Negligible Minoritist

I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places.

- Mark Twain

With many apologies for my brief hiatus I wish to examine the way identity is subjected to strict polarization.

As a University student of a very much politics driven University the issue of identity had for a long time been a predetermined one. Either for or against, arts or science, rag or anti rag and based on that friend or foe.

This polarization is almost rigid to some, strictly observed by others and almost never considered fluid. Which places a moderate in a very tricky situation to choose or not to choose. And neutrality itself then becomes fluid. For unless one wishes to completely isolate one’s self from the society there seems to be a very limited number of options available to the moderate.

Perhaps the issue was common to Kadirgama, Rajini Thirangama, Richard de Zoysa and now seen in more moderate voices on the Tamil issue such as Aadhavan and Aacharya. The issue of being a moderate by definition isolates one from the those who are radical in their views.

Sri Lanka seems to thrive on a strict polarization of identity. The attacks by both the Government as well as the LTTE on what is undoubtedly a moderate voice of reason exemplifies this.

But is the moderate misplaced? Perhaps he or she is wrong to see issues in shades of grey and not in a polarized black and white. Why further muddy up the muddy waters?

Is it that a moderate agrees partially with a concept but not with the promoter of it? Or is it the person who approves of the ideal bit opposes how it is implemented? And what of the person who refuses to accept such polarities? At the end of the day moderation in itself is fluid and determined by the person holding these views.

The willingness of society to examine itself under the magnifying glass of objectivity is best measured by her reaction to moderates. In the case of some communities the presence of moderates is in itself such a measure.

So to place this in a personal context. This is to let the world know that i am now ‘friendly’ with a student union. In case you missed that particular newsflash for further clarification please contact my friends at the university.

What people fail to understand is that being someone’s friend does not necessarily ensure that one agrees completely with their actions. Friendly with members of the union note not agreeable with all their policies. I see weaknesses and i have seen failings and my position as a friend has also given me the ability to discuss my views openly with people who can make a change in policy. I see this as a result of this friendship.

However some of my friends see this as me going ‘down the wrong path’; ‘mixing up with the wrong people’; ‘being blind’ and in general discarding any iota of commonsense i formally possessed. So to apply my experiences with a broader perspective does this mean that moderate opinions should remain merely opinions?

Examine the reaction to Aadhavan on Ravana’s blog. Not just from the Sinhalese but especially from the Tamils involved in the discussion. Is Aadhavan too expected to keep his opinions to himself as they do not agree with the more hardline stance?

The issue as i see it is not so much in the views but in their expression. People are very much aware that the more radical you are in your beliefs the more likely you are to actively pursue at least 50% of your diatribe.

Moderates are never taken seriously because come on your on the fence and that is not a very strong position to be in. After all too many people on the fence and the fence will break wouldn’t it.

Perhaps there should be less fences to sit on… And perhaps there should be only two colors – black and white… And perhaps life should be so simple…