I came across an interesting comment by Dr.Ananda Coomarasamy in his book on the ‘Dance of Shiva'(Noonday press, New York-1957). While discussing the Asokan edicts he says (page 8),” The annals of India, and especially of Ceylon, can show us other Buddhist kings of the same temper. But it will be seen that such effects of Buddhist teachings have their further consequences mainly through benevolent despotism and the moral order established by one wise king may be destroyed by his successors. Buddhism as far as I know, never attempted to formulate a constitution or to determine the social order”.

Food for thought?

Dayan,

Rest assured that my namesake has given me the necessary wherewithal to not confuse the unwanted elephant with the wild elephant. My specific point, wasn’t about whether or not the unpopular incumbent should go (hardly a debate there), but whether or not there’s something fundamentally wrong with the popular incumbent that lends itself exceptionally well to the retrogressive trajectory we are in today. I see you never did disagree with that.

Sorry, I fail to see how the news item (Colombo Page) makes your point and lays the debate to rest [Rather, what I do sense from the manner in which you’ve referred to the news item is that there is some fear that the President might now capitulate (that is if he is pro-13A only!)]. The debate is perhaps reaching a dangerous stage – not because the 13A was not implemented (and therefore should be, as you’ve said) but because ‘devolution’ is still seen to be a demand of the separatists or those who cannot be trusted when it comes to power-sharing. That is a far more fundamental and serious problem. What I’ve tried to stress is that the mere implementation of 13A would not address that problem. Let’s not forget: for those protesting and collecting signatures, it is not about 13A only; it is a problem about ‘devolution’ (with or without land/police powers!). So we are back to basics here, so long after 13A was passed.

Gamarala, given your chosen pen-name, you should spot an elephant when you see one, but you obviously cannot. The elephant in the room is quite visible in the photos of the silver jubilee celebrations of the country’s leading dissident progressive newspaper: check out the guests and the body language between them and the dissidents. Who would you think is the unpopular incumbent who won’t get any votes, and the popular opposition leader who will. So, the real elephant in the room is that we have no Imran Khan, and if the olnly electoral choice is between a South Asian Putin and a South Asian Yeltsin, the bulk of the Lankan voters and I myself would prefer a Putin. So, go produce an Imran Khan, at least.

Dear Kalana, et al, I hope this makes my point and lays the debate to rest.

* Sri Lanka’s nationalist organizations call for abolition of power devolution
Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 12:39 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Feb 29, Colombo: Sri Lanka’s Sinhala National and Buddhist Organizations have commenced collecting one million signatures for a petition demanding the abolition of 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Collective of National and Buddhist Organizations demands to abolish all power devolution measures and to bring state back to total unitary nature.

The signing of petitions commenced yesterday at the sacred Bo Tree of Colombo Pettah with the participation of the leading activists of the National and Buddhist Organizations led by Gunadasa Amarasekera.

The organizers of the campaign named ‘This is the Last Chance’ will hand over the petition with one million signatures to President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Dayan,

I’m not criticizing your stance on national sovereignty. Its importance (especially in the present climate) should be obvious to all save the most unintelligent in the opposition (although the unintelligent are never in short supply). Nor have I ever detracted from MR’s victory, given that I voted for him – twice. However, I am not blinded to the fact that I made a mistake the second time, although I excuse myself on the grounds of a lack of choice at the time. So too bad for you Dayan, I can’t be dismissed with a “you and your ilk” line as you are usually wont to do, unless you wish to dismiss yourself in the process.

The facts, as I perceive them, are these:
a. The present government’s notions of governance are rooted in feudal, familial politics, with a predictable subscription to nationalist mythology so as not to disappoint.
b. There can be no progressive political culture under such notions.
c. Creating space for an alternative culture necessarily requires active opposition to the current one.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

One of your own articles was in support of point “c”, wherein you blamed Ranil for all our present woes (which explains things partially, but strangely ignores the elephant in the room, point “a”).

This is why I think that some intellectual opposition in the absence of political opposition, the minimum necessary to bring about some balance, which is something we unfortunately don’t see from you. And it all circles back to Kalana’s original point – “A political culture in which there is a widening gap between what is being promised and what is being actually realized develops into a culture of extremely bad faith, of broken promises, of hypocrisy.”. Ranil is only our convenient scapegoat (and we Sri Lankans must have one after all). The real roots lie elsewhere.

