ASIA: Orwell, Rajiva Wijesinha and the discussion on human rights monitoring in Sri Lanka

The following is a reply to a report published on October 12, 2007 in The Official Website of the Sri Lankan Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process, written by the Secretary General, Rajiva Wijesinha,

My comments in some previous columns regarding Cambodia and Nepal seem to have appeared dangerous to Rajiva Wijesinha, who seems to think that Sri Lanka’s problems are different. Naturally no conflict is similar to another. However, what are similar is the consequences of prolonged conflict on any place; that is, the serious disruption or even complete collapse of all the state institutions and the consequent disruption of life in the society. In short, all prolonged conflicts create a state of lawlessness. That is what is common to Cambodia, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Unless some extraordinary measures are taken to make a beginning towards a recovery this situation will not only create abysmal results but can even create catastrophes. What happened in Cambodia and Nepal was an intervention by the United Nations which helped to create a beginning in the direction of recovery, while in Sri Lanka the downward spiral still continues.

Rajiva Wijesinha is quite aware of the downward spiral. For many years he has been writing books and articles on the erosion of democracy in Sri Lanka. Among his best contributions are the detailed analyses of J.R. Jayawardene’s contributions to the collapse of democracy by the introduction of the executive presidency and the pursuit of the same through many other measures by Jayawardane as the first executive president. With regard to the plunge into the dark depths of authoritarianism and the resulting dismantling of the constitutional framework, I would not think Rajiva Wijesinha would argue, that these things have come to an end. In fact, constitutionalism is a word without much meaning in Sri Lanka now. Together with the new conception of power developed by the executive presidency the basic institutions such as the police, the prosecution system under the attorney general, the judiciary under Sarath Nanda Silva, and the parliament itself have suffered extraordinary setbacks. I have constantly referred to these systems as having become dysfunctional. This means that these institutions now produce the opposite results of what they are meant to produce within a system of the rule of law and democracy. Jayawardene’s scheme of displacing the rule of law and democracy continues with greater vehemence now, and, sadly, even some critics of that scheme such as Mahinda Rajapakse and Rajiva Wijesinha have now also become operators of the same scheme.

Squealer’s Role

Referring to some adjectives that I have used he says: “Then there is emotional language. None of these characters obviously has read Orwell, and his strictures on clichés and extravagant adjectives. Basil Fernando cannot conceive of abuses, they have to be gross, a crisis must be acute, a situation must be abysmal, helplessness is utter. The adjective political is applied to lunacy, realism, intellect and disasters, plus another half dozen or so words.” While the belief that he alone must have read Orwell can be excused as trivial vanity of a Sri Lankan professor teaching English, Rajiva Wijesinha must surely know that Orwell also wrote, among other things, two celebrated works, those being: Animal Farm and 1984. While the particular historical circumstances that Orwell’s writings are based on may be different, the essential content of the political systems he wrote of remain more valid today, not only to those particular historical circumstances but also to others. Today’s Sri Lanka is very much a reflection of the Orwellian nightmares. Despite long years presumably teaching these texts, Rajiva Wijesinha has been unable to see the connection. In the present context of being a part of a propaganda machinery of an authoritarian state, he, among others, has taken on the role of Squealer in Orwell’s Animal Farm. (The character of Squealer represented the Russian media, which spread Stalin’s version of the truth to the masses).

The problem about adjectives is that when describing situations of the collapse of the rule of law it is difficult to find words that can adequately describe the actual depth of the tragic situation. Like some natural tragedies, for example the recent experience of the tsunami or manmade tragedies by way of wars and civil wars, language becomes an inadequate tool to describe the experience. One has unfortunately to rely on adjectives which fall far short of expressing the enormity and human and social consequences of such tragic experiences. However, Rajiva Wijesinha, in his role of Squealer, objects to these adjectives for a very simple reason: he has to make out that no really big problems exists in Sri Lanka. His role is to deny or trivialize or understate the situation that the country is actually facing.

Orwell’s argument in “Politics and the English Language” is that the bad language used is a result of the failure to think clearly. That is really the problem that one has to address in thinking about the continuing catastrophe in Sri Lanka. What I mentioned in my column is that there is a degeneration of the political intellect in the country and a lack of capacity to develop political realism that some of the political leaders in places like Nepal and Cambodia developed as a result of the sufferings caused by a prolonged crisis. Even bad leaders who have themselves contributed to the civil war in these countries realized that, even from the point of view of their own self-interest, some outside help was needed to bring an end to the ongoing civil war. The help obtained from the United Nations did not and could not solve all their problems. But it did help to bring the violence and civil war to an end. It is on those issues that clear thinking is needed in the country. And of course if one has opted to play the role of Squealer, then one has to abandon even the wish to think clearly.

Orwell also wrote Burmese Days which also provides insight into the types of characters that Rajiva Wijesinha has to deal with in his new role. The character of U Po Kyin (an excerpt from the book is given below), is very much similar to many Sri Lankan characters active in political and public life in the country. It is not an enviable task to become a spokesman responsible for whitewashing the acts of such characters.

