On Indian Anti-Colonialism, the perspectival union of Sri Lanka and China, and the future of Nazi Asia

Timesonline : “On the southern coast of Sri Lanka, ten miles from one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, a vast construction site is engulfing the once sleepy fishing town of Hambantota.
This poor community of 21,000 people is about as far as one can get on the island from the fighting between the army and the Tamil Tiger rebels on the northeastern coast. The sudden spurt of construction helps, however, to explain why the army is poised to defeat the Tigers and why Western governments are so powerless to negotiate a ceasefire to help civilians trapped on the front line.

This is where China is building a $1 billion port that it plans to use as a refuelling and docking station for its navy, as it patrols the Indian Ocean and protects China’s supplies of Saudi oil. Ever since Sri Lanka agreed to the plan, in March 2007, China has given it all the aid, arms and diplomatic support it needs to defeat the Tigers, without worrying about the West.”

I find the anti-colonial movement in India to be the subcontinent's most significant break with an otherwise and relatively all-inclusive history – stained mainly by the caste system. I don’t see any reason why in movement toward egalitarianism, the Indians had to exclude the British for being of non-indigenous origins. As I had stated in a previous observation, if they found it justifiable that the British be evicted for being oppressive, then why did they not evict the descendants of the Muslim invaders for doing likewise earlier along with existing rulers? Rather, time and tide, fortunately, saw a significant amalgamation between them, just as it could have been the case with the British.

However, I can understand this given that the British did not really see India as their home whereas the Muslims did, and much of that which was produced in India was done for the enrichment of Britain. But the Mughals did have close to a 1000 year head start to become part of the Indian tapestry, and the Indian subcontinent had as much time to integrate them into an amalgamative whole – the Taj Mahal, with its Islamic architecture, whilst serving as one of the significant symbols of a ‘Hindu’ India, is one of the greatest and most salient testament of its essentially non-fascist nature. The British finally leaving, serves as evidence of their growth in magnanimity and appreciation of human rights. Their being told to leave, and their leaving at this juncture, reminds me of how dissenters were executed in Orwell's '1984' only upon learning the 'error' of their ways. What a waste. If I was in the position of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, I would have responded to their lowering the British Flag prior to their departure with an approving clap on the back and invite them to stay.

I’ve often wondered, with greater integration between the British and Indian peoples, if it is not possible to envision a greater ‘United Kingdom’ cutting across geographical regions and including a perspectivally similar people – of course, without the Queen being the official head of India, but rather a political union between both countries. Perhaps if that had happened, then we might not see an ‘EU’ today as people might be thus-trained to accord greater significance to perspectival unions over geographical ones, and thus, even potentially undermining the perspectival basis upon which the BNP might emerge or exist at all. All this fascist talk of maintaining a 'racial balance' in favour of 'the natives' might have been undone by the dilution of such tendencies in both India and the UK with a healthy concentrated dose of masala in a Yorkshire pud. 'The Native' might have been redefined and the BNP might now be an acronym for British of Naturist Persuasion.

I wouldn’t expect China or Sri Lanka to accord such respect to the peoples of Tibet and Xinjiang or the Tamils respectively anytime soon, if at all – I really feel for the Tamils, they are really buggered in quite a bit of southeast Asia, i.e. Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka. They will all be conforming to the perspectival standards of their oppressors so that they too might one day be included – just as women sought to be included in patriarchal societies throughout the world and ended up becoming just like their oppressors upon inclusion…the endpoint of fascism is to include more in its ethos. Of course, the people as a whole will not attain maximal perspectival development given that the overarching imposed culture will not see contribution from another take on reality as afforded by integration with different and ‘minority’ cultures. Neither will they enjoy the added perspectival benefits that comes with an empathetic appreciation of another as might be seen in the west. That is the loss of Nazi Asia. But, of course, the people will eventually be underdeveloped enough to value their gains in terms of what had been achieved as opposed to appreciating what could have been achieved if their multicultural perspectival resources had seen maximal development through egalitarian integration.

Well, in the case of Sri Lanka and China, I am hardly surprised that they would prefer closer ties with each other as they might have realised the greater perspectival similarities between themselves with their shared and militarily imposed aversion to difference and belief in the significance of ‘racial’ numbers, continuity and cultural inbreeding, as opposed to the added value of a boost in IQ any monocultural people might be afforded upon integration with difference. Besides the economic advantages, closer ties between two fascist states – with China being the older fascist of the two by about a couple of thousand years – is certainly preferable to an alliance with an India that has taken the opposite and multicultural stance for most of its history – and from whom comes much popular support for multiculturalism in Sri Lanka as opposed to fascist monoculturalism and Sinhalese racial supremacy.

I suppose it is indeed fascistically prudential of the Sinhalese elite to seek an economic upgrade with aid from the Chinese. After all, to validate the supremacy of the Sinhalese ‘race’ and associated ‘culture’, they will have to show that it can deliver ‘first world’ status to the people via the preferred culture and race alone. Once that is achieved, the fate of non-Sinhalese culture in Sri Lanka will see permanent relegation to irrelevance and inferiority. The sooner this can be delivered, or the sooner economic progress can be perceived to be taking place, the sooner can the western frivolity of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘mutual respect’ can be tossed aside as a ‘western fetish’.

In the longer run, Sri Lanka will certainly be, in spirit, a member of the ‘asian democratic’ movement that is picking up pace and hollering, ‘respect our culture!’. And the west will most probably turn the culturally magnanimous cheek – as it already is doing, in part, to compensate for their bigotry in the colonial era – in the face of ‘asian’ attempts to disrespect and marginalise other cultures for the purpose of effectuating a well-ordered, unquestioning, and thereafter thoroughly un-‘asian’ (given that it will be representing fewer asian cultures in the face of their cultural pogroms and post-fascist assimilatory measures) automatonic march toward ‘affluence’ and ‘progress’.

The self-validating part of southeast Asian fascism lies in marginalisation delivering a less developed ‘other’ that in turn serves to enable a racially and culturally-associated ‘preferred’ race to inevitably outdo those whom will then be perceived as the practitioners of ‘inferior cultures’. This can serve to assimilate the former practitioners of these ‘inferior cultures’ and more and more might be thus enlisted to validate these fascist movements and perspectives as ‘cultures’ worthy of respect, or at least, afford it unquestioning conformity – For instance, I’ve often heard many a time in Singapore, that Indians are told by their parents to not think too much, be critical, or ask too much questions lest they are bypassed for jobs and promotions. Hence, paradoxically, in these states, one might see many Indians, but one would be hard-pressed to recognise any that are. Overtime, the west will have lesser reasons to take them to task on human-rights violations and championing perspectives of neo-Nazi persuasion as there would be a unilateral effort by the children of the previously marginalised to assimilate with a marginalisation-produced ‘superior’, or at least, an ‘economically pragmatic’ culture.