Tuesday, March 05, 2013

The role of hate media in fanning the flames of communal violence

My last post referred to an article by Dayan Jayatilleka (DJ). There is another aspect that he mentions that I see taking shape. He says:
"I refer to the years from ‘77 to ‘83, a period covered by the Sansoni Commission, the violence of ‘77, ‘79, ‘81 and finally the massive explosion of 1983. The road to July ‘83 was paved, prepared, though perhaps not intended in that form, by anti-Tamil propaganda. At the time, it came from within the Government. You had anti-Tamil propaganda with illustrations being sent out in envelopes with a stamp of the then Minister of Industry, Mr. Cyril Mathew. It is the same kind of toxic waste material that is being put out today against the Muslim community, though not officially, not from within the government."
I see this happening today. People who never looked at a product to see what markings it has are now raising questions about the halal certification. These claims have the same validity as the Kosher conspiracy theories - indeed they repeat the Kosher claims almost word to word,  but are difficult to dispel easily in a short conversation, so the BBS rhetoric carries the day.

Ordinary, reasonable people are saying doesn't the BBS have a point? The Muslims seem to be everywhere these days, of course we don't support this violence but still......

This is the effect of the relentless propaganda. It is effective because it plays on subconscious fears.

It is true, the culture amongst the Moors has changed over time, the hijab and the abaya have become more common, more men seem to wear long beards. All communities now enjoy leisure more, so since people spend more time outside their homes, their visibility increases and gives the impression of a large increase in numbers. It may not be true, but people may think it is true, especially if someone puts false ideas about.

I don't think the pious Muslims differ very much in mindset from, say, evangelical Christians, another fast-growing sect but the crucial difference with evangelical Christians is that they do not look any different from the rest of us, so are easy to ignore.      

What the propaganda is doing is heightening awareness of differences and creating fears about those differences.  DJ's point that the violence against Tamils between 1977 and 1983 was enabled by the anti-Tamil propaganda must be taken seriously. The question he rightly poses is whether the anti-Muslim propaganda will set the stage for a violent reaction against that community.

It is worth noting that the propaganda of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines played a significant role on the Rwandan genocide of 1994. To quote Wikipedia:
"The station is considered to have preyed upon deep animosities and prejudices between the Hutu and Tutsi populations. The hateful rhetoric was placed alongside the sophisticated use of humor and popular Zairean music". 
After the plane crash killed the Rwandan President, the station joined the chorus of voices blaming Tutsi rebels, and began calling for a "final war" to "exterminate" the Tutsi. What followed was the worst genocide in recent times. The UNHCR states:

The Rwandan genocide resulted from the conscious choice of the elite to promote hatred and fear to keep itself in power. This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda.
Isn't this the the same reason why the Government supports this campaign?  The danger is that unless the hate media is countered effectively, the probability of another round of violence will surely grow and everybody will pay the price.


 -Updated -
 

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

//but are difficult to dispel easily in a short conversation, so the BBS rhetoric carries the day

Interesting because I manage to talk sense to people on this subject, maybe you are talking the wrong points?

//This is the effect of the relentless propaganda. It is effective because it plays on subconscious fears.

What media supremacy does BBS have when compared to their opponents, namely government, UNP and JVP? Remember that BBS is only 10months old. Maybe they have a point that the society you live in fail to grasp?

//All communities now enjoy leisure more, so since people spend more time outside their homes, their visibility increases and gives the impression of a large increase in numbers

Do you expect to win arguments over BBS when you argue using such claims? You need to talk to your parents about how many Hijabs were in Sri Lanka when they were young.

To be clear I don't think BBS is reasonable. But there are many elements within muslims that are not reasonable as well. For years our governments looked away while these elements accelerated their agendas. Only way to curb Buddhist extremism would be to assure Buddhists that they won't be overtaken by muslims. You can't preach democracy alone when there are plenty of examples from Maldives to Iran where Buddhism just vanished from countries after muslims arrived. Maybe time for our country to bring in child restriction policies? Maybe not more than 3 children per family? That is pretty reasonable considering the population density of country too.

Whacko said...

Great post Jack. Parallels to pre 1983 must be drawn and should enter the public discourse. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to a country that seems altogether too eager to repeat the mistakes of past. However, i think first we need to start by ADMITTING the mistakes of the past. But i don't think the majority here ever seriously give credence to the fact that mistakes were even made.

Jack Point said...

Anon:

To clarify, Hijab's have increased but due to the fact that people are out more, the increase seems even greater.

However, while I may consider the hijab to be a fashion atrocity and does no one any harm.

Media supremacy: They are very widely reported and the GoSL media such as the Daily News and Government sponsored media such as the Island (owned by a minister's relative) are happy to give it prominence.

" Only way to curb Buddhist extremism would be to assure Buddhists that they won't be overtaken by muslims."

Ah, yes, that sounds familar; same as this, right?

"Despite the huge sacrifice of millions of our war heroes to keep our country free and independent......

Towns and cities all over our beautiful country now resemble parts of Africa or Asia. British people have become a minority in many areas already, and within a few decades, we will become a minority across the country as a whole"

British National Party Website:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/introduction



Jack Point said...

Whacko,

perhaps we should ask our Dear Leaders to follow this man's example:

http://jestforkicks.blogspot.com/2012/08/mandelas-approach-to-reconciliation.html

Anonymous said...

Hijab does not do any harm if those who wear it does it within reasonable limits.

For example if Hijab wearing women refuse to reveal the faces even for identification purposes how can already established identification processes work? Would you still support the Hijab under such extremist conditions?

As for britain they have the right to decide what kind of society they want to live in and Sri Lankans have the same right.

Jack Point said...

The hijab with full face covering (actually called a burqua) is something that can be debated.

It is a tricky question because we are intruding into the personal space of a person, but there has been a lot of debate on this overseas, although a conclusive answer is not available.

In France for instance the starting point is the secular constitution where Church and state are separate, therefore should religious symbols be allowed in public (ie state) establishments).

Some of the complexities are detailed in the Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France

The "debate" in SL is not about specifics such as the hijab/burqua. It is all about the "influence" and "power" of muslims; how they are overpopulating the land and will drive the Sinhalese Buddhists out. (they use the halal and the burqua to support a claim that the muslims as "taking over"-this is the central message in all these arguments.


This is straightforward racism, just see the link to the BNP website or the link to the Kosher controversy that I have linked to in the post. The arguments are the same.