lewinsky: one must settle on a precise definition of sex, before one goes accusing someone of having it with another. After all, a slam bam thank you ma'am young stud is surely likely to have a somewhat different view of the business, than a well-versed, ageing roue?
So it has to be too, with peace talks. Unless and until the questions posed above have been addressed, issues arising from them clarified and, to the extent feasible agreed, peace talks so called can have no meaning. They remain a mere rhetorical gimmick, designed to serve whatever vested or partisan interest is entertained by any proponent.
Those of us plebs who fancy ourselves as being politically literate would not realistically expect such elucidation from a President who seems increasingly to be given to grandiloquent rhetoric and demonstrable falsehoods. In any case, one whose governance is characterised by the enthusiastic application in practice, of that theoretical aphorism historically attributed to King Louis XIV - l'etat, c'est moi - is unlikely to be too concerned with cultivating public opinion. But what of the Leader of the Opposition, the aspiring governor to be? Does he not owe it to those whose votes he seeks - assuming they have an opportunity sometime to cast them - to state clearly where he stands on these matters? Is it sufficient to hide behind the imperial coat-tails of a Liam Fox, Derek Fatchett or David Tatham, and merely keep mouthing a meaningless phrase however emotively resonant to the ears of Colombo's chattering class, and the habitues of Colombo's diplomatic and high society cocktails and dinner circuit?
The Farmer Vote and Government
Today the agricultural sector of Sri Lanka is in shambles. However, the current government is engaged in an effort to hide this reality from both the farmer and the general public. Perhaps the government thought to psychologically isolate the suffering farmer and prevent his tale of sorrow from being heard. As a Sri Lanka citizen I feel it is nothing less than my duty to inform the public of the facts.
The graphs in this article are based on data drawn from the 1997 Annual Report of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. All six of these graphs are but a single chapter in the lamentable tale of the Sri Lankan farmer. The first graph shows the decline in the production of paddy in Sri Lanka. It only rose to 2.68 million metric tonnes in 1995 due to the continuation of the previous government's policy, and not because of any creditworthy action of the present one. This fact becomes all the more clear in examining the data for 1996 and 1997. By 1996 the present government had managed to dampen paddy production to a mere 2.06 million metric tonnes.
The second graph further substantiates the evidence of the decline. In 1994, when the current government assumed the national administration, there were 930,000 hectares of land under paddy cultivation. By 1997 this figure had dropped to just 730,000 hectares. In other words the current government had succeeded in reducing the area under paddy cultivation by over 21%.
There are two main reasons for the desolation of paddy fields:
1. When the current government came to power, there was a 35% import tax on foreign rice. In fact the paddy production rose in 1995 under the aegis of this tax. However, frightened by a minor fluctuation in rice prices (and perhaps due to even more sinister reasons), the government slashed this tax to 20%. Unable to compete with the cheap imported rice, many local farmers gave up paddy cultivation.
2. Paddy lands are also being rapidly filled up and used for other purposes. By law it is illegal in Sri Lanka to fill in paddy lands. However, the law is only as sacred as the government that protects it. Not only does the current government allow the private sector to decimate paddy lands, the government itself engages in this same practice.
The result of this kind of myopic agricultural and trade policy is becoming clear. When one travels from Colombo to Kandy by railway, thousands of acres of abandoned paddy land greet the eye, right up until the train reaches the foothills. When one travels to the North Central Province, the same sad tale is repeated. The reservoirs are full, yet the farmer is not working. Some of them are engaged in satyagraha protests. Others are committing suicide. Before this national crisis, the government is deaf and blind. It holds no sympathy for these unfortunate men and women. In fact the current government has managed to take the paddy sector that was on the brink of national self-sufficiency, down to a production of merely 74% of the national demand for rice.
Is this a problem faced only by the paddy farmer? The answer is an emphatic no. The producers of big onion, red onion, chillie and potato have all fallen prey to the policies of an ignorant and incompetent regime. The 3rd graph shows the decline in the production of big onions. The production that was at 81,400 metric tonnes in 1994 has fallen to just 22,500 metric tonnes in 1997.
The 4th graph shows the situation in the chillie sector. In 1993 we produced 40,000 metric tonnes of chillie; In 1997 the production was just 18,000 metric tonnes. The chillie farmer who had cared for his harvest in the manner of a parent nurturing a child had no option but to throw it on the streets and set it on fire. These heartwrenching scenes are still fresh in the minds of the people. Are these the signs of a true democracy?
