Sathyam Commentary
12 September 2006
Black Pebbles & White Pebbles
"...Sometimes, the Tamil response to
the international community, takes on the characteristics of the
teen age girl's response in the pebble story. It seems that we avoid confronting the international community
for fear of provoking its ire.
We avoid seeking an open dialogue with the international community on
its own strategic imperatives and the true rationale for its actions. We
resort to subterfuge. We say that
our way is the 'anuku murai' - the diplomatic way to 'approach' issues.
We claim that this is the effective way. But has this 'anuku murai'
succeeded? Again the result of not calling a spade a spade is that
we confuse our own people. We confuse our people by leading them to
believe that the international community is without sufficient
'cleverness' to respond to our subterfuge with
its own subterfuge and advance its own agenda. We confuse our people by
leading them to believe that all that needs to be done is to wake up the
international community to the facts and the justice of our cause and
all will be well. This is the
limitation of our discourse. It is a limitation that we need to
transcend. Diplomacy may be the art of lying without getting caught but
a struggle for freedom is not..."
Some three decades ago,
Edward De Bono
related a story in his book on the
Use of Lateral Thinking. The story went something like this -
"Many years ago when a
person who owed money could be thrown into jail, a merchant in London
had the misfortune to owe a huge sum to a money lender. The
money lender, who was old and ugly, fancied the merchant's beautiful
teenage daughter. He proposed a bargain. He said he would cancel the
merchant's debt if he could have the girl instead.
Both the merchant and
his daughter were horrified at the proposal. So the cunning money lender
proposed that they let Providence decide the matter. He told them that
he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty moneybag
and then the girl would have to pick out one of the pebbles. If she
chose the black pebble she would become his wife and her father's debt
would be cancelled. If she chose the white pebble she would stay with
her father and the debt would still be cancelled. But if she refused to
pick out a pebble her father would be thrown into jail and she would
starve.
Reluctantly the
merchant agreed. They were standing on a pebble strewn path in the
merchant's garden as they talked and the moneylender stooped down to
pick up the two pebbles. As he picked up the pebbles the girl,
sharp eyed with fright, noticed that he picked up two black pebbles and
put them into the moneybag. He then asked the girl to pick out the
pebble that was to decide her fate and that of her father.
Imagine that you are
standing on that path in the merchant's garden. What would you have done
if you had been the unfortunate girl? If you had had to advise her what
would you have advised her to do?
What type of thinking would you use to solve the problem ? You may
believe that careful logical analysis must solve the problem if there is
a solution. This type of thinking is straight forward vertical thinking.
The other type of thinking is lateral thinking.
Vertical thinkers are not usually of much help to a girl in this
situation. The way they analyse it; there are three possibilities:
1. The girl should
refuse to take a pebble.
2. The girl should show that there are two black pebbles in the bag and
expose the money lender as a cheat.
3. The girl should take a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to
save her father from prison.
None of the suggestions is very helpful, for if the girl does not take a
pebble her father goes to prison, and if she does take a pebble, then
she has to marry the money lender.
The girl in the pebble
story put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without
looking at it she fumbled and let it fall to the path where it was
immediately lost among all the others. 'Oh, how clumsy of me,' she said,
'but never mind if you look into the bag you will be able to tell
which pebble I took by the colour of the one that is left.' Since the remaining
pebble is of course black, it must be assumed that she has taken the
white pebble, since the moneylender dare not admit his dishonesty.
The story shows the difference between vertical thinking and lateral
thinking. Vertical thinkers are concerned with the fact that the girl
has to take a pebble. Lateral thinkers become concerned with the pebble
that is left behind. Vertical thinkers take the most reasonable view of
a situation and then proceed logically and carefully to work it out.
Lateral thinkers tend to explore all the different ways of looking at
something, rather than accepting the most promising and proceeding from
that."
