By H. L. D. Mahindapala –
The common ruse of the intellectually bankrupt interventionists in the public debate on various aspects of the national crisis is to brand those who defend the Sinhala-Buddhist majority as “extreme racists”. It is the stock in trade of those in the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist lobby to label the Sinhala-Buddhists as “chauvinists”, “racists”, “ultra-nationalists”, “extremists” etc. Demonizing the Sinhala-Buddhists with pejorative adjectives is their standard defence. It is their debased means of covering up their inability to meet the arguments that demolishes the bogus theories manufactured to denigrate Sinhala-Buddhists. So it is not surprising to see Mr. Izeth Hoo-saying (IH) branding me as an “extreme Sinhala racist.” He goes further and talks of my “language pointing to ethnolunacy”. I shall come to his lunacy in due course.
But let me first deal with his usual attempts to wriggle out of an argument by lying through this teeth. He told me when I was in Colombo in the 90s that he was one of the five great diplomats of the world. When I questioned this absurd claim in a piece I wrote in the Daily News he denied ever having met me. I told him to swear on the Koran denying that he ever met me. Then he backtracked and said that he did meet me and that he was rated as one of the five greatest diplomats by G. K. Reddy, an Indian correspondent, who was assigned to cover the UN’s annual sessions. That was good enough for him to claim that he is one of the five great diplomats was journalist Reddy. He was proud to quote him until I pricked and deflated his bloated ego with my queries. He obviously took one of Reddy’s cruel jokes too seriously.
When I asked him to name the other four greats to assess the calibre of his greatness he retreated hastily by passing the buck to Reddy. Carrying Reddy’s joke in his pin-head, he has been going round Colombo advertising his non-existent greatness because he has nothing else to show. Great men do not run their own advertising campaigns. It is up to others recognise their greatness. Only the mediocrities go round proclaiming that they are the greatest. Even in his latest hoo-saying (a crude way of protesting against arguments which cannot be contested) he ducks the issue. When he told me that he was one of the five great diplomats he was deadly serious, believing every word of what he uttered. Why would he want to tell me what Reddy said if he did not believe it himself, eh? As usual, not having an argument to defend himself he accuses me of “ethnolunacy” – the farthest he can go in the English language to get at me.
He also accuses me of “ethnolunacy” because I had not understood his argument. Just to put the record straight, let me quote his “argument” to avoid any accusations of misunderstanding. He says: “I made two simple points that the average reader can understand without difficulty. The first is that after the Second World War there has been a steady erosion of state sovereignty……. The second point is that in the second half of the eighteenth century it came to be established that the people and not the wielders of power are sovereign. It follows that a UNHRC Resolution could be unfriendly to the sovereign state and friendly to the sovereign people. Instead of dealing with that argument HLDM rambles along at great length bringing in irrelevant issues such as globalization. He has failed to understand my simple and straightforward argument. So advanced is his state of ethnolunacy.”
To avoid any misunderstanding of his simple argument let me restate his case derived from the words quoted above. He states that in the 18th century people became sovereign and not the state. From this he jumps – and it is a huge jump — to declare: “It follows that a UNHRC Resolution could be unfriendly to the sovereign state and “friendly to the sovereign people”. Just like that! He is twisting and turning not knowing how to convince the readers with his contradictions / lies. Even according to his calculations the anti-Sri Lankan Resolution L. 29 was a product of US-Indian alliance. And then he says the UNHRC passed the resolution as a gesture “friendly to the sovereign people.” Does he know what he is talking about? Does he know his own mind? How can UNHRC, which is an instrument of neo-colonialists, who manipulate international power bases to serve their interests, serve Sri Lanka with an anti-Sri Lankan Resolution?
Even a quick glance at the history of the Resolution will confirm the UNHRC has been manipulated to put Sri Lanka on the mat. First, in 2009 the UNHRC passed a resolution commending the Sri Lankan state for ending the war, saving 300,000 Tamils held as human shield by the LTTE. Then in 2015 – not to mention the previous instances – the same UNHRC condemns the Sri Lankan state and orders it to hold a hybrid inquiry as it cannot trust the local judiciary. Can IH tell the readers which one of the two is, in his language, “friendly to the sovereign people” of Sri Lanka? Can a “friendly UNHRC” first commend and then condemn the same state and also the people represented by the state? He argued that the UNHRC resolution is good for the sovereign people of Sri Lanka. If it is that good his duty is to point out which one of the two resolutions that came from the UNHRC is good for the people of Sri Lanka. He should also argue to show that the prosecution of only the Sri Lankan forces, as stated by him, is good for peace, harmony and reconciliation. Instead he calls me names and brands me as an “extreme racists” just because he can’t answer the questions raised by me.
What drives him mad is his inability to counter the debunking of his conclusions. The fundamental flaw that leads him astray is his inability to co-relate the mass of overwhelming facts which contradicts his concocted theories. He just cannot fit his theories to the facts and vice versa. For instance, he admits, in his reply to George Rupesinghe, that India and America are behind the Resolution against Sri Lanka.. He says, quite bluntly that “the US has been pushing its geopolitical interests through the UNHRC. It seems to me, on the contrary, that India was the prime player behind the UNHRC Resolution, and that the US acted as India’s partner to push primarily India’s interests and not those of the US.” Having said that he finds it difficult to fit these facts into his theory that it is good for the people of Sri Lanka. How can he justify that these two neo-colonialists are moving the UNHRC resolution for the good of the people of Sri Lanka when he admits that the two Big Powers are pursuing their political agendas at UNHRC “to push primarily India’s interests”? Also, if according to him the US has been pushing its geopolitical interests through the UNHRC can the 2015 Resolution L. 29 be good for the people, as he says?
I don’t want to go into other critical issues. I’ll stop at this to ask him what kind of “ethnolunacy” has he found in these questions. Why must he hide behind accusations of ethnic hatred when he has been the prime Muslim propagandists against the Sinhala-Buddhists? He has been directing his attacks on the Sinhala – Buddhists even when his fellow-Muslims have been the prime instigators of communal extremism in 1915 against the Sinhalese and even against the Tamils in Barber Street, Kotahena and in the East, according to Hindu organisations? He thinks I have singled him out because of his ethnicity. He should know by now that I have challenged far superior intellectuals to him like Regie Siriwardene and Prof. Carlo Fonseka and even lesser intellectual poseurs like Jehan (Pacha) Perera. I make no ethnic distinction. I have nothing against Hoo-saying except his idiocy.
It is his contradictions that make him look like a baboon who refuse to come down from the tree. He says that the UNHRC is riddled with 100+1 falsities and he wants the people of Sri Lanka to accept the Resolution based on it because it is good for them. He accuses me of “ethnolunacy” but he has no compunction in describing me as a Tuan, a Malay which in his estimation is of a low breed to Moors, I presume. Mark you, he poses as a defender of supra-ethnic values and condemns the pop Sinhala songs and propaganda as denigrating the Muslims as “Thambiahs”, particularly references to the revolving “Thambigay thoppiah bum-buwa wa-gay ”. But he has no qualms about falsely categorizing me as a Malay Tuan. Unlike IH I am proud to be a Tuan because it means “sir”, “master” or “Lord”. But he uses it as an ethnic insult. This is frustrated Hoo-saying at his worst. He finds it difficult in his little pea-brain to realise that this is a direct insult to the Malays by a Moorish (or is it moronic?) Hussein. Hoo-saying is stoking the fires of ethnicity which are still smouldering in an environment that is still searching for lasting peace. He says that my response to his Hoo-saying earlier “reeks of ethnolunacy” just because I punned on his name Izeth. Should such a high priest of ethnic values indulge in ethnic slurs? It is despicable not because he calls me a Malay but he intentionally seeks to insult Malays by comparing them to what he considers to be low Sinhalese.
At every turn he takes the opportunity to run down the Sinhala-Buddhists. He even says : “I must confess, alas, that we too have contributed in no small measure to the Sri Lankan tragedy by siding consistently with the Sinhalese racists in all their egregious idiocies.” But he deliberately ignores to mention Rauf Hakeem cutting deals with Prabhakaran after he had massacred the Muslims in Mosques. Besides, he would know very well that both T. B. Jayah and Badi-ud-din Mahamud, two of the far-seeing Muslim leaders who paved the path for the future progress of the Muslims purely with their beneficial alliances with the Sinhalese, would dismiss Hussein’s anti-Sinhala-Buddhist ravings as rabid growling of a tailless canine.
I do not want to add to this by quoting my dear friend A. C. S. Hameed who was like a brother to me. He even offered to appoint me as a successor to Neville Jayaweera when he was due to vacate his post in Sweden. But I turned it down because I found it distasteful to dance attendance to visiting Ministers and politicos at airports at midnight or cater to their salacious and venal proclivities. I had better things to do. Suffice it is to say that he had nothing but contempt for arrogant Hussein who was trying to teach Hameed how to suck eggs.
What is worse, Hussein is not a only born racist but also a born liar. As usual, not knowing how to hit back, he says that my father is a Malay. If he has integrity, honesty and guts he can prove that he is not a born liar by of going to the office of the Registrar of Births and producing the birth certificate confirming that I am a Tuan. But he can’t. He hides behind the cover of saying : “I’m told…”. By whom? This cover of “I’m told” is a game that two can play. Here’s how I would play it : I am told that at the soon-nath ceremony the operator mistakenly circumcised his brain as he could not find his shrivelled pigmy prepuce. This critical error in circumcising explains his Hoo-saying which is not an argument. That’s a hysterical reaction. But then who can stop him from saying “hoo”. I am told that he came out of the womb screaming that vulgar hoo!
PS: In my previous article I had inadvertently appended a book review on the US origins of ISIS to the main article titled A – Izeth of Hussain’s Politics of Haram. It is a review that appeared in Amazon.com. I apologize for the slip.