The
Pirabhakaran Phenomenon
|
|||
|
A Story by Buddy Hackett and its relevance I once watched actor-comedian Buddy
Hackett (1924- ) telling a
funny story in Johnny Carson’s ‘Tonight Show’ TV, and since it has
metaphorical relevance to what I write in this chapter, I will first
re-tell the gist of this story. A hunter shot a bird and followed its
path. The bird fluttered and fell into a farm. When the hunter tried to
gather his trophy, the farmer came out of his house and shouted: ‘Hey!
Stop Will’ya? That bird fell inside my farm, and you cannot just
retrieve it like that.’ Then, both the hunter and the farmer had a
vocal argument and settled on a compromise. Each will give a kick to
other in the butt, and the last person standing will get the bird. Then,
the problem arose on who will deliver the first kick. The farmer said:
‘I go first since the bird fell into my farm’, for which the hunter
agreed. The farmer gave a hard blow on the butt of the hunter and the
latter slumped. When the hunter regained his stance and prepared to kick
the farmer, the latter retorted: ‘I don’t need the bird. Get away
from my place.’ I should admit that in writing, the
story doesn’t shine well, as one would hear it from the inimitable
delivery of Buddy Hackett’s mouth. I still remember that, for the
kicking butt act of the story, Hackett got off from the guest’s couch
in the show and acted it in the floor, which brought belly laugh from
normally cool and unflappable Johnny Carson. Why I retell this story now is that
there are metaphorical equivalents to this story. I believe that I
represent the farmer in the story. I see Pirabhakaran’s virulent
critics (especially the authors of the Broken Palmyra book) as
the hunter in the story. I equate the bird in the story to the Broken
Palmyra book That book (considered as a trophy by the hunters) fell
into my yard, and I will continuously kick the authors of that book for
their exaggerated scribblings and cheapening of the Tamil-Hindu beliefs.
Among the four authors of that book, two were born Christians and two
had self-garlanded themselves as Marxists. Then, they had the temerity
to comment and critique some Hindu rituals and beliefs (including karma)
in that book, which is springled with subtle anti-Hindu drivel. Lest I’m thought of as a Hindu
partisan, I add that I’m not criticising Christians at large
since Pirabhakaran and LTTE - as a viable Movement - are beneficiaries
of dedicated Christians in Eelam and elsewhere, who see the worthiness
in Pirabhakaran’s ideals. But, I remain as a critic of the thoughts of
closed minded, dogmatic Christians represented by the two authors of the
Broken Palmyra book, namely Rajani Thiranagama and Rajan Hoole,
who couldn’t grasp how Christianity as a religion originated, survived
under trials and tribulations during its first four centuries, and
ascended with time. Martyrdom against oppression was a significant
contribution of early Christianity to the global culture and those who
show contempt for martyrdom in the 20th century cannot be
contemplated as true Christians. Among some Christian scholars, there
even exists a belief that the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion was a
voluntary suicide. Karma in the words of the Broken
Palmyra authors First, I present a paragraph which
appear in the Broken Palmyra book, in which the karma theory was
added as a tool to support the view of the authors. “Another incident which influenced
the local mind was the landmine attack by the LTTE on an army patrol on
25 March 1987. Subsequently the severed foot of a Sri Lankan soldier
with a boot on it was exhibited successively at the Maviddapuram temple
and Tellipallai junction. For its part the Sri Lankan army shelled these
two places on successive nights. On the first night a temple priest lost
his leg. At Tellipallai junction, Mr.Venugopal was killed. On the 31
March [1987], the LTTE’s Jaffna leader Mr.Kittu lost a leg in a
grenade attack. Many of the Hindu folk at Maviddapuram, steeped in a
belief in karma, formed their own conclusions. Nevertheless, the
exhibition of gore had attracted sizeable crowds. This followed the
exhibition of the dead bodies of nine Sri Lankan soldiers at Kandasamy
Kovil four months before. There was taking place a transformation of
sensibilities. Many Hindus were disgusted, but silent.” [Book: The
Broken Palmyra, 1990, pp.105-106] In this paragraph, the authors of the
book made selective use of the karma theory to their arsenal of
criticism on LTTE in a circumspective manner (through the ‘Hindu folk
at Maviddapuram) that Kiddu lost his leg a week later, because the
‘severed foot of a Sri Lankan soldier with a boot on it was exhibited
successively at the Maviddapuram temple’. If one accepts this logic,
then other violent deaths among Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese attributed
to LTTE (such as that of Duraiappah, Sri Sabaratnam, Padmanabha and
TULF leadership) should be also accepted on the same belief in karma.
But this would have been not to the liking of the authors of the Broken
Palmyra. This devious omission and selective use of karma theory by
Rajan Hoole and his colleagues in 1990 stimulated my interest on the
karma theory. My
push on the Karma theory
In 1994, when an opening appeared for a
comment in the Lanka Guardian magazine, I expressed my opinion on
karma theory candidly and was criticised by a fellow Eelam Tamil and two
Muslims. I reproduce my original contribution, and the subsequent
communications on the karma theme. In a short letter written in half-jest
to swipe at the cant of Mr.Izeth Hussain (a Sri Lankan diplomat Poo-Bah
who had served as ambassador to Philippines and then Russia and was also
an academic pretender, with whom I clashed on the ethnic issue in the Lanka
Guardian), I contributed the following letter, entitled ‘A Hindu
Perspective on Bosnia’. Excerpt: “As a Hindu, who believe in (a)
Brahman, the creator, preserver or transformer and reabsorber of
everything; and (b) theory of karma, it is my belief that the current
fate of Muslims in Bosnia is related to the historical plundering of the
Serb land by the Ottoman Turks (read as, Muslims), which began in 1389
at the Battle of Kosvo and continued for almost five centuries following
that. In 1459, ‘Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II achieves complete annexation
of Serbia. The Turks rule for the next 400 years, often ruthlessly. They
impress Serbian youth into military service, exterminate the nobles,
burden the people with heavy taxes and subject the Serbian Orthodox
Church to the control of hated Greek patriarchs’, according to the
historical synopsis, published in the Newsweek of April 19, 1993. In the Holywood western movies, the
heroes wore white and rode in white horses. The villains had to wear the
black and ride on black horses. In the current Bosnian conflict, Muslims
are being portrayed by Izeth Hussain as pitiable heroes. But, history
shows they also acted as villains for centuries in the same
battle-grounds. So, the theory of karma holds that the current
generation of Muslims are reaping what their forefathers sowed.” [Lanka
Guardian, May 1, 1994, p.20] As I expected, I received criticism for
this contribution from V.T.Saravanapavan (from Canada) and M.A.Nuhman (a
Muslim Tamil poet from the University of Peradeniya, about whose
analysis I had already referred to in part 47 of this series under the
Muslim Factor ), and of course from the diplomat-turned-political
commentator Hussain. Since Hussain’s bombastic diatribe (as is his
wont) is nothing but
personal bleating, I leave out his contribution, and provide other two
for observations. M.A.Nuhman indicated his objections as
follows: “According to the Karma theory of Sri
Kantha, ‘the current generation of (Bosnian) Muslims are reaping what
their forefathers sowed. I wonder whether Sri Kantha tries to justify
the sufferings of Bosnians or to explain the courses of the sufferings.
If it is a justification, then it reveals the cruelty of the
intellectual mind. If it is an explanation then it is not an explanation
of a scientist but of a layman. Everyone who reads history and has a
common sense knows that the historical forefathers of any race had
committed some kind of ‘sin’ to the ‘other’. However, a rational
intellectual can’t relate the contemporary political turmoils and
sufferings of a later generation to the sin of their forefathers. Can
Sri Kantha justify or explain the tremendous sufferings of Sri Lankan
Tamils using his theory of Karma? It will be mere absurdity. Even some
orthodox or fanatic Muslims may justify the Bosnian sufferings as it is
the punishment of Allah because they didn’t practice Isam in their day
to day life. Rational intellectuals can’t entertain these type of
irrational religious ideology in contemporary political discourse.” [Lanka
Guardian, May 15, 1994, p.18] V.T.Saravanapavan communicated his
views on the theory of karma as follows: “I was surprised and shocked to read
Dr.Sachi Sri Kantha’s ‘A Hindu Perspective on Bosnia’ (LG, May 1st
1994). I always admired and agreed on what Sachi Sri Kantha wrote on the
ethnic (Tamil) problem of Sri Lanka. But on Bosnia Muslims he is 100%
wrong and the theory of karma does not hold good in modern context.