De Bono was right to use the story to
illustrate the value of lateral thinking. But, the story is of interest
for other reasons as well. The crux of the matter was that girl's subterfuge succeeded
because 'the
moneylender dare not admit his dishonesty'. The moneylender
was evil. The moneylender was a cheat. However, even cheats who
are intent on securing their evil objectives, dare not admit to their dishonesty, because
they fear that to do so,
may erode their power and authority in the public eye.
But, it is here that several
questions arise in relation to the 'pebble' story. Why did not the girl
taken the second option and confront the merchant and tell him that she had seen him cheat - and have the courage to face the
consequences? Her martyrdom may have laid the foundations for a more just
society. Again, why did not the girl launch a Gandhian style campaign and
mobilise the people against the evil merchant - and campaign for a change in
an iniquitous law? By adopting a subterfuge to
defeat the merchant's subterfuge, had the girl herself become a cheat? Did
she then grow up to believe that a clever subterfuge will get her out of difficult
situations?
Again, what if the equally
sharp eyed evil
merchant (sharp eyed not with fright but with cunning) had seen through the
girl's subterfuge, and the merchant himself 'clumsily' dropped the other
pebble as he was taking it out of the bag and then insisted on replaying the
so called
'providential' game afresh? The short point that the De Bono story
misses is that there may be no end to the 'subterfuge' process.
Sometimes, the Tamil response to
the international community, takes on the characteristics of the
teen age girl's response in the pebble story. It seems that we avoid confronting the international community
for fear of provoking its ire.
We avoid seeking an open dialogue with the international community on
its own strategic imperatives and the true rationale for its actions. We
resort to subterfuge. We say that
our way is the 'anuku murai' - the diplomatic way to 'approach' issues.
We claim that this is the effective way. But has this 'anuku murai'
succeeded? Again the result of not calling a spade a spade is that we
confuse our own people. We confuse our people by leading them to believe
that the international community is
without sufficient 'cleverness' to respond to our subterfuge with
its own subterfuge and advance its own agenda. We confuse our people by
leading them to believe that all that needs to be done is to wake up the
international community to the facts and to the justice of our cause and all
will be well. This is the limitation of our discourse. It is a
limitation that we need to transcend. Diplomacy may be the art of lying
without getting caught but a struggle for freedom is not.
Mamanithar Dharmeretnam Sivaram
remarked three years ago in 2003 -
"..Today it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that India and the US-UK-Japan
Bloc are trying to influence and manage Sri Lanka's peace process to promote
and consolidate their respective strategic and economic interests... America may be the mightiest nation on the earth today but that cannot
detract an iota from
our right to live with honour, dignity and freedom in
the land of our fore bears. It cannot for a moment make us give up an inch
of our lands to help India or the US Bloc stabilise the Sri Lankan state for
the sole purpose of furthering their strategic and economic interests...
From 1983 to 86, it was taboo among Tamils to
propagate the truth that India
was exploiting their cause to gain a foothold in Sri Lanka. The few who
dared to speak about India's hegemonistic designs were admonished not to be
too rash lest we provoke Delhi's ire and cause a disruption in the weapons
handouts by the RAW....The price the Tamil liberation movement as a whole had to pay for not
educating the people about the truth of India's intentions was high.
At this juncture, even a doddering dullard would find the deja vu inescapable...The Tamil nation cannot afford to make the same mistake again...
"
And Veluppillai Pirabakaran said some
10 years before that -
"...We
are fully aware that the world is not rotating
on the axis of human justice. Every country in
this world advances its own interests. It is the
economic and trade interests that determine the
order of the present world, not the moral law of
justice nor the rights of people.
International relations and diplomacy between
countries are determined by such interests.
Therefore we cannot expect an immediate
recognition of the moral legitimacy of our cause
by the international community... The world is
constantly changing and there will be unexpected changes. At a
particular conjuncture the international situation might change
favourably to us. At that time, the conscience of the world will be
conducive to the call of our just cause... In reality, the
success of our struggle depends on us, not on the world. Our success
depends on our own efforts, on our own strength, on our own
determination..."
