Mengistu Haile Mariam: No Famine Accepted in Acceptance Speech

Mengistu Haile Mariam, the leader of the Derg (Committee) which ruled Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991, and head of state during 1977-1991, is remembered for 'red terror' and even genocide. His speech in September 1984, at the Inauguration of the Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE) was an instance of political hypocrisy at the highest level.

The revolution of 1974 which deposed the long serving Emperor Haile Sellassie I, was the result of public dissatisfaction intensified by a famine in the 1970s. The new military regime struggled to establish itself in the initial years. Mengistu rose to the prominence after eliminating his opponents within and without the Derg.

The Derg embraced Marxism-Leninism as the guiding principle and increasing aid was received from the Soviet bloc. To transform the feudal economy, among other things, land reforms were carried out. Land distribution was quite fairly done and was generally popular. But it created small plots of land which affected the productivity.

Peasants were organized into Peasant Associations and Peasant Collectives. However, collectivization never received wide support in the country. The National Farms established also were unproductive.

The peasants' incentive to produce suffered a heavy blow due to the policies of the powerful Agricultural Marketing Corporation (AMC). This was established to feed the country's cities and towns. The AMC determined a quota for associations, collectives and national farms and bought foodstuff below market prices. To prevent smuggling, AMC built road blocks at strategic points along the roads. The peasants were unwilling to sell the full quota to the AMC at low prices.

Meanwhile, mid-year rains failed in 1983, and a famine was projected for the following year. The regime was at the time preparing for the tenth anniversary of the 1974 revolution and the establishment of a new party, the WPE. Mengistu himself may have been unaware at this stage about the projections. But, he should have been well aware of the situation by late 1983 as the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) leaked the information to foreign press against the will of the regime. However, the regime never accepted the reality and foreign aid was not forthcoming as a result.

Rains again failed in February 1984 and June-July 1984. By that time, the famine was becoming a hard reality. The government was unwilling to divert funds from the tenth anniversary celebrations to counter the famine. More than half of the country’s population was severely affected.

Despite this, the foreign dignitaries who arrived for the celebrations in September, saw a clean city and nothing of the horror engulfing the country. In the newly built Congress Hall, the WPE was called into being and a Politburo was elected. This in turn, elected Mengistu as the General Secretary of the Party, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and President of the Council of ministers.

His acceptance speech lasted for five and a half hours. Mengistu spoke on the achievements and the future of the revolution. Not even once, in this long speech, did he mention the famine. Even during his speech, thousands of Ethiopians died from starvation.

Jawaharlal Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny

It was the evening of August 14, 1947.

A nation of nearly 400 million people awaited its emergence from the clutches of colonial rule. Throughout the land, in cities and villages alike, these would be citizens anticipated the birth of their nation. In the capital Delhi, the Constitutional Assembly had gathered to witness the last act in the transfer of power.

As the clock moved slowly towards midnight, a slim elderly man dressed in a cream coloured achkhan (a long coat buttoned up to the neck) and a clean white khadi cap stood up. Flashbulbs illuminated the chamber, revealing the tense, fatigued face. It was to be temporary. As he spoke, he was to transform profoundly. His voice, low at the beginning, grew in volume as he continued his speech.

“Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny….” Thus, Jawaharlal Nehru began what was to be perhaps his most memorable speech. “……..and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially,” he continued. This was a reference to the agony of partition. As Nehru spoke, Pakistan was already an independent state, and he may have seen the agonies awaiting the peoples of both countries.

Nevertheless, there was reason to rejoice. “At the stroke of the midnight hour,” he went on, “when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take a pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.”

Then he paused, may be to give a moment for the audience to grasp the essence of his words. Nehru knew that his challenges were immense. He had to transform a very backward society to the modern world. He went on elaborating, describing the immense challenges that lay ahead.

“The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?”

“……. That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we might fulfill the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and decease and inequality of opportunity”

These were the evils of India. It was home for more than 350 million people, and the numbers were growing rapidly. India was not self sufficient in food and feeding this expanding population was a mammoth task. A large section of the population, the adivasis and harijans in particular and rural and urban poor in general, were marginalized from the society. More than 80% of the people were illiterate. The privileged few enjoyed luxurious lives while the vast majority of the populace languished in utter poverty and ignorance.

Then, Nehru referred to his mentor, the leader of the freedom movement in India, the Mahatma. “The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.”

Nehru once more stressed the importance of striving for the betterment of India and the world humanity. “And so we have to labour and to work and work hard to give reality to our dreams. Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too
closely knit together today for anyone of them to imagine that it can live apart.

His concluding remarks Nehru asked the people of India to join in the adventure of India’s emergence out of poverty and ignorance. “Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this one world that can no longer be split into isolated fragments. To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we appeal to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.”

Uncertain Future, in Politics and Life

First published in January this year, weeks after the Presidential Election 2015, to mark the birthday of Rukshan Abeywansha. Re-posting this here, on his first death anniversary.

I am reminded of a Buddhist story about Arhat Sariputta who was once asked about the outcome of a war that had broken out between two states. He, who had developed his mind to such an extent that he was named the most intelligent of all disciples of Buddha, gave a prediction on what he could see. The prediction turned out to be wrong.

Predicting the future is a risky endeavor. According to Buddhist scriptures, only the Buddha could see the past, present and future with accuracy. Even if we do not accept the story, no one will dispute the fact that future is uncertain to every mortal. Several famous astrologers found out this the hard way by the morning of January 9, 2015, as Sri Lanka learned of the defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Presidential Election. Fearing for their trade, these people later claimed that they actually saw the future but were afraid of the consequences and decided to lie.

While the future in politics is always uncertain, political decisions can change the course of politics and create the future. The outcome of the election was never a certainty until January 9. However, the decisions of both the government and the opposition leaders paved the way for such an outcome where a seemingly invincible government fell.

Rathana Thera

During the presidential campaign, I remembered a certain day in late May 2014, when there was no discussion whatsoever about a Presidential Election. The News Editor of ‘The Nation’ Deepal Warnakulasuriya, and I went to the Sadaham Sevana at Rajagiriya to interview Athuraliye Rathana Thera on a new endeavor he had started. It was the publication of a national policy statement “Rata Gatha Yuthu Maga” (The Path the country should take) by the “Pivithuru Hetak” organization led by Rathana Thera.

He envisaged a national policy on crucial matters, irrespective of the party that was in power. “When we take the national issues, we must have national policies which don’t change with the regime changes or any other pressures from local or international forces. Not only India, even some western countries do not change their policies on crucial matters when the regime changes,” Rathana Thera told us. He envisaged a national policy council which could take decisions in critical matters irrespective of a change of a regime.

Rathana Thera also spoke about the issues of corruption, environment, agriculture and energy crisis. He was not ready to take executive presidency head-on, adding that one must first tackle issues that all sides can reach a consensus. However, he added that if the government does not agree to the critical changes that need to be done, he would have to think of the next step.

This interview came haunting back to my mind when the presidential election campaign was at a full-swing. “Was this the next step he meant?”

Rukshan

“Pivithuru Hetak” released its policy statement on June 3, 2014. Our colleague, Rukshan Chandika Abeywansha went to the event at BMICH. He was thrilled before the event simply because he saw the potential of a unique event.

“Okkoma pakshavala kattiya enava machan, niyama pinthura tikak thiyeyi” he told me. (People from all parties will be there. There will be some unique photos). He did justice to the event, as always. One of his pictures has the then Minister Rajitha Senaratne, then Minister and Jathika Hela Urumaya General Secretary Patali Champika Ranawaka, then United National Party Leadership Council Chairman Karu Jayasuriya and UNP Parliamentarian Harsha de Silva, all smiling. On June 8, ‘The Nation’ carried the picture, with a caption, on page 3. However, this was to be the last news picture of Rukshan we carried. On that same June 8, he met with an accident.

If anyone of us could foretell the future, we would have told him not to go on that journey on that route on that morning. But alas, we are not gifted. We can only remind ourselves of the past, and speculate of the future.

Rukshan may not have then understood the significance of the event he covered. Neither did we. But today, we realize the importance of that event, which may have been a key moment in the ultimate regime change that took place on January 8. But Rukshan is not here with us to see the significance of the event he saw as a wonderful photo opportunity.

Rukshan Chandika Abeywansha, Best Photo Journalist of the Year 2013, would have been 37 this January 30.

A Response to BBC: Was Putin Deflecting Criticism in His Speech on the Downing of a Su-24?

The shooting down of a Russian Su-24 fighter jet by Turkey sent shock waves across the world. Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, was quick to respond in the harshest of words possible.

“This incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism. Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists” he said, blaming Turkey.

BBC’s Moscow correspondent Sarah Rainsford had an interesting explanation to Putin’s statement. “After all, Vladimir Putin launched airstrikes in Syria arguing that it would make Russia safer; instead, 224 people were blown out of the sky last month in a bomb attack. And now this. By rounding on Turkey he is in part deflecting any suggestion that his own policy has backfired”, Rainsford said.

So, was Putin deflecting criticism? Was he wrong in saying that Russia would be safer if the Islamic State of Ira and Syria (ISIS) is defeated is Syria?

Putin went into Syria to bolster his ally Assad there. One can never deny this reality. Nevertheless, his argument of defeating ISIS is Syria to make Russia safer is fundamentally not wrong.

One reason for the success of the ISIS is that it has a firm base in Iraq and Syria. Western indifference helped its rise in Syria. The ISIS entrenched itself firmly in parts of Syria at least a year before it became a world-wide phenomenon by sweeping across large swathes of Iraq. ISIS can now boast about its accomplishments in controlling a large area across two countries, giving it much needed credibility as a potent force. The ISIS has created a de facto state, which has started advertising itself as an Islamic Utopia state to recruit cadres across the world.

Russia is one of its target areas for recruitment and potential attack. The ISIS fighters are not targeting Russia because it started pounding them in Syria. Although most people do not realize, Russia has a large Muslim population. One seventh of its people profess Islam, and this could be turned in to a potential recruiting ground.

It was in December 2014 that Al Jazeera described this situation in an article written by Olga Khrustaleva titled “Russia’s Burgeoning ISIL Problem”. Months after sweeping across parts of Iraq, ISIS turned its focus on Russia’s Caucasus, starting to release videos targeted at Russia. “We will … liberate Chechnya and the Caucasus, Allah willing. The Islamic State is here to stay,” said an ISIL [ISIS] fighter in the first such video, released on August 31, Al Jazeera pointed out.

Tanya Lokshina, Human Rights Watch's Russia programme director, told Al Jazeera in late 2014 that there is "definitely [ISIL] recruitment happening" in Russia (ISIL is an alternative name to ISIS). Furthermore, “[ISIL] is becoming, I would say, increasingly popular in the northern Caucasus, in a situation where people are disillusioned with the secular government,” she further said.

Recruitment attempts were also being made through Russia’s popular social media site VK.com. There were, and still are, various groups within VK carrying out ISIS propaganda. Recruitment attempts were also taking place. A favorite tactic was using a good looking male recruit to lure females in to the ISIS trap.

Suggesting that 224 people died after Russia attacked the ISIS is an indirect request to keep out if one needs to be in peace. However, as Putin understood the problem, such devastating attacks could have taken place sooner or later. If Russia was to be silent now, it would face an even stronger ISIS outfit later. The stronger the ISIS seems to be, the higher the likelihood of recruiting more people from foreign lands.

Therefore, Putin was correct in saying that Russia would be safer if the ISIS is defeated in Syria. Whether the ISIS can be defeated in Syria is another matter.

Rajapaksa vs Lee Kuan Yew

Certain individuals have made significant roles in shaping the histories of the nations they led. Former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was one of the best examples for such a leader. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the potential to become one. Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa became another such leader in 2009, only to mar his reputation in later years.

There are similarities in the way Lee Kuan Yew and Mahinda Rajapaksa went about dealing with their main challenges. For Lee, his main challenge was to make a nation out of a place which, in his own words, lacked the main characteristics of one. Rajapaksa, on the other hand, had to push off development as a second goal. During his first term as president, his main goal was finding a solution to the civil war raging in the country.

Both Lee and Rajapaksa took the bulls by their horns. Ably supported by some competent men and women, Lee made a fascinating transformation in his small land. Rajapaksa, who was also supported by a number of immensely capable men and women, led the war effort to a successful conclusion.

There was no doubt on Lee's commitment to his job. He once famously said, "this is about our lives. I spent my whole life building it. And until I am around, no one is going to knock it down."

Both Lee and Rajapaksa were patriots, and believed in nationalism. One major difference is Lee's apparent multi-culturalism and Rajapaksa's apparent Sinhala Nationalist appeal. This was one major difference which differentiated the two leaders. While Rajapaksa never won a respectable minority vote, Lee's People's Action Party attracted voters of all communities, and still does. Despite its extensive efforts at flooding the north and east with development projects, the Rajapaksa government could never instill a sense of 'belongingness' in the Tamil community in those regions.

However, perhaps the most significant difference between the two leaders was their stance on corruption. The fight against corruption was an integral part of Lee's government. Mahinda Rajapaksa also vowed to fight corruption at the start of his second term. However, while Lee strictly practiced what he preached, there is serious doubt on Rajapaksa's intent in doing so. While Lee is universally accepted as clean by even his opponents, Rajapaksa's second term was marred by the constant allegations of corruption and "mega deals".

The allegations on nepotism are simultaneously leveled against Rajapaksa and to a certain extent against Lee. However, nepotism in Sri Lanka, under many governments, can never be compared with what took place in Singapore. For an outside observer, it might look strange to see the first Prime Minister's son becoming the third Prime Minister of a country, and to see it maintain its record of success. However, once one understands the system in place in Singapore, it becomes quite clear.

Perhaps it is Lee Kuan Yew who provided the best answer to this question. Once when he was asked about his son succeeding as Prime Minister he said that Lee Hsien Loong will not be succeeding not as his son but as a Deputy Prime Minister who served the country for several years. People will decide if he was successful or not, he said, and added that the people will have the right to replace him if he proves unsuccessful.

The meritocracy in Singapore is such that an individual cannot become a Cabinet Minister for the simple fact that he is a 'crony' or loyalist of the top echelons. One has to go through a particular institutionalized system. Any person has to first become a Junior Minister for a certain period of time before becoming a Senior Minister. One has to prove himself, and if he does, he can move to the top echelons of the city state's government.

One striking difference in Rajapaksa and Lee was the appearance of their names in public places. Rajapaksa had various public constructions named for him, unlike Lee, who rarely had his name appear on such places. Furthermore, monumental images of Rajapaksa appeared around the island, becoming a far too common sight.

To the latter part of the Rajapaksa government, high rises were built in Colombo, at several places where there used to be slums. These new buildings reminded this writer of the Housing and Development Board flats in Singapore. Perhaps it was the model the Rajapaksa government was attempting to adapt in Colombo. However, there was one conspicuous difference in the buildings in Sri Lanka. They had larger than life sized portraits of Rajapaksa.

While the negative image of Rajapaksa was constructed partly by the pro-LTTE diaspora, his extravagance failed to counter this propaganda and added credence to it.

Sadly, Rajapaksa missed a unique opportunity to rival Lee Kuan Yew in guiding his country towards development.

Pre-colonial Sri Lanka – Singapore Relations

Although most people know Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles as the founder of Singapore, he would not have preferred to see the accolade being bestowed upon him. In contrast, he would have preferred to be known as the one who revived an ancient and vibrant city.

In the early 19th century, the British considered more than one option as a possible site of an outpost at the southern end of the Strait of Malacca. The decision to select Singapore was taken on several grounds, and the romantic image of the revival of an ancient city could have played a role.

Temasik, ancient Singapore, occupies an important place in the history of the Malay people, according to the Malay Annals written somewhere in the 15th century and afterwards. The oldest surviving Malay Annal, now known as Raffles MS 18, was written in 1612. The intention of the Malay Annals was to bolster the popularity of the ruling family. Raffles, who came across the manuscript, must have found its story interesting.

According to the Raffles MS 18, the city of Temasik was found by none other than the legendary Sri Tri Buana, the first great Malay king. The Annals tell of several succeeding rulers after Sri Tri Buana. Accordingly, Singapore was a thriving city throughout the 14th century.

Interestingly, Singapore is one of the prominent cities to have been subjected to considerable archeological excavations. A large quantity of 14th century artifacts, including pottery, beads, ‘mercury jars’ and coins speak of a thriving city, based on trade.

According to Malay Annals, the city is thought to have been attacked by Majapahit in Java or Ayuttaya in Thailand at the end of the 14th century. Thereafter, the city declined, culminating by the early 1600s.

A coin from Leelavati (1197-1200) era

Among a number of artifacts found in Singapore are two Sri Lankan coins, both belonging to the reign of king Buwanekabahu I (1272-84). One coin was found during excavations at Parliamentary House Complex before the new Parliamentary House was constructed in the 1990s. The other was unearthed at the grounds of the St. Andrew’s Cathedral. These copper-alloy coins showed a standing figure on one side and a seated figure on the other. Meanwhile, similar coins belonging to the reigns of queen Leelavati (1197-1200) and king Sahassamalla (1200-02) have been discovered in Sumatra.

While archeologists have discovered more than a hundred Chinese coins from Singapore, the two Sri Lankan coins indicate some interesting facts. It could mean that 14th century Singapore was a sophisticated market where more than one type of money was accepted. Furthermore, along with the findings in Sumatra, it is a clear indication that Sri Lankan coins were accepted as legal tender in South East Asia, including Singapore.

The acceptance of the Sri Lankan coins may have been due to its design. The coins with a standing and seated figures were issued in Sri Lanka from the late Anuradhapura era to the late 13th century and follows the similar design of the coins of Rajaraja Chola. The Chola Empire dominated South Asia and even had a direct role in decimating the once powerful Srivijaya Empire in South East Asia. Therefore, its currency was an internationally accepted currency in this part of the world. The Sri Lankan coins had a similar design and used Sanskrit characters. Therefore, they must have also been internationally accepted.

Discovery of Sri Lankan coins in Singapore does not mean that Sri Lanka had diplomatic relations with the Singapore rulers in the 14th century. The political history of Sri Lanka during most of the 14th century is unclear and the indication is that the central government was weak after the Kurunegala period in the 1320s. However, the coins indicate that the trade links connected the island of Sri Lanka and Singapore during this period.

Singapore declined from the beginning of the 15th century. Other ports including Melaka overtook it in the Malacca Straits. During the early colonial era, the Portuguese had plans of constructing a fort in the island. However, this plan did not materialize and the island remained inconspicuous until Sir Raffles chose to establish a trading post.

Former British Governor's Bungalow Cries For Attention

The ruins of the Doric House at Arippu, built by the British colonial government in the early 1800s, and described by Cordiner in 1807 as the most beautiful building in the island, is facing a serious threat due to the erosion of the coast.

Arippu is a small settlement which lies south of Mannar in the north-western coast line of Sri Lanka. On the plains south of Arippu, rise the ruins of a once majestic British era bungalow. Nearby, there is a cement tower. These are the Doric House and the Doric Tower of Arippu.

The threat posed by erosion was nothing new. This threat was reported for the first time several decades ago. The sea has reached the very walls of the Doric House, causing one side of its walls to collapse. However, nothing was done for years, partly due to the prevailing security situation in the area. Recently, a stone barrier was constructed to protect the building. It covers only a section of the beach and seems to be inadequate.

Protecting the Doric House is important since it was once a landmark in the colonial history of Ceylon. Furthermore, it was a living testament of a bygone era, when pearl fishing was a lucrative business in the area. The Doric House was built as a bungalow for the Governor to reside during his trips to inspect pearl fishing.

It is widely believed that the first Governor of British Ceylon, Frederick North, drew the plan of the building. The foundation was laid on March 18, 1802 and it took two years to complete. It was supposed to be finished by the end of 1802, but several difficulties prolonged the completion of the building. It was reported that transport difficulties and awkwardness of the coolies employed (due to the harsh conditions) slowed down work. Financial difficulties arose in 1803 further delaying the work.

North is thought to have resided in the Doric House during one trip after its completion in 1804. He left the island in 1805. However, the Doric House remained a prominent landmark in the area.

Writing in 1807, Cordiner said that this was ‘the most beautiful building in the island’. He provided a detailed account of this building with a drawing made by him. This drawing shows the Doric columns rising on the front and rear porticos. These cannot be seen today. Cordiner also provided the layout plan of the building. Accordingly, there were four small bed rooms on the ground floor. The building had a terraced roof over the upper floor, which could have been an excellent place to watch the fishery activities on the sea.

“The Doric is distinctly marked on few maps of Ceylon prepared during the 19'h century. It was marked as 'House' on Captain G. Schneider's map in 1813 and as 'Dorick' on the map popularly known as John Davy's map in 1821,” Dhanesh Wisumperuma said in his paper ‘The Doric at Arippu’ published in the Journal of the Royal Association of Sri Lanka, Volume LI, in 2005. The building is marked as ,Doric, on both Major General John Fraser's map of 1962 and Arrowsmith's map of 1957, Wisumperuma also pointed out, concluding that the Doric House was a principle landmark in the 19th century.

The end of pearl fishing and several other changes brought an end to the Doric House’s prominence. The road to Jaffna through Arippu became unimportant following the construction of the road through Kurunegala. The building started the long process of decay.

Despite this, it still evoked a considerable deal of imagination. In 1973, RL Brohier mentions it as a “striking landmark on the plain.” There were other references towards early 1980s as well. The outbreak of the war in 1983 brought the building to oblivion.

However, the relative scarcity of records may have led many into falsely believing that the Doric is actually the Dutch Fort of Arippu. However, this theory is totally unfounded as the fort was located at Arippu further north.

Archeological exploration was restarted in the north following the end of the war in 2009. As an initial step, some archaeological sites were Gazetted by the Archaeological Department, thereby claiming the legal rights over the sites. However, extensive research is yet to be done.

The importance of the Doric House is that it connects to a relatively lesser known industry in ancient Ceylon, that of pearl fishing. At any rate, the Mannar coastline has not been subjected to thorough archaeological research. Therefore, it is important to preserve the known archaeological sites as a first step in exploring the unknown depths of Sri Lanka’s past.