The TNA , in the words of Sumanthiran, says it’rejects’ 13A, and found it inadequate even in 1987! And if as you say, it rejects 13A as the final formualtion, then it must say what that endgame is….running the risk that the vast majority will then view the 13A as a possible stepping stone to something unacceptably beyond, and reject it, when they may otherwise have accepted it!

The implementation of the 13A should take place whether or not the TNA existed, because it is the most feasible solution to the problem. That is why it is unintelligent for GoSL NOT to implement it. It would also get the world community off GoSL’s back. Similarly, it would be unintelligent for the TNA not to accept and support it, because it is that reform which has the broadest support in Sri Lanka and in the international community. It represents the common multiple.

‘Gamarala’,

My ‘realist’ point is that you may and must criticise the ‘feudal lords’ as severely as you can and wish, but, if you wish it to amount to something ( other than yet another resounding electoral debacle), and if indeed you wish it to be part of a progressive project, do it accurately and credibly, giving credit where credit is due, and do not criticise from a viewpoint that is less stauch in defence of national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.

If you wish to build a political project, especially a progressive movement, with those who were opposed to the last war, or while being silent on the LTTE and secessionism, and not endorsing Mahinda Rajapaksa’s defeat of the Tigers in May 2009, try your luck.

The reason why criticism of the ‘feudal lords’ is vulnerable to being dubbed an attack on national sovereignty, is twofold: because those critics are not seen as strong defenders of national sovereignty, and because many of those critics are known to the public for their earlier pusillanimous stand on national sovereignty.

You cannot have a progressive movement that is neo-comprador. As Latin America shows, any progressive project has to be ‘national-popular’. That platform must include as a plank, support for moderate devolution.

More concretely, any progressive movement in Sri lanka today would have to take as a starting point, a synthesis of Viajaya Kumaratunga and Ranasinghe Premadasa — both of whom I strongly and openly supported, while you, ‘Gamarala’ and your ilk, were who knows where.

“The more I read it today, the more I feel that with this kind of attitude and approach, there won’t be any progress whatsoever. ”

Kalana has really hit the nail on the head. This is why I find Dayan’s arguments post-war rings so hollow, as opposed to his views during the war, which actually did make sense.

Dayan, right now, your views can be summarised as follow: Blame Ranil, be satisfied with 13A or you’ll get even less, and avoid criticizing our feudal lords, lest it be interpreted as an attack on national sovereignty.

I’m sorry to caricature it so crudely, but as someone who has benefitted from your views formerly, I really don’t see any more of a takeaway than that currently.

Dayan believes it is only “realististic” to subscribe to this view. Unfortunately, the reality that Dayan should notice, and Kalana already has, is that underlying Dayan’s view is a frank admission, though never explicitly stated, of our present government’s abject political failure – to create any kind of a progressive political movement post-war.

Dayan, if you were rudely teleported back to Nazi era Germany, would you say to Jews in a concentration camp that they should be satisfied with their lot in said camp, lest they get even less? That could be forwarded as a view grounded in realism too, couldn’t it?

This whole “realism” argument you describe carries no prescription for progress. If anything, it lends legitimacy to a government that has outlived its usefulness. This is what a guy like Kalana gets. It’s not just about pandering to nationalist sentinment, it’s about shaping it, and ultimately, defeating it. A guy like Dayan should be talking about that, instead of wasting time shielding warlords whose understanding of governance is rooted in feudal politics.

Dear Kalana

“this depends on a number of factors which include, inter alia, the extent to which powers are devolved and the ability of the Centre to take back important powers granted to the periphery.”

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. If the periphery is dependent on the Centre for its funds- presumably because the periphery lacks its own resources to pay for peripheral government (like the war-devastated Tamil areas)– then what will stop the Centre from using this leverage to manipulate the periphery?

“Re. your comment “Kandyans don’t count”: now, that’s the politics of inclusion and exclusion, isn’t it?”

The Kandyans don’t count because they renounced their demand for devolution long ago, after everyone else in the island more or less ignored them (as opposed to conducting pogroms against them).