Velupillai Pirabakaran, Maha
Veera Naal Address - November 1993
The world is not rotating on the axis of human
justice. Like the money lender in the pebble
story who was well aware of the justice of the girl's plea, the international community
also is well aware
of the
legitimacy of the struggle of people of Tamil Eelam for freedom from
alien Sinhala rule. They are not stupid. The international community knows
well that they cannot openly justify the rule
of the Tamil people by a permanent alien Sinhala majority
within the confines of a single state. The international community
knows well that the Gandhian leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam was right
when he
declared in February 1975 -
"Throughout the ages the Sinhalese and Tamils in the country lived as distinct
sovereign people till they were brought under foreign domination. It should be remembered
that the Tamils were in the vanguard of the struggle for independence in the full
confidence that they also will regain their freedom.
We have
for the last 25 years made every effort to secure our political rights on the basis of
equality with the Sinhalese in a united Ceylon. It is a regrettable fact that successive Sinhalese governments have used the
power that flows from independence
to deny us our fundamental
rights and reduce us to the position of a subject people. These
governments have been able to do so only by using against the Tamils the
sovereignty common to the Sinhalese and the Tamils. I wish to announce to my people and to the country that I consider the verdict at
this election as a mandate that the
Tamil Eelam nation
should exercise the sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and become free."
Statement by
S.J.V.Chelvanayakam
Q.C. M.P. ,
leader of the Tamil United Liberation Front, 7 February 1975
But concerned with
stabilising the Sri Lankan state for the sole purpose of furthering their own
strategic and economic interests, the international community pretends to be
unaware of the justice of the struggle of the Tamil people. They are not
asleep. They pretend to
be asleep. And therefore, for Tamils to respond
to the international community on the basis that it is all a question of waking up the
international community to the facts and to the justice of our cause is to act out a surreal
dream drama.
Let us take one recent example - the
European Union listing of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation. Predictably there was no shortage of editorials, press releases, interviews,
petitions and appeals by Tamils which questioned
- the EU's 'profound lack of understanding of the dynamics' of the conflict;
-
the EU's 'failure to recall the full sequence of events that led Sri Lanka out of
war and into peace';
-
the EU's 'statist disdain for armed non-state actors'.
- the EU's decision as 'extremely harsh, unfair, untimely and one-sided'
- the EU's decision as being 'ill-timed and premature'
- the EU's decision being the handiwork
of a Sri Lankan origin British MEP
and that the MEPs who had voted for EU Parliamentary Resolution did not 'know the effects of the tricks of the Sri Lankan government and
its propaganda machine'
But all these writings avoid engaging the EU in a
dialogue about the EU's own strategic interests and the real motivations
behind the EU action. They perpetuate
the myth that the EU is a disinterested good Samaritan motivated simply with
bringing peace to a troubled island - a good Samaritan, lacking the
understanding that we have and misled by a skilful
Sri Lanka propaganda machine. It was in the same way that during the 1983-86
period our writings perpetuated the myth that New Delhi was a disinterested
good Samaritan without its own strategic interests in the Indian region.
Let us examine each of the reasons suggested for the EU decision in turn.
Was the EU decision due to a 'profound lack of understanding of the dynamics' of the conflict?
The Sri Lanka - Tamil Eelam conflict is one of the most researched conflicts
in the world. The EU has had the benefit of the research carried out by its
own Ministries (and intelligence services) and has had access to the research of US think tanks and US
government resources. The EU is well aware of the
documented record of ethnic cleansing. Does anybody seriously suggest that the EU decision
was taken without a sophisticated understanding of the issues involved? Or
did the EU take the decision it did, at the time that it did,
because it had a truly profound understanding of the 'dynamics' of the
conflict and it was intent on
stabilising the Sri Lankan state for the sole purpose of furthering its own
strategic and economic interests?
Again was the EU decision due to a 'failure to recall the full sequence of events that led Sri Lanka out of
war and into peace'? Or was the decision taken because the EU did recall
only too well the full sequence of events that led to the LTTE controlling
parts of the Tamil homeland and the EU was now intent on preventing the LTTE
from consolidating and extending that control?
