A rumour or two away from being engulfed in flames | Sunday Observer

A rumour or two away from being engulfed in flames

18 March, 2018

The ban on social media platforms in the wake of the communal violence that erupted in the Central Province and Ampara has had the critics of the government up in arms. How dare a government that promised unbridled media freedom do this, they ask? On the face of it, it seems to be a valid question.

However, it must be viewed in the context of the circumstances. And, we must ask ourselves the question, have we learnt anything at all from the dark events of July 1983? That was when the nation erupted in communal hatred following the killing of thirteen soldiers in the North. Thousands of Tamil civilians were killed for the crime of being Tamil. Some of them were literally burnt alive, women were raped and their homes and shops set on fire. The rest, as they say, is history. What followed was twenty five years of war that left hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans- Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims- dead.

The economic resurgence the country saw from 1977 until 1983 came to an abrupt halt. Sri Lanka became a pariah state in the eyes of the world. The war is now over- and we are grateful to Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka for that. The international community has welcomed Sri Lanka back into their fold. Yet, it seems, there are elements that do not wish to see an end to that dark chapter in recent Sri Lankan history.

The recent events in Digana, Teldeniya and Ampara had all the hallmarks of being organized. For instance, in Ampara, the violence was based on a myth- that ‘pills’ taken by males could lead to infertility. In Digana, the rioting did not erupt until weeks after the assault on the Sinhalese gentleman and it occurred days after he died- so, it is unlikely to be a spontaneous outpouring of vengeance. That is why there needed to be some control over what was propagated as ‘news’. This is not 1983. That was when the country relied on one state run radio station, two television stations still finding their feet and a handful of newspapers to get their news. Those who remember 1983 will recall that in the ‘good old days’, when the July riots erupted, the government of J. R. Jayewardene too appointed a censor to vet all news items printed or broadcast in the media.

The censor at that time was Sarath Amunugama, who is still active in politics. Communication has grown by leaps and bounds since then. This is the age of the Internet and instant communication. We do not wait for the next day’s newspapers or the evening news broadcast to get our news. It streams into our smart phone the instant it happens. Anyone with a smart phone is a potential news reporter. Then, there is social media.

One does not have to be an editorialist or a columnist to propagate opinions. All one needs is to have access to one of the numerous social media applications- Facebook, Twitter, Viber, Whatsapp, to name a popular few- to run a commentary on social issues and mould opinions and shape events. Why, just the other day, United States President Donald Trump fired his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Twitter! This is why the recent events in the Central Province had the potential to be much, much more dangerous than the initial incident that led to the July 1983 riots. With a 24-hour news cycle where its propagators were not held responsible for what they ‘published’, anything could have happened. Just to cite one example, the ‘male infertility pill’ myth spread like wildfire through social media. What was not scientifically possible was taken as gospel truth and messages and comments related to this ‘master plan to eliminate the Sinhala race’ were frantically shared on various platforms. It took weeks for a panel of medical experts to appear in public and lay the myth to rest.

That is why the ‘ban’ on social media was necessary. Those who now criticize this ban and accuse the government of curbing media freedom- particularly, those from the Joint Opposition- must be having very short memories. During the previous regime, indeed, there was no ban on mainstream or social media. Instead, journalists were either murdered (Lasantha Wickremetunga), they disappeared (Prageeth Ekneligoda) or they were abducted and returned home after being threatened and assaulted (Keith Noyahr). So, it was a different kind of media freedom that we enjoyed then. We could publish anything then, but pretty much anything could also happen to you! The restrictions on social media have now been lifted after less than two weeks. Was it ideal? No. Was it necessary? Yes. Did it achieve its objectives? We think it did, and we will tell you why. The violence that enveloped certain areas of the Central Province was effectively contained. The incidents in Ampara did not spread in that very volatile region.

While two persons died and dozens of homes and shops were indeed destroyed, and that is deplorable, the damage could have been on a larger, national scale. Even with the relatively few incidents that occurred, the international community was getting the jitters about Sri Lanka. Some countries put out travel advisories against visiting this nation. Had the rioting and the clashes spread, Sri Lanka would be in the doghouse and labelled as a minority bashing country once again by the international community. That did not happen. With the belated but effective security measures, curfews and state of emergency together with the ban on social media, normalcy has returned to Ampara and the Central Province.

The nation, a rumour or two away from being enveloped in flames again, can breathe easy now. Surely, being cut off from social media for a few days is a fair price to pay for that? It is said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Sometimes, that vigilance comes at a cost- the cost of curtailing freedoms, where necessary to prevent a catastrophe, for the greater good of the nation.

There is no need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist about that. 

Comments