Fascist Pretences & Progressive Slumber

By Chamindra Weerawardhana –MARCH 7, 2021

Dr. Chamindra Weerawardhana

Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapaksa [NGR], the President of Sri Lanka placed in that role by powerful commercial and media interests, recently published a tweet – on equality! Some Sri Lankans who have built reputations as advocates for the rights of citizens who face systemic institutional discrimination, such as LGBTQI+ citizens, have taken to sing praises of NGR. 

That rights advocates fail to grasp the futility of such inanities is beyond belief. However, if one takes a cautious glance at Lankan society at large, progressive citizens praising fascists does not come as a surprise. 

Blind Spots? 

Sri Lanka is home to rights advocacy lobbies that are replete with blind spots. The large majority of ‘feminist’ collectives and supposedly progressive entities that stand for women’s rights and increased representation of women in public life, for example, are very highly cisnormative and very largely cis-heteronormative, Sinhala women-heavy, upper and upper-middle class cis women-heavy spaces. They are also very ableist spaces. The large majority of these spaces are very highly averse towards non-cis women, intersex women and cis/non-cis/intersex women from marginalised socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. These spaces are, in truth, struck in a place of second-wave feminism of yesteryear. Occasional efforts to fake otherwise inevitably water down to all but hollow ventures.  

Gender-based hierarchies in LGBTQI+ activist spaces? 

Some Lankan LGBTQI+ spaces, run especially by cis gay men, are among the most transphobic spaces this writer has come across. In these spaces, cis gay menfolk assume a place of command, and act from a place of such uptightness that they reproduce cis-het power structures and hierarchies that would make a discerning rights activist cringe. These are hierarchies of cis-gay male superiority, above cis/trans women, and people of other gender identities and sex characteristics. In their view, trans people, especially trans women, are the bottom of the pile. In these spaces, most cis gay men categorically refuse to see a trans person as a full-fledged human being, let alone a citizen with equal rights who stands on an equal footing with them. A considerable majority of Lankan cis gay men in such spaces, be it HIV prevention work or LGBTQI+ activism of the left, assume that they can ‘use’ cis queer women, and to a larger extent trans [straight and queer] women, to their advantage. They fail to see trans men as men. Once again, tokenistic gestures that we often see in these spaces are beyond futile. Such gestures are intended at inflating cis gay male egos and presenting them as saviours, if not driving forces in LGBTQI+ rights work. These spaces are never short of uptight postures of coming up with very mediocre discourses with the apparent intent of appealing to, and not excessively ruffling the ‘mainstream’ – which are, in reality, beyond meaningless. In most cases, the only time one notices a slight semblance of willingness to engage in a more equal rights-focused and consistent body of work is when the aforementioned cis-gay-male overlords seek to interact with and lure philanthropic funders. 

When LGBTQI+ spaces are led by cis women, they sometimes end up becoming extremely transmisogynist spaces. True that some such spaces have histories of providing space for trans people – indeed, one has to make a display of a certain level of inclusivity to sustain a steady flow of philanthropic funding. However, in most cases, the bitter reality is that these spaces are exclusively focused on biopolitics and exclusionary attitudes. Just like their cis gay male counterparts, some cis women are also engaged in pointless attempts to present themselves as supposedly inclusive and cosmopolitan, whereas in truth, they are all but cis-normative  ideologues of a 2nd wave yesteryear. 

This writer recently received a screenshot from a dear friend. It contained a message sent by a leading Sri Lankan LGBTQI+ rights activist, calling for a gathering of [I quote] “cisgender Lesbian, Bisexual and queer women to talk on many things that affects [sic] us Queer Women and…how we can assist our sisters in rural areas, the fun things we can do together etc.!” [unquote]. If this happened to be a message from one of the above-mentioned so-called feminist collectives stuck in ideas of yesteryear, it may not have caused the slightest stir, as this is precisely how such spaces generally function. However, in this specific case, the fact that it comes from a top-level and highly-regarded figure in a leading and well-funded LGBTQI+ rights organisation in Sri Lanka says something about where Sri Lanka still is, when it comes to dominant forms of LGBTQI+ advocacy. Does this screenshot come as a surprise? In the book this writer has read, it certainly does not. When people espouse a certain restrictive worldview beyond which they fail to see much, such restrictive attitudes are normal, and to be expected. Whether the said individuals themselves belong to minority or a demographic that faces systemic challenges is beside the point. A pleasant surprise, for its part, would have been a call for an intersectionally sharper and advanced, women-of-colour and indigenous feminist-inspired, call for collective reflection and action amongst a diversity of women, in a logic of liberation. 

In order to discuss “assisting” [and not ‘empowering’] women in rural areas, only a certain demographic of cis women is invited. This cannot be justified as an effort to create a safe space for women’s organising. Instead, what transpires here is a clear inclination to practice exclusionary politics, and work form a very narrowly construed, biopolitics-centric and archaic worldview. Indeed, this kind of approach is the biggest barrier to the development of meaningful intersectional feminist advocacy that is well and truly intended at working towards socioeconomic justice and the empowerment of the most marginalised women in our society. Had such a message been sent out by an activist of similar standing in a country with advanced rights discourses, it would be grounds pursue funding withdrawals, donor distancing, board resignations, calls for stronger awareness-raising campaigns, calls for management resignations and restructuring, and a great deal of public condemnation that would adversely impact those who made such a statement and their organisation. Not in the land like no other! 

The Silver Lining: Younger Generation 

The fact that quite a few women [of a multitude of SOGIESC], especially younger women, who received or came across the above-mentioned message were extremely appalled and irate about its content is proof of the one and only silver lining; indeed, the only hope for Sri Lanka to move towards light at the end of the tunnel is the new generation of our youth. As opposed to the dinosaurs in the rights advocacy lobby [from ‘left’ to ‘right’ via ‘centre-right’, north to south, 2nd wave feminist to LGBTQI+], this younger generation of Lankans is politically savvy, intersectionally-informed and critically-minded. They understand what it means and takes to engage in processes of [un]learning and drawing comparative insights from progressive women-of-colour-led and indigenous feminist movements worldwide. Lankan citizens of this generation are thoroughly unprepared to tolerate the high number of abject inanities that are sometimes flouted as ‘rights advocacy’ or ‘activism’.  

Intersectional Bankruptcy? 

As this writer has highlighted elsewhere, consequences of a failed Victorian system of education and systems that reinforce social conservatisms are such that the large majority of Sri Lankans suffer with a major problem of ‘intersectional bankruptcy’. This is visible in all aspects of public life. Not even the supposedly ‘woke’ are exempt from this problem. This is because critical thinking, counter-intuitive reflections on vital issues, and a preparedness to get off one’s proverbial high horse and explore a multitude of perspectives, and incentives to engage in unlearning processes are not ingrained in the ways in which most Lankans are ‘trained’ in schools, universities, workplaces, activist spaces, expatriate spaces and elsewhere. This intersectional bankruptcy often leads to the most ludicrous perspectives. To cite but one recent example, when the vice presidency of the [settler-colonial state built on Turtle Island that is widely known as the] United States of America went to a black woman for the first time in that settler-colonial state’s history, many Sri Lankans, including some supposedly ‘woke’ people, drifted into amnesic diatribes of how proud they happened to be of the late Sirima Bandaranaike, in a [beyond twisted] spirit of “we did it long before they did!”. 

Sirima was a wealthy, upper class aristocratic lady who was ushered into politics after her husband’s assassination, whose role in politics had all to do with clientelist and feudal tendencies in Lankan politics, and strictly speaking nothing whatsoever to do with the upliftment of women in politics. Drawing the right comparative lessons from the rise of Vice President Kamala Harris [promoting minority women’s representation in politics, challenging and dismantling hetero-patriarchal conservatisms in politics, and dismantling the multiple glass ceilings faced by women entering politics, to name but a few] was of absolutely no interest. A constructive-cum-stringent and highly warranted critique of Harris’s policies in her previous roles of power [which were in particular repressive towards underprivileged black people] has also been absent. 

In such a country, leading rights advocates with considerable media clout and influence praising President NR does not come as a surprise. 

Read More