Further was the EU decision due to some sort of generalised 'statist disdain for armed non-state actors'?
Did the EU have the same 'statist disdain' in the case of Croatia? Or
for that matter in the case of Latvia, Lithuania and the Ukraine? Or
was the EU decision directed not by some generalised 'statist disdain'
but by specific strategic concerns (that it shares with the US) in relation to the Indian region?
As to the view that the EU decision was 'extremely harsh, unfair,
untimely and one-sided', was Indian National Security adviser
Jyotindra Nath Dixit
right when he declared
that 'inter-state relations are not governed by the logic of
morality' and that 'they were and they remain an amoral phenomenon.'
Is it real to suggest that the EU
will act fairly (or be multi partial) at the expense of its own strategic
interests and is there not a need to openly examine the nature and content
of those interests?
Let us now turn to the other reason that has been suggested for the EU
ban i.e. that
MEPs who had voted for EU Parliamentary Resolution somehow did not 'know
the effects of the tricks of the Sri Lankan government and its
propaganda machine'. Is it being suggested that MEPs who had voted
for the Resolution and who came from many different political parties were
simpletons who were blinded by the brilliance and cleverness of Sri Lanka's
propaganda machine? Or was it that the European Parliamentary Resolution simply set
the stage for the EU decision that was to follow and that these decisions
were not taken lightly but after much consideration? And was it that the EU
was mindful of the
lessons learned in Vietnam and Algiers when
Governments failed to quell liberation movements despite having recourse to
superior arms and resources?
"The French Chief of Staff Andre Beaufre wrote about his own experience
in
Algeria and Vietnam in his 1973 German-language book 'Die Revolutionierung des Kriegsbildes': 'The surprising success of the decolonization wars can only be explained by the
following: The weak seem to have defeated the strong, but actually just the reverse was
true from a moral point of view, which brings us to the conclusion that
limited wars are primarily fought on the field of morale.' In order for... states to quickly and effectively wipe out "revolt", which
could get out of hand despite technical superiority (read: better weapons) due to
the political and moral convictions of the mass movement,
it is necessary to make comprehensive analyses early on and to take
effective action in the psychological arena... Ever since the U.S. Defence Department organised the first ever World Wide Psyops
Conference in 1963 and the first NATO Symposium On Defence Psychology in Paris in 1960,
many NATO leaders and several scientists have been working in the field of psychological
counter-insurgency methods (cf. the detailed reports and analyses of P. Watson,
Psycho -War: Possibilities, Power, And The Misuse Of Military Psychology, Frankfurt 1985,
p.25ff.). The central aim of this defence approach is to destroy the morale of
the insurgent movement ...
Defaming the insurgents as "terrorists" and punishing them accordingly -
thereby ignoring
international law concerning the rights of people in war - is a
particularly useful means."
Michael Schubert 'On Liberation Movements
And The Rights Of Peoples',1992
The Tamil response in relation to the EU ban is only one illustration of a
more
general malaise. For several years before the EU ban, we credited Foreign
Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar with having skilfully persuaded the US and the
UK to ban the LTTE. If Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar had been alive
at the time of the EU ban, we would have credited him with having engineered
the EU ban as well. But decisions about listing organisations as terrorist
are not taken by the US or the UK on the basis of the persuasive diplomacy
(and the Oxford Union debating skills)
of the Foreign Minister of a small state in the Indian region. They are
taken on the basis that they further the strategic interests of the
concerned countries.
Hopefully sufficient has been said to show that not much is gained by
Tamils adopting the 'anuku murai' of the teen age girl in the pebble story.
