Ideological battles are often marked by a deliberate misnaming of things. One could argue that perspective prompts different kinds of definitions, labels and elaboration, of course, but these choices are not always innocent. Some are used so often that they become entities which allow anyone to read them any which way they like. Sometimes, over-use and even the affirmation through word and deed of the polar opposite, not only robs meaning from words, names, terms and such but turn them into grotesque, humorous and ridiculous descriptives. Yahapalanaya, for instance.
We are talking here about an older term which has been dormant for a while for reasons we shall come to presently: the national question.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe used it a couple of days ago while addressing the 125th anniversary celebrations of the Kandarodai Vidyalaya in Chunnakam, Jaffna. He pledged that he would do his utmost to find a political solution to the national question within the next two years. Where he will be, politically, come July 2021, is of course a question in and of itself, but then again, attempt at anything, political solution or otherwise, to any question national, international or non-national, is not necessarily dependent on location. What’s interesting is the use of the term and the term itself.
- If ‘national’ relates to or is characteristic of ‘nation’ or something common to a whole nation, what then is ‘nation’ for people living on this island?
- The ‘National Question’ has been a proxy for the so-called ‘Ethnic Conflict’ (also definable as the ‘Separatist Problem’ or the ‘Eelam Project’)
The ‘National Question’ has been a proxy for the so-called ‘Ethnic Conflict’ (also definable as the ‘Separatist Problem’ or the ‘Eelam Project’). In ideological battles, such term-choices are a given, one observes. ‘The National Question’ could also be something that speaks to issues of identity and belonging, especially after Independence.
Wickremesinghe, for example, observing in the same speech that the English cricket team included players of different national origins, opined that ‘the time has come for everyone to think of Sri Lankans as [citizens of] a single nation.’ One assumes he’s implying that people should stop thinking of themselves as Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers, etc., or as belonging to 
different religious communities or, even as they do so they ought to see ‘Sri Lanka’ and ‘Sri Lankan.’ One need not be one (e.g. Tamil or Sinhala) or the other (Sri Lankan), this too needs to be said. Also, the entire ‘question’ should not be (as it is) reduced to something that derives from a simple and simplistic description on lines such as ‘one ethnicity one vote’ or ‘one religion one vote’. That’s essentially deploying the principle of equality to erase percentages, history and heritage. One observes that many such ‘One Sri Lanka’ advocates are conspicuously silent on such important matters.
That said, we do have a problem of ‘belonging’. Wickremesinghe implies that the likes of Eoin Morgan and Jofra Archer feel they are truly ‘English’. He may be correct. The question for us is, do Tamils and Muslims, Christians and Burghers feel similarly ‘belonged’? For that matter, do Sinhalese feel ‘belonged’? Do the majority feel they are ‘belonged’ in some form or the other that matters to them, individually and/or collectively? Do we feel properly represented? Who really owns this country?
If ‘national’ relates to or is characteristic of ‘nation’ or something common to a whole nation, what then is ‘nation’ for people living on this island? You could get many responses here, many of them valid in terms of substantive-weight and indeed, for reasons of political efficacy, appearing even more valid by selectivity, i.e. the play of exaggeration and understatement.
This is not an exercise in defining to any degree of ‘finality’. However, Wickremesinghe has opened the doors to debate. In the very least, we can use the common sense definitions of ‘nation’ and ‘national’ to raise some questions. Here goes.
How ‘national’ was Resolution 30/1 of the UNHRC co-sponsored by the Yahapalana Government, considering that it essentially crippled the security apparatus (long, longed for by the movers and shakers of the regime and in particular the then Minister of Foreign Affairs)? How ‘national’ indeed when it includes clauses that make for non-nationals to decide how things are done or not done in Sri Lanka? What’s ‘national’ about policies that clearly compromise sovereignty, wrecks food security and causes ecological destruction? What’s ‘national’ about processes that impoverish vast sections of the citizenry? What kind of ‘nation’ do we have when in the name of religious freedom, certain religious communities teach, affirm and execute tenets that are not only intolerant but make for terrorism?
What is this ‘nation’ where politics is reduced to a consideration of which party/coalition or candidate gets to sell bits and pieces or entire swathes on account of idiocy, lack of faith in the people, kickbacks or any combination of these plus a lot of other things that make ‘belonging’ and ‘ownership’ meaningless?
What is this ‘nation’ where politics is reduced to a consideration of which party/coalition or candidate gets to sell bits and pieces or entire swathes on account of idiocy, lack of faith in the people, kickbacks or any combination of these plus a lot of other things that make ‘belonging’ and ‘ownership’ meaningless? For the record, let’s mention the following: the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, the Ceasefire Agreement, various deals related to ports and airports, the SOFA and ACSA, Millennium Corporation deal.
What’s this nation where corrupt, incompetent and clearly traitorous ministers, with the tacit support of their respective bosses, sign agreements that are detrimental to the national interest, whichever way one wants to defined ‘national’ here? What kind of nation is this where we have agreements with other countries that the cabinet, parliament and the general public don’t get to see? Does ‘nation’ make sense when the state subsidizes capital interests while insulting, humiliating and dispossessing the majority of the people? What kind of ‘nation’ is this where poisoning the soil and the people are cornerstones of agricultural policy? What is this nation which has paid representatives who keep their mouths shut in other countries and in multilateral forums where resolutions are proposed to vilify the nation and her people and/or seek to legitimate narratives that are patently false? Where’s the ‘national’ in that kind of sloth, incompetence and idiocy?
Marxists talk of a bourgeoisie and a proletariat that does not comprehend their respective class interests. They talk of a lumpen proletariat and could also talk of a lumpen bourgeoisie. We do have, one might add, lumpen nationalism/nationalists, lumpen ‘intellectuals’, lumpen ‘civil society,’ and lumpen ‘professionals’. Put together, a lumpen citizenry and a lumpen nation, one might conclude.
‘Lumpen,’ ladies and gentlemen, refers to that which relates to dispossession and uprooting, i..e cut off (typically) from the economic and social class with which a particular collective might normally be identified. We do not have a sense of ‘nation’ and ‘national’ or rather our ‘leaders’ and ‘representatives’ do not. There’s dispossession. There’s uprooting. If we are a nation, we are a lumpen articulation of one. If there’s dispossession, then re-possession is the order of the day. If there’s uprooting, then re-rooting or a search for rootedness is called for. Such an exercise cannot be expected from the major political parties or their allies. We cannot expect it from the mainstream contenders for the prize (yes!) of the presidency. We might as well look elsewhere.
malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com