Imaginative theories of karma and re-birth were expounded/created to
instil fear so that people do not commit sins and crimes…If the theory
of karma is to be believed, are we Hindu/Tamils should also believe that
the current generation of Sri Lankan Tamils are suffering in many ways
because of some unknown or imaginary sins committed by our
forefathers?…[Lanka Guardian, Colombo, June 15, 1994, p.20] I briefly responded to
Mr.Saravanapavan’s criticism as follows: “…Saravanapavan is entitled to his
opinion that the theory of karma ‘does not hold good in a modern
context’. But he should also not forget that millions of Hindus will
disagree with him. I also hold the view that many Hindus in Sri Lanka
still believe that the fates of S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike, Amirthalingam,
Premadasa, Athulathmudali, Sri Sabaratnam, Uma Maheswaran, Padmanabha,
Kiddu and Mahathaya can be explained by the theory of karma. The Tamil
proverb ‘One who sows millet reaps millet; one who sows misery reaps
misery’ reflect the theory of karma lucidly…” [Lanka Guardian,
Colombo, July 15, 1994, p.20] At that time, by personal experience of
previous submissions, I knew that to get into the print, my letter had
to escape the editorial scissors of Mervyn de Silva. Thus, the above
rebuttal suffered from few limitations. First, I had to measure my words
and limit the examples of fallen victims of karma theory to Sri Lanka
alone so that it gets carried in the slim 20 page fortnightly
magazine. Secondly, even with the Sri Lankan examples, I did not include
other names like Rohana Wijeweera and his deputy who suffered violent
deaths. Thirdly, in the above-cited examples of names, I overlooked the
fact that Kiddu’s death was different from that of others, in that he
died on his own volition – if the released records are to be believed,
whereas others mentioned were assassinated or (in the case of Mahathaya)
executed. Fourthly, I also refrained from answering Mr.Saravanapavan’s
poser whether current generation of Tamils are suffering because of some
‘unknown or imaginary sins committed by our forefathers?’. Now,
after 8 years, in this chapter I will provide my extended response to
this raised question. The
Good, the Bad and the Ugly Karma
Unabashedly, the caption ‘The
Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ is borrowed from Clint Eastwood’s
1966 movie. In my opinion, karma is all encompassing. But, it receives
highlight only when something bad ocurs in one’s life. Thus, for
sake of convenience only, I divide the karma types into the Good,
the Bad and the Ugly. (a) Ugly Karma
To reiterate the question posed by my
two critics (M.A.Nuhman and Saravanapavan) to me in 1994, could it be
true that the current generation of Tamil are suffering because of some
‘unknown or imaginary sins committed by our forefathers?’ In defense
of the karma theory, I would state that the sins committed by our
(Hindu/Tamils) forefathers is neither unknown nor imaginary. These
are well known and real. I will list a few recognized sins of our
forefathers. 1.
cowardice
against oppression by adversaries (going all the way to the 14th
century), leading to intrusion by Muslims into the Indian subcontinent 2.
tolerating
the practise of casteism which led to nasty consequences of Brahmin -
Vellala dominance in the Hindu society and concurrent conversion of low
caste Hindus into Muslims and Christians in the Indian subcontinent
(between the 13th century and 19th century). 3.
In
the 20th century Tamil Nadu
and Eelam, political naivete of parliament-prone vocalists,
leading to loss of Tamil rights at the national level in every
subsequent decade since 1930s. 4.
In
the post-Independent era, retaining the slavish mentality reinforced by
half-baked scholarship, leading to a flawed sense of superiority to
Western thoughts (whether it is Karl Marx or moribund Magi of UN) while
cavalierly ignoring the views of notables who critiqued the same. I
point out that Bernard Shaw, Mahatma Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn and Nelson Mandela are few notables who pricked the
‘Western values’ valiantly. Who can top Gandhi’s classic humorous
scorn [‘It’s a good idea’] to the asked question, [‘What do you
think of the Western civilization?’] (b)
Bad Karma
In my view, the bad karma of Eelam
campaign are the two losses it faced in the mid 1980s (in a span of 38
months), when Pirabhakaran was emerging as the leader. I refer to the
assassination of then Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi in Oct.31,
1984 and the natural death of then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister
M.G.Ramachandran in Dec.24, 1987. Both were inevitable of sorts. Indira
Gandhi and Eelam
If one believes
Inder Malhotra (Indira’s biographer, who quotes Cuban leader
Fidel Castro), the then Indian prime minister had had a premonition of
her assassination even eleven years before her death – when she heard
the news of unnatural death of Salvador Allende, the Chilean leader, in
1973. This is how Malhotra states his case: “…On November 11th, 1973
Castro was in New Delhi, on his way to Vietnam. An extremely pleasant
banquet Indira gave in his honour was rudely interrupted by the
‘stunning news’ from ‘far-off Chile where it was still morning’
that Salvador Allende had been killed in a coup d’etat. ‘At that dramatic moment’, recorded
the Cuban leader twelve years later, ‘Indira Gandhi, in a proof of her
intimacy and confidence, said to me: ‘What they have done to Allende
they want to do to me also. There are people here, connected with the
same foreign forces that acted in Chile, who would like to eliminate
me.’ Thereafter, time and again she was to
repeat publicly a sanitised version of what she had told Castro
privately. As constant as her warnings against the ‘foreign hand’
– which, according to sneerin critics, was ‘home-made’ – was her
refrain that ‘they’ wanted to do her in. She took care never
specifically to identify who ‘they’ were. But, by innuendo and
insinuation, she left little doubt that the accusing finger pointed to
the CIA, if not to the government of the United States.” [Book: Indira
Gandhi, Coronet edition, Kent, 1990, p.291]. One can question whether Indira was
paranoid about her intended fate. But one should also not forget that in
1973, America was under the regime of nefarious President Nixon and his
Rasputin-like impressario Kissinger whose implemented un-democratic
policies in Asia, Africa and South America as well as domestic policies
of pathological lying and burglary could make Indira as a prophet in
comparison. About the death of Chilean leader Salvador Allende in 1973,
existing literature is confusing; some report that he was killed, and
some report that he committed ‘suicide’. Even if the latter version
is accepted, it is undeniable that the proximate cause of his suicide
was the CIA-aided successful coup d’etat in Chile. [Note: In
Appendix 1, I provide an incomplete list of Heads of State and
ex-Heads of State who met violent deaths since 1967. Having not heard
from Leslie Pyenson of CIA to whose research study I referred to in part
51 of this series, I prepared this list from open reference sources, to
supplement the Appendix 1 which appeared with part 51.] Now, I present a few paragraphs of what
Malhotra wrote about Indira’s policy on the Eelam issue: “In dealing with the crisis arising
from the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, however, Indira did not waver in
the least and firmly took control of a highly explosive situation. Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, forming
about a tenth of the total population and concentrated in the north and
the east of the island, having despaired of getting justice from the
Sinhalese majority, had started clamouring for Tamil Eelam
(independence). Moderate groups, which might have settled for less, were
quickly marginalised and the leadership of the Tamil movement passed to
a ferociously separatist organisation called the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE) which was heavily armed and never reluctant to take
on the Sri Lankan Army, often getting the better of the government
troops in combat. In sheer frustration, the security forces killed
unarmed Tamil civilians. Unsurprisingly, the LTTE enjoyed wide
support in Tamil Nadu, the Southern Indian state whose people had ties
of blood, kinship and culture with the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The
state’s phenomenally popular chief minister, M.G.Ramachandran (MGR)
was the LTTE’s patron saint and gave the ‘Tigers’ sanctuary, arms
and cash on a generous scale. This was obviously embarrassing to Indira,
then busy denouncing Pakistan for its aid and assistance to Sikh
terrorists in Punjab, but she could do nothing about it, for a tidal
wave of Tamil opinion was supporting the actions of MGR who was,
moreover, Indira’s only political ally in the whole of South India,
now ruled by non-Congress (I) parties. In any case, she herself was not
averse to using MGR’s support of the LTTE as leverage on the Sri
Lankan government. At the same time she was not prepared
to countenance the demand for Tamil Eelam or that for converting Sri
Lanka into another Cyprus, partitioning it de facto rather than de
jure. What she wanted was that within the framework of a united Sri
Lanka, the Tamil minority should have equal status with the Sinhalese
majority as well as adequate autonomy.” [ibid, pp.285-286] Given the developing tension in her
Southern back-yard, whether Indira Gandhi wouldn’t have repeated a
‘Bangladesh operation’ in Sri Lanka in the 1980s is now only of
academic interest. The TULF leadership believed that Indira (if her
nerves were pulled irritatingly by the then Sri Lankan leadership
Jayewardene-Premadasa duo) was capable of carrying
out such an operation. But, with her assassination in 1984 such a belief
evaporated into thin air since Indira’s successors (including her son
Rajiv Gandhi) lacked the nerve and gumption to even think along those
terms. And thus, Indira’s departure was a bad karma for the Eelam
hope. MGR and Eelam
Since I had cited above Inder
Malhotra’s view on the then Tamil Nadu chief minister MGR’s role as
the patron of LTTE and Pirabhakaran, I provide my own impressions on
MGR’s contribution to the Eelam campaign. To quote from a
commemorative feature I wrote in 1992: “Call it a mere coincidence or the
destiny of Eelam Tamils, when the liberation struggle began earnestly in
1977, MGR would become the chief minister of the Tamil Nadu. Though his
interest on the problems of Eelam Tamils remained passive till 1982, the
ethnic holocaust of 1983 kindled his support for the Eelam cause. 1983
also saw the change in guard among the political leaders of the Eelam
Tamils. MGR had never felt comfortable with the TULF leadership since he
had perceived them as emotionally more close to the DMK leadership. When the leadership mantle in the
struggle for Eelam needed a change and a boost, MGR became the godfather
of the LTTE and made sure that the ‘new born baby’ would not suffer
a premature death in the hands of wily J.R.Jayewardene, the central
government of India and the Intelligence Agency of India. Even to his allies in politics, Indira
Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, the links MGR had with the LTTE was too
embarrassing. But they simply had to ignore it for their own political
survival in the south India. For all this moral support to the Tamil
Eelam cause, MGR became the arch enemy of the Sinhalese power brokers
from 1983 till his death in December 1987. Many Eelam Tamils also did not expect
much from MGR after his skirmish with the TULF leadership at the 1981
Madurai Tamil International Conference. But, now in hindsight, one can
see how much vital was the support of MGR for the Eelam cause from 1983
till his death…” [‘The Man from Maruthur and Malai Nadu’, Tamil
Nation (London), Jan.15, 1992, p.4] MGR’s death in December 1987, at a
relatively ‘senile’ age of almost 71, was the second bad blow for
the Eelam, following Indira Gandhi’s assassination. For better or
worse, some of the leading Tamil Nadu politicians had lived and (even
marginally) influenced policy well into their eighties.
C.Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), E.V.Ramasamy Naicker, C.Subramaniam are few
who reached 90 years of age. Among the still living, former President
R.Venkatraman had passed 90; DMK chief Karunanidhi is nearing 80. Thus
MGR’s death, while he was holding the influential chief ministership
of Tamil Nadu, in 1987 was indeed a bad karma for Eelam. I believe that MGR’s role as a mentor
to Pirabhakaran and LTTE has been still under-appreciated by Tamils,
partly due to the publications and self-righteous posturing of Tamil
academics steeped in the Marxist Leftist tradition (Prof.K.Sivathamby
and Prof. S.Sivasegaram, to name a few) who poured scorn on MGR’s
modus operandi. Being a successful stage and movie actor for decades
before he became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 1977, MGR had the
advantage of using three skills he learnt in his primary profession and
used them effectively to counter his foes and friends equally. These are
as follows: 1.
his
impeccable sense of stage presence (a la Muhamad Ali and
President Ronald Reagan) and intuitional decision-making skill. Only
professional artistes –
actors, musicians and dancers – of
high caliber, and not the arm chair critics, can grasp this sense of
stage presence well enough to act and react to the developing events and
not following the pre-prepared script like a fool. Since events are
always in a state of flux, this intuitional decision making skill is of
high relevance for success in politics and all other endevors. 2.
his
virtuoso ability to not allow virtually anyone from stealing a
scene. MGR demonstrated this ability repeatedly against all whom he had
to interact with. This included
Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Jayalalitha, J.R.Jayewardene,
Amirthalingam, India’s Intelligence gumshoes and policy pundits, and
last but not the least - political upstarts belonging to the
RAW-supported Eelam militant groups. 3.
