Police kindness, militarism and warpropaganda

February 14, 2015

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes
invariably from people who are not fighting George Orwell

Overnight, the forces, particularly the Police, seem to have become more tolerant and helpful

A friend recounted an unexpectedly pleasant experience

she had with the Police on Independence Day.
Unknowingly, she had driven into a road in the Kotte area, closed for usual
traffic that Wednesday on account of the Independence Day celebrations. It
was only after driving quite a distance that my friend realised that she was
in the middle of the area where the celebratory procession was forming.
She could neither move forward nor reverse. Observing her difficulties,
Police officers who were on duty there assisted most obligingly by removing

some barriers blocking her way and making a path through the crowd.

She was truly surprised by the consideration and the politeness shown by
those Police officers. In the years before such an interruption would have
earned the ire of the officers who would have reacted in the rudest possible
way.
Overnight, the forces, particularly the Police, seem to have become more
tolerant and helpful. No longer are they intimidating, reacting as if the
public are the enemy. Now they are on the way to becoming true
policemen, friends and protectors of the public. No longer is their main
function to clear the path for members of one family and their cohorts but
the free and fearless movement of all.
On 8 January did the security situation, which supposedly required all the
oppression, the uniforms on the streets, long convoys, closure of roads,
etc., change?

The LTTE terrorists

Fundamentally, the answer to that question lies in the 30-year-long national
nightmare that we went through during the sporadic, on now, off again war
against the LTTE terrorists. Examining the LTTEs evolution through its
murky beginnings to the mortal threat it eventually grew into are essential
for us to understand the social and psychological impact this organisation
was to have on this small island nation. The scope and the violence of the
challenge posed by them was so completely outside the capabilities and
experiences of the national leadership that it almost undid them.
A comprehensive analysis of the effect of a 30-year war is obviously beyond
the scope of a short essay. But we can attempt to at least gain perspective,

particularly
now that it is more than five
years since the LTTE was destroyed totally. Complete perspective requires
not only the study of the various local factors during this period but also
comparison and assessment against other wars and terrorists.
In demographic terms, almost 85% of the population was arrayed against
the LTTE which was depended on the balance population for recruits and
support. Even among that minority, a large number did not support the
terrorists. Land wise, the basic operational area of the LTTE was little more
than 5000 square miles. In the last 15 or so years of the war the LTTE did
not operate like a typical guerrilla group but more like a regular force,
controlling definitive land areas and fighting fixed piece battles with the
forces. They even ran schools and hospitals.
Had well known guerrilla forces like the Vietcong or the al-Qaida opted for
such tactics against the US forces, they would have been done to in matter
of days if not hours. Even in Sri Lanka, once the forces were organised and
led effectively, the terrorist group was no match in positional warfare.

Horrors of terrorism
The LTTE challenge brought all the horrors of terrorism to a society which,
whatever its other flaws, cannot be accused of being war like. Geographic
separation of an island sheltered us from the horrors of constant warfare,
unlike the European continent for example. Religious and social ethos of the
major communities in the island is fundamentally pacifist in nature, there
was no impulse to conquer or proselytise. Even the few battles recorded in
our history are only of local significance, and by necessity, given the small
numbers and resources involved, minor in nature.
It is generally estimated that during 30 plus years of fighting between the
Government forces and the LTTE (and other terrorists groups) we suffered
about 100,000 casualties in all. If we compare this with say the ongoing
civil war in Syria, which is about three times the size of Sri Lanka but has a
comparable economy and population, since fighting started in about 2011
that country has seen nearly 300,000 casualties (app. four years).
When we look at areas conquered in a war, Germany conquered almost a
million square miles of Russia during 1941-42. This is fighting an A Grade
army. In the four years of war (1941-45) Russia alone suffered 20 million
dead. Going back further, military observers are awed by what little
England conquered during their imperial expansions in the 17th, 18th and
19th centuries, running in to several million square miles.
Genghis Khan in his life time conquered one of the largest contiguous
empires in history, stretching from the China Sea to Poland. In one year of
fighting, 1942, the Japanese came right up to Myanmar, a remarkable
march, given the equipment available and the road conditions then. More
recently, the Korean and Vietnamese wars caused millions of deaths. Like in
everything else, in warfare and its aftermath, perspective is essential for
complete understanding.

Politicians seize the moment

In Sri Lanka, once the forces did their duty, the politicians, seized the
moment, the hours and the days that followed. The entire war was now
presented as the effort of one family, a kingly one at that! Neither Churchill
nor Roosevelt representing nations mature in such matters, attempted to
claim sole ownership of victory in so a complex phenomenon like war.

By its very nature, modern warfare requires many hands and minds to
create a winning formula. Often other factors like resources, circumstances
and even luck plays a vital role in large scale human conflicts. Many a time,
blunders on the part of the enemy under pressure has resulted in victory
than the tactics of the victor. On the other hand, where perspective and
maturity are lacking, the most strident and high-pitched voice can claim
ownership for the collective efforts of many.
Given the nature of our politics, what followed the victory of 2009 was
almost predictable. The war was over, but the security concerns only
became worse. Take the case of former President Chandrika Bandaranaike,
who recently complained that Mahinda Rajapaksa was vindictive in reducing
her large security entitlement. But although her security was reduced, no
harm came her way. The fact is that since May 2009 not a single terrorist
incident has occurred in this country. It may be argued that she needs no
security at all, unless such things are for ornamental purposes. But
evidently in immature systems that is how things work.
It is reported that the security cover of Mahinda Rajapaksa when President
consisted of nearly 10,000 able-bodied men. This is the size of a division.
The composition and strength of that division may have been based on the
personal assessment of his brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was the
security czar of the regime and made all decisions. His way of thinking
pervaded the entire system down to the traffic policeman. During this
period we didnt hear of a single threat to the Presidents life. But in the
prevailing mind-set of the all-powerful family, it is not necessary to guard
the president in that manner because there is a threat to the great mans
life! Our system does not work like that. On the contrary, because he is
guarded so much, we have to assume that he is a great man and imagine
that there must be a threat to his life!

Sanity returns to the land for now

Then suddenly, on 8 January sanity returned to the land.
The kindness shown by those traffic policemen to my friend the confused
lady driver was a result of that sanity. But we must not assume that the
return to sanity is a permanent state. There are too many dark and
irrational forces out there for the sun to shine for long. And one of the
attractions of these dark forces in a country like Sri Lanka is that among a

generally incompetent political establishment, they can appear to be able

to deliver.
For example, many cities in the world, much larger and more populated
than Colombo, have successfully presented themselves as clean and
healthy metropolises. If you examine the list of the most liveable cities in
the world, Sydney, Singapore and many European cities are shining
examples of clean, well-run and prosperous cities. These are not run by
military men.
Colombo by comparison is a small city and easily managed. But for many
years now we have had city fathers who are only known for their
incompetence, indifference and an embarrassingly limited outlook. As a
result they make the military types, who may act with no accountability and
thus able to achieve short term results, look good.
Such people may employ 100 persons to maintain the walks at the
Independence Square. A civilian mayor will have to explain the ratio of
employees to the job both to his rate payers as well as opposition in the city
council. Nevertheless, the utter incompetence of the civilian administrators,
which has sadly become their hallmark, can work as an invitation to tin-pot
dictators.
George Orwell, one of the most outstanding authors and essayists of the
20th century, wrote the above quoted line in his famous Homage to
Catalonia. The point made by Orwell is true of even Sri Lanka, none of
those who shout themselves hoarse on stage today about patriotism
actually fought on the frontlines.
In the mid-1930s young idealists, including Orwell, from many countries
made the trip to Spain to fight the Fascists of General Franco in what turned
out to be a bloody prelude to the Second World War. In the course of the
fighting many of the idealists, despite the purity of their convictions,
became disillusioned, losing faith with the blatant ideological dishonesty of
their own side, increasingly under the monolithic Stalinist dominance of the
opposition.
On 8 January, we said no to one family which wanted to convert this
country into a fiefdom. That certainly will not be the only time.
(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law and a freelance writer.)
Posted by Thavam