The film ‘The Aviator’ by Martin Scorsese depicts how modern Capitalism combined with industrial fortitude can push the limits of ‘probability’ to ‘possibility.’ The ventures that Hughes embarks on to develop aviation as a visionary industrialist is a culmination of wealth sources that work towards building what USA in the 1930s would have envisioned as their tomorrow. The combination of private Wealth and State funds to achieve the industrial innovations of more advanced aviation is a remarkable factor that shows how Citizens and State share stakeholdership in forging ahead. The very way the film ends with a tight close up of Leonardo Di Caprio’s face as he mutters the line “The way of the future” is striking in the manner of a prophesying. The character of Howard Hughes brought to life for the screen by Di Caprio was telling how a Tomorrow would take shape. In this context what I would like to focus specifically on a certain term that comes in the deposition Hughes makes in the congressional hearing he is called to by the US legislature’s appointed committee. In defending himself, Hughes describes the status quo that is in place at the hearing where he as an individual has to answer to a US Senator who has “all sorts of powers”, and it is interesting how Hughes posits himself as a “private Citizen”. What could possibly be meant by that term? What is a “private Citizen”?
The idea of being a Citizen is very clearly understood by anyone who owns a National Identity Card, though it may be from an entirely constitutional technicality ground. What they would make a Citizen ‘private’? What would be the counterpart/counterpoint of a ‘private Citizen’? Is there such a thing as a ‘public Citizen’? If we were to just think that along the lines of occupation/profession there could be some definitional lines be drawn to differentiate the private Citizen from one that is ‘not private’, then can a public servant, a member of the government service be discounted from the lot of ‘private Citizenry’? Would a member of the armed forces (who upon entering the services forfeits certain constitutionally granted Fundamental Rights to Citizens such as Trade union rights) qualify as a ‘private Citizen’? Can we reasonably assume that one’s placement in the sectoring of our country’s economy determines our level of qualifying as a private Citizen? It seems plausible enough, considering how Professor of History in the Colombo varsity Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri once said in a lecture that this era of human history is deemed the age of Homo-Economicus.
While contemplating on this line of thought something that struck me was what I recalled from a conversation with retired Supreme Court Judge Raja Wanasundera (who was also one time acting Chief Justice). Justice Wanasundera being a friend of the family relates many stories from his illustrious career as a legal personality and a member of the judicature, which carry many gems of wisdom. Referring to a private conversation he had had with the eminent legal figure Dr. Colvin R De Silva, when the latter was in the process of formulating the first Republican Constitution of Sri Lanka (1972), Justice Wanasundera said how Dr. De Silva (the architect of the 1972 constitution) had been thinking on the lines of forming a hard-left oriented system for Sri Lanka where there would be no semblance of private ownership. He had said that the constitution will be such that no man will own anything other than his toothbrush! (As related by Justice Wanasundera). Being a founder member of the LSSP that was their line of thinking. Justice Wanasundera who at the time had been Solicitor General of Sri Lanka had expressed his disapproval. He said that he told Colvin (as he refers to the late statesman) that if a peasant owns even a small patch of land he will be willing to fight for his country, but if you take away everything they own and vest it completely with the State they will be nothing more that slaves. That was the case of the former Soviet Union he said. The citizenry were veritable slaves since they had no ownership that could endow them with even a shade of independence. Such a nation does not last he had said.
What exactly was the impact of the perspective Justice Wanasundera imparted to the late Colvin R. De Silva, one cannot say for sure, while there is room for conjecture. We know for a fact that the Citizens governed by the 1972 Republican constitution owned much more than their toothbrushes. And that the nefariousness of International Communism did permeate the walls of Sri Lankan government. If one is not to own more than one’s toothbrush (presumably dental hygiene is of prime importance in a Communist State) and maybe a sarong or loin cloth (hoping that the regime would become a bit more generous) then the status of ‘slave to and of the State’ would aptly fit such a ‘Citizen’ (?)... In the film 300, King Leonidas of Sparta tells his nemesis the Persian Emperor Xerxes “You command many slaves, but few warriors”. Food for thought?
Slaves would populate a fiefdom, but a State which truly pulsates with its sense of Nationhood must be made up of Citizens. And each must at some degree believe that their sense as individuals have not been lost in the course of being in service to the State. In my opinion the allowance of ‘private wealth’ is one means by which a Citizen may realise his sense of individuality in the context of the State. A private Citizen may be broadly defined as one who does not work for the state, or as one who does not come within the hierarchies of the state apparatuses and perform administrative, operational tasks. But does that adequately define what it means to have a sense of being ‘private’ as a Citizen? Every Citizen has some degree of being bound to the State. Being completely divorced of the State would disqualify Citizenship, wouldn’t it? So while being part of the State and being subjected to its laws and regulations what would allow the Citizen to be a private one?
I believe it is not simply one’s occupational placement (sector wise) alone that allows the sense of being a private Citizen (or not) to come about. A non-state sector worker who shares a status of ‘equality’ with the rest of his country’s Citizenry simply by virtue of being allowed to own a toothbrush and nothing more seems unlikely to feel he is a ‘private Citizen’ since apart from the toothbrush his very tartar is likely to be bound to ‘State ownership.’
The sometimes erratic, yet ardently persistent and boldly visionary Howard Hughes in The Aviator speaks of being a ‘private Citizen’ as a disadvantage or even a debility given the situation he is in and the circumstances that impel him to state so. But I believe between the lines lies a subtext that speaks of the power of the private Citizen in a government like that of the USA.
The idea of being a Citizen is very clearly understood by anyone who owns a National Identity Card, though it may be from an entirely constitutional technicality ground. What they would make a Citizen ‘private’? What would be the counterpart/counterpoint of a ‘private Citizen’? Is there such a thing as a ‘public Citizen’? If we were to just think that along the lines of occupation/profession there could be some definitional lines be drawn to differentiate the private Citizen from one that is ‘not private’, then can a public servant, a member of the government service be discounted from the lot of ‘private Citizenry’? Would a member of the armed forces (who upon entering the services forfeits certain constitutionally granted Fundamental Rights to Citizens such as Trade union rights) qualify as a ‘private Citizen’? Can we reasonably assume that one’s placement in the sectoring of our country’s economy determines our level of qualifying as a private Citizen? It seems plausible enough, considering how Professor of History in the Colombo varsity Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri once said in a lecture that this era of human history is deemed the age of Homo-Economicus.
While contemplating on this line of thought something that struck me was what I recalled from a conversation with retired Supreme Court Judge Raja Wanasundera (who was also one time acting Chief Justice). Justice Wanasundera being a friend of the family relates many stories from his illustrious career as a legal personality and a member of the judicature, which carry many gems of wisdom. Referring to a private conversation he had had with the eminent legal figure Dr. Colvin R De Silva, when the latter was in the process of formulating the first Republican Constitution of Sri Lanka (1972), Justice Wanasundera said how Dr. De Silva (the architect of the 1972 constitution) had been thinking on the lines of forming a hard-left oriented system for Sri Lanka where there would be no semblance of private ownership. He had said that the constitution will be such that no man will own anything other than his toothbrush! (As related by Justice Wanasundera). Being a founder member of the LSSP that was their line of thinking. Justice Wanasundera who at the time had been Solicitor General of Sri Lanka had expressed his disapproval. He said that he told Colvin (as he refers to the late statesman) that if a peasant owns even a small patch of land he will be willing to fight for his country, but if you take away everything they own and vest it completely with the State they will be nothing more that slaves. That was the case of the former Soviet Union he said. The citizenry were veritable slaves since they had no ownership that could endow them with even a shade of independence. Such a nation does not last he had said.
What exactly was the impact of the perspective Justice Wanasundera imparted to the late Colvin R. De Silva, one cannot say for sure, while there is room for conjecture. We know for a fact that the Citizens governed by the 1972 Republican constitution owned much more than their toothbrushes. And that the nefariousness of International Communism did permeate the walls of Sri Lankan government. If one is not to own more than one’s toothbrush (presumably dental hygiene is of prime importance in a Communist State) and maybe a sarong or loin cloth (hoping that the regime would become a bit more generous) then the status of ‘slave to and of the State’ would aptly fit such a ‘Citizen’ (?)... In the film 300, King Leonidas of Sparta tells his nemesis the Persian Emperor Xerxes “You command many slaves, but few warriors”. Food for thought?
Slaves would populate a fiefdom, but a State which truly pulsates with its sense of Nationhood must be made up of Citizens. And each must at some degree believe that their sense as individuals have not been lost in the course of being in service to the State. In my opinion the allowance of ‘private wealth’ is one means by which a Citizen may realise his sense of individuality in the context of the State. A private Citizen may be broadly defined as one who does not work for the state, or as one who does not come within the hierarchies of the state apparatuses and perform administrative, operational tasks. But does that adequately define what it means to have a sense of being ‘private’ as a Citizen? Every Citizen has some degree of being bound to the State. Being completely divorced of the State would disqualify Citizenship, wouldn’t it? So while being part of the State and being subjected to its laws and regulations what would allow the Citizen to be a private one?
I believe it is not simply one’s occupational placement (sector wise) alone that allows the sense of being a private Citizen (or not) to come about. A non-state sector worker who shares a status of ‘equality’ with the rest of his country’s Citizenry simply by virtue of being allowed to own a toothbrush and nothing more seems unlikely to feel he is a ‘private Citizen’ since apart from the toothbrush his very tartar is likely to be bound to ‘State ownership.’
The sometimes erratic, yet ardently persistent and boldly visionary Howard Hughes in The Aviator speaks of being a ‘private Citizen’ as a disadvantage or even a debility given the situation he is in and the circumstances that impel him to state so. But I believe between the lines lies a subtext that speaks of the power of the private Citizen in a government like that of the USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment