Police kindness, militarism and war-propaganda

•  “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 LTTE’s 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 didn’t hear of a single threat to the President’s 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 man’s 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.)