Indeed, after these many years, it should be self evident by now that it is
an approach that has signally failed to deliver. Here,
the words of Professor John P.Neelsen
in April this year merit our attention -
"...In the context of today’s pre-dominance of the international
system the parties to any conflict whether between states or within
a country have to fight on two fronts: the one on the ground, the
other in the field of world public opinion. Despite national news
agencies and increasingly powerful regional media, such as Al
Jazeera, it remains so far essentially Western. A war can be won on
the battlefield by force of arms, and still be lost on the second
front, when it is not presented (and considered) as just and worthy
of backing, including financial and military support, by the Western
media (and their public). Whether or not, the LTTE agreed to pursue
internal self-determination merely as a ploy to turn world public
opinion in its favour betting that the GOSL would never consent to
any meaningful compromise: the strategy has failed, even though the
basic assumptions proved absolutely correct. Yet, despite continued
intransigence on the part of Colombo, neither the Western media nor
their public nor the occidental governments have changed sides. On
the contrary, after initial sympathy, governments have not only
simply taken this major concession for granted, but have sharpened
their criticism of the LTTE..."
International Seminar:
Envisioning New Trajectories for Peace in Sri Lanka
Zurich, Switzerland 7 - 9 April 2006
Why is it that 'despite continued intransigence on the part of Colombo,
neither the Western media nor their public nor the occidental governments
have changed sides'? The answer is not that the Tamil people have failed in
their 'public relations' exercise. The answer is that the members of the international
community are not disinterested good Samaritans concerned with securing
justice for the Tamil people and bringing peace to a troubled island. Each
member of the international community is concerned with stabilising Sri
Lanka in such a way as to secure its own strategic interest in the Indian
region and the Indian Ocean.
But, that is not to say that the best laid plans of men and mice may not go astray. The international community may
not be unmindful of something which
Sardar K.M.Pannikar,
Indian Ambassador to China from 1948 to 1952, and later Vice
Chancellor, Mysore University said in Principles and Practice of Diplomacy
fifty years ago -
"...Foreign Ministers and diplomats presumably understand the permanent interests of
their country.. But no one can foresee clearly the effects of even very simple facts as
they pertain to the future. The Rajah of Cochin who in his resentment against the Zamorin permitted the Portuguese
to establish a trading station in his territories could not foresee that thereby he had
introduced into India something which was to alter the course of history. Nor could the German authorities, who, in their anxiety to create confusion and chaos
in Russia, permitted a sealed train to take Lenin and his associates across German
territory, have foreseen what forces they were unleashing. To them the necessity of the
moment was an utter breakdown of Russian resistance and to send Lenin there seemed a
superior act of wisdom... "
More recent examples may include the support given by the US to the
Taliban in the
Afghan war against the Soviet Union and the support given by the US to Saddam Hussein in
the Iraq war against Iran. But then that may be another matter.
The
annexures to the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord reflected
some of the countervailing interests of
India and the United States in 1987. That
was twenty years ago. Since then much has happened but not much has changed.
Today,
US foreign policy
is directed to build on its current position as the
sole surviving super power and secure a
unipolar world
(with a 'multi polar perspective' -
a la Condoleezza Rice) for the foreseeable
future. And this means, amongst other matters,
preventing the rise of independent regional hegemons. On the
other hand, the
central plank of
New Delhi's foreign policy is to deny any
independent intermediary role to extra regional
powers in the affairs of the Indian region and also
to further the
emergence of a multi lateral world. In
this latter objective, New Delhi may count on the
'calibrated' support of the
European Union,
Russia,
China
and Iran amongst others.
Given the difference in the end goals that US and India
have, it should not be surprising if
the policies of the United States and
New Delhi in relation to Sri Lanka and the LTTE are not always congruent. But that is not to
say that the United States will not cooperate with
India. It will. It will seek to cooperate 'as a super power' - and
the US believes that it has sufficient instruments in its
armoury to do just that. One
such instrument is the
Norwegian
sponsored Peace Process. This may explain the consistently
enthusiastic support that the Peace process has received from the United
States and the more muted (and calibrated) support from India.
This may also help us understand the
covert operations of RAW
in Tamil areas in the island of Sri Lanka and the material support
extended by India to Sinhala governments and Sri Lanka political
parties. In the 1980s, RAW gave covert material and financial support to
the Tamil militants to secure the same end - Indian hegemony
in the Indian Ocean region. It appears that New Delhi's interests remain permanent,
though its 'friends' may have changed from time to time.
Having said that, today, the US and India may find common cause in
'weakening' the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom (and the LTTE) - but weaken it in such a way that thereafter each of
them may
successfully jockey (against each other) for position and influence in the
Indian Ocean region. The 'weakening' in this
context means the isolation and annihilation of Velupillai Pirabakaran and securing an
LTTE under a 'reformed' leadership. B Raman,
Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat,
Government of India, New Delhi, and, presently,
Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and
distinguished fellow and convener, Observer Research
Foundation, Chennai Chapter spelt out New Delhi's
own 'legitimate' aspiration an year ago -
" I have been repeatedly writing that the Sri Lankan
Tamils need an LTTE minus Prabakaran and that if the LTTE throws him out
and gives up terrorism, India and Sri Lanka should be prepared to do
business with it. Without the protective role of the LTTE, the Tamils
would be at the mercy of the Sinhalese chauvinists. Statesmanship
demands that the Sri Lankan leaders should work for such a denouement
through special gestures to the Tamils and the other leaders of the
LTTE."
South Asia Analysis Group, New Delhi, Paper No. 1217, January 10, 2005
Raman's concern to protect the Tamil people from
Sinhala chauvinism
would have been heart warming but for the grim reality of the New Delhi
sponsored
comic opera of the 1988 Provincial Councils which showed the extent of New
Delhi's willingness to appease Sinhala chauvinism and sacrifice Tamil
interests in the altar of
its own strategic interests.
The political reality is that, on the one hand, the US is mindful that it was after all President Jayawardene's 'growing togetherness' with the US which
led to New Delhi's support of
the Tamil militant movement in the early 1980s. At that time the US
kept its oars in Tamil waters with efforts such as hoisting the Eelam
flag in the State of Massachusetts. Today, the same US continues to speak of the 'legitimate
aspirations' of the Tamil people. On the other
hand, New Delhi has no desire to lose its ability to play the 'Tamil card' to keep Sri Lanka
in line in the years to come - even after the successful annihilation of Velupillai Pirabakaran
and the weakening of the LTTE. And so New Delhi too proclaims ad nauseam
that they are concerned to secure the 'legitimate aspirations' of the
Tamil people. Additionally it builds its own network amongst dissident
Tamils both in Sri Lanka and abroad to propagate its interests. It is within the interstices of this international frame
that the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam to be free from alien Sinhala
rule continues under conditions of excruciating agony and suffering .
And it is this same international frame which Sinhala Sri Lanka seeks to
use to continue its genocidal onslaught on the Tamil people. As for Professor Neelson's comments about the continued
support of the 'western media' for Sri Lanka, it is
not a matter for surprise that the western media broadly follows the
political stance of the ruling establishments in the western
world. The notion of a
'liberal' news media is
an enduring and influential political myth -
"...The notion of a “liberal” national news media is one of the
most enduring and influential political myths...the larger fallacy of the
“liberal media” argument is the idea that reporters and mid-level editors
set the editorial agenda at their news organizations.
In reality, most journalists have about as much say over what is presented
by newspapers and TV news programs as factory workers and foremen have over
what a factory manufactures. That is not to say factory workers
have no input in their company’s product: they can make suggestions and
ensure the product is professionally built. But top executives have a much
bigger say in what gets produced and how. The news business is essentially
the same.
News organizations are hierarchical
institutions often run by strong-willed men who insist that their
editorial vision be dominant within their news companies. Some
concessions are made to the broader professional standards of
journalism, such as the principles of objectivity and fairness.
But media owners historically have enforced their political views and
other preferences by installing senior editors whose careers depend on
delivering a news product that fits with the owner’s prejudices.
Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far from the prescribed
path can expect to be demoted or fired. Editorial employees intuitively
understand the career risks of going beyond the boundaries..."