The potato farmer was no more fortunate. In 1996 potato production was over 100,000 metric tonnes. This had been slashed to just 66,000 metric tonnes by 1997. 15,000 potato farmers now wander the streets of unemployment. That's not all.
They had taken out bank loans placing their land as collateral. These economic decisions had been made by placing a sacred trust in the government to protect their livelihood. Now the potato farmer is reduced to helplessly watching even their land being auctioned off by banks.
The story of the red onion farmer is no less pathetic. In 1993 we produced 91,000 metric tonnes of red onion in Sri Lanka. In 1997 the government had managed to reduce this thriving sector to a production of just 44,000 metric tonnes.
The reason for the atrophy in all four of the above sectors is a single factor; the reduction of the import tax on the respective crops from 35% to just 20%. 'Indian goods are cheap, the Sri Lankan farmer must learn to compete in the world market,' says the government in a hypocritical attempt at seeming like champions of a free market system. Yet there is a little known fact here that the government does not want the people to know. For all four of the above agricultural crops, the Indian government provides substantial subsidies to the Indian farmer.
In the cultivation of onions, chillie and potato, the Indian government bears a large part of the cost of fertilizer, agro-chemicals, energy, irrigation and high yield seed varieties. Under these circumstances, it is by no means 'free' market forces that have acted to destroy the Sri Lankan farmer. In fact only an unjust government could allow the domestic farmer to compete with subsidised imports. However, from the many facets of today's political and economic landscape it is evident that even the word 'justice' is a stranger to the Sri Lankan government. The only reaction of the government to this developing situation in the agricultural sector was to slash the existing subsidies given to the farmer.
The 1997 Annual Report of the Central Bank clearly states all of the above facts. Since it is a publication of a state institution, the government is no position to deny a single statistic. That's not all, the Report clearly states what should be the policy of a government that wishes to nurture agriculture. It points out that for farmers to make decisions as economic entities, stability must exist in the agricultural sector. It is impossible to make long term investment decisions, when the entire investment can be jeopardised by a government that chooses to throw dice. The Report advocates a fixed import tax of 35% on all of the above agricultural products. Further it emphasises the need for rapid modernisation of the agricultural sector - another process that is impossible in the face of fickle government policy. The time has certainly come for the farmer to assume some of the responsibility over his own destiny. It is the farmer's responsibility to vote into power a government that is capable of providing the nurture the agricultural sector needs.
In fact, in recent weeks, the Minister of Agriculture himself has been lamenting about the state of agriculture in Sri Lanka today. However, it is clear that persons of power in the Government and private sector have vested interests in importing agricultural goods to the detriment of the domestic farmer. Perhaps it is an obvious question whether the honourable minister is working for the right political party. He must after all choose between his duty to his country and his party loyalty.
The government of Sri Lanka has two excuses for its pathetic performance on all economic fronts:
1. It claims that the previous government handed it a 'broken down' economy which is difficult to rescue,
2. And that the war effort is draining all national resources that should be going into development.
The fact that the previous government left a thriving economy and agricultural sector is born out by the embarrassing height of the green bars, when compared to the blue, in the graphs. It is ironic that the lies of the government are disproved by statistics from a government publication itself. As for the war, if Kilinochchi is any indicator of how this government plans to continue the war effort, we as citizens can ask for nothing less than the resignation of such a shameful administration.
There are two underlying reasons for the government's poor performance in the agricultural sector:
1. Among the members of the cabinet and government MP's, there isn't a single one who can even claim to vaguely understand the mechanics of elementary economics. What's more, they choose to ignore the advise given by those experienced economic specialists who work for government institutions.
Perhaps an even more dangerous factor is the complete apathy the government bears towards the farmer.
If such are the facts, then it is time for the farmer to rise from his languor and from pointless protests and suicides. After all 38% of the Sri Lankan population are still sustained by agriculture. Their strongest weapon is the power to make and break governments by ballot. If the farmer is tempted into partisan politics again he is surely doomed. In coming elections he has but one responsibility to save himself from complete economic marginalisation. He must elect a government that gives promises that it can keep, in fact a government that gives promises that it intends to keep. The nature of what those promises should be, is also clear - a concrete assuarance of the necessary government protection and assistance for the farmer. Only the farmer can save himself now.
Communalism: the bane of Sri lanka's politics
By Gunaseela vitanage
(Continued from yesterday)
Hamilton Fyfe, in his book The Illusion of National Character describes in simple language how the primitive savage family, in the process of its evolution developed into a tribe, and how the tribe, in turn, developed into a nation. He says:'As we look back and try to pierce the mists that hide the early history of mankind, we can discern dimly an age in which the family was the social unit Ñ not only the largest but the only one. Each family dwelt apart, was self-sufficient, looked on other families as hostile. There was a state of constant war between families.
'Then we find families displaced as the unit by tribes or clans. All who greeted each other as fellow clansmen, either were or imagined themselves to be descended from the same remote ancestors. This, they supposed, gave them a character which distinguished them alone, which was different from the character of other tribes or clans.
That supposition became a barrier separating them from others. It thus developed into an excuse for murders, massacres, continual fighting, perpetual ill will.
'Within the tribe fighting was discouraged. Families no longer fought with each other, no longer believed it to be natural that they should fight. It was natural, however Ñ so they thought Ñ that tribes should be in a state of incessant enmity. This lasted in the Highlands of Scotland until a century and a half ago. It still endures in parts of the Balkans, in parts of Africa, in parts of Asia.
'Among peoples who are called civilized the tribal stage has been for a long time left behind. It was succeeded by the national stage. Tribes, clans, sects, combined to be nations. No matter what diverse and conflicting elements might be brought together in the new unit, the nation, they were not to war among themselves. But it was considered inevitable, natural, that wars between nations should be frequent; in order to keep the fighting spirit keen, each nation was encouraged to regard itself as endowed with virtues superior to those of the rest' (pp. 1 & 2).
Communities as well as nations have their origin in man's savage and tribal past. Sir Arthur Keith, the eminent paleontologist says in his Essays on Social Evolution that the world was at one stage, and that not very long ago, a mosaic of tribes. There were no nations then. The organisation called 'nation' came into being by the conquest of small and less powerful tribes by bigger and more powerful tribes and also by the coalesence of friendly tribes. However, the tribes that constituted the nation were generally keen on maintaining their separate identity, unity and continuity while being a part of the nation. This of course meant the preservation and the development of those factors that gave the tribe its particular identity, namely, the tribal beliefs or the tribal religion, language, customs, dress and other cultural values peculiar to it. This particularist attitude on the part of constituent tribes was naturally resented by the nation's rulers because they feared that it could very well be a threat to their over-lordship, and also to the security and the solidarity of the nation. This particularist tendency of the constituent tribes on the one side and the authoritarian attitude of the Nation's rulers on the other side very often gave rise to ethnic conflicts and even to internecince wars. The earliest civilization that we know of is the Sumera. civilisation in Mesapotania. It existed in 7,000 B.C. To build it, it must have taken one of one thousand five hundred years. According to social anthropologists, before the Sumerian civilization came into existence, man lived as a savage eking out an existence by gathering food, hunting and fishing. He lived with his family on the top of trees or in caves. It was only after he settled down to a life of agriculture that civilization began and to spread. There were, of course, various cultures among these savage tribes.
J. Howard Moore in his Savage Survivals quotes Sir Henry Maine, the author of Ancient Laws as saying:
'There was no brotherhood recognized by our savage forefathers except actual relationship by blood. If a man was not akin to another, there was nothing between them. He was an enemy to be hated, slain or despoiled as much as the wild beasts upon which the tribe made war, as belonging, indeed, to the craftiest and cruelest of wild animals. It would scarcely be too strong to assert that the dog which followed the camps had more in common with it than the tribesman of a foreign and unrelated tribe' (p. 81)
Howard Moore comments:
'Savages live in tribes. The prevailing relation of one tribe to another is that of war. The moral feelings and ideas of the savage are, therefore, purely tribal in their range. The members of his tribe are, to the savage for the most part his kinspeople. They are the beings with whom he had lived all his life, and they are to him the only real and important beings in the world. All others are enemies, to be attacked, robbed, deceived, murdered, eaten or enslaved as he chooses or is able to do.'There is always a tendency in us (civilized people) to think of the members of our own crowd more real and important than other beings, and to consider our part of the world as the centre of the universe. This is especially true of simple-minded people. The bigger and broader we are the less inclined we are to entertain such views' (ibid, p. 107)
'The tribal instinct is the instinct to stand by one's group and to exaggerate the importance of one's place of living. It is the instinct of partiality Ñ the instinct which prompts us to say: 'My country! May she be ever be right. But right or wrong, my country! 'Patriotism' as it is usually understood, is an expression of the tribal instinct. The true patriot does not believe that his country is the only country in the world, not necessarily the best country; but he wants it to be a better country than it is, and he wants to make it so' (ibid. p. 110).
In his Report on the Census of 1946, Mr. A. G. (later Sir Arthur) Ranasinha of the Ceylon Civil Service as the then Superintendent of Census says:
'One may, indeed, maintain with Arthur Keith that race consciousness is innate in man, that it is, in fact, part of nature's machinery in its great business of evolution'
Quoting from Sir Arthur Keith's book Ethnos: Racial Spirit as a Force in History Sir Arthur Ranasinha says:
'Those qualities which are manifested in everyday life as 'racial spirit are in reality an ancient and essential part of nature's creational machinery' (Census of Ceylon, 1946, Vol: I, Part I, p. 150)
Commenting on the ambivalent attitude of the primitive savage tribes Howard Moore says in the book quoted earlier.
'The feeling of enmity and hatred which a savage feels toward strangers, toward those outside the tribe, seems to be the complement of opposite of the Social feelings which the savage has toward the members of his tribe. Sympathy and hate has much the relation to each other as have pleasure and pain' (pp. 81.82)
A savage tribesman, for example, would shoot to kill at sight or engage himself in battle with a tribesman who belonged to an enemy tribe or a strange tribe. The same tribesman would risk his own life to save a fellow-tribesman in anger. In either case, he would be hailed as a great hero by his tribe.
Sir Arthur Keith says in his Essays on Social Evolution that the primitive savage tribes were guided by a dual code; The Code of Amity and the Code of Enmity. The Code of Amity becomes operative in the relations between and among the members of the tribe while the Code of Enmity becomes operative in the tribe's attitude toward members of enemy tribes and strange tribes. This is also called the Love/Hate principle.
This dual code sometimes becomes operative among civilised people too. We see it in operation in a lower key at the sports field whenever two teams belonging to two different ethnic groups are playing and in a higher key whenever or wherever there are ethnic or religious conflicts or when there are international war.
If there was hatred and hostile feelings in one savage family was also toward other families and constant wars between families, there love, friendliness and co-operation between and among the members of the same family. These emotions and attitudes, in fact, have their origin in the primitive savage mother's love for her offspring. We know that certain kinds of animals also love and protect their offspring. Some animals ferociously protect their offspring. But there is a great difference between a human mother's love for her offspring and that of an owned. The former is surcharged with compassion, joy, selflessness, sympathy and self-sacrifice. Also an animal mother's love for her off-spring last only upto the time that they are able to fend for themselves. But a human mother's love for her off-spring lasts the whole of her life time. It is spiritual in content.
When kindred families, for security or other reasons joined together to form a tribe the Love/Hate principle came into operation in a big way. The love, the sympathy, the joy and the co-operation that exist in the family were accorded to all members of the tribe. The members of one tribe of course, hated members of other tribes and went to war against another tribe or tribes whenever the tribal chief thought it time to go on the war path, of no reason other than that they are not friendly tribes.
The organization called 'nation' came into existence at a very late stage, as stated earlier, by the conquest of small tribes by big ones and by the coalescence of friendly tribes. By this time civilization had begun to dawn. But the tribal dual code was still very much in operation. Now one nation looked upon other nations with distrust, hate, and hostility. Very often there were wars between nations.
