Excuse this poorly compiled, passionate reply to Anita Prataps comments. I have fostered a deep seeded distrust of her and her journalistic output for many years, and seeing this post inspired me to start my own blog. The following are my immediate thoughts on her views.
Retaining power and control over people is different to harvesting of souls. The harvesting of souls is the gathering of new followers. In no direct manner is the retaining of power over existing followers. Her contention to the contrary is the first logical contradiction in Prataps presentation. More factual and logical errors unfortunately follow.
When was it that the standardization system practiced in the admissions process to universities in Sri Lanka discriminative against tamils? The tamils she speaks of, those from the north and the east, are from districts that are allotted affirmative action slots due to the disparity in resources in schools from rural areas The argument she should have making to press home her point of discrimination is language policy based – the sinhala only policy of 1956 and onwards to a certain point in time -and this is an initial misunderstanding of the facts which she demonstrates. She has continued on to make several poorly analyzed focus points and arguments relating to her contentions.
When was it that the Sri Lankan Army burnt down villages in the 1950’s or 1960’s when the “protest’ was of a mostly non-violent nature? The burning of villages came to be once the uprising took the nature of an armed conflict. I do not defend these actions, however placing the burning of villages in at a chronological point prior to the taking up of arms by the tamil youth (which followed militarization by socialist elements in the South and the armies strong stance taken against those elements both Sinhala and otherwise) is a misguidance to the extreme for any newcomer to Sri Lanka’s conflict. Pratap speaks as an expert would, but her experience must be seriously called into question along with her journalistic skill and intellectual capacity. She may have done better in B grade Kholiwood productions.
Her misunderstanding of the issue is far ranging and deep. A further example of this is the manner in which she claims “deals” were thrown out by governments (successors to the deal-making government) as they had no political capital invested in these deals. In FACT the deals were abrogated by the same governments that made them. Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam for example was torn to shreds by bandaranaike himself. She could have made the point stronger for herself, but because of her fundamental and historical misunderstanding of the facts, her representation of those facts have become fraudulent and fallacious. A dangeorus mistake of journalistic hyperbole in the instance of her being accepted as an authority on the matter. Such recognition brings a responsibility for credible conscientious and honest work which she has failed to abide by.
It’s interesting that she speaks of the fact that the government never wins and the rebels never lose. It is undoubtedly a great victory for the rebels that they have been able to exterminate all possible alternative political (and military) representatives of the tamil people. Nellan Tiruchelvam and Amirthalingam have been victims of the rebels and great trophies on the LTTE mantle piece that sit right below the prize target that was Rahul Gandhi. – the indian prime minister who was killed by the Tigers while attempting to take a more overt (as opposed to covert) role on the part of “big brother” to the North in Sri Lanka’s armed conflict, much to the derision of the LTTE who had benefited immensely through indian polices pre and post gandhi.
An added misrepresentation on the part of Pratap has been in relation to the building of mistrust. She claims this has been built up over the past 20 years. This has been built up over the past 80 years, and it has not been merely between the sinhalese and the tamils. The rebels who she has glorifyingly hero-worshiped have created grave mistrust amongst the population they hope to represent. Speak to any tamil from the affected regions, or just any tamil, and you would understand the hopeless situation that has grown amongst their people due to the extermination and exodus of effective capable and intellecutal leaders. This departure and marginalization is a product not only of sri lankan state policies, but also the rebel ideology of “sole representative”. It would be the crucifiable folly of any Sri Lankan government to deal with the LTTE as a representative of the Tamil people. If at all, negotiations should take place with the LTTE based on them representing the territory they control militarily. “Peace” talks should take place between the State, admittedly the LTTE AND other voices representing the muslim and more moderate (and extremist) alternate tamil voices. These should ideally be selected through a democratic process, which is unfortunatley not possible due to the existing situations in the North AND in the East to which the LTTE have contributed in no small part.
Journalists such as Pratap, who have made their careers through deep access and familiarity, and even hero worshiping as is evident from her writings such as ‘island of blood’, with and of armed terrorist groups which often contribute to the growth of the movements for good or bad, distort facts and push claims that are essentially self serving; with linkages made to these groups the journalist would reap higher benefits (dollars from CNN in this instance) dependent on how much higher profile the conflict would become and how much more newsworthy the story would become.
Her “20 years in Sri Lanka” have seemingly been spent in vain possibly polishing up her horrible Indian-American mix of accents which remained excruciatingly difficult to listen to over her many years at CNN – such a model media institution in itself (please note sarcasm).
Pratap represents the media that exaggerates and sensationalizes conflicts for personal gain. The media that picks sides and distorts facts based on their allegiances. Iraq is testament to the role of the media in extrapolating a conflict merely through the repeated use of a term – “civil war” – that transformed an insurgency into actual civil war. One sees this repeatedly based on how a story is exploited by the main stream media continuously. Pratap is a poster child for the same elements she derides.
Kedavaachaka Vitthi 