Of monstrous monarchies and
diplomatic heresies
The Island Editorial
An attempt is being made in some quarters to make a mountain out of
a molehill over an allegation that a Sri Lankan diplomat serving abroad
has advocated that the British monarchy be abolished. The envoy concerned
has denied that charge and explained his position. His response carried
in this newspaper the other day was clear enough to put the matter to
rest. But, some pundits who don't read the original version of anything
or follow-ups including clarifications but love to go by the electronic
grapevine (aka e-mail) which dishes out a great deal of doctored trash
keep on baying for his blood. So do some gossipy Foreign Ministry mandarins
who behave like women at a public tap and treat their political bosses
like mushrooms--by keeping them in the dark and feeding them with hogwash!
In a way, even if a Sri Lankan diplomat were to suggest that the British
monarchy be scrapped, why should there be such a hullabaloo? A former
British High Commissioner didn't mince his words when he said in a public
lecture in Colombo that he saw nothing 'illegitimate' about the concept
of Eelam, which, he knew, was equivalent to the division of this country.
And to some Western diplomats, the unitary status of this country has
become something like a red rag to a bull. They openly advocate a constitutional
change to transform Sri Lanka into a union of states. Most of all, terrorists
funding and coordinating ethnic bloodletting here are operating from
British soil with the patronage of some MPs there. But, there is not
a whimper of protest from those 'concerned Sri Lankans' who are after
the scalp of the Sri Lankan diplomat whom they accuse of having 'offended'
the British royalty!
Some Sri Lankans literally venerate the British monarchy. If the Queen
catches a cold in London, they sneeze in Colombo. Such is their emotional
attachment to the throne! But, in Britain, the royal family doesn't
seem to have so many fans. Princess Diana, who towards the latter part
of her life pitted herself against the monarchy bitterly to the point
of belittling it by starting an affair with a Muslim, became an icon
for the British public. The number of British citizens who question
the wisdom of maintaining the monarchy at such a huge cost is said to
be on the increase.
Let's see how the British monarchy treated our monarchy. The fate that
the last king of Lanka Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe suffered at the hands
of the marauding British is only too well known. Taken prisoner at the
behest of the British Crown, he died in exile. True, the Kandyan nobility
was instrumental in betraying the king but the fact remains that the
British got rid of him, reneged on promises to noblemen and violated
the Kandyan Convention in every possible way.
Never mind that wicked king of Lanka. How did the military of the British
monarchy treat the poor Sri Lankans? Their barbarism knew no bounds.
It was through the scorched earth policy, genocide and gendercide that
they quelled the Wellassa rebellion in 1817-18.
Tens of thousands of acres of lush paddy fields were reduced to rubble
and all fruit bearing trees felled to starve the people by way of punishment
for their defiance. Worst of all, men and male children were put to
the sword in their thousands. Brutal destruction that the imperial army
wreaked on Wellassa, which means one hundred thousand paddy fields,
was so severe that even today it remains backward.
In the hill country, many Kandyan peasants were driven out of their
lands, which were taken over for raising commercial crops. Most of them
have remained landless ever since.
Sri Lanka's experience with all foreign monarchs has been bitter. Indian
kings apparently made a sport of invading Sri Lanka in ancient times.
The Portuguese, in the name of their royalty, committed heinous crimes
against Sri Lankans. Places of worship were destroyed and their assets
removed by the cartload. Wanton destruction of life and property characterised
their rule. The persecution of Muslims was so brutal that King Senerath
had to intervene to shelter the victims in the Kandyan kingdom and later
settle them in the Eastern Province. (Thus, it may be seen that Sri
Lankan kings practised some kind of R2P centuries ago against the invading
armies of the Occident to protect human rights.) The Kandyan king also
rose in defence of the religion of the Portuguese, which the Dutch were
all out to wipe out. He kept Catholic priests in his kingdom to save
them from the Dutch rapiers.
So, abhorrence of foreign monarchies and their marauders is in the
genes of Sri Lankans, though times have changed and foes have become
friends. They are truly loved by only those whose forebears sold their
souls to the colonialists and got land and titles in return for their
servility.
However, Sri Lankan diplomats are not supposed to articulate the views
of the populace. They must be suave and sophisticated. A diplomat is
said to be a person who is capable of telling someone to go to hell
in such a way that he will really look forward to the trip. Here is
an example. When Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar was assassinated
in 2005, some foreign ambassadors issued statements condemning the crime
and urging the government to ensure that the CFA, in force at that time,
would not be jeopardised. Translated into ordinary English, their message
read: "Stick to the ceasefire regardless of how many ministers
get killed!"
We don't believe the liberal- minded British are as perturbed as the
anglophiles in Colombo seem to be by the unsubstantiated allegation
that a Sri Lankan diplomat has called for scrapping the British monarchy.
If the British government, by any chance, kicks up a diplomatic shindy
over the issue demanding action against our envoy concerned, the Sri
Lankan government ought to request Britain to act in a similar manner
against its envoys overstepping their diplomatic limits and, most of
all, the terrorists coordinating their operations from British soil
to destroy Sri Lanka. A deal, eh?
|
