      |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Between the lines – By Kuldip Nayar
After dismissal what?The round of accusations and counter-accusations is more or less over. Now is the time to determine the truth. Let us wear wigs and act as judges. The case before us is that of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat’s dismissal from the office of naval chief. The general charge against him is that he committed a series of acts of "disobedience, defiance, lies and threats."
Specifically, (1) he seriously jeopardised national security concerns; (2) he lodged a written protest directly with Pakistan High Commission against a Pakistani surveillance aircraft tailing an Indian naval vessel; (3) he publicly criticised the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW); (4) he defied civilian authorities on a sustained basis; (5) he deliberately kept from the defence minister the representations by vice-admiral Sushil Kumar, now the naval chief; and, (6) Bhagwat went out of the way to stall the appointment of vice-admiral Harinder Singh.
Let us take up charge by charge. The first, that of endangering national security, is the most grievous one. A top offcer found tampering with security eight months before retirement is, indeed, disturbing. If it is true, he deserved to be court-martialed, not just dismissed. Government has given no evidence to prove how Bhagwat acted against India’s security. Offcial statement says that his ~series of actions" threatened "national security" but does not tell how. Defence Minister George Femandes refrains from elaborating in his TV interview. All that he says is that he cannot talk about it ~as it concems national security."
They are meaningful words. But they suggest more than what they say. With great diffculty I have obtained from offcial sources one ‘evidence’. This is an interview by Bhagwat that was printed in me Hindu on October 2. The allegation is that he leaked out infommation regarding "nuclear submarine." The pertinent part of his interview is: "The world has no better vehicle for ensuring second strike or retaliatory capability than the nuclear submarine. These are, of course, principles we are theorising about.~
How does this observation violate security considerations is not understandable. Firstly, Bhagwat revealed nothing; secondly, he emphasised that he was only "theorising." The impression that govemment has left in the minds of people is as if he was passing on defence secrets to the enemy. It is a pity that the defence ministry should stoop so low to question the patriotism of a person like Bhagwat on the basis of an interview, which even stretched, does not disclose anything.
The second charge is that he approached the Pakistan High Commission directly to lodge the protest. This betrays his unfamiliarity with the rules of diplomatic corps, not disloyalty to the country. He authorised his directorate of naval intelligence to write to the naval advisor to the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi. He sent copies of the communication to the defence and external affairs ministries. When the ministry of extemal affairs advised him not to employ such channels, he issued instructions "not to engage the Pakistan High Commission directly." It was a procedural mistake. To interpret it as an act of subordination is a deliberate act of vindictiveness by the defence ministry.
Bhagwat’s remark that the RAW was incompetent is indiscreet but by no means it violates national security demands. As an offcer of long standing, he may have come across examples of RAW’s ineptness. He gave vent to his annoyance. At worst, it was an outburst, which should have been ignored as it was done when he made it. The defence minister could have mentioned it at one of his weekly moming meetings with the service chiefs. Why to pick up peccadilloes to make a case?
Govemment’s unhappiness over not forwarding as many as six representations by Sushil Kumar has a point. He wanted to be posted to an operational command. But the representations.
Resurrection of Buddhist education in Sri Lanka
When Sri Lanka was invaded by the three Western powers beginning 1905 they not only devastated our Sinhalese culture, religion and trade but brought unimaginable, irreparable ruin over our far developed Buddhist Education. Although at the Kandy Convention in 1815 it was resolved that 'The religion of the Buddha professed by the Chiefs and inhabitants of these Provinces is declared inviolable and its rights, Ministers and places of worship are to be maintained and protected' it became a dead letter. The Christian Missionaries outdid in violating the very meaning of the agreement by canvassing for Christianity and proselytiaing the Buddhist people with the ulterior motive of destabilizing Buddhism. But during the last stages this country was fortunate that a Savior was born in far distant America to resuscitate the dying embers of our Buddhist Education. He was Sri Lanka's best known and loved American Col. Henry Steele Olcott. His image was glittering in Sri Lankan eyes for his faith and admiration of the Sinhalese race and their religion. But remarkable above everything else was his simple and unconditional acceptance of the Word, Wisdom of the Buddha.
