Point of View

Intellectual crimes against the Sri Lankan people

by H. L. D. Mahindapala

Every major crisis brings with it bus loads of moralists, theorists, academics, NGO pundits, intellectuals who take sides depending on which side their bread is buttered.

The hordes of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals that have waded into the Sri Lankan crisis provide a good example to assess the role played by them. Jehan Perera, for instance, who was editing A. T. Ariyaratne's magazine DANA, wrote that he was against nationalism and, in fact, was ashamed of being called a national of Sri Lanka. But that did not prevent him from launching his self-proclaimed, self-serving National Peace Council.

Of course, he has yet to specify which nation he represents. Does he represent the nation of all peace-loving communities or only one armed group who, he says, must be given recognition not only by the Sri Lankans but even by the international community? (See Daily Mirror - 20 January, 2006. More of this later.)

Then there is the MARGA headed by Godfrey Goonetilleke. He has been pointing the marga (directions) since it was established in 1973 and the upshot of it all, after 33 years, has been the escalation of violence by the LTTE to unacceptable brutal levels.

His greatest contribution so far has been to spend millions collected from foreign funds to bash the Sinhala-Buddhists.

He hired Michael Roberts - a failed theoretician found guilty by his peers for plagiarizing - to produce nineteen pamphlets denigrating the Sinhala-Buddhists. It was a concocted exercise in re-writing Sri Lankan history according to the gospel of the likes of Godfrey Gunatilleke, Neville Jayaweera, Rohan Edirisinha, Tessa Bartholomeusz, C. R. De Silva (who discovered "Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalists") et al.

The main objective of Gunatilleke-Roberts combo was to blame the Sinhala-Buddhists for what happened in history and prevent the indigenous forces who have been suppressed under colonialism for nearly five centuries from raising their heads again as they did in 1956.

But their propaganda did not go beyond the limited circles of NGOs and like-minded theoreticians who quote each other for advancing their academic careers. This mob was defeated roundly in the last presidential election of November 2005 by the people.

The advancing historical events have exposed not only their failure to grasp the hard realities that move Sri Lanka society at all levels but also their mendacious mentality to concoct theories, partly to please their paymasters abroad and partly to keep the war boiling at a temperature that would enable them continue their role as peace merchants.

It is also necessary to cite one other example: the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES) now headed by Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy. Her guilt is greater because she has, on the odd occasion, written against the horrors committed by the LTTE without taking her arguments to the logical conclusion of analyzing the peninsula forces that generated, sustained and promoted the monster that came out of the womb of Jaffna.

ICES publications have been weighted heavily against (Surprise! Surprise!) blaming everything from the Kalutara Bodiya to Vihara Maha Devi Park. But like her partners in intellectual crimes against the peace-loving people of Sri Lanka she has not directed the energies and resources of the ICES to explore the dark side of the Sri Lankan moon.

Their strategy has been to focus the attention on the territory beneath the neck of Jaffna with the sole objective of shifting the blame away from peninsular politics to everybody else, particularly what they are wont to call "the Sinhala-dominated governments".

Her Tamil-dominated ICES has become the factory for manufacturing myths to promote the politics of its founder Neelan Tiruchelvam who was also a political activist of the Tamil United Liberation Front. In other words, the politics of the ICES, which is supposed to be objective, became the politics of the TULF.

These and other NGOs pose as think-tanks endowed with the extraordinary intellectual capacity to provide alternative policies and strategies that could serve as the panacea for all ills. But the unfolding events prove that their interventions have so far boosted the forces of violence.

The only independent NGO, the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), has openly accused the Colombo-based NGOs of pussy-footing around the critical issues of the human rights violations of the LTTE. The acronym "NGOS" today stands out as one of the dirtiest four-letter words in the political vocabulary.

This is mainly because the NGOs have failed to make a substantial input into restoring peace, or to give fair and proper directions to the achievement of peace by taking into consideration the aspirations of all communities?

One of the primary reasons for their failure lies in their obsessive manoeuvres to undercut each other in the hunt for foreign funds. NGOs cropped up in every nook and corner which became the most lucrative market place to sell peace. Peace merchants in NGOs became a new breed of exploitative wheeler-dealers who were competing with each other for the dwindling foreign dollar.

Their declared agenda nominally was for peace but the hidden agenda was to rake in as much dollars as possible for their personal prestige and gain, or for a political agenda that has failed to produce any positive results so far. Building networks linking key operatives in foundations and other funding agencies was more important for their survival than building peace in Sri Lanka.

NGOs that attracted more dollars could raise their profile by putting on public shows, seminars, publications, advertisements, buying up journalists and even space in the media.

The hordes of intellectuals that crept into the peace industry - one of the significant growth industries of our time - realized that there was easy money in this game of selling peace than in the Civil Service or any other comparable profession.

Ms. Coomaraswamy did not consider it obscene to spend $ 250,000 in commemorating the death of Neelan Tiruchelvam. A. T. Ariyaratne, the head of Sarvodaya, spent millions in organizing a gathering at the BMICH, all in the name of promoting peace.

In reality it was an exercise in showing off the capacity of his bank balance to transport unsuspecting villagers to massage his ego and promote his hidden political agenda. He is also not shy in spending money to organize "peace marches" from Moratuwa to Panadura.

These "peace marches" are videoed for export - a highly marketable product to earn foreign dollars from equally misguided foreign agencies who believe that marching from Moratuwa to Panadura can change Prabhakaran from a hawk into a dove.

So the money goes into NGO tamashas, self-promoting publications, incestuous seminars and, of course, trips abroad with families tagging along - all on NGO accounts. Godfrey Gunatilleke toured Australia on "a peace mission" with his entire family in tow. Then there is the hiring of like-minded clones from academia and other professions.

This is a calculated move to prevent the public discourse on peace going out of their control. Inviting those who do not toe their line would undermine their political agenda.

A standard tactic pursued relentlessly by the like of Goonetilleke and Ms. Coomaraswamy is to prevent their ideology being challenged. Packaging the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist ideology uniformly, without much dissent, is vital for them to gain credibility at least among themselves.

The predictable clones that would figure prominently in their seminars and publications are Jayadeva Uyangoda, Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Jehan Perera, Sasanka Perera, Godfrey Gunatilleke, Michael Roberts, Neville Jayaweera, Kumar Rupesinghe etc.- birds of a feather who rock together singing the same tune for the dollar. Nor will they front up to meet the challenges thrown at them head-on. Unable to meet the opposition they pretend that there is no alternative for peace other than to follow authorized gospel of the NGOs.

Take the example of Jehan Perera, the NGO pundit who repeats today what the LTTE had stated yesterday. His latest pronouncement goes like this: "The way for the government to avoid being forced into confrontation is to engage politically with the LTTE. The importance of political engagement is that this is the only possible way to gain the cooperation of the LTTE.

The LTTE's strong desire for international recognition is a factor that needs to be built into any governmental strategy to bring it back to the peace process." (Daily Mirror - 10 January, 2006). His first sentence is hilarious.

The second sentence adds to the hilarity of the first. Leaving the comic aspects aside, he has failed to realize that he is, in effect, asking the government and the international community to legitimize LTTE violence.

This is Anton Balasingham's argument. Irrespective of what LTTE does they must be recognized by all governments. In the post-9/11 era it is a bit too rich for anyone to swallow this argument.

Besides, he will agree, unless he is in the Planet of the Apes with Charlton Heston, that all governments have engaged the LTTE with numerous offers of appeasement. The latest is President Mahinda Rajapakse.

His government has resisted the easy temptation to go to war with the LTTE basically to keep the door open for constructive engagement with the LTTE. It has exercised great restraint in a serious attempt to convince the LTTE that it is for peace and talks.

It has made overtures publicly and privately to engage politically with the LTTE. So much for Perera's first sentence.

The second sentence is not only circular but inane. It is like saying that the only way to keep Jehan Perera ticking is for Ariyaratne to get more foreign funds. The argument in the next sentence does not stand the test of scrutiny either.

Why have successive governments and the international community failed to "gain the cooperation of the LTTE" despite engaging politically with it since the Oslo Agreement? Did not Ranil Wickremesinghe "engage the LTTE" by giving in to practically everything it demanded? Then in the next sentence he reveals his hidden agenda: he wants the government to help the LTTE to gain international recognition.

"What the LTTE seeks most is international legitimacy and resources," he says. So who is blocking it? The LTTE was offered a share of $ 4.5 billion in Tokyo. LTTE refused point blank to attend, fearing that the international community will impose human rights conditions.

As for "legitimacy" Ranil Wickremesinghe gave it in full measure when his chief negotiator, G. L. Peiris, addressed Anton Balasingham, as "Your Excellency".

So where did all this take Ranil Wickremesinghe, his Oslo Agreement, and peace overtures? Even though events are forcing Jehan Perera at last to condemn the LTTE and its atrocities he is still manipulating with his hilarious concoctions to cover up for the self-inflicted wounds of the LTTE.

He has no original thinking of his own. He is quite happy to play the role of delivery boy carrying the demands of the LTTE in parcels packaged by Ariyaratne's Sarvodaya.

If the LTTE says that it will not budge from Oslo as the next venue for peace talks he will repeat it obediently. If the LTTE insists on the international community lifting its ban he will add a bit of lunu ambul to it and try flog it.

In short, his demands have always been to give in to the LTTE each time it raises the stake.

How many times have successive governments given in to keep the LTTE in the peace process? Can Perera guarantee that if the government does what he says that the LTTE will stick to the path of negotiations without resorting to violence again?

He knows that his formulas for peace have not worked. He knows that his punditry has helped him to get foreign funds but not win peace. Jehan Perera is allowed to get away with his inanities because the private media that sponsors him goes all out to protect him without publishing other points of view that expose him.

There is no limit to Jehan Perera's convoluted thinking. First he says that the government should strategize for the LTTE to regain the "international recognition" it lost.

In the same breath he says: "There is a need for local and international pressure to be brought to bear on the Tigers in order to induce them to change their strategy."

Does he know what he is talking about? After saying that the LTTE and its violence should be recognized/legitimized he turns around and says that the local and "international pressure" should be increased to get them back into peace talks.

How? Is he asking the government and the international community to increase the pressure or the decrease the pressure? Isn't the only way to increase the pressure by refusing to legitimize the LTTE and its violence?

This is the kind of muddled thinking that has given the NGO a bad name. Cutting through the fog of his thinking, it is clear that Jehan Perera's main objective is to appease the LTTE, to rescue its leadership from their own follies, and to blame others for its unmitigated violence.

It all goes back to his basic thinking: how can a confused NGO pundit who loathes the word "nation" work out solutions to preserve unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty? He is typical of the kind of NGO pundits who legitimize terrorist violence in the name of peace.

Last but not the least, his National Peace Council is undoubtedly one of a kind: it argues that the institutions of criminals and acts of criminality must be recognized and legitimized by the state and the international community to end, or to prevent, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, above all, crimes against children! Heil Hitler!

(The writer is a former Editor of the Sunday Observer)