Neutral I am not and I don’t think you are either!
This is old. Really, really old. And we all know that some old things
are so old that people think they have never been talked about, never
thought about. They are so old that some people even think they are
fresh and brand new. That’s how old the idea of ‘neutrality’ is.
I write about neutrality today because it is old and it is new and
some people (like this utterly confused and despondent dude who thinks
he is a renaissance man writing to a Sunday newspaper) don’t seem to
have a clue about the ‘realities’ pertaining to ‘neutrality’, especially
the fact that the notion is patently untenable.
My late mother believed in being partisan. She was partial to the
family, to the school she attended, the University of Peradeniya,
Sangamitta Hall, the schools she taught at, her students and friends.
For her, such things came first. She also expected her children to be
like this. I was not. I remember one of the last conversations I had
with her very vividly.
She had got into a huge argument with her brother, who was staying in
the same house, and was insisting that he leave. I happened to be in the
house at the time.
It was around 9.00 p.m. I told her that it is not right to throw
someone out of the house at that time, especially not someone who didn’t
have anywhere to go to and especially not after she herself had invited
him to take up residence.
She replied that she had got my father’s permission for this. I said
that was not relevant to the issue at hand.
Bernard Kouchner |
David Miliband |
She had a dismissive retort: ‘In all your life you have never taken
my side’. It was impossible to argue with her, but I got my last-line in
before I left: ‘All my life I have sided with what I thought was right’.
All loyalties came second to this, or at least, I’ve tried my best and
to the extent possible to keep ‘loyalty’ out of all right wrong, good
bad type deliberations. I attribute this approach to something that the
then Vice Principal at Royal College (Christie Gunasekara) told me
during my last days as a schoolboy: ‘Do what you think is right whether
or not the world appreciates’.
I am not unaware that my knowledge is like a speck of dust compared
with the universe of my ignorance, and I do many a conscious effort to
qualify statement and desist from grand, totalizing claims. I slip, I
know, but am not ashamed of this and am open to both criticism and
correction.
I can’t be neutral not because I don’t place a lot of value on
loyalty but because ‘truth’ itself is not neutral. It is value laden,
heavy with preferences, a necessary product of a person’s experiences,
learning, cultural upbringing and religious and the philosophical and
ethical universes he/she tend to inhabit. One cannot talk about The
Truth in most instances, therefore; one talks of the truths one chooses
to believe in, defend and promote.
Perhaps an example would help make things clear. About a year ago I
got a lot of fan mail, praising my writings. At the time we were in the
last phase of the military struggle to eliminate the LTTE. Sri Lanka was
getting a lot of flak internationally, thanks to intense lobbying by
pro-LTTE groups abroad.
This was the time when people like David Miliband and Bernard
Kouchner were at their vile best. I was applauded for taking them on.
The applause slowly and naturally subsided after May 18, 2009.
Then came Sarath Fonseka, the Presidential Candidate. All of a
sudden, people who had backed both Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka,
found themselves in a situation where they were forced to pick one over
the other, at least as default option.
Then there were those who had vilified both as well as the effort to
liberate the country from the clutches of terrorism.
They had to pick Fonseka over Rajapaksa in view of the fact that
their preferred party, the UNP was backing the former. I am thinking of
the renaissance loser who had to twist himself quite a bit to salute
Fonseka and even fooled himself into believing that it would be a ‘close
fight’ (more fantasy than extrapolation based on ground reality, but
highly pardonable in someone who’s clearly struggling to come to terms
with realities in general).
All of a sudden I was accused of not being ‘neutral’. Excuse me! The
charge of being ‘partisan’ was utterly ridiculous coming from people who
were not at all neutral.
Neutrality, to them, meant something like this: 'you are not supposed
to back those I dislike and you are supposed to refrain from being
critical of my man/woman'. Interestingly, as I pointed out above, there
were no calls for 'neutrality' when I sided with the State, Government
and the Security Forces in opposition to LTTE-interests. I was not
required to treat Prabhakaran kindly and would have been chided had I
overly criticized the military operation (indeed, I was, even when the
criticism was mild and qualified).
Some, like the renaissance tripper thinks that anyone who writes to
the Daily News is in the pay of the UPFA. Interesting, since the man
writes to a newspaper that openly admitted that it was backing Sarath
Fonseka and the UNP, and he doesn't have enough intelligence to turn the
argument on himself and admit that he must be in Ranil Wickremesinghe's
pocket. Also, since I write for several newspapers, this man who
obviously reads very little ought to conclude that I am in the pay of
all the parties and personalities that have connections with these media
institutions.
Let's forget the little whiner. Neutrality is our subject. I am not
interested in neutrality claims because people have choices, they vote,
they promote, they criticize unequally and do all this without stating
bias.
As for me, I have never been neutral. I've always been partial to
certain things. The truths I believe in. The kinds of endgames that I
think are better for my country, my fellow citizens and my children. The
improvement of life chances all around. Equality before the law.
Transparency, accountability, love, compassion. The cultural soils of
this land.
I recognize also that embedded in the making of choice is the
rejection of other options. I reject federalism because I don't think it
makes any sense, historically, geographically, economically and
demographically. I reject the 13th Amendment because it was illegal,
inefficient and eminently objectionable for the same reasons given
above. I believe it should be implemented because it is part of the
Constitution but argue for its abrogation, legally. I reject all
attempts to colonize and re-colonize this country and in this I resist
attempts to destroy Buddhism (from within and without) because I am
convinced that to the extent that any religion constitutes a core
element of our overall cultural ethos it is Buddhism. I think
'modernity' is a big lie and that Western scientific paradigms are
highly overrated.
I side with the poor, the marginal and the underprivileged. I shall
not be 'neutral' in the face of oppression and exploitation. I side with
the exploited and the oppressed and if I qualify my support it is
because I know things are not always black and white; and I will always
write and express the shades that make me conclude one way and not
another. No, I was never neutral and doubt if I ever will be.
Here's what confuses a lot of people: they think I am a reporter,
i.e. someone who is required to dispassionately write fact. Well, even
reporters are not neutral. They can pick and choose fact, add or
subtract colour, be selective in writing context and so on. The editor
can pick and choose where to place the story, what kind of prominent is
given or suppress it in numerous ways. That's 'politics'. That too is
'partisan'.
I write commentary. This does not mean that it is all passion and no
reason. There is, I hope, some logic and I welcome objections that
challenge the logic with superiority of reason and introduction of facts
and factors not considered or suppressed. Outside of such an approach
there is only dismay at not siding with one's choice. Sad, but not a
tragedy, surely?
For the record, I believe that I have been as critical of all the
players I tend to side with than most critics and in ways they have
refused to be critical of the parties, positions and personalities they
prefer. Even in this, I have not been persuaded by notions of being
'neutral' or 'balanced' but fidelity to the things that I prefer, as
enumerated above.
If you want to 'be neutral' go ahead and indulge yourself in the
illusion. There are no laws against it. As for me, I am not neutral. To
be quite blunt I think professed neutrality is one of the most
insufferable fibs I've come across in my life.
[email protected]
|