His enthusiasm once again kindled a desire and hope among the people of this country to revive their interest and love for their religion, language and customs, as Christian education had engulfed Buddhist education which had flourished for over 2000 years from the time of the Sinhalese Monarchs who were themselves of great renown and excelled in language, poetry, medicine and agriculture.
Col. Olcott was born in New Jersey, U.S.A. on 2nd. August 1832. He was a bright scholar and taking up Law, he had a lucrative practice. He served in the American Civil War in 1861 and was wounded. He wrote and published a book 'People of the Other World' by which he became well known and as a result he met Madam Blavatsky and became friends, which lasted a life time. This Lady made him interested in Eastern Religions, especially Buddhism and they both were instrumental in forming The Theosophical Society of New York in the year 1875. In 1878 he visited India with Madam Blavatsky and in 1880 came to Sri Lanka and arrived in the country at Galle. It was there at Parananda Viharaya at Minuwangoda he embraced Buddhism on administration of 'Pan Sill' by Rev. Bulathgama Sri Sumanatissa Medalankara Thero. Col. Olcott was induced to come to Sri Lanka having heard about the Great Public Debate at Panadura in August 1873 between the Buddhists headed by the famous Migettuwatte Gunananda Thero and Rev. David de Silva representing the Christians on controversies in the two religions, Buddhism and Christianity. The results of this Debate was published in the American Press.
At this time all Catholics and Protestants were concerned with the elimination of Buddhism in the country and make Sri Lanka a home for Christianity. In this endeavour both Forms concentrated on schools by engaging converted Christian teachers, (Palliyeguru) and enlarging the followers of their religion.
Col. Olcott, a man of vision and energy managed to tap the spirit of the people and the places he worked in that his actions and views greatly influenced subsequent developments and resurgence in Buddhist Education. At the time Col. Olcott visited Sri Lanka in 1880, the country was steeped in denudation in respect of our culture, religion and education. According to the Western mind of both Denominations, the Catholics and the Protestants, the people of other Faiths were 'heathens' that had to be herded into the Christian faith.
Although the majority of the people in Sri Lanka were Buddhists, there were no Buddhsit schools or Pirivenas, besides two Pirivenas, Vidyaloka and Vidyalankara. There were only 142 Buddhist schools while the Christian schools numbered over a thousand. The conquerors Portuguese, Dutch and English had induced the Sinhalese to adopt foreign religion, Christianity by spending enormous amounts of money on intense Christian activity characterized in haughtiness towards other religions that the inroads of these Western powers had sunk the affairs of the country to its lowest depths. Col. Olcott was highly motivated in seeing this great injustice and used his unstinted energy to revive Buddhism and Buddhist Education in the country. As a result all prominent people and the Buddhist Monks rallied round him to fight for the rights of the Buddhist people by commencing educating children in the Buddhist way of life. He founded the Buddhist Theosophical Society with the whole-hearted support and co-operation of the patriotic Buddhist public and erudite monks such as Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala and Dodanduwe Piyaratana Maha Thero, who himself came from a Christian background. He fought for the rights of the Buddhists and on several occasions visited England to represent matters to the British Government on behalf of them, whereby he was able to declare Wesak Day as a public holiday. Born in 1864, Anagarika Dharmapala was only a young boy at the time Col. Olcott came to Sri Lanka. In later years Anagarika Dharmapala was an acknowledged Buddhist Leader and addressed the 'World Congess of Buddhists' in U.S.A. in 1893. He fought to safeguard the lost heritage of the Buddhists. The presence of Col. Olcott was a great impetus to him in his work that his relationship with Col. Olcott is well known. Col. Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala travelled from village to village on foot or by bullock cart encouraging and teaching the people to adhere to Buddhism, their mother religion.
It was Col. Olcott who was inspired by divine guidance to design a Flag for the Buddhists, resembling the colours of 'Budu Res' or Halo round Lord Buddha's head. This Flag is now adopted by all Buddhists throughout the world as a symbol of Buddhism.
For the resurgence of Buddhism, Col. Olcott started by establishing Buddhist Schools all over the island. It was the beginning of a new chapter in the history of education in our island. Prominent people and the Buddhist public joined hands with the Great Colonel to fight for the rights of the Buddhist public by commencing educating of children in the Buddhist way of life and which had for centuries been trampled and curbed by foreigners. Among schools that Col. Olcott started were Ananda College, Colombo, Mahinda College, Galle and Dharmaraja College, Kandy. Musaeus College for girls was also started in Colombo, headed by Mrs. Musaeus Higgins, a German lady married to an American.
Schools were manned by foreigners imbibed in the Buddhist Faith. The name of Col. Olcott is associated with many a leading school in the island.
Tamil Separatism and the 'Thimpu Principles'
By kamalika Pieris
At the Thimpu talks held in Bhutan in 1985, the Tamil delegation consisting of TULF, LTTE, PLOTE, EROS, and EPRLF issued the following statement:'It is our considered view that any meaningful solution to the Tamil national question must be based on the following four cardinal principles:
1. Recognition of the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a nation.
2. Recognition of the existence of an identified homeland for Tamils in Sri Lanka.
3. Recognition of the right of self-determination of the Tamil nations.
4. Recognition of the right to citizenship and the fundamental rights of all Tamils who look upon the island as their country.'
Let us examine each of these four assertions.
'Tamils of Sri Lanka are a nation'
The concept of 'nation' used by the Tamil separatist movement is borrowed from the west. In the west the word 'nation' was used to form the sovereign states of Europe as we know them today. But the word is also used by ethnic groups within these sovereign states, in their demands for autonomy, self rule, and secession. Anthony. D. Smith dates this eruption of ethnic conflicts, and assertions of 'nationhood' to the 1950s. (Smith p 20.) Smith declares 'Nowhere has the ethnic revival occasioned more surprise than in its European heartlands, and nowhere has there been such a proliferation of ethnic movements in the last two decades.' He gives the following incomplete list of European communities who seek autonomy: Scots, Welsh, Breton, Corsican, Basque, Catalan, Flemish, Ulster, Tyrolese, Croat, Slovak, Greek, Cypriot, Maltese, Quebecois, Jurassien, Galicians, Andalusian, Cornish, Manx, Faroese, Shetlanders, Channel Islanders, Frisians, Gelderlanders, Walloons, Sardinians, Sicilians, Slovenes, Alsations, Occitanians, Bavarian, Lithuanians, Czechas, Poles, Bulgarians, Armenians. (Anthony. D. Smith. 'The Ethnic Revival' 1981, p 13,69, 163) I have given this long list to indicate the extent of the phenomenon in Europe.
The vast contemporary literature on ethnic movements in Europe is due essentially to the importance of such movements in Europe. Think of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the mess in Bosnia-Serbia-Yugoslavia-Kosovo. Certain academics have selected the ethnic movements as their field of specialisation, and have provided various theories about them. Writers such as Kedourie, Gellner, Connor and A. D. Smith belong to this category. Their explanation as to ethnic movements in Europe are based on the weaknesses of the industrial society, and the centralised political state. These analysis are not relevant to Sri Lanka.
However, their analysis of the various strategies used by these ethnic movements, is extremely relevant. I will indicate why later. These writers have attempted to outline the various strategies used by the European ethnic groups to obtain power. They point out that modern ethnic nationalisms have had to ground their aspirations in arguments appealing to general principles like popular sovereignty, inalienable rights and cultural diversity. (Smith p xiii) They refer to the utilisation of 'culture markers' particularly language. Smith says 'One of nationalisms abiding myths is the identification of nationality with language.' He traces this myth to the 18 century notions of the emotional power of language developed in France and Germany. (Smith p 45) Smith further points out that in most cases, the notion of ethnic identity was created by the intellectuals of that ethnic group. The masses generally did not generate ethnic movements. The intellectuals did. (Smith p 68) Smith further observes that ethnic communities usually 'possess' a recognised territory, with which they are habitually associated. Ethnic groups also often display a jealous and deep rooted attachment to particular areas or regions within one or more plural states. 'A nation without its homeland is almost unthinkable'. (Smith p 63)
All this will sound very familiar to Sri Lankan public, who have listened to these arguments by the Tamil separatist movement, over and over again. It will be apparent now that the Tamil separatist movement has borrowed all of its assertions from the European cases. The ideology of the Tamil separatist movement is totally devoid of any original ideas. They simply use the European arguments, and their terminology. Virtually all the words and phrases used come from the west. This includes statements as to the 'right to be different', the need to express 'identity.' These European movements, are defined by Antony, D. Smith as a 'Social group whose members share a sense of common origin, claim a common and distinctive history and destiny, possess one or more distinctive characteristics, and feel a sense of collective uniqueness and solidarity' (Smith p 66) The Tamil separatist assertions are built around these variables.
This concept of a 'nation' is relatively new in Europe. Not more than 200 years old. On the other hand, a different concept of 'nation' in terms of an independent, sovereign state, has been in existence for centuries in Asia. Asia developed centralised, monarchical states very early on, approximately around 4. B. C. Sri Lanka was recognised as one such sovereign, independent state from very early on. It sent an embassy to Rome. Other Asian countries, such as China, Burma, India recognised the monarch in Sri Lanka.
After the South Indian invasions of the 10th to 13 century, Sri Lanka again emerged as a 'nation'. The area under the actual control of the consecrated king got smaller and smaller, and half a dozen people were ruling at the same time, in different parts of the island, but the concept of a single consecrated king yet remained. Buvanekabahu I (1272-84) once sent a message to the Sultan of Egypt, offering to trade with pearls, elephants etc. He stated that the pearl fishery in Mannar was his, when in fact the Arya Chakravarti King of Jaffna had got hold of the fisheries at the time. (Gunasinghe. 'The political history of YapahuwaÉ P 76-77). The Portugese got the Kotte king consecrated in Portugal, but did not do the same for the king in Jaffna. Portugal, Netherlands, and Britain were obliged to recognize the Sri Lanka king, though he was usually holed up in segment of the island.
The Tamils of Sri Lanka were not a 'nation' in the Asian sense of a political state. The Kingdom of Jaffna was too small, too shortlived, and too weak to sustain such an idea. Also the western concept of Tamils as a 'nation' clashes with the Asian concept of Sri Lanka as a 'nation'. It is not possible to have a 'nation' within another 'nation'.
Now let us return to the European concept of 'nation'. E. J. Hobsbaum has taken a critical and mildly sarcastic look at the concept as it functioned in Europe, in his book 'Nations and nationalism since 1780' (1990). He points out that the word 'nation' belongs to one period of European history. Its use in the modern political sense is quite new (p18). Initially it was held that self determination could only apply to viable units, and that a nation should be of a certain optimum size, so that it could enjoy the economic benefits of a large state. This was known as the 'threshold principle' (p 31). Nation building was seen as a process of expansion, not contraction into divisive small units (p 33). Initially, the 'nation states' of Europe, such as Britain, France, and Spain were heterogeneous. They were multilingual, multiethnic, because in Europe, the people were utterly mixed and it was impossible to unscramble them. This was due to various invasions of tribes from Scandinavia and West Asia in medieval times. Thus Mazzini remarked, after the Unification of Italy, 'We have made Italy, now we must make Italians'. Pilsudski, the Polish leader said that it is the state which makes the nation, not the other way round (p 44). And during this time, around 1870, many small communal groups sought assimilation into the 'nation state' (p 93).
Hobsbaum looks at the definition of a 'nation'. He points out that the word is today used so widely and imprecisely that a definition is difficult. He says the objective definitions have failed, since they do not include all cases. The subjective definitions are worse. Therefore, it is not clear as to how we distinguish a 'nation'. Criteria given are usually common language, common territory, common history and common culture. Hobsbaum states that the best known of all the available definitions is perhaps that of Stalin, written in 1912. 'A nation is a historically evolved, stable, community of language, territory, economic life, and psychological make up manifested in a community of culture' (p 5). Hobsbaum points out that the criteria used, such as language, ethnicity, etc. are themselves fuzzy, shifting and ambiguous, and useless for the purpose (p 6).
In Europe, national movements were first of all simply cultural, literary and folkloristic. Then they turned into a political campaign, and thereafter into a mass movement. In the process the word 'nation' was used in all sorts of different ways. One of which was to equate it with the democratic ideals of the American and French nations specially after the French Revolution expounded its principles in 1789.
The words 'National question' came up with the break up of the Austro-Hungary Empire and the Ottoman Empire, prior to 1914. Further, a practice of having a national census at state level was begun after 1853. It was decided to include questions on an individual's nationality, language, and race in this national census, thus further emphasising these variables (P 101).
Colonial movements picked up the language of European nationalism. 'The leaders and ideologues of colonial and semi-colonial liberation movements sincerely spoke the language of European nationalism, which they had so often learned from the west, even when it did not suit their situation. And as the radicalism of the Russian Revolution took over from that of the French Revolution as the main ideology of global emancipation, the right to self-determination, now embodied in Stalin's texts, reached those who had been beyond the range of Mazzini. Liberation in the Third World was now seen everywhere as 'national liberation' or among the Marxists, 'national and social liberation'' (P 136).
The post colonial 'nation state' is a very central and powerful factor in its people's lives. Hobsbaum says ethnic and language communities, that is; cultural groups, are resentful of the homogenised, standardised tendencies of the centralised state, with its emphasis on macro-economic planning. Hobsbaum concludes his review of nations and nationalisms by pointing out that has in the late 20th century, the concept of nations been overtaken by the idea of regions, and supra national groupings like the European community (p 182).
It will be clear now, that the Tamil separatist idea of a 'nation' is heavily based on the European one. It has borrowed arguments such as the centralised state, central economic planning in its current propoganda. Infact, every phrase uttered by the Tamil separatist movement can be found in the western texts. They have read them carefully, and borrowed heavily.
E. J. Hobsbaum's book 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780' has benefited from discussion with other scholars. Hobsbaum specially singles out Kumari Jayewardene and the other South Asian Scholars at the World Institute for Development Economic in Helsinki (WIDER). Pvii) His references for the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka are: Kumari Jayewardene's 'Ethnic and class conflicts in Sri Lanka'. Uyangoda's 'Reinterpreting Tamil and Sinhala nationalism', R. N. Kearney's 'Ethnic conflicts and Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka', Sunil Bastian's 'University admission' and Charles Abeysekera's 'Ethnic representation in the state services' both published in the book 'Ethnicity and Social Change in Sri Lanka' issued by Social Scientists Association (p 153, 158). Eide points out that the Vienna Declaration confirms the UN position given in 1966 and 1970. The UN is firm on its stand that it will not advocate the dismemberment of sovereign states which are member states of the UN. Eide makes the following observation regards the Vienna Declaration. The sovereign state should possess a government which represents the people in the territory without distinction of any kind.
'If members of a group living either compectly together in an administrative unit of the State or dispersed within the territory of a sovereign State claim that the State is not possessed of a Government representing the whole people without distinction, this claim can be examined at the international level, either by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in connection with its examination of the State's report, since discrimination in political rights on ethnic grounds is covered by the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, article 5, or by the Human Rights Committee. If the State is a member of the Council of Europe, it could also be addressed under article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with protocol 1. In such cases, the remedy will have to be that the discrimination is brought to an end and that the Government is made truly representative, by allowing for participation in the political process on a basis of equality of all members of the group.
'Only if the representatives of the group concerned can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no prospect within the foreseeable future that the Government will become representative of the whole people, can it be entitled to demand and to receive support for a quest for independence. If it can be shown that the majority is pursuing a policy of genocide against the group, this must be seen as very strong support for the claim of independence. The mere fact of there being ethnic violence between the majority and minority does not prove that there is an intent to destroy the group as such, in whole or in part. Even if there was, it would still have to be shown that the majority side was more responsible than the minority for the acts of violence taking place. Unfortunately, when violence has reached such levels, there is at present no machinery at the international level to which the aggrieved party can turn for an impartial finding.
'Special problems arise when a part of the settled residents of the country having an ethnic linguistic or religious identity different from that of the majority is denied citizenship. This effectively blocks that group from participating in the political processes and could be a strong indicator that the Government is not representative of the whole people. In this situation also however, the primary effort should be to ensure that they obtain citizenship, rather than secession.
'New States can of course still emerge through the peaceful and consensual subdivision of existing sovereign States. Borders can also be changed by agreement between the parties, obtained without duress. There is, however, no unilateral right under international law for groups to obtain such subdivision or border changes except under the conditions mentioned above. Changes arising from peaceful negotiations, free of acts of aggression or external intervention, are obviously in conformity with international law.
'The United Nations has not closed its door. Yet if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and economic well-being for all would become ever more difficult to achieve...The sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of States within the established international system, and the principle of self-determination for peoples, both of great value and importance, must not be permitted to work against each other in the period ahead. Respect for democratic principles at all levels of social existence is crucial: in communities, within States and within the community of States. Our constant duty should be to maintain the integrity of each while finding a balanced design for all.'
 |