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 in 2005 -
" 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 in Sri Lanka, in
Tamil Nadu 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 (including New Delhi and its agents in Tamil
Nadu) that they seek the 'best
solution in human rights terms' and explore the
unstated interests which the stated claim is directed to
cover up - and 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. "
|