his
acting background helped him again in the last three years of his life,
following his debilitation with stroke in 1984 which resulted in speech
impediment. MGR could use mime and hands to express his thoughts to his
confidants, while ignoring and deflecting unwanted pleas and noise from
distractors within his party as well as those in outer circle. This last ability has been aptly
described by one of MGR’s confidants, K.Mohandas – the Deputy
Inspector General of Police – who served as MGR’s ‘ears and
hands’. Mohandas had recorded, “[in the post-1984 period] Since I
had been keeping MGR informed about the activities of these [i.e., many
Eelam Tamil] militant groups and the training given to them, he
expressed at one stage, that he would like to get in touch with all the
leaders of various groups – particularly those of LTTE….The
discussion was general in nature….MGR listened patiently but it was
apparent that an instant rapport was established between MGR and
Prabhakaran, the LTTE supremo. MGR, with his uncanny insight could
easily make out the difference between the LTTE and the rest of the
groups. It was a widely known fact that, as a consequence, MGR used to
extend financial assistance at various stages in later years, both from
his personal funds and sometimes from government funds. [Book: MGR
– The Man and Myth, Panther Publishers, Bangalore, 1992, pp.78-79]
In
a subsequent chapter, Mohandas had further noted, “When I informed MGR that the
developing situation was dangerous from the point of view of law and
order, he asked me to warn the leaders of all the groups and also to
inform the Centre. MGR was, on his part, gradually getting in touch with
the militant groups – particularly the LTTE, through sources other
than the CID. His idea seemed to be to impress on the Central Government
his hold over the militant groups and use it as a card to be used if and
when the need arose. This was a dangerous game, but as MGR once told me,
life was not worth it without risks.” [ibid, p.113] That LTTE and Pirabhakaran recovered
from the death of MGR is indeed a ‘miracle’. And I consider this is
one of the good karmas for Eelam. (c)
Good karma
The ascension and dominance of
Pirabhakaran as the military leader for Eelam Tamils since 1986 was a
good karma in my assessment. Now that Japan is very much in the news
relating to aid and development of war-torn Eelam, Sri Lankans as well
as Indians are also getting familiarized with Japanese names like
Yasushi Akashi and Mieko Nishimizu – both professionals of a caliber. I will use an analogy to a still
not-well recognized Japanese inventor in explaining Pirabhakaran’s
contribution to Eelam. That I have been living, researching and working
in Japan since 1986 (with the exception of two years which I spent in
Philadelphia) allows me to make a strong claim about myself as someone
who have studied a little more than quite many pundits who contribute to
Indian, Sri Lankan and even American newsmedia on Japan. This includes
even the passing caravan of journalists who report for international
magazines like Time, Newsweek and the Economist. I
make these observations first to present my credibility as a Japan
watcher. In mid-1999, I was working at a
medium-size food company in central Japan, and as is the practice, I had
to deliver once-a year ‘morning cheer speech’ (called chorei in
Japanese) for about 5 minutes in Japanese, to the fellow workers
numbering over 100. For this speech, I chose to focus on the
contributions of a Japanese engineer-inventor about whom none of the
fellow workers would know – but had used his invention regularly. Here
are excerpts from my speech. “America’s Time magazine
have picked 100 people who influenced the world greatly in the 20th
century. Only one Japanese – Sony’s Akio Morita – has made it into
this top 100, in international ranking. All of us have heard about
Morita and his transistor story. But in my opinion, better than Morita,
it was Hideo Shima, who made a greater contribution to the life of
Japanese in this century. Who is Shima? Until last year, when he
died at the age of 96, I didn’t know his name. Even now many Japanese
don’t know much about him; though everyone would have used his
product. Shima’s product was introduced in 1964. It was called the
bullet express train (shinkansen). From my school days in Sri
Lanka, I had wanted to learn about the principles of the success of this
bullet express train. Only after Shima’s death, I learnt about his
original idea, and the unique design. What is unique about the bullet
express train? – it is speed and safety. Engineer Shima wanted to increase the
speed of the regular express train. He did it by three steps. 1.
by
building a separate ‘bullet-train express’ only track. 2.
by
making the this track, as straight as possible. 3.
by
closing the windows and doors, like air plane, to decrease friction. Then, engineer Shima wanted safety, at
high speed. He did it in two steps. 1.
by
having an electric motor to pull each car of the train. This is
quite different from having an engine, in front of all the cars. 2.
by
the most ingenous step of having the electric motor in each car function
simultaneously as brakes. Until 40 years ago, no one in Japan or
in Europe or America believed in Shima’s idea. But Shima made his
dream come true, against all opposition from politicians, bankers and
pseudo-pundits in his profession. And when the opening ceremony for the
bullet express train came, Shima was not there. He had resigned from his
job for the politicians to strut in front of limelight.” [from my
original text, dated July 5, 1999] Each of the five simplified steps I had
outlined above which resulted in the successful operation of bullet
express train can be metaphorically tagged to Pirabhakaran’s success
with LTTE and Eelam. First, Pirabhakaran built a separate
‘express’ track from the worn-out parliamentary track. Even in
engineer Shima’s conceptualization, this was the most significant
contribution to the development of the bullet express train; i.e., to
think that the already used path or track has to be given up for a new
track. Secondly, Pirabhakaran made this separate track ‘as
straight as an arrow’ rather than giving into de-tours or bendings.
Thirdly, he closed the windows and doors to unwanted friction –
without hesitation by coercion and even silencing. Fourthly, he made the
LTTE express train function effectively by delegating responsibilities
to different regional leaders. Fifthly, he also developed a strategy to
‘put brakes’ on the running express train at appropriate intervals.
(To be continued). Appendix 1 Unnatural Deaths of Heads of State and ex-Heads of State (since
1967) [source:
Sri Kantha – an incomplete list, compiled from open reference sources] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of Head of State Country
Date of Unnatural Death ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Humberto Branco Brazil 1967 2. R.Barrientos Ortuno
Bolivia
Apr.27,1969 3. Abdirashid Ali Shermarke
Somalia
Oct.15, 1969 4. Salvador Allende Chile Sept.11, 1973 5. Richard Ratsimandrava Madagascar
Feb.11, 1975 6. Faysal ibn Abdal Aziz Saudi
Arabia
Mar.25, 1975 7. Francois Tombalbaye Chad
Apr.13, 1975 8. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Bangladesh
Aug.15,
1975 9. Murtala Mohammed
Nigeria
Feb.13, 1976 10. Juan Jose Gonzalez
Bolivia
1976 11. Juscelino K.de Oliveira
Brazil
1976 12. Mohammad Daud Khan Afghanistan
Apr.27,
1978 13. Ali Mtsashiwa
Comoros
May 13, 1978 14. Zulficar Ali Bhutto
Pakistan
Apr.4, 1979 15. Nur Mohammad Taraki Afghanistan
Sept.16,
1979 16. Park Chung Hee
South
Korea
Oct.26,
1979 17. Hafizullah Amin
Afghanistan
Dec.27,
1979 18. William R.Tolbert Jr. Liberia
Apr.12, 1980 19. Anastasio Somoza Jr. Nicaragua
Sept.17, 1980 20. Ziaur Rahman
Bangladesh
May 30, 1981 21. Omar Torrijos
Panama
Aug.1, 1981 22. Mohammad Ali Rajai Iran
Aug.30, 1981 23. Anwar Sadat
Egypt
Oct.6, 1981 24. Maurice Bishop
Grenada
Oct.19, 1983 25. Indira Gandhi
India
Oct.31, 1984 26. Olof Palme
Sweden
Feb.28, 1986 27. Samora Machel
Mozambique
Oct.19, 1986 28. Thomas Sankara
Burkino Faso
Oct.15, 1987 29. Zia ul Haq
Pakistan
Aug.17, 1988 30. Ahmed Abderemane Comoros
Nov.26, 1989 31. NicolaeCeausescu
Romania
Dec.22, 1989 32. Samuel K.Doe
Liberia
Sept.9, 1990 33. Rajiv Gandhi
India
May 21, 1991 34. Ranasinghe Premadasa Sri Lanka
May 1, 1993 35. Zviad Gamsakhurdia Georgia
Dec.31, 1993 36. Melchior Ndadaye
Burundi
Oct.21, 1993 37. Cyprien Ntaryamira Burundi
Apr.6, 1994 38. Gen.J.Habyarimana Rwanda
Apr.6, 1994 39. Muhammad Farah Hassan Somalia
Aug.1, 1996 40. Mohammad Najibullah Afghanistan
Sept.27,
1996 41. Ibrahim Barre Mainassara
Niger
Apr.11, 1999 42. Laurent Kabila
Congo
Jan.16, 2001 43. King Birendra
Nepal
Jun.1, 2001
|
|||