U Po Kyin

As a magistrate his methods were simple. Even for the vastest 
bribe he would never sell the decision of a case, because he knew 
that a magistrate who gives wrong judgments is caught sooner or 
later. His practice, a much safer one, was to take bribes from 
both sides and then decide the case on strictly legal grounds. 
This won him a useful reputation for impartiality. Besides his 
revenue from litigants, U Po Kyin levied a ceaseless toll, a sort 
of private taxation scheme, from all the villages under his 
jurisdiction. If any village failed in its tribute U Po Kyin took 
punitive measures–gangs of dacoits attacked the village, leading 
villagers were arrested on false charges, and so forth–and it was 
never long before the amount was paid up. He also shared the 
proceeds of all the larger-sized robberies that took place in the 
district. Most of this, of course, was known to everyone except U 
Po Kyin’s official superiors (no British officer will ever believe 
anything against his own men) but the attempts to expose him 
invariably failed; his supporters, kept loyal by their share of the 
loot, were too numerous. When any accusation was brought against 
him, U Po Kyin simply discredited it with strings of suborned 
witnesses, following this up by counter-accusations which left him 
in a stronger position than ever. He was practically invulnerable, 
because he was too fine a judge of men ever to choose a wrong 
instrument, and also because he was too absorbed in intrigue ever 
to fail through carelessness or ignorance. One could say with 
practical certainty that he would never be found out, that he would 
go from success to success, and would finally die full of honour, 
worth several lakhs of rupees.

And even beyond the grave his success would continue. According to 
Buddhist belief, those who have done evil in their lives will spend 
the next incarnation in the shape of a rat, a frog or some other 
low animal. U Po Kyin was a good Buddhist and intended to provide 
against this danger. He would devote his closing years to good 
works, which would pile up enough merit to outweigh the rest of his 
life. Probably his good works would take the form of building 
pagodas. Four pagodas, five, six, seven–the priests would tell 
him how many–with carved stonework, gilt umbrellas and little 
bells that tinkled in the wind, every tinkle a prayer. And he 
would return to the earth in male human shape–for a woman ranks 
at about the same level as a rat or a frog–or at best as some 
dignified beast such as an elephant.

Emotions

Rajiva Wijesinha writes about the emotional language of what he calls the foot soldiers of the human rights army. He seems to have acquired the capacity to speak unemotionally about, for example, the massacre of the 17 aid workers belonging Action Contra La Faim. His comments on the issue to the effect that this French NGO was itself responsible for the 17 deaths caused embarrassment even to the Sri Lankan government, his employer, which through its Minister for Foreign Affairs clearly stated that his comments did not represent the view of the government. An appeal to be unemotional while talking about massive disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and lawlessness implies that one has to accept these things rationally as unavoidable occurrences.

This is quite different to a one-time Rajiva Wijesinha who wrote quite emotionally and at some length about the extrajudicial killing of his school mate Richard De Zoysa. In that article he exposed everyone involved in the role and quite rightly exposed the role of the then Attorney General Sunil Silva, regarding the inquiries into that death. Perhaps Richard deserved different treatment as a friend and what Rajiva Wijesinha called in that article, a member of a family of the Sri Lankan aristocracy to which he thinks he also belongs. What that aristocracy is I have never understood but the class distinctions that are made between the ordinary folk and the elite are quite common in Sri Lanka. The elite are quite unemotional when talking about disappearances and other matters of the people of other classes in the south, north or the east. Those who are presumed to have read Orwell are treated in one way and those who have not in a different way. Despite of the long connections of Rajiva Wijesinha with what was called the ‘liberal party’ in Sri Lanka, his mindset is no different to many others of that group called the elite whose origins was the ambition, to use Orwell’s language in Burmese Days: ‘To fight on the side of the British, to become a parasite upon them.’

One would ask what is wrong with being emotional. Human beings are both rational and emotional. An integrated personality is one where reason and emotion are always present. However, when one has to espouse a cause that is morally indefensible, such as to justify human rights abuses, naturally one cannot be emotional about it. All Squealers are very unemotional people and to criticise others for being emotional is a common Squealer technique.

Rajiva Wijesingha refers to my fleeing to escape from the UNP death squads. The death squads and the executive presidency are twins. As long as the present form of executive presidency remains the death squads will also remain. The death squads were a product of this political system. It is the role of death squads that is being whitewashed when one tries to deny the disappearances, extrajudicial killings and the like.

He also refers to the foot soldiers of the human rights army. This is no accident because he is a spokesman for the real army. He sees his opponents as another ‘army’. We are reminded of Don Quixote’s battles and the imagery Don Quixote created for himself in order to make someone appear to be another knight who was provoking him into a fight. In Rajiva Wijesingha’s new role he will have to invent armies that he can fight and conquer. The latest adventure for him is to create the impression that he, with a few others, has successfully defeated a possible UN resolution on the need for human . What a great victory!

Ms. Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the end of her visit to Sri Lanka stated that ‘The weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity in Sri Lanka were alarming.’ In an article published in the Sunday Times (October 14, 2007) Ms. Arbour went on to say:

“While the government pointed to several initiatives it has taken to address these issues, there has yet to be an adequate and credible public accounting for the vast majority of these incidents. In the absence of more vigorous investigations, prosecutions and convictions, it is hard to see how this will come to an end,” she said.

The Squealers of Sri Lanka may boast that they managed a victory by avoiding any discussions on these matters with the UN High Commissioner. The continuity of the situation, the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity in Sri Lanka is of course a matter of little concern to them.

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission