Warren Beatty’s extraordinary film Reds charts the life and career of John Reed, who became the first
American to be buried in the Kremlin for his sympathy and support for the
Bolsheviks. The movie is extraordinary not so much for its vast, epic canvas as
for its depiction of the protagonist’s trysts with idealism and
disillusionment.
There’s an interesting scene towards the end of the film.
Reed (played by Beatty) is on a train with his “Comrades”. They’re returning
from the the Congress of the Peoples of the East held at Baku, Azerbaijan, where he had been
amazed at Muslims chanting “Jihad!” as his inaugural speech was being translated.
In the train Reed realises the reason: his speech was rewritten, not
translated, and in place of “class war”, which was what the Revolution was SUPPOSED
to be about, the translator had substituted “Holy War”. He then angrily
confronts Grigory Zinoniev, the man who sanctioned the translation.
What unfolds thereafter is a classic argument on the (de)merits of revolution and truth, underscored by Reed’s growing
disenchantment with the Bolsheviks. To quote: “When you separate a man from
what he loves the most, what you do is purge what’s unique, and when you purge
what’s unique in him, you purge dissent. And when you purge dissent, you kill
the Revolution.” Which leads to possibly the biggest “truism” nearly every
revolution in human history has venerated: “Revolution is Dissent!”
There’s a catch here, of course. Reed probably never had
this confrontation. He probably never argued with Comrade Zinoniev the way the
film makes us believe he did. It was Beatty who scripted that sequence.
Poetic license notwithstanding however, Beatty’s Reed was
spot on there. Revolutions are birthed by idealists. But can these idealists go
on without the need to accommodate dissent, without realising that truth can
only lead to reconciliation and that the gains of a revolution can only be
solidified if (and ONLY if) that reconciliation isn’t fudged or frilled? To be
more concise: if revolutionists grow complacent with time, doesn’t that take
back the gains of their revolution?
One year ago (we’re told), there was a revolution in Sri
Lanka. Commentators today never seem to grow tired of chirping on and on about
the overthrow of tyranny that this led to, and about how the world (no less!) can
take a leaf out of our book with regard to restoring democracy. I know for a
fact that these commentators genuinely believe what they’re harping about: that
after more than 10 years of a despotic tyranny, “overthrow” was definitely not
that easy to achieve.
Not easy to achieve perhaps, but not impossible either.
Those who laud the people for having overthrowing Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime,
not surprisingly, are silent over how the people went to the ballot and threw
other complacent leaders out in the past.
That is a silent if not forgivable omission on their part,
though. What I find unforgivable and laughable, however, is their assessment of
the situation AFTER the revolution. Put pithily, there’s discontentment.
There’s also happiness. For the most however, there are mixed feelings. And
there’s hypocrisy.
Let me come out with it: none of us was happy with the way
Mahinda Rajapaksa handled the country. After he passed the 18th Amendment, he embraced a new self, a no-no as far as amity and peace for the
country were concerned. He sanctioned acts of theft, violence, quackery, and
chicanery on the part of those who, at the last moment, disowned him and
“became” lily-white angels. Most horrendously though, he implied that he himself
realised this. No other president in this country, after all, has on the verge
of an election claimed that the “known devil” is better than the “unknown”.
In comparison, Maithripala Sirisena is way ahead. No other
president had the guts to clip his own powers. No other president tried so hard
to be simple in behaviour and appearance. I attended functions where he spoke
at length, not about his political career but about his personal life. I saw
and heard him speak about his schooldays when I attended the 150th Anniversary Day of St Benedict’s College, Kotahena, where he was Chief Guest.
His reminiscences, at once poetic and free of frill, moved me.
And I know he’s still trying. There were those who lambast(ed)
him over the Budget, his conduct at the UN General Assembly, and his reaction
to that disastrous Enrique Iglesias concert. But look closer: he may have
committed the gaffe, but it’s someone else who has to take the blame for that
gaffe. He is not Mahinda Rajapaksa, at least not to an extent, in this regard.
