Nation does not reside in flag and anthem
There’s been a lot of back and forth on the matter of the national
anthem in recent days. Some argue that a country should have one
national anthem, i.e. in one language instead of various versions in
different languages. Some argue that since there are more than one
‘official language’ it makes sense to have as many anthems as there are
official languages, or else have verses in all languages.
I am not a big fan of multi-ethnic, multi-religious propositions
because they tend to fudge demographic realities and if the logic of
representation is taken to its logical conclusion then we would have to
breakdown line and verse and have ‘language-representation’ that
correspond to percentage of population.
Furthermore, as time goes on and the percentages change, lyricists
would have to get back to composition and add and subtract so that
representational integrity is not compromised.
Regaining Sri Lanka
I think there’s been too much fascination with symbols and I suspect
that this has something to do with doubts about the substance which
symbols are supposed to represent.
I don’t believe nation and nationalism exist in flag and anthem.
Neither do I believe that making anthem and flag ‘representational’
(even in proportionate terms, as would be the logical democratization as
opposed to the fictionalizing and mischievous enhancing and suppressing
sought and often secured by the ‘one-ethnicity, one-vote’ type of
proposal) makes for a more united and integrated polity.
Years ago, I believe in the year 2002, the UNP Government dubbed its
comprehensive plan for overhauling the economy ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’.
One can only regain something that one has lost. If one is clueless
about what was lost, it cannot be regained.
Sri Lanka certainly needed some regaining and one of the things that
stood out and screamed ‘take me back, take me back’ was territory seized
by the land-grabbing terrorists. There were other things too that had
been ‘lost’.
A sense of dignity. National pride. There was truth that had been
overtaken by myth, especially regarding ‘exclusive traditional
homelands’. There was legitimate grievance that had been frilled for
political expediency to a point where wild aspiration had moved several
light years from grievance.
Political stage
There were a lot of ‘lost’ things, none of which ‘Regaining Sri
Lanka’ sought to recover. Much of it was ‘regained’ only after the UNP
was unceremoniously tossed off the political stage in 2004.
A key ‘lost’ or at least hidden element that was studiously left out
of the blueprint was that class of things which includes culture,
heritage and history. Sure, these are not necessarily ‘economic’
categories, but then again ‘Sri Lanka’ is not just an economy. Indeed,
the architects and implementers of ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ not only would
have given a hoot about such things but would salivate if they could see
them obliterated at project-end.
That much-sought erasure was tripped by electoral defeat, but this
does not mean the project was abandoned or that a ‘regaining’ should not
take place. There were many things given up for ‘lost’ during the time
the pro-Eelam NGOs and academics had their honeymoon at Hotel CFA. Much
was recovered after 2005. What was recovered in relation to what was
not, what needs to be recovered, what can be recovered and what ought to
be protected, was minute, really. If there’s little in us that we can
say is unique, then there’s no point talking about becoming Asia’s
Miracle. I believe there is a lot that is unique and also that there’s a
conspicuous neglecting of all that.
If we do not know our history, have no sense of heritage, are
ignorant of who are ancestors were, the philosophies that fed the
thinking that built a civilization in a particular way, then we cannot
understand who we are. We will not know where we ought to go. We end up
inhabiting other people’s versions of our reality and embracing
uncritically their well-being-blueprints.
What is the point in waving a ‘national’ flag over a territory upon
which reside a people who have a warped sense of nation or one that has
been defined for their consumption? Why sing a ‘national’ anthem if
nation is just a piece of land defined by a boundary and which holds a
people who share with each other only the fact of territorial
containment.
I am not saying we should not sing the anthem or wave the flag, but
such acts would be so much more meaningful if we got our act together so
we can flag that which is undoubtedly ‘national’ and learn to sing those
ballads which speak of things that came before.
Colonial ghosts
Is there ‘national flag’ in the future we script for our children by
way of the development models we’ve chosen? Is there ‘national anthem’
in our relations with our neighbours or are we required to sing on a
lower key and tiptoe so some supposedly ‘big’ brother doesn’t get upset?
We regained lost territory.
That’s physical. For this we can wave the flag. We are yet to recover
lost cultural territory.
We are yet to slay our colonial ghosts. We are yet to reach our full
potential and we will not get there until we have a solid sense of who
we are.
We are not flag-deserving or anthem-deserving, not yet; not in any
way that makes sense.
We had our terrorism-vanquishing moment. We brought out the flags to
celebrate the fact that we won’t have to worry about bombs taking us
out. Worthy of celebration.
There’s much more that could be celebrated, that needs to be
celebrated. We are not worthy.
Not yet. Flag and anthem should be embedded (in a metaphorical sense)
in the nation and not the other way about. That’s the only way these
things can have meaning.
[email protected]
|