The propaganda for the proposed Devolution package has been based on the continuous repetitive message that the package delivers peace, prosperity and unity without detailing how these claims would be realised. This questionable propaganda campaign was referred to recently in a newspaper as devolution by brainwashing.
Modern techniques of brainwashing are based on the theory of cognetive dissonance of Leon Festsinger published by the Stanford Press in '59. This uses mental attraction and rejection to condition the mind without the person's awareness. I quote:
"Persons are not always successful in explaining away or in rationalising inconsistencies to themselves, for one reason or another, attempts to reach consistency may fail. Then the inconsistency simply continues to exist. Under such circumstances that is in the presence of inconsistency there is psychological discomfort."
"The basic hypothesis, the ramifications and implications of which will be explored in the remainder of this book can now be stated. First I will replace the word inconsistency with a term which has a less logical conotation namely, Dissonance. I will likewise replace the word consistency with a more neutral term consonance. A more formal definition of these words will be given shortly; for the moment, let us try to get along with the implicit meaning, they have acquired as a result of the previous discussion."
"The basic hypothesis I wish to state are as follows:
1 The existence of dissonance, being psychologically unacceptable will motivate a person to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.
2 When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.
Applying this theory to the present situation, the people in dissonance or in psychological discomfort due to the inconsistency of the proposals from the government would actively try to reduce the psychological discomfort and would further try to avoid information that would likely increase their psychological discomfort.
The greatest inconsistency of these proposals are to the SLFPers. They placed the present leadership in power and now find them presenting proposals inconsistent with their views. SLFPers are fundamentally nationalist and rather conservative. The idea of provincial divisions is unacceptable to their nature and the opposition to the creation of provincial councils from the 13th amendment came from the SLFPers.
The message of peace, prosperity and unity are ideals attractive to all people and tend to be acceptable to SLFPers to reduce their dissonance further, as persons in dissonance actively trying to avoid information likely to increase the dissonance and tends to unquestioningly accept the well presented message. The brain washing is primarily at the SLFPers to retain the SLFP vote, that is essential to make the package acceptable. The other group that this message would be effective on, are the people of the border areas who live in constant tension due to the periodic attacks. For these people the message or the claim is one of hope and tends to reduce their psyshological discomfort.
Basically by these proposals Prof Peiris is concentrating power on the post of the Executive President who would be selected by the Party MPs at the control of the party leadership. With 20% of the national vote consolidated behind the present leadership by allowing the Tamil and East Muslim parties what they want, with another 30% of the national vote by the retention of the SLFP vote and of border area people and others that could be converted through brainwashing, the present leadership is assured of continuity in power even if the package cannot be constitutionalised.
I read with much interest the news item on the front page of The Sunday Times of January 4, headlined "Mad cow comes here", which gives the impression that at least one case of mad cow disease has been seen in Sri Lanka.
The article stated that the "human form of the deadly 'mad cow' disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), which rocked Britain and Europe has set in Sri Lanka".
This is incorrect, as the case alluded to was presented by me to the Sri Lanka Medical Association Anniversary Sessions in 1985. It was a case of classical Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (CJD) and not the variant CJD (vCJD) now called human mad cow disease, said to be caused by eating nervous tissue of a cow infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). Mad cow disease can occur in cattle and humans - the human form is the vCJD, while in cows it is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. In both conditions the brain shows a massive loss of neurons and resembles a sponge.
There are three forms of CJD - genetic, sporadic and iatrogenic. In addition there is the vCJD described below. The genetic form behaves like an autosomal dominant disease. The iatrogenic forms are due to 'infected' corneal grafts or contaminated Growth hormone therapy. The cause of sporadic cases is unknown and only a very few belong to the vCJD. It is important to stress that none of these forms are spread from human to human by direct contact, even intimate, or by indirect contact, such as droplet infection or use of common items.
Human CJD and BSE are two members of a family of related fatal diseases of the brain, which are caused when the individual is exposed to an infectious protein called a prion. This protein is a mutated form of a natural protein that is found on the surface of many cells in the body.
Neither CJD nor BSE is a viral disease, but unique diseases caused by a variant of a normal protein. The reason these proteins are so dangerous is that they are very resistant to normal sterilisation methods. They are called prion diseases. Other prion diseases are Scrapie, a disease of sheep and and Kuru, seen earlier in a particular tribe in Papua New Guinea which seemed to have arisen as a result of the practice of cannibalisation of deceased relatives as an act of veneration.
CJD is the most common human prion disease with an annual incidence of 1 per million population. CJD was shown to be transmissible when patients receiving corneal grafts from an individual with CJD developed the disease some time later. Another group who developed the disease were those who received human growth hormone for the treatment of dwarfism. Growth hormone was prepared by removal and pooling of human pituitary glands. Many such cases of CJD have been reported, though compensation is yet forthcoming.
