Courageous President
Carlo FONSEKA
One of the defects of my character is timidity. That must be why I
have inordinate admiration for leaders with so much courage. Even as
well-informed and intellectually sophisticated commentators on
international affairs have been warning us, we are living in dangerous
times. Dr Dayan Jayatilleka perceives nothing less than ‘a global psywar
against Sri Lanka’. Izeth Hussain senses ‘considerable British
displeasure over the way the Government is handling the ethnic problem’.
At a time like this it took extraordinary physical, intellectual and
moral courage for President Rajapaksa to set foot on hostile British
soil to address the world from a platform in the University of Oxford.
(With strategic prescience he had ventured into dangerous territory with
a small army of handpicked loyalists. No doubt he judged that attempting
to beard the lion in his den could be a very hazardous exercise).
Invitation to Oxford
Having vanquished the most ruthless and diabolical terrorist group in
modern history whose atrocities included decimation of the quintessence
of Tamil intelligence and culture, President Rajapaksa had no
disabilities to plead. So he had readily accepted the invitation to
speak at Oxford. I am sure he would have told the world how he had
pulled off the allegedly impossible: namely, liquidation of the most
blood-thirsty, maniacal, well-funded and internationally hyped up
terrorist group the world has known.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa |
He would have explained to the world why he was impelled to do so.
And, I believe, he would have adumbrated what his homegrown plan is for
redeeming the dignity, honour and well-being of the Tamils of Sri Lanka.
But that was not to be. Those innocents who sincerely believe that
Oxford is the sanctuary of free thought were manifestly dismayed by the
unilateral cancellation of the invitation to speak due to intense
pressure from political activists.
They seem to regard the Oxford episode as a diplomatic blunder and a
political debacle. My perception is different. I think President
Rajapaksa grabbed the invitation to speak at Oxford as an opportunity to
enact a political scene on a world stage and make a few points
dramatically.
First: with a sense of pardonable pride he would have told the world
that he had achieved something that was widely believed to be
impossible.
Second: by accepting the invitation to speak at Oxford, he made the
point that he had nothing to hide about the liquidation of terrorism.
Third: by setting foot in the UK, he demonstrated that he dared legal
arrest for alleged war crimes.
Fourth: by venturing upon hostile territory he conveyed the message
that he cannot be intimidated by a ‘global psywar’.
Fifth: by accepting the invitation he demonstrated his ability to
walk tall on a world stage with his nose in the air.
The matter that calls for explanation is how people associated with
so prestigious an institution as Oxford University could have
unilaterally and summarily cancelled an event involving a Head of State.
I suggest the following explanation for your critical consideration.
Ancient History
Everybody knows that the University of Oxford is one of the oldest,
best and most famous centres of learning in the world. Its beginnings
have been traced to 720 AC, but it became firmly established only in the
12th century AC. From its beginnings up to the time of the Reformation
in the 16th century Oxford was governed by the Roman Catholic Papacy.
Catholic monks and friars of various denominations were the masters and
scholars.
Today people believe that Oxford is a sanctuary of free thought and
speech. But that is not what its early history reveals. As it happened
Roger Bacon (1214 - 1292) was Oxford’s first science man of repute. He
was imprisoned for 10 years by the religious authorities for doing
experiments they disapproved of. Any deviation from strict Roman
Catholic orthodoxy was simply not tolerated. After the Reformation and
the birth of Protestantism, Oxford came to be governed not by the Pope
in Rome, but by the English Crown. Notoriously, however, during the five
year reign of the ardently Roman Catholic Queen Mary Tudor, 270
Protestants were burnt to death for heresy.
Then during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558 - 1603) some 30
Oxford Catholics were killed for refusing to recognize the Queen as the
spiritual head of the Church. Queen Elizabeth made sure that what was
taught at Oxford was politically acceptable to the rulers. (Perhaps the
present authorities at Oxford who cancelled the invitation to President
Rajapaksa feared that he might say things that would be unacceptable to
the present rulers).
Recent History
Coming to the 20th century, the two world wars greatly affected
Oxford University. It is on record that in 1914 there were 1400
undergraduates in Oxford and only 369 in 1918. A vast number of bright
young students and teachers had been killed in World War I. Bertrand
Russell who was a pacifist was appalled by the slaughter of these
innocents and blamed it partly on the defective education system in the
country which included Eton and Oxford University. Here is what he said:
“... Eton and Oxford set a certain stamp upon a man’s mind just as a
Jesuit College does... In almost all who have been through them, they
produced a worship of ‘Good form’ which is as destructive to life and
thought as the medieval Church. ‘Good form’ is quite compatible with a
superficial open-mindedness, a readiness to hear all sides, and a
certain urbanity towards opponents.
But it is not compatible with fundamental open-mindedness, or with
any inward readiness to give weight to the other side. Its essence is
the assumption that what is most important is a certain kind of
behaviour, a behaviour which minimizes friction between equals and
delicately impresses inferiors with a conviction of their own crudity.
As a political weapon for preserving the privileges of the rich in a
snobbish democracy it is unsurpassable. As a means of producing an
agreeable social milieu for those who have money with no strong beliefs
or unusual desires it has some merit. In every other respect, it is
abominable”. (In the light of the above identification and description
of Oxford’s educational philosophy by Russell who surely knew what he
was talking about, what happened to President Rajapaksa in this shameful
episode makes sense).
Myth
Contrary to popular belief in our country, Oxford is certainly not a
sanctuary of free thought. In discussing this matter further it is
necessary to be clear what is meant by ‘free thought’. There are two
senses in which the phrase is used, one narrow and the other wide. In
the narrow sense, a free thinker is one who does not believe in any
organized religion. Unlike in the earlier centuries, free thought in
this sense is now widely tolerated in the UK. Free thought in the wider
sense is another matter.
Thought is not really free if people are liable to penalties of one
sort or another for holding certain beliefs. For example, to this day in
England under the blasphemy laws, it is illegal to express disbelief in
the Christian religion, though in practice the law is not implemented.
That is why the great English exponent of popular science and biologist
Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University has become both famous
and rich by writing the bestselling book titled ‘God Delusion’.
Bertrand Russell cites three specific instances in his own life to
demonstrate that there has been no real freedom of thought in England in
recent times. One is that the Courts intervened to prevent him from
being brought up without being taught any religion as required by the
last will of his free-thinking father. The second is that the Liberal
Party refused to accept him as a parliamentary candidate because he was
an open nonbeliever.
The third is his dismissal from his lectureship in Cambridge because
of his pacifist views in World War I. It may be noted in passing that
Cambridge University itself came into existence in the early 13th
century when a group of scholars from Oxford left it after a
controversial dispute with the people of the town of Oxford. So much for
Oxbridge being a haven of free thought!
All in all the Oxford episode has not been a debacle or disaster.
Given Oxford’s history what came to pass was neither wholly surprising
nor altogether unpredictable. In my estimate one invaluable consequence
accrued from this experience: President Rajapaksa emerged as a man of
supreme courage. It is salutary to remember, however, that so much
courage can be a dangerous thing. As Ernest Hemingway said: “If people
bring so much courage to this world, the world has to kill them to break
them, so of course it kills them.
The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the
broken places. But those that will not break, it kills. It kills the
very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are
none of these, it will kill you too, but there will be no special
hurry”. Because I am none of those I am going on merrily - on seventy
eight... |