Yes, we are grateful.
But not being like Mahinda Rajapaksa will neither salvage
nor sustain the revolution. The president has been quick to affirm, deny, or
apologise, but he has also been quick to trip himself up. He has contradicted
himself on various policy issues (most notably his stance on the death penalty,
denied by his own Foreign Minister overseas). His stand on nepotism has raised
eyebrows. His affirmation of a multiethnic and rational society, where
primitivism doesn’t hold sway, has fallen flat on the ground when confronted with
the way he lambasted the organisers of the Iglesias concert (and that on the
pretext of protecting our Sinhala Buddhist culture!).
There’s more.
A friend of mine once gave his take on revolutions of the
sort our president authored: “They are fine for rhetoric. They are fine for
those insured against transition. But for those who lose from them, not because
they backed the ‘other side’ but because that transition leads to economic instability,
the government remains hard to support, harder to sustain.” I think he was
being a tad too unfair on the government, but I see his point: at a time when
the world’s turbulent enough, revolutions of THIS sort, coupled especially with
the sort of policy U-Turns we’ve been seeing soon after the president took
oaths last year, need to be handled well.
This government hasn’t handled it well, truth be told. I’ve
lost faith in the rupee. I don’t bother keeping a tab on prices. I can’t think
of a worse time to save or invest or borrow (except during the war years). I
don’t remember whether we even had a Budget last year, given the number of capitulations the Finance Ministry has done with respect to that.
And no, I can’t understand why we STILL haven’t apprehended the likes of (Dr)
Mervyn Silva (where is he now, I wonder?).
As if this wasn’t bad enough, I have another complaint: I
don’t know why the president had to slap democracy in the face and appoint rejects
as Ministers last August.
Oh no, I’m not saying we need to go back to the Rajapaksa
Regime. But that doesn’t mean those who won on account of their allegiance with
the former president should be “punished” by being relegated to the parliament.
I remember what another friend of mine said: “We can’t afford five-star
democracy when it comes to Mahinda Rajapaksa”. A poor justification of what
transpired in August 2015, I believe.
For those still trying to justify what Sirisena did, hence,
I have one thing to say: just stop it. Democracy isn’t five-star, it’s
unqualifiable. Purely and simply.
And so one year has gone by. Losers are occupying Ministries
and they run the show. Some even seem to be behaving as though what they’re
doing was and is accepted by the same people who reject them. Crass. Pathetic.
Typical.
No wonder we have a de facto “Join Opposition” in addition
to (and apart from) the TNA-JVP de jure Opposition! No wonder that Joint
Opposition can still play on fears perceived and imagined, for the most
revolving around issues of sovereignty, suzerainty, and political quackery. No
wonder, also, that racist rhetoric is on the rise, what with a segment of the
population virtually unrepresented thanks to a government that refuses to
recognise their grievances and demands!
Enough to make you a cynic, right?
When I reflect on all this, I can only grin at the Facebook,
Twitter, Blogger, and Wordpress activists who ranted against Mahinda Rajapaksa,
who’re now bending over backward to defend the man they elected to power, even
in the most ludicrous situation. I can only guffaw at their pathetic attempts
at criticising the president’s statements while defending the president
himself. And I can only scowl and glare at their EVEN more pathetic attempts at
trying to place abuses and misuses of power by this government in a better
light than those of the Rajapaksa Regime, and that by using the “relative
merits” argument.
No, quackery isn’t relative, folks. Especially when it’s
political. I think that’s the biggest lesson we’ve learnt this past year.
And I think we’re done listening to these activists and
bloggers trying to tell us otherwise.
PS: In the version of this article I wrote for the Colombo Telegraph, I referred to the "Baku Congress" as the "Fourth Comintern Congress". That was a mistake. An erroneous one. I apologise.
Uditha Devapriya is a
freelance writer who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment