I just saw part of a documentary on PBS called No More Tears Sister: Anatomy of Hope and Betrayal about Sri Lankan Human Rights Activist Dr. Rajani Thirangama.
I didn’t see the whole thing, and I wish I had. Dr. Thirangama, who was a member of the Tamil Tigers, was the head of the Anatomy department in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. The documentary consisted of interviews with Dr. Thirangama’s sister, former partner, daughters, and people who knew her. Spliced between were dramatizations of her while riding her bike, writing a pamphlet, a letter, attending a protest.
She was a member of the Tigers, but after seeing how much violence the movement was begetting, she left. She came to the conclusion that they were not a revolutionary force, so because of the love for her people, was forced to break away from them. She then became a tireless activist, and a founder of University Teachers for Human Rights (UTHR), an organization that publishes reports about the staggering array of death in Sri Lanka stemming from the conflict.
She spoke out against violence in general. She saw a kinship between herself and her political work and women who were at home taking care of the everyday while men were off in some ideological war. She was a revolutionary motivated by love and her writing was absolutely beautiful. You can see some of it at the UTHR website’s description of Dr. Thirangama.
She was careful to draw out the impact violence has, no matter who the agent is. At one point in the documentary, the Tigers mentioned the importance for 500 or so people to die for the freedom of the nation.
And this brings up a critical point that is still sticky with me: Is violence justified to create social change? Dr. Thirangama felt that violence could not be used to free Sri Lanka because she saw how both sides were ruthless and near fanatical. She wrote mainly about the people stuck in between the government’s military and the Tigers. Those stuck were the ones dying, suffering in the face of a particular idea of a nation.
For me, more and more, I’m not sure violence can be an answer. When a person dies in the name of change, or a nation, or an idea, that is still one person who dies. Regardless of their vocation as a capitalist, a landowner, a shoemaker, a teacher, a government bureaucrat or a priest, they are still a person who has the right to live.
Right now, there are still bombs over Baghdad. And Israeli troops paralyzing the lives of Palestinians. And Sri Lankan military killing Tamil people. And Katrina survivors whose houses are also being mown down. All in the name of something or somebody. Some in hopes of creating a peaceful solution to a crisis - beating people down until they can’t resist or speak doesn’t necessarily equal peace; I think quite the opposite.
In the end, Dr. Thirangama was killed by the Tigers while bicycling. She was obstructing their struggle, so she was eliminated.
i’d say i’m pretty much a pacifist nowadays. even when violence is used for social change, the lasting effects are not good. in the end, the old oppressor might be gone, but in it’s place is a culture of violence (eg, algeria).
Left by atif on June 30th, 2006