Robert Parry in Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth, 2003
The political reality is that which John Harrington pointed
out many years ago -
".... in most cases the media present news and events in a manner
that not only agrees with the views of the powerful, but actually
supports their domination.... the maintenance of order is the key
idea... in earlier times violence and the threat of physical force was
used to maintain order. But today control is pursued most
effectively through ‘controlling the common sense’....the dominated are
encouraged to see the world as the powerful do ... (by articulating)
different visions of the world in such a way that their potential antagonism (to the dominant view) is
neutralised...."
John Harrington in Media,
Framing, and the Internet: Dominant Ideologies Persist, 1998
The western media follows the flag and the dominated are
encouraged to see the world as the powerful do. The western
media know that to be openly
one
sided is to be dismissed as being partial and propagandist.
The trick is to appear balanced and articulate different
visions of the world in such a way that their
potential antagonism to the establishment view is
neutralised. It is spin that rules. A recent instance is the
media coverage of the
targeted bombing of school children in Vallipunam.
Reuban Nanthakumar's
well researched study of the BBC coverage shows how the
'balanced approach' technique was used to neutralise any
potential antagonism to the broad political stance of the
international community in relation to the struggle for
Tamil Eelam. As he rightly points out 'the truth from one side cannot be “balanced” with
a lie from another'. Again Michael Rivero may well be right when he said that "most
propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but
only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all" -
"..Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even
in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen
acknowledges that the government under which he or she lives is lying
and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it.
To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm
to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's
self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the
courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed
to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse
not to think at all."
Michael
Rivero in What Really Happened
Given all this (and more)
there is a clear need to expose to the scrutiny of the Tamil
people (yes, the Tamil people and not some other people) the
stated claim of the international community
that it seeks the 'best solution in human rights terms' and
explore the unstated interests which the stated claim is
directed to secure. Such an exploration will help us to secure solid ground under our own feet.
In Subhas Chandra Bose's words, it is
only then that we can stand
perpendicular - anywhere. Aurobindo was right
when he said more than a hundred years ago -
"..It is a vain dream to suppose that what other nations have won by
struggle and battle, by suffering and tears of blood, we shall be allowed to
accomplish easily, without terrible sacrifices, merely by spending the ink
of the journalist and petition framer and the breath of the orator. Petitioning will not bring us one yard nearer
freedom; self development will not easily be suffered to advance to its goal.
For self development spells the doom of the ruling despotism, which must
therefore oppose our progress with all the art and force of which it is the
master..."
And Velupillai Pirabakaran too
was right when he said in 1993
-
".. In reality, the success of our struggle depends on us, not on
the world. Our success depends on our own efforts, on our own strength,
on our own determination."
At the same time, strange as it may seem to some, the
exploration of the unstated interests of the international community, may also
serve to show that the struggle
for an independent Tamil Eelam, is not in opposition to many of the
underlying interests of the parties concerned with the conflict in
the island - and that includes Sri Lanka,
India, the
European Union and the
United States. If Germany and France were able to put in place 'associate' structures despite the
suspicions and confrontations of two world wars, it should not be beyond the capacity of
Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka to work out structures, within which each independent
state may remain free and prosper, but at the same time pool sovereignty in certain agreed
areas. An independent Tamil Eelam is not negotiable but an independent Tamil
Eelam can and will negotiate. Tamils who today live
in
many lands and across distant seas know only too well that sovereignty
after all, is not virginity .
Mamanithar Sivaram's
admonition three
years ago, bears repetition yet
again -
"The creeping intellectual/political barrenness (amongst Tamils)
should be stopped without further delay. LTTE officials too should stop
making pedestrian, boringly predictable utterances on public forums and,
instead, make every endeavour to stir the people's reason, intellectual
curiosity, their sense of community, their imagination and their
intellectual fervour. This is the only way forward to decisively break
the vicious circle of political obfuscation by which our people are
deeply but blissfully afflicted today. "
|
