Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In 1995 to 1996 Alan Clements, an American former monk in the Burmese Buddhist tradition, entered Burma to record dialogues with the lately-freed democracy icon and legitimate leader of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi. These dialogues were published as the “The Voice of Hope” in 1997, reissued in 2008. Today, in October 2010, Daw Suu Kyi is once again incarcarated under house-arrest, with her imminent release slated for mid-November. I spoke with Clements about Daw Suu Kyi’s significance not only for the Burmese democracy movement but also her contribution to the turn towards a global freedom movement grounded in Buddhist and secular values of non-violence, the mutual tolerance and respect of dialogue over armed conflict, the rights to free expression, assembly and self-determination. Clements is currently engaged in a project (www.useyourliberty) to restore up to 50 hours of documentary audio and video footage of Aung San Suu Kyi and her Burmese pro-democracy colleagues, previously thought lost but recently recovered from Burma. His website is www.worlddharma.org.

Paris – L.A. Dec. 14, 2009

MARTIN KOVAN: Alan, as we speak Aung San Suu Kyi [ASSK] is going into the first months of her fifteenth year of incarceration under the military regime in Burma. At the same time Foreign Policy magazine this year named her 26th in a list of a hundred of the world’s “top thinkers”, for “being a living symbol of hope in a dark place.” We’ve heard that kind of appraisal of ASSK for many years now, since she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, and though increasingly people all around the world are aware of her, and despite the efforts of Obama’s administration during 2009, this appraisal hasn’t necessarily translated into decisive international policy. Alan, you’ve known her personally, you’ve co-authored a well-known book with her, The Voice of Hope, re-issued in 2008. Maybe you can offer us a different kind of insight into her dedication to democratic freedom in Burma?

ALAN CLEMENTS: Martin, my personal experience of being with her for a period of six months in 1995 and 1996, soon after her first release following her first six years of incarceration, was as a friend of Burma, having been a Buddhist monk there, a friend of her principal mentor U Tin U, who was once the general of the army, ironically, under the dictator Ne Win who imprisoned her. Upon U Tin U’s release he became a monk in the monastery in Rangoon where I lived – the Mahasi Sayadaw Center. And, ironically, as I tried to study and practice some understanding of the nature of my own mind, ie. the pursuit of enlightenment, I was getting a tutorial, if you will, on the psychology of dictatorship and totalitarianism from the general himself.

KOVAN: U Tin U was a full general?

CLEMENTS: Yes, the head of the army. And he makes this archetypal transformation from ‘natural born killer’ to Gandhian freedom fighter, and mentor of ASSK. So it was through him that I was respectfully introduced to her. So I came to her from the dhamma, the nature of experiential Buddhist practice put into dynamic action, as we see today in Burma. So my experience of her is as a ‘dharma-sister’, if you will, someone whose being, her voice, her expression, her thought, are integral to her understanding of the qualities of consciousness that are most responsible for the liberation of the human mind from fear, anger and greed. And that’s why she calls her struggle for democracy in Burma as a revolution first and foremost of the human heart, or a revolution in her words, of the spirit.

So my experience of her is really the exploration of what informs this remarkably courageous non-violent struggle: why is non-violence preferable to armed struggle? What is the value of metta, of loving-kindness, in confronting military injustice and so on? I became acquainted with the psyche of a Buddhist-informed revolutionary. Now within that she’s very human: perhaps one of the most unpretentious human beings I’ve ever met, remarkably joyous in the midst of this inferno of hell in Burma with 50 million people in her country held like slaves by this dictatorship. You have this woman who’s enjoying, in a strange kind of way, her own sovereignty as an independent entity, yet inseparably connected to her, and as a ‘global mother.’ She has a deep relatedness, it seems to me, to the archetypal feminine, who’s able to nurture differences rather than destroy and fight against those differences. She wants to talk about the differences, and  – I can’t say that I embody it – but I love it as an ideal: let’s talk not kill, let’s be kind not be cruel. Let’s elevate, rather than denigrate. That’s her message to the generals, that’s her message to the world: if we can’t heal the divisions of our own inner being, how can we expect to heal the divisions in our politics and in our racial understanding? So, she comes from a ‘one world’ model, Martin, and I think that’s a very important message in today’s world, where we’re teetering on the brink of “just war.”

KOVAN: Insofar as you approach her from your Buddhist background, and she obviously could respond to that as a Buddhist herself, you also describe her as somebody invested with profound human qualities that embody in one person – as you say, a ‘one world’ figure – not merely a Buddhist or Buddhist-inspired resistance, but one who can speak from its secular basis as well.

CLEMENTS: Yes.

KOVAN: Obviously religious figures such as His Holiness the Dalai Lama [HHDL] were doing similar things in that late-80s period as well, but like Nelson Mandela with whom she is often compared, she managed to touch a universal chord that continues to resonate also with Western people. How would you elaborate on that particular connection with the ‘Western’ consciousness, or the Western ethical conscience, and that larger symbol that she embodies that we respond to so deeply?

CLEMENTS: Well, it’s interesting how one finds within someone something to identify with, that inspires something in you to look more deeply or to be more alive in the values that you consider to be your dharma or your spirituality. For me ASSK touches upon qualities that I can identify with that are trans-monastic, trans-renunciatory.’ She’s revisioning, without even knowing it I think, the entire motif of the bodhisattva model of how this mosaic of energies called the paramis (or paramitas in Sanskrit), how these energetics of love, compassion, tranquillity, of energy, poise and patience could be brought forward to define the emotional landscape of who we are right now in this deep intersubjectivity. She’s relating from that place of revolution that ‘consciousness is the forefront of the so-called battle’ because ‘I’m not going to hit you, I’m not going to use a gun, I’m not a believer in that. I’m believing in the interface of consciousness with consciousness.’ She’s Oxford educated, a Burmese national with a tremendous literary background and Buddhist-rooted understanding, in a culture with thirteen different major ethnicities, who speak perhaps up to 170 different dialects, primarily Buddhist but not only Buddhist – there’s Muslims, there’s Sikhs, Catholics, Baptists, atheists, and animists. So we have this rich tapestry of languages and ethnicities, religions and diversities of styles of behavior, and she’s coming through this as a woman who’s not wearing the flag of religious nationalism, no matter how refined that may be. She’s saying ‘I’m a woman, a person, and these timeless principles are not anyone’s alone.’ Metta isn’t Buddhist, any more than compassion is Christian. So she’s taken it out of the vessel, and she’s saying revolution is first and foremost of the spirit, where one takes responsibility for their own state of mind, and there can be no lasting change in society without first and foremost a change of consciousness. That to me is a very inspiring place to identify with her as both a spiritual person and as a political leader because she’s melding in a unique way radically contemporary spiritual truths, simple as they may be, and harsh, intense political realities. And she’s not afraid of that, of merging the spirit with politics. She draws that remarkably beautiful distinction that consciousness is inseparable from the basis of civilized society. She has a working experiential understanding in other words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a type of secular template for the dharma. That’s pretty unique.

KOVAN: Could it be that it’s so unique – to be challenging by exactly those qualities a current of geopolitical, but also religious, misguidedness – that in a way it could be too threatening? I ask the question because it almost seems as if international leaders who respect her at the same time have to hold the gauntlet of nonviolence she offers at arm’s distance. She demands a personal integrity that challenges some of the deepest egoism endemic to leadership or vested interest generally.

CLEMENTS: She could be ahead of her time, there’s no doubt about it. But she stands as a diamond in the midst of whatever this world is that we see, however we interpret it – of course in Burma it’s a totalitarian nightmare. So her luminosity is very beautifully juxtaposed there. Is it too much for the world to see this light? I don’t think so. My sense is that she’s so sincere, I think that’s the scalding fire, if you will, the burning light that’s too much for some predator-patriarchal models that are driven by uniform and testosterone, money and might. And how do you throw the cool water of intimacy on the reptilian consciousness of violence?

KOVAN: A saint’s task. But turning the focus a little back on the ‘Western’ experience, she seems to represent a lot for Western consciousness and yet what strikes me in a general way is that many people don’t seem to be so aware of ASSK.

CLEMENTS: Yes, true.

KOVAN: Perhaps this is more of a question about the Western sense of engagement, but why do you think it might be that at the same time that she’s held in such esteem, vast numbers of educated people don’t really know what’s going on in Burma?

CLEMENTS: Again, that’s an interesting point. To go from obscurity to household name – that psychology and that elevation requires, I guess, a person-to-person transmission of importance in how one brings that larger world into your own personal relationships: ASSK as a name, as a person, what she stands for, what would that define, Burma as a country, what it stands for, and so on. Perhaps it took the “Free Mandela” concert, in ’88, twenty-four years into his incarceration, for people to see this worldwide, and all of a sudden ‘Nelson Mandela’ was a name previously never known to a lot of people. There’s a way in which ‘Aung San Suu Kyi’ has to become something more than an iconic symbol by understanding that this name is connected to a body and this body’s connected to a people and this people is connected obviously to a nation. Another simple way to understand, for example, is with Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth which presented to the world the urgency of understanding global climate change, and to some extent empowered people to become agents of positive change, to understand how they could participate in no longer being part of the problem but being part of the solution.

And ASSK for me, not that she’s the only one, but she stands pretty high in the pantheon of people in the world who represent not just global human rights, and bringing them to the forefront of the international stage, but also embodies the living essence of freedom, because it’s juxtaposed with one of the most harsh and brutal military regimes in the modern era. She’s existing in the context of a remarkably repressive circumstance, and she’s saying ‘no’ to violence and ‘yes’ to love. She’s saying ‘no’ to cruelty and ‘yes’ to freedom, and she’s saying ‘you are part of the solution, you’re not the enemy, I refuse to demonise you.’ And those types of deeply embedded personal mnemonics that define the dharma, or ontology of liberation, the personal experience of being at that core level, those are remarkably threatening to people. Intimacy is threatening to people at times, sharing is threatening at times. And to me that’s a remarkable gift that she’s bringing to the forefront for all of us to check into and play with, download, associate with. ‘Wow – there’s a person who says freedom is more important than fear. There’s an alternative to division and militarization.’

So we can identify with and tap into this woman as a leader in taking something as pedantic as ‘global human rights’ – what does that mean to me as a human being, here and now? That’s one of the qualities that she brings into focus for people in her country, and also in my presence, Martin, which was: what is freedom, here, and now, with you, not with me alone? She has a deep relatedness to the contextual understanding of freedom as a process, not as the usual mistranslation of Eastern understanding or of Buddhism of ‘my freedom’ as somehow a vacuum from the innate relatedness to life and others’ freedom.

KOVAN: Alan that’s a real illumination of where she stands and also of what you’ve experienced in your personal encounter with ASSK. But it would seem at the same time that unless we are in some way able to meet that, on an individual, a collective, on a national and international level at the same time, then perhaps the situation in Burma itself remains at something of a standstill. Now when you speak of ASSK holding to a practice of non-violence, it’s difficult to see how even President Obama with all of his extraordinary achievement thus far is able to engage with ASSK on that level: he supports capital punishment and he’s willing to fight a just war. How do we as Western democracies take into our own psychic economy, so to speak, what ASSK is offering?

CLEMENTS: Yes, a very interesting point. I have looked at President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech a number of times since he’s delivered it. I praised his speech in that he was honest with himself and the world. I’ve been wanting that declaration of reality from him. He is of course saying as Commander in Chief that, essentially, Gandhi cannot be a President, Luther King cannot be a President. King can be a civil-rights movement leader. ASSK essentially by inference here cannot be a prime minister or president. One must understand that being human today in the world, and perhaps as far as we can see into the future, requires someone who is willing to pull the gun, if not, support people who do pull the gun, if not pull the switch on those who commit crimes, if not – who knows – shoot a nuke? I don’t know where it ends, when you take the ideology of a just so-called war. He’s selling ideologies rather than being accountable as a leader, and I think in his position as an honourable man wanting to restore America’s image to the world, that there’s a way to do that and it’s to be accountable for misdeeds, to be accountable for deceptions, to be accountable for misguided behaviours. ASSK in my brief experience with her, is a lady of integrity – she’s the first to admit her own faults. She’s basically standing firm in the position of an honest attempt at deep dialogue with her adversaries. Now, I would only assume that Obama in one year went from ‘deep dialogue as ambitious challenge to dictatorship,’ to a rallying call that ‘I’m willing to kill in the name of our needs.’ Well, what about going another step or two deeper into ‘Hey, it’s not easy to negotiate with the leaders of Al Qaeda’, anymore than it would’ve been easy to negotiate with the leaders of the Third Reich. But nonetheless, we can’t constantly fall back on those…stratospheric examples, when in fact there is a way to dialogue in Afghanistan, there is a way to dialogue in Pakistan, there is a way to dialogue with the Palestinians and the Israelis, and there is a way of dialoguing with the American people and the Republicans and the Democrats and there is a way of dialoguing with your own consciousness. And I think that that is the missing element in American politics and global politics that ASSK brings: she brings a respect for the nature of understanding human consciousness. The other day I was watching a Bill Moyers special from forty-five years ago, back when President Johnson was taking over as president after Kennedy’s assassination, and he was pondering, in Bill Moyers’s profoundly put-together hour-piece, what it was like for President Johnson to consider the build-up and the invasion ultimately of Vietnam. Obviously it was in comparison prior to President Obama’s decision to send in 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan. We get to hear him speak to his principal advisors about ‘should we invade, should we build up, should we pull out?’

And I’m sure it’s the same dialogue that President Obama had with all of his advisors giving him the pros and cons of either staying in Iraq, or leaving Afghanistan, or committing more troops there. But my point is, you thought that there would have been some insight into this dialogue but it was just so black and white: either we look weak and pull out, or we go in and it’s a merciless no-win situation. When are we ever going to learn from history, in other words, that there is an alternative to military solutions? Military solutions would work if their stated goals were met. But they’re not met in Iraq, they’re not met after eight years in Afghanistan, and gazillions of dollars are spent while Americans are going broke by the second, homes are in for closures, people are being evicted from their homes and can’t pay the rent, people are sleeping in their cars, the highways are filled with motels with families in rooms 2, 3, 4 and 5, and all the while we’re sending more troops into a decimated, blown-apart country of Afghanistan – for a hundred Al Qaeda? It’s at a really kind of farcical and almost Monty Python level where Al Qaeda isn’t in the dust of Afghanistan – they’re in the internet system worldwide. 9/11 hatched from within America, not from the dustbowl of Afghanistan.

KOVAN: The eternally unreachable enemy. But if we could just bring that back to the Burmese context for a moment, because I think it relates to what you’re saying. The Burmese junta themselves defend their policy by virtue of preserving order within Burma against the ‘internecine nationalist struggles’ of ethnic minorities. What do you think would be the political reality of a liberated Burma with that apparent level of internal conflict? Theoretically ASSK herself and the NLD party would have to face internal Burmese conflict, so again we’re dealing with this tension between political and ethnocentric realities and Buddhist-inspired social redemption. There’s obviously a dichotomy there between historical-political appearances and ethical-spiritual aspirations.

CLEMENTS: It’s not really an accurate portrait of Burma’s political landscape. The reality is that the regime with its 500,000 soldiers are committing degrees of mass-killing, if not ethnic-cleansing, in a lot of the ethnic areas around the borders with their neighbouring countries, whether it be the border of Thailand or China or Bangladesh and Malaysia, and even in the north with the Kachins, where they border Tibet. You’ve got a killing machine there that is by and large just going through villages at will and destroying life as we know it, and one asks why? It’s for no other reason than an embedded legacy of some form of ethnocentricity and moha, or ignorance, that’s led and fed by the banality of a propaganda and indoctrination system in that country based on ‘if you don’t kill you get killed, if you kill you get fed, if you kill you get fed and your parents can eat as well.’ It’s this cycle of aggressive authoritarianism playing itself out at a very reptilian, lethal level. It’s not really about rivalries of ethnic groups, that’s an ancient scapegoat for a central regime that feeds on killing.

ASSK is a remarkably unifying figure, and she’s not just playing partisan politics within the NLD, she’s deeply inviting. I know this from direct experience of having been with her and her principal colleagues, that they know the heart of the Burmese people, and it’s no mystery why they won something like 89% of the popular vote back in the May 1990 elections, which included vast numbers of the ethnic minorities of the country, other than the majority of Burmans. And having lived and travelled, Martin, through a number of the different ethnic regions to see and to speak with the Mons and the Shans and the Karens, and to other remote areas in the north and areas bordering the Bangladesh area and even down in the south, I’ve spoken to many, many people, leaders of these ethnic groups and even leaders of the ethnic armies. I was even there at the formation of the alliance of the NCGUB, the National Alliance of the Government of all the United Ethnicities back in 1990, and they really do have a unified hand-in-hand approach, they just want to be given basic rights, basic respect for religion and autonomy but they don’t want to be having to deal with a genocidal army that for the last twenty-one years has just been laying ruin to their men, women, children, livestock and crops. So it’s like, really, give peace a chance, and let’s see what a nation that has been brutalized by incessant war can do. From 1962 until the modern moment we have a country that’s been progressively run down socially, politically, environmentally, spiritually, on every level imaginable to the point now where one of the largest standing armies in the world does one thing: oppress, kill, torture, rape its own people. And one asks, why?

Why? One has to look psychologically at some of the reasons for this collective national trauma in being so brutalized. I would only say in the simplest of terms, as an American speaking here, that my country goes into a great amnesia about its own roots while at the same time projecting its own terror onto other people and attacks, whereas the Burmese invert their trauma and seem to attack their own people. But it does point to the same issue that ASSK raises over and over and over again, to come back to her – when will the cycle of violence ever end? Unless we ourselves interrupt that cycle in our own heart and mind, how can there ever be lasting change? And she’s asked the question: is non-violence a spiritual principle or is it a political tactic? And she says ‘it’s just smart. It may be the slowest thing in the long run, but those who see us take power by the gun, they’ll eventually differ with us because human minds differ with one another and they’ll assume that since we did it, they can do it. So we have to set an example, someone has to put down the gun first. And it may not be in my lifetime that we see democracy in our country but I must stay true to the principle that it’s far preferable to talk than to kill.’ That’s it, and she’s saying it in ways that aren’t so Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim, she’s not speaking from being a Burmese Buddhist, she’s speaking from just being a woman, she’s saying this is just practical good sense.

KOVAN: Alan, I think it would be fair to say that of all of the world leaders currently visible to us, HHDL is perhaps the only other figure who apart from his religious affiliation is essentially saying the same thing. And yet I think it could fairly be said of both of them that despite the power and depth, which has obviously been recognized also in their Nobel Prizes and elsewhere, of what they’re saying, both Burmese and Tibetan contexts remain seemingly intractable, dogged by a paralysis that requires just as much explication as the kind of misguidedness that you’ve just been describing. Let’s summarise what we’re talking about: the London-based Burma Justice Committee recently publicized the crimes against humanity committed by the Burmese junta: regular forced displacements, forced labour, routine torture, sexual violence including systematic rape, extrajudicial killings. These are very clear now, the Harvard Law School report Crimes in Burma has stated categorically that already-existing U.N. documents are sufficient to hold the Burmese junta accountable for their actions. But we all know that, much as in the case of Tibet, the U.N. Security Council has been compromised in any really decisive response to these problems. I know that unpicking the politics of the U.N. is not an easy thing to ask, but could you give your particular take on that problem?

CLEMENTS: How do we engage epic tyranny and expect Stone Age consciousness to think in terms of how we relate to the Declaration of Human Rights and further, how we empower our own sense of consciousness as ‘true conscience’? How do we get through to these generals in other words, to these men who are intractable, so to speak?

KOVAN: Concretely, what in fact do we do if we can’t get through to them, which seems to be the case at the moment?

CLEMENTS: Well, this is my belief of what can be done. It’s a twofold form of activism or leadership – call it the “cash method” and the “conscience method.” Cash and conscience. If I were to just simply do the “cash method” first, obviously if you belong to Al Qaeda today or if you’re connected to the Bin Laden family or have some links to terrorism, you will find yourself in jail, ASAP, your money gone, your home gone, your family lost, whatever – they track you to the penny. Now, obviously the U.N. is an honourable body, and even Pol Pot managed to get a seat for the Khmer Rouge there. So we’ve got the U.S. ambassador for Burma there, but Burma wants to play on the international landscape, they want to be respected, rather than just be the international pariah that they are. However, they are not an army, they’re men dressed in uniform and there’s a lot of them. But they’re called ‘a government.’ Let’s call them by their true name – they’re a terrorist organization that terrorizes their own people. Now if we were to apply “terrorist organization” to Burma very much like Americans once did to the ANC, then Mandela, despite being the moral hero that he is in the world, was once a terrorist according to the world.

OK, point taken? The Burmese regime is not a ‘regime’, it’s not a junta, it’s not a government. They’re a bunch of men who act like serial killers and if you took the top five of them and put them on the streets of L.A. they’d be a street-gang and they’d be given capital punishment, under Obama, because they’ve killed so many people. But because they’re a so-called government, men in uniform, we talk to them as if they’re civilized human beings. Rather, dealing with the cash issue, they should be treated as terrorists, and in doing so not to demonise them so much as to take away their blood – which is money. So I would offer an international re-labelling of who they are, in as much as it becomes law that all of their money, wherever it’s found in the banks of Switzerland or Singapore or China, or perhaps even in America – I don’t know where they keep their money, but it’s certainly not in Burma – that it be tagged, noted and confiscated. Absolutely dry up their dollars. So that’s one method. Two methods is – who’s giving them the guns? And this is again a big problem because America exports more guns than all countries in the world combined, and yet we’re the most civilized nation. Who’s giving the guns to the regime in Burma, and whose money is paying for it? Guns and cash. Take the guns out of their hands, they have no enemies, they’re only killing their own people. Take the cash out of their hands, and they’ll go –  Humpty Dumpty came falling down. Two good reasons.

KOVAN: But insofar as foreign countries – you’ve just named a few, we can also name India, Russia, and Thailand to some degree – have vested interests in arms, in military trade, in oil and gas extraction, in nuclear power infrastructure, and commercial trade, taking away the Burmese terroristic cash also means taking away a large economic investment for the West as well.

CLEMENTS: All I can say is that in order to be an activist or a leader in some way, maybe I’m naïve, but – you have to personalize something, it’s like, OK, the Burmese people are ‘my father.’ Well, it’s not cool to give money and guns to a neighbor who’s going to chop off the legs of my Dad. There’s got to be some distinction here between complicity with murder and sanity of economic civilization. I mean for God’s sake in America, I don’t know about the EU or other countries around the world, but if someone says that you’re complicit with a drug sale, you can go to jail (laughs). These people are complicit with genocide! When does it become a crime against humanity to sell weapons to a regime that’s known for ethnic cleansing?

To me, this is where ASSK comes in, and I think we’re at this edge of evolution where – these words are so preposterous, I hear myself speaking with you, and as I know you to be a learned man, these are preposterous simplicities that we’re talking about. We’re dealing with a level of evolution or the lack of evolution, where we have to see that we’re confronting the archetypal issue: can we co-exist in the world without killing eachother, or sell weapons to support those who kill people who are distant from us for the sake of our own economic needs? And so that’s one level. The other level is internal – let me just get to this one. There’s an internal way to drop this regime to its knees. This is my belief, it’s been time-tested to stop work. In America there’s no need to stop work because everyone’s forced to stop work today. But in Burma, you’re a slave to the regime, I mean some people who do work only make a hundred dollars a year. And when you think about the generals living with billion dollar bank-accounts in mansions with multiple Mercedes Benz and private planes and jewels and so on and so forth, it’s a disparity that’s insane.

My point is that the people of Burma don’t have a whole lot left to lose. And it wouldn’t be surprising to me if someone were to coordinate a collective stop-work order that was done on a progressive basis so that rather than marching on the streets where the regime is known to kill – even monks as we know, and nuns – people could stay indoors and stop working so that once a month on, say the full moon next month, everyone in the country who believes in freedom and democracy doesn’t go to work that day. The next month, on the new moon and the full moon, those two days of the month, no-one goes to work. On the third month, on the quarter-moon, the new moon and the full moon, three days of the month, and we work into twelve months and twelve days of the month. Or, twenty-four days of the month or all thirty days of the month til eventually the whole nation has stopped work and I wouldn’t even be surprised by the sixth month that even the military’s not showing up to pay homage to their ridiculous leaders. And it may even be that the leaders themselves weep, because they no longer have any life because no-one’s projecting anything into them anymore: there’s no money and there’s no more power and Humpty Dumpty was just a balloon that got deflated. It’s possible.

I want Burma to be victorious, just as Mandela and de Klerk shared the Peace Prize, I would weep with joy for this planet, for my daughter’s future and her children’s future, should she have children. That a man like Than Shwe – and he’s not just Than Shwe, but any man, that that place in my heart too, that finds hope through the endeavour of crossing over the divisions of my own duality, can hold hands and break bread and drink wine and dance with the opposition. Because I know that I can’t live without you. We can’t kill everyone off because of that which we see in others but don’t want to recognize in ourselves. So the time has come where ASSK is a living model and there are other ones in the world, who are basically saying the heart is filled with dualities as we know, but I’m not afraid of integrating those dualities and I’m going to include you too, I’m going to reclaim my projection. And take responsibility for my mind and my fear and my anger and say listen, ‘I want you as my friend.’ To me that’s a method that we need to follow. You know, it’s one thing to have a poster of ASSK on your wall. It’s another thing to know something about her, it’s another thing to know what she stands for, it’s another thing to embody what she stands for, it’s another thing to embody what she stands for and communicate that embodiment naturally to others. That’s the process that we’re looking at here – is how to take your poster of her off your wall, and how to take the icon off your psyche of ‘over there.’

KOVAN: But it appears that a lot of people prefer the icon. I live in Paris and in October just in front of the town hall a large number of French intellectuals, writers and cultural celebrities sat holding a candle-lit vigil in front of a large portrait of ASSK. I at least had to ask myself how many of them had driven there in cars or taxis with gas pumped from Total gas-company pumps, that has come directly from highly lucrative trade with the Burmese regime.

CLEMENTS: Well, this is the imperfection of the human existence – that all of us are complicit in this big, strange inter-relatedness called equal doses of ignorance and wisdom, pleasure and pain. I think we are playing at a new edge here where if we can lay down the gun and give peace a chance, it may be that we breathe something innovative into this collective, physical, cyclical Gaia-sphere we’re in – who knows? I just think that the static and the hell of predatory narcissism using guns just has to stop for awhile. That’s all. And I think that’s what ASSK is advocating, and it can be done in Burma. It can be done, if enough people say, yes we can. It did for Obama. Everyone in the world now has someone larger than Obama to admire, and that’s ASSK and she’s just again one person who represents the felt reality of global human rights, that I think is the oxygen of our present-day survival and the future of life. Everyone knows as well that the pollution in Shanghai affects the quality of air in Paris, but we do not know that the oppression of a political prisoner in Burma affects the quality of your life in Paris. That’s the the experiential edge that we’re trying to talk to here. What is that?

I was just watching some of the video footage [of my conversations with ASSK] that was smuggled out of Burma the other day and one of her mentors was commenting, actually at her house – I forgot this – that a woman back in  ’95 who had simply put flowers on ASSK’s mothers’ grave in Rangoon, was given a five-year prison term. So one looks at how lethal and maniacal this regime is – how do you get through to this? Is it the teachings of the more refined level of bodhisattvic activity, where you go into deep khanti as a dharma where patience, and the determination within that patience, of non-retribution is your energetic mantra and you just wait, and sit, and wait and sit, and play the old game that ‘give them enough rope that they’ll hang themselves’? How much of the world has to come into play here, like people you spoke of in Paris, where they walk to the vigil rather than drive, or they refuse to buy petrol, they do their homework first to see the interrelatedness of their own complicity with the killing-machine? So we need to do our homework on the deep root level of how our existence is interconnected to the economy of the world, and to rid ourselves as much as possible of how we’re unconsciously using dollars, unknowingly, to support oppression in our own home or elsewhere. And then to do the actions that really may make a difference.

This is where I think, again coming back to what I was saying earlier about taking down the icon, taking the poster off the wall, no longer projecting the image of ASSK at your concert, Bono: let us hear her speak, don’t speak for her anymore. Let us hear her song…to “I’m staying, I’m not walking on.” Let us hear her talk, free her voice. Let us hear her voice of hope become a voice of hope by freeing her voice. It’s like the Dalai Lama being locked away in a dungeon in the Potala Palace and only every now and again maybe a word is eked out. I’m not bringing any kind of glory to myself in this case, but I had a very rare opportunity, I don’t know why it happened, back in ’95 and ’96, to spend six months with her and her colleagues and at the same time tape it, and although we couldn’t smuggle the tapes out the transcripts got out, and I look back fifteen years later now that these things have been smuggled out and it’s like having de Klerk let me spend six months with Mandela, eighteen years into his incarceration!

And this book, The Voice of Hope, it should’ve been called The Text of Hope. But if people who saw her words heard her speak them, I think we would have an immediate inspiration far beyond the vigils, the posters, and the beautiful things that people sing and dance to. And it’s that voice that the regime wants to silence. My job, my duty, my love right now is to free her voice. She may not be free – but to free her voice. What will she say to the world?

KOVAN: It’s a great aspiration, and the parallel with the Dalai Lama is again very interesting because we have someone who in all other senses is in a similar position except that he is free, and we can thankfully hear what he has to say. I wonder if you could comment on that parallel between where ASSK is and where HHDL is in what he’s able to do with his freedom? In a way ASSK’s incarceration acts as a kind of concentration or a magnification of her integrity in a way that perhaps for the Dalai Lama gets diffused in a kind of global, media-driven, celebritised diffusion of what’s existentially at stake here.

CLEMENTS: They’re both deeply committed to not just the power of non-aggression but transformation through consciousness, transformation through the understanding of human inter-relatedness in a peaceful way, politics through a deep understanding of the constituents of consciousness for peaceful co-existence. Those ontological architectures, those foundations must become the new templates of education in school, the university and politics. Just as we wouldn’t tolerate malfunctioning software in our Word files, we can’t afford too many more malfunctioning political leaders that don’t work within the template of deep co-existence through time-tested ways. These aren’t a new form of socialized politics but allow for deep individuality and uniqueness at the same time, so that human rights are not only safe-guarded and protected but they’re also liberated from the box of sectarianism and dogma, and we have a huge celebration of originality on earth. I think those templates could be so well learned, that my sense is me, little ordinary me, has even learnt it some degree. I’ve seen mentors of mine, like ASSK’s mentor U Tin U, who was a natural-born killer, the son of a dictator, general of an army, make the archetypal transformation on his own, unprompted, to go from killer to apostle of peace. So we’ve really got examples of Angulimala, the serial killer of Buddhist myth who became a saint.

KOVAN: But let’s be concrete, U Tin U made that in the context of a religious tradition, namely the Buddhist tradition, and certainly in Burma that tradition is  –

CLEMENTS: From my understanding he made it in the context of deep introspection within his own psyche and soul.

KOVAN: Yes, but culturally and in terms of the container which he required in order to consolidate that initial interior existential leap, so to speak, was the monastery, was the respected role of the ordained monk in Burmese society, similarly with the Tibetan context as well –

CLEMENTS: No, no – he became a meditator, not a monk, first. Someone threw in his prison cell, it’s worthy of note, when he was alone there, and taken off the pedestal as general of the army, a little meditation book written by the Mahasi Sayadaw who was, as you know, one of the great teachers of Satthipatthana [a sutta on meditation] in the world, and he practiced meditation based upon this little instruction book. As a result of that he had very positive experiences in prison, in solitary, he said he could see somewhat objectively – his anger for example was different from his own being.

KOVAN: I think that’s a really good point. I’m emphasizing the ways in which a potential freedom from, for example, his previous history, or on a national level a previous self-image which has ceased to serve a country, generally requires some form of at least culturally or intellectually understood liberation. And I think a lot of the time through history, for example in the era of the Civil Rights Movement it was definitely Martin Luther King’s Christian-influenced ahimsa, definitely in India there was old Hindu, Jain and other extra-Hindu traditions which were inspiring Gandhi, and I think in the context of ASSK she is not making explicit but nevertheless refers most profoundly to Buddhist metaphysics and Buddhist ethics.

CLEMENTS: Yes.

KOVAN: So the question is, when we look at a Western ability to resonate with that depth of transformation that you describe in U Tin U, how perhaps are we from our side sabotaged by a lack of that kind of deep cultural context?

CLEMENTS: It’s because I think we still see the constellation of ‘the Bull’ on the stars rather than seeing the stars and the points of luminosity themselves. I think in the case of ASSK and U Tin U, I don’t detect in my dialogues with them that they’re relating to Buddhism as a supportive structure of being. Rather they’re relating to understandings that have brought them into direct experiential relationship with the ever-present nature of Thisness that we’re in, this large sphere of inter-related consciousness that everyone inhabits. For example, ASSK and U Tin U, rather than relying on Buddhist dogma to be compassionate, relate more from the simplicity of the Shantideva insight of putting oneself in the body of another to understand the nature of compassion. And so to do that on a felt-reality level more and more, to actually pause and inhabit such a presence with another requires a deep level of stopping and facilitating entry into something other than your own narcissism, to feel potentially another person’s pain as that of your family or yourself. That was U Tin U’s transformation, he began to see how arbitrarily distant he was from the innate understanding of our inter-relatedness. It wasn’t a projection of karma – ‘if I kill therefore I’ll find some future lifetime in hell.’ He actually dropped into a felt experience – ubuntu or bodhisattva direct experience. And so I think that’s the thing we get hung-up on, we think of these mystical teachings in the West as coming from ‘the East,’ but to take them way out of the container of ‘East’ and ‘religion’, and to introduce the basic metaphysics of Interbeing, to use a Thich Nhat Hanh phrase, I think that is where education needs to be going today.

KOVAN: Having clarified that insight, I wonder if you could tie that back into the more general nature of the Saffron Revolution of August 2007, when potentially dogmatized Buddhist monastics themselves were able to make that felt leap themselves and take to the streets in a way that went beyond what would be expected of a traditional Burmese Buddhist context. Are you seeing the same thing playing out on a much larger cultural level in that sense as well?

CLEMENTS: You know that’s a very interesting question, because when I met ASSK back in ’95 and ‘96, at that time the monks and nuns weren’t playing such an active role as we saw in 2007 when they led a nation-wide uprising that most people refer to as the Saffron Revolution. She said that, ‘If only the monks and nuns would just simply stand up for an hour then the country would probably have democracy.’ And it’s really about seeing as she said that all people are inter-related – it may sound like an obvious statement, but this brings up an issue for me. My personal edge – not so much edge but my ‘desire system’, my ‘dharma desire system,’ my cetana or my intention, is to understand deep inter-relatedness, deep intersubjectivity, deep objectivity, deep inter-related mindfulness. Who are we? Why are we? Where are we…going? And I find the experiential methodology for that untraversed dharma in our cosmos – and I’m assuming it’s an open universe rather than a sealed one – is that it feels better in more sacred, less violent conditions.

I think ASSK and the people of Burma, and not just them alone, are offering the adventure of caring – caring for a universe that’s miraculous, mysterious and maddening, that can either be an adventure or a transcendence of a hell. If you need the fiction of a heaven, maybe there is one, but maybe there’s something along the way that’s the journey itself. And that journey seems best to be satisfied by caring for the welfare and happiness of others. It’s one thing to constantly look at your own ‘Now,’ but to see that that shared presence is a deeply inter-related one is another: that another person’s mind and body and feelings, knowingly and unknowingly affect our own interior worlds, just like the oxygen does to our own quality of clarity and cognition and biological integrity. ASSK’s offering an invitation to this deep inter-relatedness and so to me the operative word here is solidarity to a dharma beyond our nation, our sect, our tradition, our club, our guru, our teacher, our book, our best culture, or whatever it is. This solidarity to me is very vital and very important, non-violent human rights elevating into something new that’s never been done before. A freedom that’s larger than our own sense of nirvana.

That possibility, that hope is in the courage to care about a new frontier, and therein lies the solidarity where Buddhists are the most basic, foundational space we can coalesce around: Buddhist monks and nuns in Burma, Buddhist secular lay society in Burma. Where are the Buddhist monks and nuns and the Buddhists in the world to align in solidarity with the Buddhists in Burma, and Tibet? That to me is the labour union for this cause. How can we best support our fellow Buddhists in need? I mean, there was once a Cambodia that had a Buddhist infrastructure – it’s all been decimated. The Dalai Lama himself, what ten, twelve years ago, Martin, said we have maybe two years left, or there’ll be no Tibet to save: it’s 2010, on the cusp, how many more times can we say these things?

KOVAN: What’s fascinating there Alan is that everything you’re describing is a description of something that already exists. I mean, a kind of technocentric perspective would suggest that we do live in a virtual world already, we have a form of communications whereby people can communicate online about anything at all. It’s analogical to what you’re describing as an ethical virtuality, a trans-Buddhist global recognition of the other which is immediate, direct, it doesn’t need to be mediated by the institutions of religion or of politics or of other forms of Church. And yet what we find is that that level of intersubjectivity lacks, at least on the analogy of the internet, a kind of ‘deep ethics’ so to speak. The kind of thing you’re proposing is a deep focus, it’s a real discipline too, because it requires not just a personal ‘trawling of the soul’ but a collective trawling of the collective social soul.

CLEMENTS: Our Buddhist family is being sodomised and killed, raped in a genocide. If we just stop for a minute, drop beyond the language as much as we can, not trying to be too melodramatic here, and do a moment of deep inter-related felt reality of a political prisoner – just one. One political prisoner alone in a cell who perhaps has just been beaten badly for chanting the Metta Sutta, which is now outlawed in Burma. OK, how does our dharma inter-relate with this defrocked nun, of whom there are a number in Burmese prisons, what can we do? And that’s my mother, that’s the Buddha, that’s Yasodhara, that’s Maitreya’s wife, that’s the archetypal Buddha Mother, the archetypal Allah Mother, that’s God’s mother. Call it what you will to get into deep intimacy with, but that’s our blood and our soul and our oxygen. That’s the dharma of today, that’s ‘the Now,’ that’s the meditation of tomorrow. What will be that which allows us access into that cell, into that girl’s heart as family and take action on a day-to-day level that isn’t politically varnished with patience (laughs) and all the kind of things that we need to do, and pragmatisms and compromises? So calling all Buddhists, calling on all dharma people – the word ‘dharma’ is almost ubiquitous, it’s almost a ‘trance’ concept – you’re entranced by a concept that should free you! Do we have a collective awakening here that sees things bigger than ‘my breath,’ bigger than my network, bigger than my sangha, bigger than my tithing’?

KOVAN: It strikes me Alan that you’re speaking also as somebody who has actually seen firsthand the horrific realities that you’re speaking of both in Burma and in Yugoslavia during the Balkan War of ‘94 – ’95. And that the kind of more than symbolic intimacy which you’re describing is a kind of depth that people can respond to or from when they have actually seen what you have seen.

CLEMENTS: That’s an interesting comment to me Martin. This is exactly the same argument as with people like President Obama, I’ve been advocating that prime ministers, priests, politicians and people of power, should do mandatory things as part of what they professionally encounter. Perhaps spiritual teachers, meditation and dharma teachers should be included: basic mandatory requirements. That’s where activists, and people like you and me and all of us out here who care, are trying to find new curriculums for human consciousness to reawaken to something that perhaps is already innate, or discover in tandem something that’s new. And that’s all we’re doing, reinventing practices – the Buddha offered practices, he didn’t offer ‘Buddhism.’ So we get a living architecture in the collective consciousness of, ‘Guess what, you can engage consciousness in its own environment and enhance its luminosity, its clarity, its understanding of its own environment.’ How can we care for our own family called Burmese Buddhist, Shan Buddhist, Shan Christians, Muslims, how can we care for life? In the same way we would do the environment – we have to begin to see it, we’ll be forced to see it as our oxygen for survival.

When I started speaking about Burma in 1990, we collected seven people in Berkeley. It was the first NGO in the world for Burma and now I’m here in Los Angeles today and there’s no less than 50 Hollywood celebrities who just can’t stop speaking ASSK’s name. I watched the U2 concert and ten million people are listening to the Edge and Bono speak about ASSK, bless their heart. So it’s come a long way in a short twenty years. No-one can rest until the child is rescued. There’s no happiness until Suu and 2,100 political prisoners who represent the global prisoner is liberated, and the people of Burma are liberated, and there’s health care for all and sanity among leaders and the war machine is relaxed and gone into the big slumber. We begin to see that thought experiments and emotional experiments of the heart are more important than putting out the fires of a projected hate. ASSK offers inspiration and guidance and I think the more leaders who get inspired, the latent inspiration in the heart will be activated and we’ll find them springing up all over the world. I think it’s really about how do we liberate ourselves from every little obstacle that we feel and get more into the business of how we support the saving of life. How quickly can we act to bring an end to human suffering? Again, the study of consciousness and the interplay of conscience with consciousness, is to me the edge of where the dharma is in my own life, and I love that.

I’m a believer that if we can get it right in Burma, that if the world could just stop and begin to have a dialogue of more and more turning towards non-military solutions to conflict, then there’s hope for our kids to have a future. ‘Cause there’s only so much more time that we’ve got before one of those little nukes that got built way back, gets into the hands of the wrong person and – or maybe the ‘right person’ and that “just war” becomes a nuclear just war. There’s no future with killing in other words. The guns get bigger, and bigger, and more destructive and how many times already can we blow up the earth? So it’s pretty much a no-brainer right now: de-escalating in language and energy and emissions is the only hope for survival of the planet. And if that’s not going to be the way then we really need to reinvent NASA and begin to build some kind of space-travel where people just go off like in a cosmic Noah’s Ark and hopefully lay nests somewhere where there’s a more peaceful civilization.

KOVAN: Well, that could prove the most realistic of them all – I hope not, but, who knows?

CLEMENTS: All avenues.

KOVAN: We’ve travelled quite a lot of territory ourselves, Alan, I just thought we might bring it to a close by your letting us know – you travel around the world speaking on behalf of Burmese democracy, on behalf of secular spirituality, could you tell us what you’ll be doing in 2010 vis-à-vis Burma and your own work?

CLEMENTS: It’ll be a continuation of what you’ve mentioned and what I’ve been doing – speaking on behalf of ASSK, freedom, political prisoners in Burma, the liberation of Burma, global human rights. But specifically, as I mentioned earlier, I’ve brought a team of people together to create a film based on smuggled audio and video tapes of my time in Burma with ASSK and her colleagues. We’re going to do a documentary film about revolution in action that frees her voice and the voices of the people and the voices of support for freedom in the world, to hopefully a new level of understanding so that we begin to hear and know and feel who is ASSK, where is Burma, what is Burma, why should we care, what can we do to help? Now.

Burma is a country that’s needing help, it can come from anyone in the world, it can come from even the regime that’s oppressing its own people. That right there – ‘show us a change of heart, I do not feel any need to demonise you. Give us an archetypal reason for hope.’ They have it in their hand, it’s possible that in Burma, with enough focus on elevating the status of their own repressed fear to a place of recognition where love may crack the surface of their own consciousness – it’s possible, Martin, we might have an example of archetypal redemption in Burma where comments like President Obama who’s saying that it’s impossible to negotiate or convince Al Qaeda leaders to lay down their arms – well maybe we see that…maybe, it’s not impossible.

KOVAN: And not even that that might well be the case, but simply that even saying that is already a shift of emphasis.

CLEMENTS: There you go. That’s what we’re talking to here, the shift of emphasis to a hope however small that dedicates to an endeavour, a shift in the greater context to just simply – less suffering. I think to go right back to the Buddha, one of the abiding beauties of that teaching is, and it was a life-saver for me, ‘Listen, If you’re born inevitably you’ll encounter circumstances of complexity and suffering – here’s a way to address that suffering, don’t hide, don’t fear, there’s hope, you can enter it and transform it. And with that transformation, if you can do it, others can do it and the absence of suffering is often the absence of pain, and in the absence of that kind of pain we get to live in the reality of dreams and make dreaming real.’

Copyright © 2009 Martin Kovan & Alan Clements

Voyages

Old Conrad paperback ‘Twixt Land and Sea –

bought in Venice by St Mark’s a euro or two

trained to Trieste, bus to Rijeka then Zagreb – flew to Frankfurt

trained to Paris – back to Frankfurt – flew to Bangkok – bus to Mae Sot, back to Bangkok

flew to Rangoon – bus to Mandalay

sold there – for a song

in old market square…

Oct. 2010

 

Burmese girl with self portrait, Place Palais Royale, Paris, Nov. 2009

The above image was taken by the author at an open-air exhibition in Paris, Nov. 2009, of children’s self-portraiture from around the world. Unique among hundreds of images, this portrait shows itself fully cocooned, with eyes closed, mouth wide open as if in an endless silent scream. A faceless figure, or perhaps weapon, confronts the terrified figure. The photograph of the artist, a 5 yr-old Burmese girl living in a refugee settlement on the Thai border, shows her arms crossed, gazing distrustfully at the photographer. This also appeared to be unique among the literally hundreds of portraits on exhibit, which generally showed children smiling, dancing, moving in free space.

In the lead up to Burma’s first election in twenty years – in any form, let alone a properly democratic one – it might be useful to provide a general summary of the often complicated political landscape of the country. I use the country title of Burma rather than Myanmar to draw attention to the latter name having been imposed in 1989 by the military dicatatorship of General Ne Win (now deceased), its use by the international community only tending to legitimize an authority that has never either deserved, or legally warranted, such legitimization.

Burma as a title is problematic also as it refers more generally (as the derivation ‘Myanmar’ itself does) to the ethnic majority Burmese (or Bamar) people whom the ruling junta seek to make an absolute power – hence their policy of effective genocide against non-Burmese (so-called minority) peoples in the Karen, Mon and Shan states, as elsewhere. Yet ‘Burma’ is perhaps preferable to ‘Myanmar’ in its greater historical context which includes the founding of the nation as a modern state in the post-war period, under the inspiring, yet short-lived leadership of General (or Bogyoke) Aung San – Aung San Suu Kyi’s revered father, loved by democrats and conservatives alike within Burma. He was assassinated in 1947, at 32 years, just months before the independence of his country was achieved from the British Empire, killed by a haze of bullets that struck down many members of his party in an attack by political rivals. Burma’s freedom has been compromised by internecine antipathy from its beginnings.

The essential problem facing the democracy movement now both within and outside Burma is whether to engage with the electoral process at all, or if so, to what degree and with what kinds of reservations? Does to engage render any equally vital critique morally futile? Or is some form of engagement the only way to initiate or continue whatever existing level of dialogue currently exists with the regime of Senior General Than Shwe (himself lately de-commissioned as a general in order to play a civil-political role from hereon)? This is a difficult question as there are compelling ethical and politically pragmatic arguments informing both views.

What is clear however is that both those ASEAN countries surrounding Burma, and the Western powers in the U.N. and the E.U. could currently be doing much more to make these issues explicit points of discussion in their approach to Burma. As of early October the EU for example has not yet collectively chosen to support international efforts to end impunity in Burma for war crimes and crimes against humanity, by commiting to a U.N.-led commission of enquiry called for by U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomas Ojea Quintana. It appears rather that the Asia-Europe Meeting in Brussels this week will sideline the Burmese crisis just as the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in New York did recently. Yet this follows the EU issuing in 2008 its Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders in Burma, itself requiring a direct follow-through on the maintenance of those ‘guidelines.’

The Burmese electoral process has been designed according to the terms of the 2008 electoral commission to entrench the military authority of the (aptly-named!) State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)  in the guise of a civil government.  The 2008 constitution (bitterly opposed by many in the democracy movement) effectively disallows essential aspects of open electoral candidature: freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. Given the restrictions of time for registration, limitations of assembly, the excessive costs demanded of non-junta parties and the latter’s easy access to state funding, the results of the election can effectively be seen as a fait accompli.

Pro-democracy actions are regularly disrupted and persecuted across the country, a number of parties have been kept from registration, individual candidates arrested or otherwise banned from competition, Aung San Suu Kyi herself still held under house-arrest despite repeated global calls for her release. By the terms of constitutional rulings she is disallowed from standing as a candidate because of her having been married to a non-Burmese (her late husband was British). Her status as a political prisoner has however been qualified insofar as she is now apparently able to vote, if not stand herself, only because she is formally under house-arrest rather than criminal conviction. These kinds of Orwellian double-speak can clearly be seen to operate as some of the quasi-legalistic means by which the regime maintains power, and tries to seduce international scrutiny to a passive acceptance of their manouvres. The power of faux-legal rhetoric, as spurious as it in reality is, nevertheless carries the false authority that itself allows for the intransigence of the regime to be accepted by the technocratic structures of international governance.

In the meantime the junta is certain to gain a 25% military representation alone in the parliament, as guaranteed by the 2008 constitution. The remaining majority of the vote will almost certainly go to the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and related pro-junta parties such as the National Unity Party (NUP), led by former military chiefs of staff. Between them these proxy-junta parties will field about 2,000 candidates out of a total 2,500 to contest the 1,163 seats in the three levels of legislature formed by the 2008 constitution.

Further complicating the weakness of pro-democracy representation within Burma is the division that has come about from the dissolution of the National League for Democracy (NLD) party led by Aung San Suu Kyi. For the NLD to contest the election, Suu Kyi would be required to stand down as its leader which would itself defeat the purposes of the party’s resistance to the junta – perhaps largely symbolic, yet still powerful . Hence the NLD has been disbanded as a political party in view of maintaining its integrity. It seeks instead to exert influence and benefit for the people in social service work on the ground.

However, a faction within the NLD still hoping to contest the election as at least more proactive than general non-participation through boycott would be, has formed an autonomous party, the National Democratic Force (NDF) which in accepting the unjust terms of the election and constitution, sends an ambiguous message both to the people of Burma as well as the international community.This ambiguity thus characterizes both the election itself, the engagement of the democracy movement within Burma, and the attitude of the international community. There is a perception that humanitarian space and elections are naturally inclusive terms, post-election, and that with greater humanitarian operating freedom will also come greater political freedoms. Hence the U.S., for example, seeks to engage the regime (clearly on economic and trade-based goals and investments) as well maintain a clearly-voiced denunciation of human rights abuses within Burma. The junta is both legitimized in its greater potential inclusivity in the global-economic program, while its moral status as a regional stakeholder takes generally second place to this hope, clearly alive on both sides. In July and September of this year Senior General Than Shwe was able to visit India and China, respectively, under a general show of respect and impunity.

But given the record of engagement thus far, the junta has failed to meet even halfway with any of the requirements for a ‘free and fair’ election on November 7, let alone subsequent to it. The number of political prisoners has almost doubled in the three years since the Saffron Revolution. A request from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar to visit the new political capital of Naypyidaw either before or after the poll has been flatly denied. The very assumption of the term ‘free and fair’ is a misnomer. When Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, recently said the world must exercise “utmost vigilance” to ensure the approaching elections in Myanmar are ‘free and fair,’ she betrayed the extent of the essential lack of insight into the Burmese crisis: firstly, that it is certain it will be near-impossible to exercise such vigilance, and that even could it be made it is, as before, certain to achieve little (as thus far) in terms of the protection of real freedoms on the ground. Secondly, such ‘free and fair’ conditions as a first assumption for the democratic process have never been in place to start with. For this reason U Win Tin, a venerated founding member of the NLD and former political prisoner having survived 19 years of incarceration in Burma, was able to write late last month that “there is no need to wait until the Election Day to make a judgement.”

His solution? “Meaningful political dialogue between the military, the National League for Democracy led by Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic representatives is the only way to solve problems in Burma peacefully. The military has no desire to talk. But if the international community seriously exercises strong and effective pressure on the regime, the combination of pressure from outside and peaceful resistance inside the country will force the regime to come to the dialogue table.”

Surely we can and must join Win Tin in his call for action, as belated as that action may already be, and as direly urgent as the call itself has for so much longer already been.

Martin Kovan © October 2010

 

Around the Heart, Anti-Clockwise

bodies passing thick along hewn walls

                  revolving Gautama stupa       his bodhi/mind

their prostrations          law of reversed effort

anti-intention

                  graceful/clumsy           no separation

this whole thing a dance    –    Shiva limbs, Chenrezig arms  –

        w/- DUALITY

sadhus sitting naked             watchful under trees

         smoke bidi                                    avoid the temple

wait for nothing

there’s nothing to wait for

                                   here

              choking on humid

                            desire for desirelessness

these latitudes non-tropic

              dispassionate fecundity bursts in

seed-brilliant pods of eyes       and stars          and mind

                                                                birthing in fallow Bihar plain

what went on here

500 years before the Cross

                  cow-splat         shady underside of fig-trees

same birds of light                   in these leaves

                     beggar-boy at the gates

waiting to be taken

Across.

Bodhgaya, India, January 2001

Where We Are

Vortices of cars on hi-ways a perpetual motion that never arrives. The impatience queues in the fast-food joints. Pre-emptive lovers’ gasp seeking white-haze of release. The earth, with moon, who turns light-years describing her strange histories.

Everyplace you are

             holds the promise of being

       elsewhere

             and each new arrival becomes somewhere

you never reach.  

2002

Late late-Capitalism

Homosapiens who swarm

            to the glare of the 7-11:

that’s where civilization

          burns            the brightest.

California, 2002

This audio interview with Mike Kewley (in Paris, August 2010) from the eclectically superlative www.beingordinary.org, discusses some broad dimensions of Buddhist and ‘trans-Buddhist’ social awareness and daily-life practice with a view to collective social transformation. It considers how the dharma extends beyond a purely religiously-grounded ethical rationale, to embrace a larger secular spiritual vision as well, while still maintaining the deepest of Buddhist values – those of universal compassion, responsibility and non-violence:

http://www.beingordinary.org/2010/08/13-satori-in-paris/

AT a certain point it happened that something was perceived as coming into the airwaves, into people’s living-rooms, into the daily round, as of some significant and even urgent communication requiring immediate interpretation. This information or news, as it might be, was unfortunately not offered in an unambiguous language, or laid out for all to see like a smoke-message in the sky – yet it was undeniably there, and people claimed it could be felt in the blood, just under the skin, like an intuitive itch that threatened to never leave failing its decipherment.

     Naturally there were those, as there always are in such cases, who pretended to a full authority in the explanation of the message, and for some time there were few persuasive enough to challenge their version. There was the possibility that no-one else could hear the message as loudly as they could, which meant it could be suggesting a different content, or something being lost in the translation. That it was so self-evident to them – abundantly broadcast in their daily language, even in their nightly dreams – did not mean it was something of equal clarity to everyone else, who seemed to be generally occupied by other, more uncertain, wavelengths.

     There was not even unanimity that the message was entirely new. What, in any case, they all wondered, is a guarantee of the new? Most supposedly new things had been demonstrated on later consideration to have been only repetitions, re-occurrences, perhaps in some slightly varied guise, of other things that unequivocally had been before. The comprehension of dreams, the novelty of suicide, the demise of sex, for example – these were things that seemed to flow away and back within long cycles of historical time, unseen by most mortal observers. It would take an omniscient intelligence, a real mental panoramascope, to take in just how many repeated cycles, how many rehearsals of the same schema would stumble back on stage in their superficially surprising costumes, enact once again the same tin-pan vaudeville of misbegotten pratfall and innocent’s return, and the shuffling off the boards with a click of the heels, a reminder of the sweet goodtime certainty of it all swinging back in again (on a chandelier, perhaps) – before slipping off into the wings.

      A theatre of returns. What was the message spelling out, this time round, exactly? Certainly there were a plethora of often extravagant, but for that no less probable, interpretations. That this war, for example, would be the last. That hunger – that old stock warhorse of the repertoire – was truly down on its heels now, that it wouldn’t be making a re-entry in the next installment. But these (and others like them), were the obvious major-players; maybe some lesser-known talents could, finally, share some of the limelight.

     Disease, among these eternal throwbacks, had suddenly become wildly popular, as a subject of the new and unseen. Many were the theorists who in brightly tube-lit conference-rooms ascertained the truth in the body of the unwritten text: that the foe in their time was not the brute fact of violence or injustice so much as the invisible working of disease. Yet its working was ambiguous, for such disease was capable of turning around and carrying off undesired predators, as well. So what appeared a curse could as easily prove a blessing, and therein lay the redemption: angels and demons were twin-siblings, and would save us all from extinction if sufficiently entrusted to perform their own, however perverse, midnight rituals. After all – little else had worked (they mentioned science, reason, systematic ideologies, political and economic liberalism, etc.) Why not leave the mavericks to the field, and see where it might lead? Moreover, the field was new, the whole world was effectively untested territory now. The trick lay in not taking appearance at face-value, knowing that the angel and the demon inhabited mercurially changeable forms. It would only be enough to trust them, finally, and as many had already suggested, trust to the process they set in train.

     Was that a new thing, itself, they asked? In time past – a time whose history they, in theirs, somehow stood outside of – it had been enough to trust in God. That at least, had been vaguely if not definitively debunked – they still kept a portrait of him and his messengers hanging at the exit-doors after all, for optional use, and there’s no question he provided for some nostalgic edification, just like Charlie Chaplin, V.I.Lenin, or Confucius, for example, remarkably still could. Other entertainers had, naturally, come and gone, and monuments could be seen to them, too, here and there, as if to retroactively confess that some things that would never return still had value to the relentless march of the new. Dead things, in other words. The technology, too, allowed for an unprecedented degree of lifelike preservation: Vladimir Ilyich, for example, was still going strong. It was as if the passed-on, in petrification, could still be in modus imitatio, real, and so in a sense, new again, not merely for a second time, but forever.

     There were new everything: new forms of food-production, new modes of mass-transportation, new medical procedures, new developments in science, new religions; new kinds of media, new media-gods, new stories told in new movies, new books, new TV-shows, new combinations of all of these. New technologies mediating between a new perception of new ideas. New idea. That idea itself was not new, everyone long knew that, but the fact everyone knew that made it clearly new, and so, with a twinkle and a new kind of laughter, truly new. The possibilities, clearly, were endless. New ways of communicating, of falling in love and having sex, of procreating, of delivering new life, were advertised in new multi-media information consoles, it seemed in every new birthing season. New couplings, new extinctions, new forms of evolution that left biology and natural selection seriously in question. What was natural, in such new permutations of the possible? What was Nature, now?

     Naturally, there were many who weren’t satisfied merely by the witnessing and classification of the new in and for itself, as an objective phenomenon. They wanted to know why – knowing, of course, that there was nothing especially new in that. In all of the multiple novel perspectives of reality available to them, they also demanded – as a formula, a mantra, a bedtime-story – an explanation. Which, of course, is where the message came in.

     There were many, of course, who heard it and were content, as they said, to trust in the process. But that seemed like a circular proposition to others, who considered that to trust or not trust in the process was meaningless since all there was was the process which necessarily would determine the direction of things in any case, and trusting in it not make any difference to anyone. For others this simply wasn’t enough. For them – they have been mentioned – the purpose of the message was tantalisingly clear: that in the efflorescence of the new was a tangible proof of evolution’s grand course, and that it must be aided and abetted at every twist and turn, however unclear, amoral or deceptive its motives might appear.

     War, in such a case, and as so often before then, could be easily confirmed as evolutionary necessity, and to offer still further confirmation it seemed for why a new one was breaking out every year in a different part of the world. (It was an issue of some perplexity, however, in seeking to gauge the true existence of these far-flung conflicts: they came to public attention in bits and bytes of digital data, perceived and misperceived by human bodies, notoriously prone to misinterpretation).

     War could be, at least, a moral landmark bloodying the horizon, could be relied on to make a direct statement about the state of trust in the world. It has been seen that trust was the catch-all word of many of those who claimed the message for themselves: trust your husband, trust your wife, your bank, your insurance-fund, your analyst, your neighbour, your local street-crazy, your government, your nation, your guru, your friendly night-time navigator through the dark and troubled skies, trust yourself, trust even in God if it’s absolutely necessary, but above all trust in the process.

     And yet war, that evolutionary staple, and an indubitable demonstration of the new (even where death was a demonstration of the eternal), pointed confident and authoritarian fingers at its own existence, its unmediated acting-out of the loss of trust between antipathetic parties – apart of course from that convention of trust which sees consensual war as a noble and morally sound form of human engagement. War, as everyone knew, has its history, its glory, and its honour, and may not be gainsaid. It was creator and destroyer both, a Lord Shiva of the spinning of the cyclic worlds.

     As always, these things came full circle, with both dramatic and quotidian punctuations of the new littering its repeated round. Time, some venerable once suggested, is not a circle on a plane but a spiral that passes by its double (triple, quadruple…), looking down through the generations to all the terrible errors and more terrible solutions that have been found to keep the record spinning. The only problem was that on the twisting, ascending path some were blindfolded and others weren’t, some could hear the message loud and clear, and others couldn’t – could not even hear the quiet but insistent voice of their own futures. And it was those deaf ones, the message seemed to spell out, who by force of ignorance were able to deny the evidence of the message itself, and the trust the message endowed. It wouldn’t be enough to hear, they thought, those who, even in their sleep, couldn’t close their ears to the fierce ringing of necessity. It would have to take a surrender, as well. And even that, they feared – even a surrender to trust – might not be enough.

Paris 2006

 

(published in the GROUP ONLINE MAGAZINE, March 13, 2011: http://groupmag.blogspot.com/2011/03/group-7.html)

     THE girls wake up much earlier than he does. From the shadows of the moving bed he can see windows, their rooms, the identical filmy asphalt paths, between the stores and hotels and the sea-coast promenades. The people – rapacious, harried; the women are babied, hobbled in silly shoes. Who designed it all this way? Has it been designed at all? Normally he speaks to few of them, few of them come to him. Except the mad ones. They always, sooner or later, make an appearance. The reasoning is that he is either crazed himself, throws out the right (wrong) frequency of sympathetic resonance for the approach, or enough of a beacon of compassion to promise an ever-present reception. Either way it is a liability; its only benefit that he has necessarily become a master of the quick, unseen exit.

     Human beings slip away from eachother in infinite chess-moves of greater or lesser complexity. What was the last escape? It is a long-enough ride, between the two large cities – one dripping with fin-de-siecle orchestral merinque, the other with ferrous industry – but not so far to keep the three of them from constant, recycled conversation, turning over through the night. Nothing seems impossible. They talk like old lovers who take for granted a level of nudity proffered, like a wager, to the other. The two women are attractive: in the very late hours, from the top tiers of the sleeping compartment, they lean to eachother over the space between them to confide whispers – intended to be kept from him, or only esoteric feminine strategies for play?

     But he is happy to see the full, limpid gleam of their thighs, angled discreetly above him in the rattling darkness, the promise of the crotch defined by the flimsy thin underpants they wear to sleep in. He watches the hips of the longer, duskier one, on the bunk above and opposite his, turn and re-position under the loosely-thrown sheet, the globe of them enacting an also discreet, well-behaved choreography that he immediately thinks is natural to most women. The ways their bodies seem to know, innately skilful, how to move, how to retreat, re-configure, send a catalogue of signals that mean only one thing, but can be read as many.

     He wants to say it too, out loud, to the darkened compartment (they have finally turned off their reading-lights): you know it’s amazing the way you two come together to share some mystery and then re-settle your bodies again. Hips like fruit in a wooden bowl, breast that knows how to sleep underneath you. He could say it, as well, the familiarity is already there – they might be amused, secretly charmed, disdaining, given new information to incorporate into their state-of-play: a small space of weakness they could, at some later stage, take advantage of. Or is he really calling their bluff, do men ever mean what they say? This one, they know, has something authentically poetic in the speech, the immature tone of voice – they take him at face value. They might seduce him, if he makes the right moves – keeps back, reserves any offensive, pretends a mediocrity he might or might not have.

      In the first light of morning what happens is that they undress in front of him, and change into new clothes: covertly, as if he is still asleep, or assuming ingenuously that he isn’t really there, and not nursing the painful erection he keeps straightened inside his own clothes. The unsuspected whiteness of the skin, pale, milky-blue dough of breast, whisked away under bra and a casual flung t-shirt. The pubic hairs of the one above him, when she leans over yet again to ask the other something in their own language, as if he would be unable to perceive, in an extension of his ignorance of the words they speak – or for the fact of sheer obviousness – the globe of her duskiness right in front of his eyes, the loud arrows pointing to the crease of skin at the high end of her thighs, where the hair already begins. She is so close he can just smell her from where he lies, the humid domain of the hair, where a lazy smile shifts perpendicular, moves under the near-transparency of strained cotton. In the light seeping through the train-windows, he can see the smile, all the same: it is intended purely for him. He wants to reach up himself, to put his lips there; its extreme proximity in fact an obstacle, so close it is an unthinkable abyss to breach, to bring within his potential frame of reality, so that he lies there, breathes deeply the musty air of the compartment, and says: “I thought it would never end.”

     They look at him, as girls in adolescent American movies do, and reply in tandem, “What would never end?”

     “Last night. What happened, I’ve never said so much. So easily…”

     They can’t really believe his defencelessness, and it must be a ploy, a false innocence with which they would be spun in a deceptive web and then tackled together. Even though what he has said is true for them as well, also surprised by how much has been so easily divulged, though he hardly knows them, hardly shares even the same language let alone mingled lives. Maybe it is because he is a foreigner, obviously sensitive, can respond with depth and verve to anything they say, is a detached but willing player, more ambiguous than they are, more disinterested but more aroused…the underpants thing, that is cool, the way it gives away enough but wins the opening play before it really has a chance to go anywhere. The pale girl flicks at the bra-strap under her t-shirt as they speak to him: “Maybe it’s because we trust you,” she says, and her friend echoes it. “When I’m comfortable with someone I’ll tell them almost anything.”

     Then looking at him, with casual, deflated, domestic smiles, as if they are all long-known siblings, one of the women seems to decide without prior consultation that a bra is more trouble than it’s worth, unclips it beneath the t-shirt and draws it out under her long, slender arms. They keep talking, desultory – the issues turning around trust, respect, honesty and openness, the Great Female Virtues – but he hears them only incoherently when two friendly, avuncular breasts start bounding along to the shunting rhythm of the train.

     “It’s as if we’ve all been friends, many times, before. D’you think that’s possible? Married, in our past lives or something. I hope you don’t mind,” they mock-ask him, wide-raffish smiles now. “Sometimes it’s too much, when a virtual stranger suddenly invades your life and throws it all at you, on a platter or something.”

     “You’re not going to use it against us,” the dusky one says, still grinning, tousled and gamin-eyed from sleep. “No – I don’t mean that.”

     “Well, I could,” he says, “but what would I get out of it? I’d prefer to ask straight out for any leverage I could claim.”

     They are close to stunned, it is left there for the moment, there is still a lot of train-ride to get through. Their open-mouthed gazes shift in simultaneous blank tandem, alert desert marmots tuned to the pinprick landscape outside the windows, still unperturbed to be sitting on the lowest tier with their bare legs up on the upholstery so that when the middle-aged morning-attendant comes with coffee and a croissant for each passenger he will be able to discern the dark hairs, if he looks, as the younger man has in the early hours during the across-the-breach confidentials. They soon cover themselves, nonetheless, throwing a sheet over their legs like good, indulgent girls of the middle-class. The pale girl pinches herself just below a pointed nipple as the man exits the compartment, close to giggling, a wink at his departure. Sitting across from them he concentrates on the eyes, now – it is a new day, there are new terms of placement, suddenly since the night whatever stakes there were have steeply increased. There is even a serious danger of something, of a happening happening.

     “I’m glad you finally said something – you were ignoring us, or trying to, for the first few hours. Why was that? I felt disapproval, as if you were judging the situation,” she says.

     “I was – I think you’re immoral women. I didn’t like you from the first moment I saw you.”

     They are both laughing. “And now?”

     “After your revelations, your small daring acts of confession, your unwitting displays, your gameness, I’m reconsidering. You keep offering these little gifts – for women you’re pretty generous.

     “Really!? What little gifts?”

      He can’t help noticing at least one pair of free-moving nipples attacking their constraint, biting into air as if to move closer to him. It is the pale one, brighter but more obviously willing, powerless against the parasympathetic response. “Oh, just little things neither of you would probably notice.”

     He leaves them in the carriage to go to the bathroom to adjust his own clothes. He can see them, in his absence, pulling up jeans and exchanging soft-voiced assessment on the situation in dead-earnest. Is he too much, or just enough? they wonder. They are all travelling in the same direction, it turns out – his destination is further on, but he’s willing to stop awhile, and he’s not bound to any watertight schedule, if he even really has one. There is already a future staring them, all three, full in the face. They are of the age for the worst, the messiest of circumstances, this is when it happens. He is their age, there is a gauntlet already thrown out, it would seem impossible not to take it up with a fierce, liberated, female vengeance.

     The exchange for the next train is chaotic, dust flying in their faces and the flippered catalogue of destinations rushing them to a greasy machine that sighs restlessly on smoothed heels. A small swarthy man ushers them onto a smoking car and the train pulls away and they sink back into tired red upholstery, a feather of hunger in the insides and the tickling of the antennae of desire, because no-one says anything, can only breathe, audibly, deeply, to extract the nervy fray out of the visceral pull towards explosiveness. The women are aware of the new dimension in their bodies, how heat comes to fine surface and urges contact with the open air – he can see their legs strain against tight denim, breasts impatient under clothes. Still no-one says anything, the brown-skinned girl puts her leg up on the opposite seat against his, observes how it gently brushes his knee with the sway of the train. It turns a slow corner, her leg is unexpectedly warm against his, her breasts shift perceptibly against the gradient of the journey, girl’s adam’s apple bobbing above the sleepy smooth skin of collar-bones unhealthy ivory against the louche red of the seats.

     She looks away, out the window. Back again to him, the two independent legs, touching, outside again, and back to his face which to her lazy exhaustion, just under the skin like a mental itch she can’t reach, looks childish and wrongly preoccupied. He is someone who she is certain lives largely in abstraction or perpetual turns of strategy, the minute placings of the self in a vast intersubjective web that has remained only nominally physical in his mind. So she raises her other longish leg, encased smoothly in the tight jeans, to the space left between his knees, raises also her knee so that her bare foot won’t disturb his lap but only linger in the vicinity of boney, thin, male knees. One leg stretches to his left, the other rests between his own, the pale girl says suddenly, very gently but with certitude, “Why don’t you touch her foot?”

     The foot is large and dirty, there is a thin silver ring on one of the smaller toes. She says it again, “Touch it.”

     The girl who owns the foot says nothing, the face is veiled with fatigue and the passivity of disappearing into the red upholstery. He notices now how patchy with grime the material is, dirt dotted into the animalish pores of the leather, many generations of overnight passenger leaving trace of tedium or sickness. She smiles, barely. And moves the big toe, a little, a little faster. “Go on,” the other one says.

     A kind of trick question. Complying is submission but also reward. Refraining is autonomy but also bad sportsmanship. He chooses the latter, returns the smile, only half-genuine, not wide, not compressed, a small, modest gesture of a male cat. They maybe don’t like him now, despite the perseverence. “What’s wrong? You have cold feet?” the first, pale-face. Again her breasts seem to grow, challenge him with along with the words, swell against her arm so that he knows if she were to throw the t-shirt off onto the floor and they tumbled and swung swelling beneath their eyes he would immediately have to get up and do something ill-considered or at the least escape to the corridor to calm his breath or re-adjust his underwear or take a cigarette from someone and stand there pretending to stare at the patchy early-morning landscape pretending to smoke it as he felt the heat of jism escaping down his inner-leg. And none of those things happen, he is surprisingly at ease in his own small patch of leathery humidity, and smiles again, like a young boy.

     “No – it’s my feet that are cold,” the darker girl says, “look,” she touches her own foot, rubs it in her hands. “I’m frozen hard,” she laughs.

     “Stiff.”

     “What? Stiff?”

     “You’re frozen stiff. Like a corpse. Bad circulation, breathe more deeply. Down in the diaphragm.”

     And as if to justify those words or demonstrate their tangibility, he beckons her stretch the same leg out again, towards him, yes, closer, which she does extending it only so far that it doesn’t invade his crotch and so that he can hold the foot between both his hands by leaning forward a little, not uncomfortably.

     “Oh, you don’t have to. It’s alright,” the same girl says, there is a curious fearful sincerity now in the voice that wasn’t there before. “No, let him – go on – or you can do mine as well, please??”

     He is wholly receptive but formidable, an apprentice, hard-eyed warrior. He holds her foot on light, warm hands, nimbly turns it, cracks the filthy toes, finds the most juicy pressure-points so that she mock-complains Ow! and only momentarily removes the foot, her canvas of crotch opening before his eyes, the jeans a strange oceanic blue-white texture that suggests greater distances to his eye than can conceivably be there, a vast stretch of anatomy suggested somewhere on the other side of it, she is not a girl and still more than a woman – an oceanic indeterminate mammal presence defined by the telescoping legs projected back and forth before him, the expanse of space between them, the dirt in the toes and the plenitudes shifting beneath collar-bones. Eyes with curtains of ambiguity hanging lazily over them.

     She is from the provinces, he is sure, who in adolescence took very long baths when she shaved her legs and read bad literature, had posters of now-forgotten mid-of-the-road boy bands on her walls which she lay under in the early hours as they grew blurry to the sweep of her fingers inside her. He can see her whole history in her beautiful body, the privilege and a high-protein diet that kept the lineaments of her face healthy but still carved with a sharp cruelty that goes back to the smartest and bravest of her tribe, if not the most intelligent. There is still the same hard, graven insouciance in her chiselled mouth, that takes on the animal prey of her ancestry and the organs of young uncertain men with an equal, expert confidence. She smiles again as if to blandly confirm this: it is true I want you, the lips tell him as he drives his thumbs into the soles of the dirty, warmly clammy feet, I want you for breakfast, if you can be the sacrifice.

      “I still don’t understand,” the white diabolic one says, a new perverse smile on her face. “You didn’t do as I said, you disobeyed me, was that some kind of provocation?”

     “Not at all,” he says simply. “It’s just that I’m not used to touching people without some kind of larger context if you know what I mean. I can’t just reach out and touch someone in a vacuum. I need a purpose, a reason,” a little unclear himself why the words pretend to a needless male justification, he knows already they aren’t even true, they are only a good excuse for a potential retreat, a definitive return into his own sweaty, red-upholstered space, for good, before they get off at the next main station and leave him forever.

     He looks hard at them. “I’m on my way to a monastery. And I need to get used to the rules.”

     The diabolus actually raises her eyes, where the other slinks deeper into her seat the more gratifying the work on her foot becomes.

     “Is that true?” she continues. “Why are you doing that?”

     “I’ve been offered a job there, some temporary work. And the life holds some attraction. I don’t like men much, but I appreciate solitude and the idea of full retreat from the world.”

     “What’s wrong with the world?”

     “Everything. And nothing, is wrong with it. But expecting some kind of redemption in it is only pain. It never delivers what you want. Just for a moment, then it’s gone, and there’s a new hill to climb.”

     “You’re over climbing.”

     He smiles and works on the brown foot. “There comes a time when climbing doesn’t hold any attraction anymore.”

     “But who wants redemption?” she presses on him, even as she moves deeper into the compartment seat. “Isn’t that just more climbing? You should know that.”

     He stops on the foot and for a moment stares at it, holds the slender warmth of it in his hand and doesn’t say anything. It’s owner suddenly speaks to him from the depths of comfort, the words seem to come directly out of the red upholstery as if her whole mouth has encompassed it, they are merely human bacteria in a larger biological complex which will sooner or later deposit them outside in some alien environment incompatible with the system of warm mutuality that operates in this one.

     “My leg hurts. Can I stretch it out a little – like this I have to hold it up and I just want you to look after it.”

     He will comply, but he won’t smile about it, and he takes hold of the foot in both hands, it could be his own organ, and brings it onto his lap, covered with his functional coat, almost military, ecologically khaki, understated but solid, like the honest but suave work on the foot that satisfies her as the skin warms under his hands and her face softens inside its fine web of draped hair. He is sure he can hear her cooing, the foot alone tells him, the channels of blood under the skin, warming his own body, the cold under his coat, in his lap. Both of them know that it will only be a matter of moments before he will be forced to change tactics, face embarrassment or capitulate to the necessity the foot presses on him. It is not for nothing the provincial schoolgirl – he knows she is older, but how much? – moves the long, dirty foot, back and then closer to him, barely perceptible, a vertical proposition, in the same way the genital smile had shifted ninety-degrees and greeted him with its beautiful welcome to the world, the real world of light in the fields in the morning, a rocking train and two women of honey changing clothes wordlessly before him as if they knew he wasn’t yet awake but not so unconscious that he would miss the filaments of light echoing in the fine blue veins under the rarely-exposed skin.

     The breathtaking diabolus slips her index finger under her bra-strap and slowly brings it down under her t-shirt to stop under the collar-bone, stretching the material, intending a completion of the movement which she instead repeats a number of times so that all three are now engaged in a peculiar subtle rhythm of interaction as he kneads and seeks out tender parts of the foot, as the foot slips back and forth over the covered male crotch and the bra-strap is negotiated to its furthest point before fingers could very easily slip into warmth and bring out an upholstered, proffered nipple, pink against the grimey red seat, warm to the cool morning air.

     At the same moment they both know he is forced into a corner and compelled to surrender some of the carefully-nurtured enigma of distance. She feels the hardening under her foot, mildly stretches it out again as if in some resolution so that he is able to say: it is finished.

      “I might go find a drink of water,” he says very quietly and leaves the compartment before turning around himself like an animal in wonder.

     “Have you lost something?”

     “No, no – I just need something  -“

     “?”

     “ – to drink out of.”

     He walks to one end of the corridor and back and returns to find them in exactly the same positions in which he has left them. “Can you do the other foot? I feel amazing.”

     “Yes. But not now. When we get where we’re going.”

     “Where are we going?”

     It is a place by the sea, there are wide elegant boulevardes and densely-peopled salubrious seafood-restaurants ranged across the foreshore sparkling in a moderate late-summer sun. They drag themselves out of the station in a filigree euphoria of missed sleep, hunger and viciously intense expectation that bursts up from under lightly humorous banter traded as much between the women as with him, so that a democratic delectation forms a substrate to any likely subversion, it is a classical game of proportion that they play, and to intellectualise it they need strong black coffee which a local elderly Frenchwoman waves them to – go there, it is the most delightful place to have coffee, and lovely young people like you three should offer yourselves something special once in a while. Life is not meant to be all hard.

     It is not cheap but the tables are very close together and all six legs bump and mingle for the time it takes to drink three espressos each so that he suddenly leaves the table and hobbles away into the back area of the building in search of the bathroom. Enervation and too-much talk drives them down to the beach, caffeine stings the triplicate nerve-ends of need connecting them, and the large, round stones they fall on not far from the edge of the water feel like an ultimate bed of love, they would not be able to leave there if they wanted to. Inevitability keeps them tied down there, despite the helium of euphoria that could as easily lift up the expanding bubble of the balloon they bounce around in.

     One of the first things they see though in front of them is someone thrashing in the waves, limply calling out for help. The two girls have stripped down to panties and t-shirts, and recline on their elbows staring at the shapeless figure, some kind of human jellyfish, bobbing between the light waves. The women look to eachother to gauge a mutual response, they will not stand up again in their underpants to rescue something not of their making, and he is there anyway, the young guy, lithe in his clothes, and restless, he can prove a certain masculinity, they would like to see him throwing himself into the pallid waves to bring out to them – a trophy? a mermaid, that they could compare themselves to? a submarine treasure they could enjoy between them?

     He is wet, too, already in the brackish water, sand and seaweed up against his legs, grimaces of discomfort useless against the cold, somehow overstretching himself here, knowing already his concern is not finally for the body in the water, but the bodies on the shore, his estimation in their eyes, the two sirens lying back now on the stones, not even directly watching him, two sets of knees and nipples pointing delicately into the air. He can glance back and see them slightly move the knees side to side out of laziness, see the creases in the crotch, where silk skin meets the body-warmth of hair, a kind of refuge, he could slip in there, and stay warm – but the suffering body is reaching out for him now: a vast overgrown woman, huge swathes of fat weighing her down in the water, her mouth can’t vocalise but the double-chins flap and swish in the paltry waves, so that he knows he must find and hold her, his arms up under that untenable weight, the epic breasts, the flab of the stomach and hips and legs a massive gelatine against his own spare-rib of a body, so that it could get lost in there, float around awhile, finally die with the behemoth thrashing against its own inevitable entropy, the inexplicably human body his own could be fatefully, unthinkably tied to.

     The rubber frilly cap lodged crookedly over the woman’s head comes off in his hands and he spends some time working against the waves to try to return it to her sodden head. He can see she is grateful, but nearly in tears, a water-logged sad walrus of a woman who surrenders to his arms like a silent-movie heroine, so that he has to work twice as hard against her passivity to drag her back in to shore. She doesn’t kick or paddle, she lies hopelessly in his arms, her face turned pathetically to the leaden sky. He feels like he is leading a whale to dock – where its vast white whorling blubber will be sliced up and sold for soap. When they reach the stoney shore he is not gasping out of physical exhaustion alone – the surprise, the heavy humanity, the ugliness, exhibition, pride of the rescue are in the end a demoralisation, and even when the blonde girl turns to tell him, dripping and forlorn as he is, that he is a hero, that it was the best thing to do, even though it wouldn’t have made much difference, it doesn’t improve anything for him.

     “What do you mean wouldn’t make any difference?” he asks. The other one responds, “You could see she was in no danger, the waves would’ve brought her in in any case”.

     “But it was still an admirable thing to do,” the blonde one confirms.

     They lie on the cool stones; he pants in the cold, the sticky wet against his skin, his genitals curling in their cocoon. Something only changes when he notices them, by his side, lightly moving their fingers over their breasts so that all four nipples stand up straighter, announce themselves fully to the indifferent grey sky overhead, so that he feels the crustacean in his pants tremble and stretch, as if in imitation of the women’s bodies.

     The walrus-woman is not far by – she could be watching them with a curious, bedraggled, bovine fascination. Because the girls continue to touch themselves, slipping fingers down from the breast over the belly to the minor depression of the bellybutton, which they encircle and slip into before reaching the border of cotton underpants and the first hair there, explorers greeting the edge of rough territory. But the fingers quickly slip, too, into the protection of the wilds, where birds and waterfalls will greet them.

     He doesn’t watch how long the fingers linger there, how deeply they enter in, he only feels a warm silken hand soon take his and lead him again to the edge of the water, feels the hand against the arm that holds his, two sets of fine shoulders bumping into his as the desultory waves bring them together, then apart, together again, his eyes half-closed perceiving the increased dark in the sky, it is sunset, already, so soon, they had not even had a sun to warm by, but it is strangely warm in the water, a deep vast bowl to hold them in, the salt placental, so that they don’t seem to float but are suspended in a near-viscous depth that could never drown them, only hold them wholly suspended there, so that the old, enormous woman with the frilly cap had been wrong to panic, the ocean never kills, only human fear, human ignorance, does.

     He knows their t-shirts are off, under the water, can see the pale shapes of breasts set loose in the marine green, all four dancing like exotic squid before the touch of his tentacular hand. They keep just out of reach, so that if he leans out to them, the crash of the waves or mysterious mermaid dance of the silent girls’ bodies eludes him, and aren’t there anymore. They would not notice the erection pushed out of his pants, a slender human sign standing out unseen, ignored in the salty waste, no-one would read its urgent message, it stands out for itself alone, a seahorse in its own domain. The women swim around him, encircle him, sometimes take water in their mouths and shoot hard wet streams in his face that only makes the seahorse stand up straighter to attention. They come close, swirl untouchably far away. He sees dripping hair and breasts come to the surface of the water, rest there against the ceramic pink light in the late sky, four separate nipples moving side to side, sometimes over, sometimes under the surface, as they reach out to the silvery touch of the early, night stars.

     The night seems both short and inexplicably long. They move between bars, drink shots of pastis and tequila, dodge soccer fans, grow exhausted and stand breathless on different street corners of the town, finally decide to find a friend’s apartment where they can truly stop and surrender. His pants are still wet, the lips of the pale girl against his ear, her voice, deep, somehow muddy, telling him, “Come with us, it will be alright, she’s a good friend of ours”.

     But the friend is suddenly there, on a corner they come to, already drinking, laughing with men, touching their hairy arms: she is smiling and sour-faced, she kisses him on both cheeks. For nearly an hour all four wander the steaming, neon-lit foreshore, crowded with drunk travellers, British sportsmen, the newly-arrived stock of sex-workers come from Bulgaria or Rumania. They all look about fifteen, and press small childish hands to his wet groin as he moves past them. The walrus-woman, the cold stones, alcohol, neon lights, the Bulgarian children, are all demoralising. Only the two sets of nipples as defined as Hokusai against the failing light have had any sense in them. There is still some untouchable grace in them.

     The friend asks that he request politely to be let into her domicile. It is two o’clock in the morning, she perhaps has some grounds for her demands, he must kneel to one knee to ask for her hospitality before they climb three floors to her tiny, nondescript apartment. She is prunish and sour but drunk as he is he can kneel to the goddess and grant her every desire; on this night he will do anything, for anyone, it is – he finally understands this – a night for redemption. He is a talking clown: your wish is my command. (The words are perhaps in a different order, they come out of the mouth like sand; she doesn’t understand his language too well in any case, and he must continually wager with mistranslation, so that anything he says is negligible.)

     “Please, come into my warm house,” she says.

     The house is neither a stable for his seahorse, nor a cosy shelter for weary travellers; in the dingy grey of the kitchen they can at least drink some more, there is bootleg Lithuanian vodka with a crisp air of alpine forest in its breath, one of them has put on a complementary music of huskies and sleds and bells ringing outside log saunas. The time comes for a question he must answer – the blonde girl puts it to him.

     “Do you want to stay here, with us?”

     He smiles probably a little drunkenly and says, “Yes, sure, if you want me to.”

     “No,” she insists, “do you want to?”

     Again he says, “If there is room for me. I could stay in the kitchen a few hours before catching the first early train – I have to be somewhere, in any case.”

     “Oh, there’s room, of course there is, we can squeeze up, in any case.”

     But the two girls quickly collapse on the single bed and he and the sour-faced friend are left staring at the thin blanket on the floor, and he knows it would be better not to be there with her. He watches the sad, slope-shouldered woman adjusting the blanket on the floor, there is reluctance hanging off her lank hair, he says to her in an almost silent voice that he could leave if she wants.

     “Yes, that would be easier.”

     It is a few hours to sunrise, there are few hotels, if any, open, they are not worth the expense. “Well, I could just quietly sit in the kitchen for a couple of hours before going out at dawn. I have a book I can read.” But she is still uncertain. “Then you would have to leave the door unbolted after you go, while we sleep – I wouldn’t like that.”

     “I’ll only be here a short time, before morning comes.”

     The woman looks at him, for the first time directly in his eyes; he is unsure but thinks there is a burning resentment, dull embers of revolt lying cold in their sockets. When she goes into the bathroom, he writes his name and contact details on a newspaper lying in the middle of the kitchen-table, leaves it torn off and separate there, slips out the door, down the four flights of stairs before she has come out to put her hair into a knot and join the other girls, snoring like mermaids out of their element, in cold, wet, marine dreams.

     On the boulevardes the Bulgarians are out in force. Half a dozen crowd into a bus-shelter huddling in the cold wind off the sea. He would like the company of warmth with them, only, to still drink and laugh at the foibles of ordinary people, on the other side of life. He understands the sex-workers far better, he believes, than all the others, the bourgeois sea-siders. But as he approaches them they wave him away, throw arms and daggery eyes his way; he has just enough cash still in his pocket to take one of them down to the beach if he wanted, but they don’t want even his money. “No understand – go! Go!!” they shout, their fiery brown angry eyes thrusting him further down into the solitude of empty boulevardes.

     The sea seems to be raging now, in the night wind. He sees little else on this flaneur’s parade: people passed-out in the gutters, dead or dying fish, with the ice cast-out from their ice-boxes. The glinting green of broken wine-bottles gleam against the silvery sheen of the scales. The whole night slides into a green, submarine netherworld where salt, sand, the shame of unwanted sex are the only currency.

     Further towards the sea, under the arch of an old pavilion stretching into the shadows, he sees two figures hunched over an old box on the ground. They are dishevelled, but as old French gentlemen are, and they both look up at him as he passes closer to them. One of the old men holds a chess-piece in his hand – his queen – as he stops and speaks; held like a stone of eternity over the exquisite symmetry of the game beneath his hand.

     “Do you play?” he asks. The face is youthful, intelligent, despite the broken teeth, the breath of cheap port-wine, the archaic waistcoat. And the game, he can see, is a compelling one: the pieces are marked out by an eloquent balance of power, everything held within the frame of the board is necessary, and beautiful. He can see that clearly. “Yes,” he answers. “I play”.

     The man pauses a moment, looks intently at him before asking again, “Do you want to play?”

     Both chess-players stare at him some time before he looks again at the suspended beauty of the game, the queen held in perpetual stasis above it.

     “No”, he answers.

     He doesn’t repeat the word. Once is enough. He already knows he will never hear from the two, sleeping, girls. He wanders away from the men in his still-wet pants, towards the further end of the beach where the waves are strongest, the beautiful, necessary game behind him, he is grateful to see them, high and heavy, pounding down onto the sand, there are few lights there, and the sea-spray in his eyes keeps them blurred, but he staggers down there anyway. He goes down there.

Paris, 2004

The Revolutionary

THE revolutionary stands up and looks towards the town outskirts, to the smoke, flares of flame and sounds of ricocheting fire that come from within the shattered walls. He will reach there, he thinks, by the late-afternoon, and it is still early morning.

There is little food left, only some cold meat going rancid and a heel of stiff bread from the small town he has passed through days before. There is a revolution going on, but he has not yet joined it. Home has been long left behind, and he has wanted – the sole desire left in his not-yet-old life – to add to the fight, and have his indignation felt.

But he can’t be sure where it is. The others, the kindred spirits he has met on the road, have, one after the other, somehow fallen by the wayside. There has been Lena, of the beautiful, deep eyes; dark as madness, rich as tombs of untold wealth. She has invited him to join them, and taken his hand, saying that once justice has been won, they can’t imagine the future, how good it will be. He hears things in her words that might not be there, and imagines that when she talks about that future, it is one they will share. Late one night, when her brother Luis has drunkenly lurched up in front of the campfire and swung his arm into the cell-leader’s face, an older man called Libero – that same night she has slipped her fingers into his trousers and held him there, in darkness, in a silky conspiracy. But Luis has held most of her attention, because he is always drunk, crazy, younger than they are, and her brother.

Libero tells them where to go and they follow him. He is an older, harder man who has been on many campaigns before this one, so they can only trust his better judgement. He has three fingers missing on his right hand, though he still rolls cigarettes with the two left to him, his other hand usually occupied with taking field-notes in a small notebook. He walks with a lame left leg, his only reward, so he claims, from his time with the resistance in Central America. Despite these credentials, he isn’t able to speak easily to his comrades, and has quietly suggested to Lena that she leave Luis behind in the next town. “He’s a danger to himself and the rest of us,” Libero tells her. “We don’t have room for such as him in this fight.”

Luis is a drunkard but like many nostalgists he has an uncanny intuition as well. He understands he is being denied and disregarded, that he will have no place in their future victory: an outcast in both worlds, a pariah in both corruption and that paradise cleansed of it.

But Luis knows he is an honest man, that he loves men more than most do, more even than the stray dogs he collects on the country roads they traverse. He is, and is proud to be, an idealist. He has always defended the weak and disenfranchised, just as his sister does for him. He loves mothers, weak-minded children, wounded birds, and his broken harmonica, even moreso because it is broken. He loves humanity, the idea of brotherhood, the beautiful image of a life lived, later on, in honest toil, simplicity, equality, communal care. He is heavy and maladroit, but he would defend every one of them with his life, so he says, even if he knows no-one would do the same for him. “If there’s one thing I know,” he says, “it’s that in the end, no matter what we say, no-one really cares about anyone else. It’s each for themselves.”

“Why do we do it, then, who are we trying to help?” the would-be revolutionary asks him.

“It’s for the race”, Luis replies. “We just want to survive.”

It seems to their new arrival, though, that Lena cares for her brother, and all of them, more than anyone can guess. She gives most of her food to Luis, who has the appetite of a sybarite, and tends to Libero for days on end when he comes down with relapses of his old malaria. She never complains about the hard conditions, the cold, the perfunctory food, the privations of sharing small enclosed spaces with crude, sometimes callous, men. They never touch her, but they joke and spit around her, so that she can smile indulgently at them and treat them all as the flawed little boys of her flock that they are.

Until the time when one of the newer conscripts, a farm-hand they have discovered on a Sunday, pulling apart an engine, barely eighteen but massive as the stone church he disdains to put a foot into, starts paying her some attention. He blows Lena sarcastic kisses over their nightly gruel, camped out in the fir forest outside the town he has now left for good. Once, when Lena is laying tarpaulin above muddy ground to keep them from a night of rain, he trips her up to see how she might punish him.

She picks herself up, says not a word, and finishes the task she has started. It is Luis who lumbers over to the behemoth youth, pokes him in the shoulder, and receives a choking smash in his chest, sending him sprawling in the mud, his tender, sentimental heart breaking in his rib-cage. No-one, not even Libero, does a thing, or says a word, and even Lena whispers to her brother No, don’t save me, little brother. When you can barely save yourself.

When Luis disappears the next day Libero says nothing, and Lena keeps her negligible sobs to herself. The young giant is told merely to keep his attention on maintaining the vehicle they have lately appropriated from a neglected farm, so that they can reach the place of insurrection in good speed. Because the revolution, so Libero says, has already started, and it would be foolish, this late in the day, to miss it.

It’s ironic, as such stories usually are, but just when it seems they have come on the heels of the place of battle and triumph, they are hamstrung by a matter of chance. Only some hundred kilometres before the town of Dvorets, where they will merge with the frontline of the resistance, they meet with a tirade of smaller trucks and armoured cars barrelling towards them. Libero suggests they are escaping military or high-level functionaries, keen to reach safer territory before their power falls. When shots sting out from the passing, faceless trucks, rifles aimed invisibly on any approaching unknowns, it seems he is probably right.

Their larger, lumbering vehicle, a cattle truck, is hit in several places and lurches clumsily off the road into a ditch of weeds and broken glass, its two front tires ripped apart. They have no spare wheels. They brew coffee by the side of the road and wait for someone else to come by, something else to happen, the sound of bloodshed coming from only a valley or two away.

The young revolutionary asks Lena then, “Will you look for Luis?” She smiles and shakes her head. “He has his own fight to wage,” she says, “that has nothing to do with this one. He knows that, that’s why he’s left”.

“He is your brother,” the newcomer says.

“Even your own blood is expendable,” Lena tells him, “when it comes to winning freedom.”

“I’m not sure I understand,” he says.

“No, of course you can’t. You still see things in the normal two or three dimensions. But when you know only one thing, one dream, there is only winning it, and everything else serves it, or fails to. It’s not personal, which is what my brother will never understand.”

The revolutionary understands that Lena is powerful, strong and admirable and most likely far more disturbed than her brother. But he feels he would follow her to the end, no matter what happens. He loves the depthless light in her eyes, the touch of her weathered hands. That night they play cards with Libero by the campfire, and even sing the revolutionary songs of nearly a century before. It is heartwarming to consider that the flame has not died, the cause not lost hope, that people are still living and dying for something that one day will vindicate so much suffering.

Vive la revolution! Libero manages to exclaim above something more than a whisper in his sandpapery voice, though his hand shakes as he downs his shot-glass of liquor.

The others drink too and that small moment of solidarity with other warm and breathing men and women is able to make everything seem purposeful again. The would-be revolutionary goes to sleep happily that night under the stars which shine down on his purified heart with another purity altogether, one that has nothing to do with his human happiness and its hoped-for resolutions.

The vehicle they have entrusted to the farm-hand proves irreparable, and they take to the road again. The sun beats down on the dun heaviness of their uniforms, their guns slip in the sweat of their hands. They are within a day or two’s march of the town, which lies pressed in between two steep mountainsides.

Moving by day is dangerous, when anyone who approaches them on the road could be armed and hostile. Their mobile phone contact moves in and out of reception, and Libero reports that he receives conflicting pieces of information: that a general mobilisation is now imperative in view of making a conclusive strike on the last strongholds, that a retreat and dispersal of forces is imminent. He isn’t sure what to think, he confesses through his moustache. He looks at Lena and after contemplating the ground for some time, he suggests that they both make a reconnaisance mission for the town, and return within forty-eight hours.  They will leave contact and code details in case of emergency. He, the revolutionary-in-training, will be required to stay behind with the six or seven conscripts still remaining to them, and maintain order until their return.

There seems to be no choice, though the young revolutionary feels a certain nausea in his bowels at the responsibility that has been placed in him. Still more, he wonders if he will ever see Lena again. The same night she and Libero are due to leave the group, under cover of a new moon and a light rainfall, he asks her to be careful, for his sake. “I’m not sure I could survive losing you, Lena,” he says under his breath, concerned that anyone else should hear him.

She smiles again, but more brightly, more lit-up than he has seen her even with Luis. “What are you saying?” she almost laughs. “Of course I’ll see you again. We’ll be back within forty-eight hours,” and she thumps him on the shoulder. “Don’t forget the future,” she says, as she pulls her weapon over her shoulder. “We can never lose that.”

She slips into the subdued echo of the forest that is entirely without light. Neither their voices nor their footfalls will be given away in that dense cover that seems to keep all life from detection. It is as if, to him, as soon as his back is turned, that Lena has never existed at all.

The revolutionary returns to his comrades. They already have some of the stores of liquor re-opened, and others are asleep and soon snoring in the darkness. There is nothing for them to do but wait and receive further orders within the coming two days. Their new group-leader settles down to the wait, not admitting to himself that there is only one thing, with one reason, for which he is waiting. And that one thing a different one than that Lena has confessed to him. He already feels, at that moment, that he isn’t sure what freedom is.

When the young mechanic starts singing too loudly with one of the others, he asks them to quieten down, and they comply with him. He smokes a cigarette and gazes at his boots like mute animals inanimate in the shadows. He thinks of the home he has left, far behind him now, and of his mother whom he has last seen standing at her kitchen window, waving goodbye again as he caught the last bus from the main street of his  hometown.

On the bus the radio had been mis-tuned, and different waves of static mixed with sounds and human speech, had come through the speakers. He’d heard a military band, and a sportscaster reporting the results of a dog-race, though the winner of the race was lost to him when the voice was engulfed in waves of white noise. It was easily rectifiable, this trivial problem, but no-one did anything about it. It is these kinds of imperfections the revolutionary has begun to be unable to tolerate. It is for these kinds of reasons, he has admitted to himself in his quietest moments, that he has become a revolutionary. He wants to rectify imperfections, if that were possible: every last one of them.

As the time passes in their makeshift camp, it begins to seem uncertain what they are there for. The men, lead by the teenage mechanic, break open more of the liquor, and when they are well doused, begin to fire rounds into the air, as if to celebrate their stasis, their lack of any certain direction.

The revolutionary stands up and tells them to put down their guns and stop drinking. “It’s a matter of a day,” he tells them. “I’m sure you can hold onto yourselves and be patient until then.”

The teenage fighter is still holding his gun. “What do you know, big man? Who are you to tell us what’s going on?” he yells, livid with the alcohol in his blood.

“I’ve been appointed standing commander for these two days, and I intend to honour that trust.”

“Trust!” he yells, spitting at the mouth. “You’re a fool! If you trust those two you’re a bigger fool than any of us. They’ve taken off! Taken the committee funds to have their honeymoon with.”

The revolutionary isn’t sure what to make of the idea. “We’ll wait until the forty-eight hours are up before deciding anything,” he says. The others only laugh at him, throw things onto the fire, and break open another bottle, singing to the wolves and the gunfire that doesn’t let up so close, yet still very far, from them.

The revolutionary doesn’t sleep that night. He walks around in the neighbouring stand of trees contemplating their next move. He can recall odd moments of his schooldays, when teachers projected vast world maps against the white-washed school walls, and pointed to illuminated red areas, spread like cancerous growths. Areas of conflict, they called them. Disputed territories, that through centuries of contestation still belonged wholly neither to one nor the other side of an invisible rift, inexplicably separating this man from that. The campfire flickers through the leaves and he knows he will be unable to cross that division that keeps him from his fellow insurgents on the other side. Yet they are intending to fight – not yet there – on the same side.

In that moment the idea comes to him to quietly pack his few belongings and disappear without a footfall back into the forest, as Lena and Libero have done. No-one would miss him. But he wouldn’t follow them – not knowing in any case which precise direction they have taken. He would retrace his own steps, back to his home, to discover if nothing else why he has started on this course in the first place. He had good reason then: his own father has died as a casualty of nearly a lifetime of servitude to the corruption of the nation’s rulers. His mother is still now bent down under the same unseen yoke. All of them are, in one way or another – Lena and her blind heroism, Luis’ hopeless nostalgia for something that has never existed, Libero and his dogged, dumb pursuit of something, with his few mediocre words, he can’t even describe.

The revolutionary finds himself, however, turning back to his comrades, to the fire that is at least a warm, even human thing, in the pall of uncertainty surrounding them. “Maybe you’re right,” he tells the teenager. “I underestimated their treachery, and your intelligence. I’m sorry. We’ll start in the morning, of our own accord. We can’t wait here forever.”

“Right you are”, the young belligerent drawls, spread out by the fire. “Have a drink while there’s still sense in you,” and he bursts out laughing, copied in a predictably infantile way by the few others, perhaps as young as he is, he has gathered round him. The revolutionary realises he isn’t even sure of their names, is certain to confuse them should he try to address each of them directly. They havn’t included him in their drinking and singing games. He doesn’t understand their country dialect so well. He realises he doesn’t know much about them at all, and that in the few hours left to them, he still hopes that Lena and Libero will come sliding back, along that umbilical safety-rope, to their camp, their trust and solidarity.

He should know what will happen, even though this is only his first campaign. Sometime in the early hours, while he is sleeping, the others have found and bound him to the fir tree under which he sleeps, so that he wakes with the rich, tangy scent of resin under his nose. He loves the smell, which returns him in an instant to his earliest days with his parents before the takeover, in the forests and the summers, the long weeks of dreaming time by lakesides. He can’t move, and his entire torso stinks of urine, it is in his hair, and ash and excrement have been dumped into his boots, his pack, his sleeping-bag. His feet have been bound with fishing-line, his revolutionary cap gagged in his mouth. They have, at least, not wounded him in any other way, have not broken his skin. To have your skin intact is still something.

He lies there under the tree through the hours of the day, entertaining the flies, too tired, even amused by the novelty of his condition, to move. He sees that his revolver has been stolen, as well, so he is left with very little with which to defend himself. While he lies dazed, moves fitfully through different states of consciousness, increasingly close to losing consciousness altogether, he thinks largely of one thing: going back home. Even in his debilitated state, though, he is lucid enough to follow that thought with the realisation that he isn’t sure, anymore, where his home is. To be a revolutionary, he realises now, is to leave the past irrevocably behind.

He can still see his mother in the yellow light of her kitchen window at twilight. She has problems with her legs now, some kind of arthritis; he can’t be sure if he’ll see her again. It would be difficult for her to get any message through to him in the critical circumstances of the insurrection. He can’t even be certain if he will survive it or not.

He lies under the tree, through long desolate hours of the night, surrounded by bird and animal calls that he wonders alternately are either trying to communicate with him, warning of danger perhaps, or threatening him with outright hostility. He can be sure of none of these things, and in his state of semi-delirium he begins less and less to care. As it is, as it often seems to prove, nature has no argument with him, he is left entirely untouched by it, apart from the cooling breezes and occasional rain-showers that fall for brief periods, washing the leaves, the soil, his own face, and then stopping.

On the second day of immobility under the tree he starts to chew, feebly, through the twine that binds him. His head lolls on his chest, as if overcome with a dementia, as he tries to break the plastic material that catches him around his rib-cage. After hours of this laborious, futile effort, his mouth and his neck wrecked by it, he discovers a sharp-edged, small stone that has been lying under his hand, obscured by leaf-litter, all along. He uses this to hack at what remains, freeing first his upper body, and then his feet, which have lost circulation, turned blue and numb, perhaps gangrenous. He has a strange fantasy of cutting off his own foot with the sharp stone to prevent any infection reaching the rest of his body, but is so nauseated by the inhuman effort it would require of him, an effort he could barely summon in any case, that he leaves his foot alone. He hopes it will look after itself.

The road is much as it has been before he left it. It is, as then, mostly deserted, though he can still hear the sounds of artillery and bombardment in the near-distance. Strangely though, despite the territory covered with the cell, he seems no closer to the revolution itself. Could all the entreaties and calls for solidarity he has heard back home, and on the march, been just a perverse kind of propaganda? Where is the road leading, finally?

The main thing at this time is not hypothetical: he needs food. Passing what looks to be an abandoned small-holding, he stumbles through the strands of a barbed-wire fence and in sheer desperation chases and catches hold of a rooster, wrings its neck and that night puts it on a fire, with its feathers, to roast. He has come across a flask on a stone wall by the road, opened but full of water. Anything could be in it but he is unfussy now about where his sustenance is coming from. As he sits gazing at the scrappy fire, smoking with the feathers he has left in it, he thinks again of turning around and going home. Fiddling in his inner pockets, he finds a mobile phone which one of the young mercenaries must have left on him as an obscure joke. When he turns it on a brief message, an obscenity, appears on its screen before rapidly fading out. There is no power in the phone, and no-one he could call in any case, unless he try Libero himself. But what could he say to Libero? – ask him why they have been left abandoned, an untrained, unruly, under-aged gang armed with dangerous weapons? What could that taciturn man say to him?

It is a disturbing coincidence that the day after the revolutionary has been speculating on these things, he comes across the body of Libero by the side of the road, with a bullet-wound in his heart and charcoal burnt into his chest. His left arm stands awkwardly half in the air, the two intact fingers pointing to that eternal, untouched victory that has been denied him. His eyes are closed, his military cap low down over his ears. Someone has made some effort in burning a word into his bared chest: it says traitor in capital letters. But it is signed, as if a casual afterthought, with an L., as if with love. Libero has been false to some ideal, apparently, but still sent off with some affection afforded him.

The revolutionary considers that it could only be his own betrayer, Lena, who could have done it. Has she thought that Libero, with his mixed messages and scrambled phone-calls, his changes of strategy and odd, speechless moods, could have been working for the enemy? Such a thing is possible, but he can hardly see Lena then committing this ugly and tasteless act of defamation. If she has felt true fidelity, even love for him, it might explain, as outrage, the intensity of her feelings. Has she loved him, though, or anyone besides herself? Has love entered into any kind of equation in the act?

Rhetorical questions swarm like flies in the revolutionary’s mind. It seems there is only one direction to go, which is, willingly, into deeper and deeper ignorance. The more he considers this, though, the more it offers him a strange comfort of failure. He can watch his own lack of knowledge and be sure of it, at least. That’s how it is so easy, he thinks, for injustice to pass through the net of conscience – if no-one is entirely certain of what is occurring it can quietly be allowed to pass through. He can feel confident, despite this, that his is the right kind of injustice, the ignorance that fights for the right side.

At nights there are occasional displays of a beautiful fireworks of carnage on the distant horizon. He looks over there and imagines what kind of horrors, and spectacular glories, could be going on. He has, all his life, wondered and fantasised, stimulated by constant, lurid report, of what happens, over there, beyond his own horizon. Now, finally, he feels he is close to really finding out.

His foot still feels numb, even dead, in his shoe. He wonders if it is the cause of his curious lethargy the closer he approaches to the revolution. The phone is in his inner-pocket and it sends him no call, no message, no clue to pursue. It could, of course, have been Luis, as well, who has done the work on Libero. Luis who has been spurned by the older man, who might have been like a father to him, who could have hidden not far from their camp after defecting from it, pursuing the other two on their escape until an opportune moment presented itself. The burning of the word, too, is a romantic gesture. But Luis was a scared, feeble man, not likely to commit that type of violence.

The revolutionary can’t be sure. He can’t be sure of anything, and certainly not of the motives of other people. They have escaped his confidence entirely. He feels more faith with the mice and rabbits on the roadside, than anything else. He feels that his own, innocent foot might end up being the thing to kill him.

Late in the day, though, as he comes closer to the outskirts of the town in conflagration, the exquisite red flashes of mortal destruction leading him on, the revolutionary sees a figure at the far end of the road, framed by the purple, dusky sky, the unnatural light of the fire and smoke, lifted high in the air, behind it. It could be Lena, it could be Luis – the brother or the sister – he isn’t sure. He doesn’t desire the one, nor pity the other, anymore – he knows that. But the figure, vaguely familiar, seems to call for his help, with beckoning arms, desperate hands flagged against the failing sky. He has thought, before now, to go home, turn around and leave all this uncertainty, the obscure danger shrouded around him, for good. But the figure in front, far down there, seems to call for him in need, though it could be for something else, he can’t be sure.

It seems to need him, the figure, as if the last soul left at the edge of an inferno. So the revolutionary moves toward it.

1.XII.2006