During the tribal period, all power, divine and human, was concentrated in the tribal chief. He was the leader of the tribe, the shaman or the witch-doctor, the intermediary between the tribal God and the tribesmen, the law-giver and also the judge. But as the nations began to expand and as more territories came under their control, there arose the need to diversify, distribute and devolve government power, and instead of a single person who held all the power and who exercised all the power, for the facility of administration, power came to be distributed among those who were chosen by the Nation's head, the Monarch or the King. With the distribution of power there also came to be many aspirants to power at various levels within the nation and there had been constant struggles for power and position at all the levels in which the tribal principal of hate hailed precedence over the principal of love. There came to be assassination, conspicuous, riots, rebellions and massacres and other forms of violence in the course of this struggle for power within the nation. Leaders of nations also developed a craving for more and more power, and they, like their savage predecessors, the tribal chiefs who went on the war path against neighbouring tribes, mobilized the people, invaded the neighbouring countries, conquered them, occupied them and enslaved the indigenous people and robbed them of their wealth. In this quest for power millions of innocent lives were lost, entire countries were devastated, and the peoples therein were impoverished. In the course of time, these mighty empires themselves went to rack and ruin because in their adherence to the tribal principal of hate they became destitute of the spiritual value of love.
During the first half of the twentieth century, there have been two world wars in which millions of men in their flower of youth were sacrificed to the God of War to satisfy the lust for power on the part of a few individuals in power. There also have been and also are many devastating civil wars during the latter half of the century especially in those countries like Sri Lanka which were under foreign rule for centuries, and which became independent recently.
As the historian Edward Gibbon says in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
'History is, indeed, little more than the register of crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind'
Beginnings of Civilization
It was mentioned earlier, that in the opinion of social anthropologists that, man, before he became civilized, lived in forests with his family on top of trees or in caves, eking out an existence by hunting, fishing and gathering food. This kind of life must have gone on for tens of thousands of years. They are also of the view that it must have been in the course of the primitive savages' search for food that he found that certain kinds of 'grass' seed were edible. It was this discovery that led him to cultivate cereals such as wheat, barley, rice etc. Gradually, this discovery must have led him to life of agriculture, most probably in the river valleys, because by long experience and by trial and error, he must have found that agriculture needed plenty of water and sunlight, and of course, good soil. The earliest civilizations were those that developed in Euphrates-Tigris Valley in Mesopotamia, Nile valley in Egypt and Indus valley in West India. These early agriculturists must have learned about the different because they had to know when to plough, when to sow the seeds and when to harvest. At the same time, they must have found that certain kinds of fruits which they normally gathered from the trees in the forest could be cultivated and propagated. They were, by this process of acquiring knowledge and understanding, naturally became interested and inquisitive about the world around him and began to study the movements of the sun, moon and the stars. With the increase of knowledge his power of reason on also developed.
Southern Eliyakanda Speed Hil climb '98
The Southern Motor Sports Club has organised the Southern Eliyakanda speed hill climb '98 motor sports event for the second time to be held on 13.12.1998 at Browns Hill Matara. This 800 M. racing Meet commences at 8.00 a.m. starting from the turn off to the GA's 'Residence' at 'Pearl Cliff' Sign Board, and ends in the compound of the GA's Residence.
There are 15 events including events for ladies.
Entries are now open at 179 Jayantha Weerasekera Mawatha Colombo 10,(C/O) Premadasa Off set Plate Makers Limited.
Tel: 01-436994, Fax 01-449950 and
Preethi Motors Galle Road, Pamburana Matara.
Tel: 041-23120 Fax 041-26120
Entries Close on 05.12.1998.
Ruhunu Rally '98 on December 6
The Ruhunu Motors Sports Club of Matara the pioneering motor sports club in the south which conducted a night auto cross a few months ago, the first ever in the history of motor sports in Sri Lanka, now affiliated to the main body of motor sports the Sri Lanka Association of Motor Sports (SLAMS), will run a rally on the 6th of December with support as in the past from the Ceylon Motor Sports Club and the classic car club of Ceylon.
This rally which is limited to 50 competitors would be flagged off at 8.00 a.m. from opposite St. Mary's Convent on Beach Road, Matara and finish opposite Koggala Beach Hotel at about 2.00 p.m., covering approximately 120 kilometers. The special feature will be the high speed stage which is to be run.
The closing date for entries has been extended to the 30th November 1998 and for further details please contact the Hony. Secretary, Ruhunu Motors Sports Club, 171, Sri Dharmarama Mw., Fort, Matara or Fax#041-22204, 27336.
Entries will be accepted at Jinasena & Company, No. 4, Hunupitiya Rd., Colombo 02 and Dharmadasa Industries, No. 69, Hakmana Rd., Matara.
The patron of the club, Mangala Samaraweera, Minister of Posts Telecommunication and Media, will be the chief guest and give away the trophies.
 |