In many countries, post World War II, animal carcasses were processed and fed back to animals, converting herbivores such as cattle into carnivores. However, initially, the rendering process using high temperatures and solvent extraction to remove fat also inactivated the prion protein. Deregulation of the industry coupled with greed of the farming industry, resulted in cheap rendering processes that did not inactivate the prion protein. The upshot of this was that within a couple of years, cows fed with this modified feed developed symptoms of BSE or Mad Cow disease as dubbed by the media. However, it was only in 1989 that most potentially infective parts of the animal such as the brain and spinal cord which usually ended up in a cheap mince and beefburgers were banned from human consumption.
The patient presented to the medical audience in 1985 had the classical form of CJD and not the variant form that is linked to BSE. No case of vCJD (Human form of Mad now disease) has been diagnosed by any of the Neuroscientists in Sri Lanka.
A few cases of classical CJD have been seen in Sri Lanka but none which appear belong into the category of vCJD or human Mad cow disease. While there is no risk of vCJD by consuming meat of cattle fed entirely on a herbivorous diet, there may be a risk in consumption of meat or meat products containing nervous tissue fed on synthetic feeds produced without a proper control.
The controversial ex-Indian diplomat J. N. Dixit, whom many here think almost "loves to be hated", seems to have obliged his numerous detractors again. His book "Assignment in Colombo" is being devoured by ardent fans of the Indo-Lanka scene with great glee from the moment it appeared in the book-stands. Much of what he has written was generally known to the fairly well-informed students of the Indo-Lankan scene - particularly of the post-1987 period. Dixit, however, does not fail to provide interesting and hitherto unknown "behind the scenes" material. As to be expected, the pro-Sinhala and pro-Tamil activists have swiftly taken their sides in the ever widening polarised divide. Some Sri Lankan ex-diplomats with a service record in New Delhi, have already fired their initial salvos taking Dixit to task and questioning much of his material, facts and perceptions. Former High Commissioners Kalpage and Tilakeratne, ex-diplomat Godage have all joined in the fray - with, very probably, many more waiting in the sidelines to join in soon. Few will accuse Dixit of being gentle, suave and possessed of sophistry - hallmarks of the stereo-type diplomat. However, one has to break-away from the prejudiced image of the man and read the book with an open mind so as to look at history of the period the way he did - before rushing to judgment on his work.
Dixit, unfortunately, has been lax in submitting to careless errors in spelling simple names of people (many of his "interlocutors" - a favoured term used in the book) and places, which he could well have avoided. This lapse also includes the poor choice of his own photograph in the book, in which he looks almost like a "billa" - which is what many here are trying to brand him to be. However, if an attempt is being made to equate these simple errors to the implied authenticity of much of what he has portrayed in his book, then we are only fooling ourselves. He also does not strengthen his credibility nor does he manage to add to his list of friends when he unwisely chooses to vent his feelings publicly against senior Indian officials - particularly Romesh Bhandari and General Harkirat Singh.
But in fairness to Dixit and India the following must be said. A neutral appraisal of the book may suggest Dixit may not have tilted the scales to distort history - as many who have read the book rushed to print - accuse him of. On the other hand there is indeed plenty of evidence in the book to suggest Dixit has, in fairness to his readers, been quite faithful in the reportage of events of his tenure during his "explosive years" of his Assignment in Colombo.
At all times he maintains, the central focus of attention of all Indian Policy-makers - whether they are viewed here as "Doves" or "Hawks" - appears to be an unequivocal commitment to ensure the continuity of the unitary geographical character of Sri Lanka. One feels encouraged almost all major players in New Delhi have, to a man, resolved not to permit the break-up of Sri Lanka (p64). To this band one must include Mr Dixit as well, inspite of much of his widely-perceived diplomatic "un-niceties."
Whereas India is bludgeoned by many sections here with the charge of being the main contributor to our ethnic problem by offering logistical support and succour to the Tamil militants many have reason to feel the issue is not as simple as that. India could have been forced to take steps quite unpleasant to her against continued provocation from extreme Sri Lankan politicians both within and outside Government. Privately threatening to bring American armed forces here for "rest and recreation" and Premadasa/JR's trying to ridicule Indira Gandhi un-necessarily in election platforms here with "the cow and calf" story could only be some of the major irritants. Nevertheless, there is enough evidence in Dixit's book to suggest India has been tough on the LTTE and other militant groups urging them to get back to the mainstream of civil life and eschew violence - no matter the grievous psychological injuries of the past to these and the Tamils they claim to represent "India would generate pressure on the Tamil militant groups to make them desist from violence and to work towards a compromise. Instead of negotiating on the basis of absolute pre-conditions" (p64) .
We will only be displaying woeful naivete if we are to continue to fool ourselves that India and India alone, is to be blamed for all our predicaments in this self-destructive ethnic imbroglio. It may well be that the source of much of the trouble has always been at our doorstep, which we may have conveniently chosen to ignore - being quite comfortable apportioning blame on others. The painful reality is as to how, soon and how much we are prepared to sacrifice and concede to repair this growing and self-destructive problem. On this will depend not just the future peace and happiness of our sadly divided nation but also the acid test if we do at all have the necessary "give and take" accommodatory spirit to retain the independence we gained only a brief 50 years ago - to continue to remain a single and socio-politically content nation of different communities living in equality and justice speaking different languages and following different religions.
Return to the Letters to the Editor contents page
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk