We must implement comprehensive action program that is not restricted to conditions laid down in UNHRC Resolution only

By Victor Ivan

It is correct for Sri Lanka to express its protest against the US sponsored United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution against Sri Lanka. Yet, the government had apparently failed to mobilize the protest move in a manner conducive to safeguarding the dignity of the country.

The government’s approach has resulted in causing considerable damage to the good image of the country. The heated debate that was launched against the decision of the UNHRC was eventually brought to a climax with the Minister Mervin Silva suddenly entering the limelight assuming the anchor role of the protest move.

The sentiments generated in the world community by the public utterances made by the Minister Mervin Silva claiming the responsibility for the assault on Poddala Jayantha that forced the latter to flee the country and his assertion that he would not hesitate to punish even others who made representations at the UNHRC against Sri Lanka can in no way be considered beneficial to the country. These utterances no doubt have portrayed uncivilized imageries about Sri Lanka in the minds of the international community.

Similarly, there is no possible justification for a team of Sri Lankan human rights activists to testify before the UNHRC supporting the alleged human rights allegations against Sri Lanka, particularly when the human rights issue has become a crucial issue which may have deeper and more far reaching repercussions on the future of the country.

Yet, the policy adopted by certain TV channels controlled by the government targeting these activists has been extremely unreasonable. It created a fertile ground to provoke these activists. The verbal assaults on them were conducive to kindling hatred in them. Obviously, the injurious criticisms levelled against them would not have contributed to create a good feeling about the country in the minds of the listeners, particularly when this process entered the arena of world news

The clarification of the government’s policy in regard to the Resolution that was adopted by the UNHRC now remains most significant and crucial. In the immediate aftermath of the adoption of the Resolution, the reactions of the government leaders were hostile and emotional; this trend now seems to be slowly changing. They appear to be returning to their proper senses and viewing it more objectively.

We must not forget that it might lead to a great catastrophe unless the situation is reviewed calmly and objectively and bring the emotional reactions under control. Failure to manage this crisis appropriately might even result in the country being thrust into an enormous blood bath again at some point of time.

It might even create a situation which is conducive to dividing the country in the absence of a Prabhakaran. If Sri Lanka fails to adopt an intelligent and diplomatic approach on this issue, the country might ironically be confronted not with the Western countries led by the USA, but by its immediate neighbour, India which is emerging as super power in addition to being the regional power

The foreign policy of the present government seems to be based on the assumption that the balance of power is currently shifting to the advantage of an alternate camp led by China and to the disadvantage of the Western camp which is led by the USA. In the circumstance, it can be presumed that certain theoreticians who are close to the ruling party may have ingested the Rajapakse government with the notion that there was no need for Sri Lanka to maintain a close cooperation with the Western power bloc led by the USA. There may be some truth in this proposition which appears to be revolutionary in its approach. But viewed from a holistic angle it cannot be treated as being a correct approach.

Despite there being an element of truth in the assertion that there has been a relapse in the strength of the western power bloc led by the USA, it cannot, however, be presumed that there would be a rapid change in the balance of power soon. On the other hand, this approach emphasizes China as the only alternate power that is emerging; it has completely ignored the importance of India in this process. In the present context, it is a fact that China is extremely powerful.

Similarly, India has also entered into the path of acquiring the status of being a super power. In this power contest between China and India, India appears to be acquiring more benefits that surpass those of China.

Though China remains the most populated country at present, the future population forecasts predict that India will surpass China in the next three decades and become the most populated country in the world. Further, at the end of the next two decades, the demographic character of the two countries will change drastically with China having a larger share of elderly population and India representing a larger share of the younger population.

In view of the fact that China has invested its surplus gains in the USA and the Western countries, any likely depression in the West will inevitably have a destructive impact on China. China is primarily involved in producing goods for foreign markets while India is still more engaged in producing goods mainly for its domestic market than for exports. India therefore, has a greater potential for endurance in the event of an economic slump than China.

Moreover, India has a strong democratic system of government which is flexible and capable of facing any internal crisis. On the contrary, China has a communist dictatorship based on coercion and arbitrary force of power. In proportion to the increase in the per capita income in China, the aspirations of the Chinese people in acquiring democratic rights too, might go up. Under those circumstances, the political unrest that is likely occur at any point of time can prove to be an important factor undermining the political stability of China.

There is another important consideration that we must not overlook; in the event of a shift in the world power that is at present being held by the USA and its Western allies, it is more likely that they would cooperate more with India than with China. This is because India, more or less shares the same or similar values that the USA and the Western countries uphold. In managing the present crisis, Sri Lanka obviously has failed to recognize this fact in its correct perspective and the position that India enjoys in a likely shift of balance of world power.

This does not imply that Sri Lanka should get closer to India abandoning China which has always extended its support to us. Instead, we must give due recognition to the importance of the Indian factor and adopt a balanced policy of reinforcing Indo-Lanka ties whilst at the same time retaining the relations that we have developed with China. As a country, we must take cognizance of the fact that we are compelled to live at the edge of India and not that of China. On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that there is an ethnic community living in Sri Lanka, about which South India is extremely sensitive.

The geographical location of Sri Lanka is an important factor that aggravated the crisis the country is faced with. It is located on a major sea route of strategic importance. It is because of these factors that Sri Lanka has become a specific focus in the context of international geo- politics. Sea freight constitutes a major share of the international goods transportation today. Obviously, Sri Lanka does not seem to have given due consideration to these factors in formulating its foreign policy.

As a country, there is no need for us to stoop down before any force, however powerful it may be. Yet, we must be mindful of our limits when we attach importance to ourselves and in our dealings with the other countries. If we forget our limits, invariably we may end up in a situation analogous to what happened to the frog which bloated itself out of proportion. We must bear in mind that we do not have the strength to defeat the world powers just because we have been able to defeat Prabhakaran.

National Sovereignty is a political concept to which we attach utmost importance. It implies the authority that the state enjoys in managing its affairs both internal and external. It embraces the discretion and the right of the state in determining the affairs of every sphere of governanance which include political affairs, formulation of laws, social organization, system of governance, economic development, foreign trade and foreign affairs in a manner as it thinks fit and without being subjected to and dictated to by any foreign authority.

However, the national sovereignty of a country is not an absolute notion. It is a relative issue. The world consists of not just one country; it is a conglomeration of hundreds of independent countries. Just as much as the group impacts on restricting the individual freedom within permissible limits, the conglomeration of national states equally impacts on limiting the sovereignty of the national states.

Sri Lanka is an independent and sovereign country. But at the same time it has to forego its sovereignty to a certain degree by virtue of being a member country of the UN. This is not a situation unique to Sri Lanka only. It is an inherent situation shared by all nations which are members of the UN. Though we have a right to manage our national affairs at our discretion, we are at the same time legally bound by international law to abide by the agreements that we have entered into with the UN in managing these affairs and safeguarding certain morals and ethical standards.

The UN is not an infallible institution. There are many instances where it has not delivered justice fairly and equally for its members alike. There were several occasions where it had adopted a dual policy, one favouring the powerful countries and one discriminating against the weaker nations. Yet, merely because of these drawbacks in the system, we cannot afford to ignore its authority. We do not have the ability to do so. We cannot afford to resign from the UN and maintain an isolated existence. We must take due cognizance of these realities while addressing the present crisis that the country is compelled to face.

Of the various agreements Sri Lanka has entered into with the UN, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be described as being the most important and powerful commitment. It is concerned with the policies to be complied with by Sri Lanka as a member country in respect of the rights of the people living in the country. It safeguards the right of the people of the member countries to live, right to be free from slavery, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, right to assembly, right to travel, right to privacy, right to be prevented from arbitrary arrest and right to expression

It is natural that the world powers were surprised to see the total defeat of the LTTE which remained a ruthless terrorist outfit of the first order, by the security forces of Sri Lanka. The pro LTTE Tamil Diaspora was shocked to see this unexpected defeat. It is also natural for the international community to look at the government of Sri Lanka and its security forces with a certain element of suspicion

The government of Sri Lanka and its security forces won this war keeping them to acceptable civilized norms of warfare. Obviously, it was not pursued beyond the object of defeating terrorism. It was never turned into a campaign of taking revenge against the Tamil people. There might have been isolated incidents of excesses on the part of the security forces, but the volume of such errors was rather negligible compared to the magnitude and enormity of the war.

The most important thing has been that the USA had followed the last phase of the war through satellite technology. Despite the government successfully defeating the LTTE through a military offensive, it did not have an effective strategy to counter allegations which were likely to be raised by international circles through respective committees of the UN or the General Assembly. In these circumstance, one could argue that an assessment of the damages caused by the war should have been made. However, what the UNHRC has done to Sri Lanka cannot be justified since the war it self was not illegal.

The government obviously has failed to fulfil this requirement. In the modern world, it is natural for the international circles to raise questions whenever a war is concluded in any part of the world. Specially, it was not unnatural for the Tamil Diaspora which is extremely strong, active and sympathetic towards the LTTE to raise issues in this respect. The government was unable to foresee this threat and launch an effective and practical propaganda campaign to face the situation.

It is also natural for the UN to raise questions in this regard. We should not have been oblivious to the fact that the UN constitutes the main body of international governance. The government should have adopted diplomatic and logical approaches in responding to the questions raised by the UN rather than letting emotions and anger hold sway. But what Sri Lanka has done is the exact opposite of that.

Soon after the war came to an end, the pro LTTE Tamil Diaspora and some Western countries made serious allegations against Sri Lanka. A large section of the world community viewed them with a sympathetic eye on Sri Lanka. In 2009, when the pro LTTE alliance demanded the UNHRC to appoint an international commission against Sri Lanka, 32 member countries (62 percent) out of 47 members of the UNHRC came out in support of Sri Lanka to defeat the demand.

However, Sri Lanka was unable to consolidate and strengthen this positive international support which it mustered in 2009 to its advantage. Instead of adopting a consistent policy of enlightening the friendly countries and consolidating their alliances, the government abandoned the campaign completely until the US brought up the Resolution once again in 2012. By that time the horse had already left the stable.

It is a fallacy to say that Sri Lanka was defeated by only one vote. 24 countries voted for the Resolution proposed by the US while only 15 countries voted against it. 8 countries abstained from voting. From 2009 to 2012 Sri Lanka had lost 17 votes. This reflects that there has been a significant drop in the number of countries that were supportive to Sri Lanka. We have desperately failed to retain the favourable position that we commanded in 2009.

This pathetic situation is a direct consequence of the inability of Sri Lanka to adopt a proper vision or an organized campaign subsequent to the defeat of the LTTE to face the propaganda war that was launched in the international arena by the LTTE sympathizers. For this the Government in general and both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Ministry should be held responsible.

Adopting a pragmatic approach in responding to allegations and pursuing arguments and dialogues with the UN in a spirit of diplomacy remains the main responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yet, it did not adopt a policy that would have resolved this issue amicably. Instead, the policy adopted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his Ministry has aggravated the problem beyond its legitimate proportions.

In fact, we must appreciate that the Ministry of Defence accomplished its duties and responsibilities well when the military offensive was launched against the LTTE. On the contrary, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has failed to perform his duties and responsibilities satisfactorily in confronting the propaganda war that emerged subsequently, in the international arena with the backing of the western countries. Under the circumstances, despite Sri Lanka being able to win the war against the LTTE led by Prabakaran, it can be presumed that it has lost the propaganda war launched by the Tamil Diaspora sympathetic to the LTTE.

The most important thing that should be borne in mind is that the Resolution proposed by the US against Sri Lanka, remained an American proposal only till March 22 and since then it has ceased to be an American Resolution. Since March 22 it has acquired the status of a UN Resolution. It is no longer an American product but a UN Resolution. Therefore there are three options open to Sri Lanka in this crisis. They are as follows;

1. Reject the Resolution

2. Implement the Resolution

3. Implement a comprehensive program of action without restricting it only to the conditions laid down in the Resolution.

The first option can be described as self destructive and suicidal. It may even lead the country to a blood bath again and even a division of the country in the absence of a Prabhakaran.

There is nothing wrong in the second option. But it lacks creativity. It might appear as something is being done because of the external pressure and not in good faith and genuine concern for resolving the problem.

The third option is conducive to building a new and a strong image for the country. It will take the problem as a whole and offer an inclusive and holistic approach to finding a sustainable and far reaching solutions to many issues rather than finding piecemeal remedies for only certain aspects of it.

It will prove to be a creative approach which is not restricted only to this crisis. Rather it will take both the present political system and the current crisis together as a common program in a bid to reshape and recreate the state of Sri Lanka in a new mould.

Such a programme cannot be implemented only by the government. All opposition parties also should join hands with the government. No one should be excluded and all made stakeholders in this endeavour. In my view, the third option remains the best.

Eulogising Lester James Peries

LJP, the greatest living Asian filmmaker, one of the greatest in the world, is the undisputed – but eminently disputable – Father of the Sinhala Film. I have before me as I write a newspaper clipping from the Ceylon Daily News which I have preserved from 1956. It is titled: The "Sinhalese Film is Born". It is a review of LJP’s first film Rekawa by M.De S i.e. the redoubtable journalist Mervyn De Silva. A critic who could be vitriolic if necessary, he was not wont to issue certificates lightly. To set the record straight, the first (silent) Sinhala film (called Rajakeeya Wickramaya) starring N.M. Perera (yes, the one and only political double-doctor Nanayakkarapathirage Martin Perera, then aged 20 and stunningly good-looking) had been filmed in 1925. The first Sinhala talkie (Broken Promise), chronologically the third Sinhala film, had come out in 1947. Serially LJP’s Rekawa was the 41st Sinhala film. Yet M.De S, put his reputation on the line and publicly proclaimed that with the arrival of Rekawa, "The Sinhalese film is born". In order to justify his seemingly outrageous arithmetical howler M.De S first identified "pictures in motion" as the medium of the art of the cinema, the technical instrument of which is the camera. Next, he dismissed all Sinhala films produced before Rekawa as nothing other than photographed (decadent) theater. "Rekawa, on the contrary" argued M.De S "does justice to the essential nature of the cinema". Then came his final ultimate judgment on Rekawa: "It is, I repeat the first Sinhalese film".


Visionary


However that may be, by way of preparation for writing this eulogy, I thumbed once again through the fascinating book "Lester by Lester as told to kumar de silva" published in 2007. Even on re-reading, the book proved unputdownable. The blinding clarity of LJP’s unadorned, straightforward prose takes my breath away. Frank and drily witty, a playful intelligence pervades his commentary on his 20 films. Truly, if LJP had not become the Father of the Sinhala film, his claim to fame would have been as Sri Lanka’s finest stylist in the English language. Fortunately for Sinhala cinema, the temptation of the camera triumphed over the lure of the pen. He had a clear vision of the future of the Sinhala cinema: "The future of our industry will depend upon the extent to which we use the stories which are rooted in our own soil; stories which portray our own people, their hopes, their fears and aspirations, and in our own beautiful landscapes and settings. Our film can never be called truly Sinhalese until all the pernicious foreign influences which have dominated them are ruthlessly stamped out…" He has freely admitted that "there was a nationalist feeling behind my thinking which I think motivated me." Which proves that you can genuinely serve your country and your people even if you are "English only" in practical life.


Paternity


It should be noted that LJP, the first and possibly the last true gentleman (in the original English sense of the word) in the world of Sinhala film, has never claimed paternity of the Sinhala film. His acute brain apprehends the reality that in those far-off, pre-DNA days paternity (unlike maternity which is a palpable fact) would always be a theory. After all, conventional wisdom is, "mama’s baby, papa’s maybe!". The paternity of the Sinhala film has been thrust upon him, and the good Samaritan he unfailingly was and is, he is left holding the baby. In that context, it will not pass unnoticed that the opening sentence of this eulogy forthrightly declares that LJP’s fatherhood of the Sinhala film is "eminently disputable". How come? you will ask. Well, it’s like this. By self- proclamation LJP is "an Anglo Saxon, English oriented person". He was born (on 5 April 1919) and bred in an out-and-out Roman Catholic family. Culturally, he was anglicized to his teeth under the beneficent influence of his cricket-playing, horse-betting, Edinburgh-educated western doctor (Dr. James Francis Peries) who was totally anglophilic. Says LJP of his father: "All his life my father never spoke one word of Sinhala to us". LJP himself speaks of his "love for the English language". His mother – Anne Gertrude Winifred – had been the first girl from St. Bridget’s Convent to pass the Senior Cambridge Examination. LJP’s only use of the Sinhala language was to talk with his paternal grandmother who spoke only Sinhala. Having gone to London in 1945 when he returned home from England after 7 years his language ability in Sinhala had been "almost non-existent". To crown it all he had married an English woman. Given this background, LJP himself was acutely aware of what he called these "severe disqualifications" for siring the Sinhala Film. To this day LJP, although sensitive to the emotional nuances of the Sinhala language has barely spoken in Sinhala in public. It is as though he wanted to make a certain point beyond any manner of doubt. The point as he put it is that "language was the last thing one needed to make a film. One does not make films in Sinhala or Tamil, but in the language of cinema".


Language Resource Persons


It is true to say that LJP Sri Lanka’s avant-garde film maker is a born storyteller. "I have no problems at all with storytelling. Creating stories is the least of my problems… Deep down my feelings for cinema was not so much for documentaries as for fiction". And so it came about that his 20 films from Rekawa (The Line of Destiny, 1956) to Ammawarune (Elegy for a Mother, 2006) are all marvelous stories. Remembering his "severe disqualifications" he hit upon a surefire method of choosing good stories for his films. Everywhere men and women are not only members of the species called Homo sapiens with species-specific characteristics, but also products of their particular environment and nurture. They are, indeed, "abstracts and chronicles" of the places they were born; the homes in which they grew up and learnt to walk, the games they played as children, the food they ate, the schools they attended, the books they read, the music they listen to, the songs they sang, the gods they believed in and the old wives’tales they heard. As the language resource persons for his films LJP turned to the nation’s most literate people like Martin Wickramasinghe, G.B. Senanayake, Karunasena Jayalath, Eileen Siriwardhane, Regi Siriwardane, Tissa Abeysekera, Somaweera Senanayake and A.J. Gunawardena. For good measure he also used Leonard Woolf and Anton Chekhov. The truth is that understanding the language of cinema as he did, LJP could have made authentic Sinhala films even with double Dutch. The stories he himself created such as Rekawa, Sandeshaya, Delowak Athara and Ammawarune are superbly crafted. Indeed, by his own submission, LJP is a storyteller at heart, who tells his story with a camera.


Plaudits


The fascinating story of how his 20 films were made is recounted in "Lester by Lester" and it would be an act of impertinent insolence on the part of an old medic like me to spoil the luminous clarity of his story by any commentary. In this eulogy written to celebrate the 93rd anniversary of a living master of the cinema let me simply say that by his ability to fuse mass appeal and stylistic mastery of his medium he has made Sinhala film an art form that people of this country have warmly embraced. It says something for the Father of the Sinhala film that he not only created the Sinhala film in 1956 in terms of theme, content, narrative style and mode of presentation but also succeeded in inducing in our filmgoers the capacity to respond sensitively to the art of the cinema. He himself took the art form to the highest possible levels. As Prof. Wimal Dissanayake, Sri Lanka’s internationally accomplished expert on the art of the cinema has judged: "LJP has garnered all the possible honors locally as well as the highest plaudits internationally".


Sumitra the Mother


By his own account LJP made his first film Rekawa "to do a simple village story". Because Sinhala culture is predominantly a Buddhist culture, a realistic film about a Sinhala village must surely give at least some inkling of its vibrant extant Buddhism. In Rekawa there isn’t a trace of Buddhism. Critics castigated him for this grave and glaring lapse. LJP, anglicized and Roman Catholic to the marrow of his bones, has simply ignored its existence. On the other hand, his last film Ammawarune is saturated with Buddhist sentiment. I believe that Sumitra Gunawardane who hails from the revolutionary Boralugoda Gunawardanes of Sithawaka and learnt cinema art in London and Paris and married LJP in 1964 unconsciously effected the phenomenal attitudinal transformation of LJP. She first met LJP in Paris in 1957 when he went there to organize the presentation of Rekawa at Cannes Film Festival. At that point she hadn’t even bothered to find out who LJP was. I believe that it was she who played the major role in helping LJP to discover his roots and regain his lost heritage necessary for siring the Sinhala film for the greater glory of the Sinhala cinema. So in a vital sense Sumitra Peries is truly the Mother of the Father of the Sinhala film.

Oil, Coal, Gas and Carbon: Fundamental Truths From Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous people know the reality of fossil energy.   The Shuar peoples of Amazonian Ecuador, under whose territories lie huge reserves of oil. Unlike those eager to find oil in their territories, have rejected exploration, they do not want to get rich on selling oil.  They have a saying “Oil’ represents the sprits of a long dead world, that we use to satisfy our greed for power and sacrifice and our children in return.” (CESR 1996).  Here lies a truth that cannot be escaped when looking at climate change.  But in this statement there also lies wisdom, a truth, which if appreciated will clarify the actions needed to address the spectre of climate change. Their wisdom is that, they are aware of the difference between the spirits of the living world and the dead.  They know that, asking for power from the spirits of the dead world has a great price, often they seeking the lives of our own children.


What does this dead and living world mean? Does it have any relevance in modern science?


Carbon that cycles through living systems represents a fixed proportion of the planetary carbon. This carbon called ‘biotic’ or living carbon has a very different makeup to other sources of carbon. The biotic carbon cycling in the planetary biosphere is measured in time cycles of thousands of years. This carbon is activated by the energy of the sun fixed by living things.  There is another pool of carbon, which is the ‘lithospheric’ or fossil carbon. This is carbon that once existed in the biosphere, but died and was buried underground where they reside for time periods measured in millions of years. This ‘dead’ carbon has no contact with the world of living carbon. Over geologic time vast quantities of carbon sequestered by living forms became fossilized and removed from the biotic/atmospheric cycles to become distilled as the ‘spirits of a long dead world.’


It is the failure to recognize the two significantly different pools of Carbon and their functions and values within the biosphere that has led to much of the confusion when considering the utility of biotic systems under the current rules that determine carbon markets.


Carbon from biotic pools can be accommodated under the current trading agreements, as they will help to slow down the turnover rate of carbon in the atmosphere.  Carbon from fossil pools can only be considered under the current trading regimes by technologies that curb emissions at the source or by a financial mechanism that accounts for the time differential between the two pools. In other words, carbon dioxide emanating from forest or other ecosystem destruction can be compensated for by planting trees at the current cost, but carbon dioxide emanating from the burning of fossil fuels cannot pay the same price to compensate.


It is now clear that fossil Carbon and biotic Carbon have extremely different sinks and need to be valued differentially when considering the impact on the global biosphere. While the carbon balance of the planet has been greatly modified by post-industrial human activity such as massive deforestation, it is the ‘fossil injection’ that introduces the disruptive, increasing, increment of ‘new’ carbon into the atmosphere.


These facts, underscore the great danger of accepting the consumption on fossil fuels as a tool for ‘development’. Once a nation or economy has become ‘fossil addicted’, they are willing to sacrifice their own well-being and the well-being of others to feed their addiction.


Here the sayings of the Shuar are pertinent. “Oil’ represents the sprits of a long dead world, that we use to satisfy our greed for power and sacrifice and our children in return.” The consequences of addicting ourselves to oil dependency, are already clear, the soaring price of living and the soaring rates of non-communicable (development) diseases, are clear indicators of the price that we and our children will have to pay.


Recognizing the distinction between fossil and biotic carbon and placing differential values on each, will go a long way to expose these addicted economies and assist nations such as ours to avoid the pitfalls.  The amount of oil, coal or gas required for the creation and operation of future ‘development’ projects should become basic criteria for acceptance or rejection of future ‘development’ projects.


Thus, in evaluating all ‘development’ proposals, it will be good to consider a caution expressed in all traditional societies:  ‘Oppose serving of the spirits of the dead’ (boothyas), or in today’s words, do not get trapped into the belief that the consumption of fossil energy and resources means development (promoted by modern boothyas),  Such actions will bring the spirits of the dead (fossil)  into our living world (biotic) and degrade the quality of life for our children most horribly ! Development diseases such as cancer, stress, lung diseases, heart diseases and diabetes have not only reached epidemic proportions but are now also reaching down to the children.  The rate of growth of these diseases amongst the younger segment of our population should create some national soul searching and response, Is this growth in fossil addiction the right development model for Sri Lanka ?

People can have freedom while not being liberated but they cannot be liberated while not having freedom

By Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

‘Liberation’ (Viduthalai in Tamil and Vimukthi in Sinhalese) has come to mean many things to many Tamils of Sri Lanka. What the word means to any individual or a group of people under normal circumstances, will depend on what they need to be liberated from.

At the level of an individual, liberation may be sought from ignorance, foolishness, poverty, disease, anger, bigotry, ego, arrogance, karmic cycles of birth and death, etc.

The cultural background and religious beliefs, social and economic conditions, and political inclinations (e.g., communist vs. capitalist) will determine the type of liberation being sought by a group of people.

The liberation sought can be of a single dimension or multiple dimensions. Within the context of a larger struggle for liberation such as ours, several sub-struggles may take place.

There can be simultaneously a struggle by the so-called low castes to be liberated from the oppression of the so-called higher castes, a struggle by women to be liberated from their traditional roles in society and the struggle of the have-nots to be liberated from want.

Liberation is a struggle that has to continuously take place within a free people, to overthrow a past that has become a burden (Dreary desert of dead habit- Tagore) and achieve a future that is promising.

Liberation is needed to over throw oppression and oppression can be of varying intensities. Only a free people can seek liberation. Slaves will never be able to seek liberation. They have to seek freedom first.

To most people living in the trouble prone areas of Sri Lanka, especially for those living in the North-East, the Tamil liberation struggle has come to signify only liberation from life- death.

Freedom (Suthanthiram in Tamil and Nidhas in Sinhala) and liberation are frequently understood to mean the same by many, and this is understandable. However, they are different. A people can have freedom, while not being liberated. But they cannot be liberated, while not having freedom.

The differences are subtle but profound. We gained ‘Freedom’ from the British, but subsequently sought to be ‘Liberated’ from the Sinhalese. By extension we were not ‘Free’ during colonial rule and were not ‘Oppressed’; and have been ‘Free’ in the post-independence era, but claim to be ‘Oppressed’. This is rather contradictory. If we did not have freedom during the colonial era, we could not have been without oppression.

We have equated the greater material opportunities available to us during the colonial era, with a lack of oppression. We were enticed with economic incentives to learn English, Latin and Greek, and to call the Tamil language teachers, ’Vernacular teachers’.

We were ready to become ‘Little Englishmen’ and mimic their ways. We were taught to look down on our language and culture. Our elite were proud they were more fluent and conversant in English than in Tamil. Tamil became a language to be spoken with servants and those below their station in life, for our elite.

However, we prospered as a minority within the country. True, no one let loose thugs and the armed forces on us during the British colonial era and wreaked havoc in our lives.

This was because we were an obedient, pliant people basking in the colonial sunlight! We were enjoying the rights of good slaves, because we were obedient, hard working and mendacious! We never challenged their right to rule and enslave us.

We were made to become different and what we were not, by various tools the British expertly used. We were the fish the British expertly hooked with attractive bait. However, we were neither free nor liberated. A hooked fish can swim to the limits of the line and may think it is yet swimming.

However, the truth is that it is yet hooked and can be hauled out of water any time to die. This situation can also be compared to a gold fish kept in a fish bowl. It is fed once or twice a day. The bowl is cleaned regularly and new water provided. The gold fish looks fat, sleek and healthy. But is it free? Is it not oppressed? Can it go where it wants and eat what it wants? Can it seek a mate it wants?

This was our life during the ‘Golden era’ of colonialism, when we think we thrived and prospered. There were limits to what we could do and aspire to. We were not free to seek what we needed. We were set on a particular course that met the needs of the British. We accepted this without protest and mistook it for ultimate bliss.

We did not also use the freedom, independence from the British provided, to seek a new and different future. We wanted the status-quo to continue in all aspects of our lives. We wanted to continue being the fish on the hook or the gold fish in the bowl.

We did not know where we wanted to go and did not have the leaders with vision to tell us where we should go. While the rest of Sri Lanka was awakening to new vistas that independence provided and sought to exploit it to their benefit, we were caught in a time warp and craved for a past that was no more.

We were not a dynamic community seeking to liberate ourselves from a colonial past and seek a modern future.

The colonization schemes, Sinhala only blitz, standardization of marks for admission to the universities, nationalization programs and constitutional experiments of the Sinhala polity were part of the attempts to assert their independence and identity, however mistaken, mischievous, misguided, malicious and short sighted these acts were from a national point of view.

The two JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna- Peoples Liberation Movement) armed revolts were directed at the failures of the ruling establishment.

The JVP had a vision different from that of the ruling establishment for Sri Lanka and the Sinhala people. The established system and the nature of politics in Sri Lanka left no room for democratic dissent, discussion and enlightened decision making, even among the Sinhala majority.

The JVP revolts although largely founded on reasonable grievances, failed because they were carried out in the wrong way and over stepped acceptable norms. The tactics adopted by the JVP were wrong and not consonant with the cultural and religious ethos of the Sinhala people.

Although the Sinhala people were sympathetic to the grievances articulated by the JVP, they did not accept the violent methods used. Hence, these revolts did not resonate with the vast majority of the people. This gave the opportunity for the establishment to mercilessly crush both revolts and continue in the ways it was wont to.

The Sri Lankan ruling establishment, dominated by the Sinhalese, has reacted in the same way to the JVP revolts and the Tamil militancy- brutally, short-sightedly, insensitively and unwisely, without any attempt to resolve the underlying causes. The JVP has now re-invented itself as a regular political party in the conventional Sri Lankan mould and has become an important share holder in the very establishment it revolted against!

Subramanya Bharathy (Bharathiyar) in his song titled ‘Viduthalai (Liberation)’ celebrates the liberation that will be achieved by people belonging to various castes who were oppressed within Indian society, on gaining freedom from the British

“ Viduathali, viduthalai, viduthalai, Parayarukkum, ingu theeya pulayarukkum viduthalai, Maravarodu, kuravarukkum—–etc.,” (Tamil)

He also asks a rhetorical question, “Whether those seeking a ‘Brave Freedom’ (Veera Suthanthiram) will think of anything else?” elsewhere in his poetry. The subtle distinction between freedom and liberation has been enunciated beautifully by Bharathiyar.

Where as the following lines from a Saivite hymn widely known to Hindu Tamils, combines the concepts of liberation, freedom and courage, into a composite whole, and underlines a different dimension of thought that influenced the lives of Tamils

“Naam Yaarkum Kudiyallaum- Namanai Anjaum, Narahathil Idapadaum, —-“(Tamil)

—-“We are not anyone’s slaves,Will not fear even Yama (The God of death) and,Will not be condemned to Hell—- (Translation).

Not being anyone’s slave is freedom and not having to fear even Yama, is liberation! Refusing to be condemned to hell is courage indeed! Where do we Tamils now stand in the context of these thoughts that have permeated our lives, from childhood?

We have a cultural and religious heritage that behooves us to do what is ‘Right’ (Aram- Tamil), while standing up courageously for freedom and liberation. We have lost our way some how. We are overwhelmed by fear of every kind imaginable, have lost our freedom to do what is ‘Right ‘ and have pliantly accepted ‘Hell’ as a lifestyle.

Yes, we have been misgoverned by the Sinhala majority in Sri Lanka. They were definitely not ‘Right’. We had the right to resist and revolt against mis-government. We had the right to demand liberation from the oppression of mis-governance. We had the right to fight back when thugs and the armed forces were let loose on us.

We had the right to demand that we be permitted to manage our own affairs. We had also the right to demand a separate state, if a majority of us thought that was a solution to our problems. The freedom to do all these things was our birth right, in independent Sri Lanka.

However, these rights should have been exercised within the context of what is ‘RIGHT (ARAM)’. We have miserably failed to do so and are presently paying a rather heavy price for this folly. We made a Faustian bargain with the devil and have become the victims of this deal. We forsook what was ‘Right’ and permitted our lives to be directed by what is ‘Wrong’.

This is where we have failed. Mahatma Gandhi and a majority of the Indians did not make a Faustian bargain with the devil when they sought freedom for India, nor did Nelson Mandela and his people in South Africa, when they wanted freedom from white rule and liberation from apartheid. They were great leaders and a great people. What are we?

We are at present keeping score of the dead like in a sporting event, in a macabre fashion, with no end in sight for the match. We itch to start a war and do everything possible to instigate one.

Thereafter, if we kill more than the armed forces in any one day, we cheer. If the armed forces kill more of us, we cry foul. We have ceased to value human life and are not appalled at the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in what is increasingly becoming a futile war.

Deaths have become the measure of success and failure in our liberation struggle. In success, which means that ‘Others’ have died more, we claim a trophy and seek monetary rewards, from those who support us. In failure, which would obviously involve more Tamil deaths, these deaths become our ‘Beggar’s wound’, to attract more support and money.

Our liberation struggle has become a successful money spinning operation in both success and failure, involving principally death! What have we achieved other than death, misery and destruction for all people in Sri Lanka, including us Tamils, through our liberation struggle of twenty five years ? We kill fellow-Tamils and our natural allies- the Tamil speaking Muslims, without any compunction, in the name of liberation.

We kill and are ready to kill any Sinhalese, as a perceived enemy. It is to be noted that more Tamils have died and have become destitute since the advent of this liberation struggle, than our perceived enemies! We have become degenerate and cruel to an extent that it is becoming shameful to be identified as a Sri Lankan Tamil.

What is ‘Right’ is ‘Might’ and this is a lesson we never learned, and probably will never learn, considering what we have become and the type of leaders we have accepted.

From a religious angle, as Hindus we want to be liberated from the karmic cycle of birth and death to attain union with the ‘Supreme or Universal Spirit’, we call God. This would require that we follow a path of ‘Aram’. The first thing taught to Tamil child with the first alphabet ‘Aana’ in Tamil is’

‘Aram Seiya Virumbu’-Auvaiyar
(Desire to do what is ‘Right’-Translation).

The word ‘Aram’ has been beautifully defined by Thiruvalluvar in the following couplets:

“Allukkaru, Avaa, Vehuli, Innaachol- Ivai Naankum,Illukkaa Iyandrathu Aram”

A life lived free of evil thoughts, excessive desire, anger & unpleasant words is Aram-(Translation).

“Aran Enapaduwathu Yaathenil- Yaathondrum,Theemai Illathu Seyal”

Aram is when your actions are absolutely harmless (Translation).

“Maranthum Piran Khedhu Seiyatka-Seiyin, Aram Soolum Soolthavan Khedu”

Aram will punish those who even unconsciously contemplate harming others (Translation).

“ Aravinai Yaathenil Khollaamai-Koeril, Pira Vinnai Ellaam Tharum”
Not killing is an act of Aram. Killing brings in its wake a multitude of bad results (Translation).

“Aravaali Anthanan Thaal Serntharku Allaal-Pirravaali, Neenthal Arithu”Unless one surrenders at the feet of the ‘One who is the epitome of Aram (God)’,

It will be very difficult to cross the sea of life (Translation).

The God we worship is one who is ‘Absolutely Right’ and to seek union with Him-Her, and escape the cycles of birth and death, we have to do what is ‘Right’. This is the essence of our religious beliefs as Saivite Hindus.

Thiruvalluvar once again says:

“Piravi Perum Kadal Neenthuvar- Neenthar, Iraivan Adi Serrathaar”
Those who will be able to cross the ocean of birth and death are those who have surrendered at the feet of God. Those who fail will not be able to swim (Translation).

Thiruvallur, with the brevity, clarity and wisdom he is admired for, has defined for us unequivocally what ‘Right’ is and who the God, the majority of us believe in and worship, is. What is the point in visiting temples, breaking coconuts, pouring gallons of milk, offering flowers and performing other rituals, in our despair, if we fail to understand these basic precepts?

If we define our God as being ‘Right’, we have to seek a path that is ‘Right’ in all our endeavours, including our liberation struggle. Rituals, poojas, archanas or yagas will not absolve us of our sins, if we continue on the path we are. This is the reason even God has failed us in our hours of need, despite our anguished cries to high heaven.

We have the right cause and absolutely reasonable grievances. However, we have taken the wrong path, absolutely alien to our cultural and religious ethos, in search of remedies. We have been force marched on the wrong path by leaders who have imposed themselves on us, at gun point. Accepting such men and women as our leaders was our fault. However, I doubt whether we have the guts and courage to tell them to get lost!

Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing unarmed opponents is wrong. Killing people, only because they disagree is wrong. Killing people because they are different from us is wrong. Suicide bombing is wrong. Sending innocent children into war is wrong. Mass murder is wrong. Exposing innocent civilians- men, women and children, to death is wrong.

Cycle bombs are wrong. Trishaw bombs are wrong. Claymore mines are wrong. Encouraging other people and other people’s children to die, while resorting to all sorts of devices to keep ourselves, our children and our kin safe, is wrong. Brainwashing children is wrong.

Raising orphaned children as suicide bombers and cannon fodder is wrong. Falsehood to seek favourable publicity is wrong. Intimidating the press with the threat of death is wrong. Kidnapping is wrong. Extortion is wrong. Bribery is wrong. Coveting other people’s property is wrong. Forcing a people to tow a line they do not accept, at gun point, is wrong. Pedaling narcotics is wrong.

Cheating in any form is wrong. Lying is wrong. Character assassination of those who dissent is wrong. Blackmail is wrong. Thuggery is wrong. The inclusion of crooks, thugs, rowdies, cads, cheats and bullies, hooligans, criminals, murderers and ignoramuses at various levels of the liberation movements is wrong. All these and more have come to characterize our liberation struggle.

There are good, dedicated and idealistic men in the liberation struggle, but they are the minority at the levels that matter, and seldom heard. The noticeable fact is that our liberation struggle has become the last refuge of many rascals! There is no doubt that a large numbers of our sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters have been brave in battle and have sacrificed their lives for us.

This was right and this was great. They have to be remembered and honoured by every Tamil. However, their idealism, bravery and sacrifice have been tarnished beyond redeem by the wrongs that have overtaken our liberation struggle. In the final count they may have fought and died in vain. We have killed everything that was ‘Right’ in our struggle and enthroned everything that is ‘Wrong’!

The task at hand now is to regain the freedom we have unwittingly lost to forces of evil. This freedom has to be regained, if we are to liberate ourselves from mis-rule in Sri Lanka. We are not a free people anymore. We are living in fear of our lives. We have become the slaves of cruel masters. We are told what to do and how to comply. We are told what to think. We are told when our children can learn and when not.

We are killed, if we disagree. We are being killed and are killing others in a war that a majority of us do not want. We have become a nation of refugees and are trying to make others also suffer the same fate. The list is endless and even the slaves of yore would pity us.

How can we think of liberation, when we have lost our freedom? Our struggle has to return to the right path and be consonant with our culture and religious ethos, if it is to bear fruit. We have to overthrow the oppression that has overwhelmed us and demand the rights to life and livelihood, before we start talking about and fighting for the other niceties of human life, such as our political and citizenship rights

The Sinhalese did not take away our freedom. We never demanded freedom from the Sinhalese. Our struggle was to liberate ourselves from the mis-rule of the Sinhala ruling establishment. We have lost our freedom through our own idiocy. Once we regain our freedom, let us fight for our liberation from Sinhala mis-rule, in the right way. The right way need not be always passive. We have the right to fight with guns, if we have no other alternatives. However, let us do so the right way, adhering to civilized and acceptable norms.

Let us not sacrifice our lives, our humanity and our money, at the ‘Altar’ of a liberation struggle that has lost its soul long ago and has become a personification of evil. The wrongs the Sinhalese, the Sinhala polity and the Sri Lankan government are accused of are not a reason or rationale for us to do wrong. I hope what I have been saying for a long time and have said here will make sense to the Tamils of Sri Lanka, where ever they may live, who yet believe in an Almighty God and whose mercy they desperately seek in various ways

This Article was originally published in August 2006 on “Tamilweek” when the Tamil “liberation struggle” was on in the form of armed conflict

Post-Geneva geopolitical challenges

by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka


The key features of Sri Lanka’s most recent Geneva experience loom larger than the confines of Geneva and the UN system. They are the main challenges that Sri Lanka has to face in the external arena; challenges with an internal dimension. Tamil Nadu’s mood is more hostile to Sri Lanka than it is not; it is more influential in Indian politics than it has been since the years of MGR; it is and will always be next door. While the memories of the 1980s that this evokes in the collective psyche of the Sinhalese may prove a phobia, it is not a risk that responsible Sri Lankans can take, especially when those memories are reinforced by the historical memories (primordial or constructed) of millennia.


Sri Lanka is strategically vulnerable to neighbouring hostility driven by sub-regional sentiments. As an island and a relatively small one (unlike say, Cuba), our sources of supply and re-supply are vulnerable to blockade (even Cuba experienced an effective naval blockade in 1962), while our security assets in our ‘cone’ or ‘funnel’ shaped border zone (and conceivably elsewhere) are vulnerable to a conventional first strike. That ‘cone’ can be detached by off-shore force projection which does not divert into and dissipate in a Southern quagmire, and following a plebiscite as in Kosovo and South Sudan, can formally exit the Sri Lankan state formation. This is surely one of the scenarios of the global Tamil secessionist networks.


Policy and strategic planning must always take worst case scenarios onto account. What options do we have to forestall or resist such a scenario? There is no Israeli model of just saying ‘no’ and hanging tough in "a rough neighbourhood", while ‘creating facts on the ground’ in the border areas you hold —simply because Israel has a military (and nuclear) edge over its entire neighbourhood, and enjoys a virtually open-ended strategic, social, psychological and religio-cultural relationship with the world’s sole superpower. That makes Israel sui generis.


Power balancing has its utility and also its limits as an option for Sri Lanka, because its main ally China, is just too far away, hasn’t developed sufficient force projection capability and has no overland route linking it to Sri Lanka (unlike in the case of China-Pakistan).


While one can and must engage in developing deterrent strategies of asymmetric resistance, and power balancing has its role, i.e. neither option can be dispensed with, Sri Lanka cannot depend upon either of these or a combination of just the two, given the realities of geography and therefore of geopolitics. The latter realities also impose limits on the option of ‘changing (demographic) facts on the ground’.


Sri Lanka’s options then are political, social, psychological and diplomatic, and entail power balancing of sorts— not one country against another, but within countries and societies.


A scrutiny of the Indian media after the Geneva vote reveal that there are many voices, representing diverse strata and sectors, which are opposed to the vote against us. It is this side of India’s calculus that Sri Lanka must strengthen and emphasise. If these sectors and their arguments are reinforced, then they can counterbalance the pressure from their South. Furthermore, if we can reinforce moderate opinion in Tamil Nadu, it can counterbalance militant opinion against us.


This can be achieved only if a similar demarcation and situation of balance can be effected within Tamil opinion in Sri Lanka, which can have ripple effects on the neighbour and the Diaspora. This means strengthening the Tamil moderates and weakening the Tamil ultra nationalists. This cannot be achieved by militancy and radical nationalism from the Sinhala polity, but precisely by greater moderation. When faced with a parliamentary democratic competitor or rival, moderation begets moderation; extremism breeds extremism.


Progress on genuine equality of citizenship and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, as well as on power sharing at centre and periphery, will strengthen the Tamil moderates, and weaken the arguments of Tamil ultranationalist secessionists. Giving the Tamil politicians a stake in the Sri Lankan state can, on balance, help in the de-radicalisation of Tamil politics, with positive spinoffs in Tamil Nadu. If relieved of the pressure from Tamil Nadu, Delhi will feel less inclined or compelled to pressure Colombo.


While our security forces must remain stationed so as to safeguard our sensitive border zone (though minimising their own potential vulnerability to greater force), the larger Sri Lankan polity and society must be reformed and renovated so as to exert a benign gravitational pull on the Tamil North; a pull of integration that eventually proves stronger than the push towards Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Diaspora, and their pull on our island’s North.


With at least one influential TNA politician calling, post-Geneva, for ‘third party mediation’, that slogan can be most effectively resisted not by truculent assertion to the contrary – which cannot forestall anyone nominating a ‘special envoy’ and making us an offer we cannot refuse as in the 1980s. The way to defuse the idea of ‘third party mediation’ is to make it manifest and irrefutable in practice that such an external role is superfluous because political dialogue among democratic players, to resolve ethno-regional issues within our Constitutional order, is proceeding apace.

Callous pursuit of power

Does political power drive electrical power or is it the other way round? Absurd as it may sound ask any ordinary resident of energy-strapped Lahore or Delhi and they will likely acknowledge a palpable nexus between the two colluding and sometimes mutually hostile realities that shore up a citizen’s daily life.


The link between the two can in fact be framed in a slogan. Give me blood and I will give you freedom, said Indian freedom fighter Subhash Bose. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seems to have spun his own mantra, which says: give me energy, preferably nuclear energy, and I will continue to claim unbridled political power.


It is another story that Gandhi’s non-violent method demolished the youthful exuberance of Bose just as his assiduous aversion of consumerism, one pursuit that Gandhi could only be applauded for, would lay low Dr Singh’s galloping ambition for a myopic idea of a happy India.


Across the border, Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani should have read the lovely instructive story on Dawn’s website on how more and more Pakistanis are turning to environment-friendly solar energy to meet their basic needs.


Instead, he found himself holding forth at the Seoul nuclear summit on the merits of nuclear power. Never mind that Fukushima was a short flight away from Seoul, but there were this unique South Asian twosome, representing self-styled nuclear weapons states, if that has done them any good, begging the world for nuclear energy.


No surprises there, though I am not sanguine that Gilani would go to the extent of fudging a vote in his parliament to pursue the obsession with nuclear power, not that Pakistan’s National Assembly is brimming with men or women of insight and reason to challenge what is tantamount to a neo-liberal idea of progress in developing countries.


For the record, Singh’s party stands accused of bribery to win a parliamentary vote to push for laws that would invite foreign nuclear plant vendors to set up shop in India on ridiculously adverse terms.


The South Korean president, the summit’s strange choice for a host, meanwhile, beat back thousands of protesters against his pursuit of nuclear power units, both to increase domestic capacities and for sale abroad. President Obama, coming from a country that had all but disowned manufacturing of nuclear energy plants after the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, was in attendance, not bereft of obvious double standards to cheer the contenders.


It is clear that the urbanite South Asian has abandoned the simple contraptions like the wind towers of yore, the thatched insulations, high ceilings and commonsensical ventilation as passé. Their preference for desert coolers, which run on scarce electricity and scarcer water, is heartrending.


Far higher-energy-consuming air conditioners are the new metaphors of the so-called development drive in the tropics of South Asia. Fuel-guzzling cars are another fetish. Pakistan should invite my fellow journalist and anti-nuclear activist Praful Bidwai to showcase his battery-run two-seater car, not that it has inspired many in Delhi to heed his obvious advice.


While everyone stands to benefit from a steady supply of affordable electricity, the obsession with power generation and its many uses at any cost is characterised by a class divide. There is also a clear rural-urban hiatus. In a way the divide exists between the larger neo-liberal development strategy and how it is received by the poor.


Why should the poor people of Singur, for example, vacate their land in West Bengal to make way for an Indonesia-based investor to make it an industrial hub? Why should the people of Singur in the same state be evicted from their homes so that mini cars could be assembled there? People could do with mass transport, yes, but cars…?


Delhi has more cars, an increasing number of them guzzlers, than Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata put together. Even the supposedly people-sensitive Left Front missed the point and it paid for it.


In Maharashtra, in India, the massive Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is the focus of concern — 931 hectares (2,300 acres) of farmland will be needed to build the reactors, land that is now home to 10,000 people, their mango orchards, cashew trees and rice fields — and it has attracted many protests. Fishermen in the region say their livelihoods will be wiped out. Protests have escalated in the wake of the Fukushima tragedy. Will the people win against the state’s machinations and accompanying corporate media hype?


Thousands of protesters and villagers living around the Russian-built Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in the southern Tamil Nadu state were blocking highways until the state government began a violent crackdown last week after supporting them initially. Prime Minister Singh has accused the protesters of being foreign agents. The people have accused him of being an IMF plant.


What is shocking in this standoff is that a Russian report has questioned the safety of nuclear power plants even as the Indian government, led by the prime minister, swears by them.


The Russian report, stunning in its candour prepared for President Dmitry Medvedev by state agencies concerned with the safety of the country’s nuclear power reactors in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster, reveals that Russia’s atomic reactors are grievously under-prepared for both natural and man-made disasters ranging from floods to fires to earthquakes or plain negligence.


The report comes as several countries have given up on hopes of a nuclear future. Germany had voted to phase out its last nuclear power plant by 2022, and Switzerland plans to follow suit by 2035.


Recently, Italy sent a strong message in a referendum when 95 per cent of Italian voters turned down the opportunity to have a future lighted by nuclear power. Russians have similarly expressed in polls that they would like to see Russia pursue a different energy strategy.


In it, 31 serious flaws that make Russia’s nuclear industry extremely vulnerable to natural disasters are catalogued. The report is one of the few documents to surface in recent history that strongly contradicts Russia’s own glowing assessment that its reactors are safe.


If the fatal Chernobyl unit was made by Russia, the Japanese reactors that inflicted a nightmare on an unsuspecting people had a different genealogy. Indian and Pakistani governments have not much to choose from. Their people do.


The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

Hunter of Sinhala literature

Simon Navagaththegama’s role in contemporary Sinhala literature should be evaluated against the backdrop of cheap Sinhala literary productions which have been readily crowned with awards at diverse awards ceremonies.


Navagaththegama was famous as a gifted novelist who was credited with introducing modern literary techniques such as magical realism and some of the prominent literary techniques used by writers such as France Kafka. Navagaththegama was also a highly talented short story writer. Although he was a gifted novelist, he displayed remarkable literary skills in crafting short stories. All in all, he wrote four collections of short stories. They are Ohuge Katawa, Sagara Jayala madi haduwa obasanda, Bavanava and Sankava.


Outstanding short story writer
Some writers were famous for one genre although they substantially contributed to other literary genres such as the novel and poetry. For instance, veteran literatus G.B Senanayake was famous for his insightful short stories rather than his equally brilliant novels.


Navagaththegama emerged against the backdrop of somewhat developed genre of Sinhala short story which was enriched and infused with much-needed tropes by Navagathegama’s predecessors such as Hemapala Munidasa, W.A Silva and Martin Wickremasinghe.


Literary rebel
Being a proverbial hunter of Sinhala literature, Navagaththegama broke away from the hitherto established mode and structure of Sinhala short story with the beginning, middle and the end in chronological order. However, this break away from the established structure of the Sinhala short story was not a pre-meditated move on the part of Navagaththegama. It was the case of a writer using his liberty to the maximum within the framework of the short story.


The subject matter of his short stories is always central to the meaning of life with the objectives of exploring the life in its manifold manifestations and interpreting complex web of life experiences. Navagaththegama’s short stories are diverse in terms of their flesh and blood. However, most of his literary productions depicted the coarse and hard life of the men and women of the Vanni in which Simon Navagaththegama was born and bred. Characters in Navagaththegama’s writings were largely untouched by the onslaught of urbanisation and globalisation.


A prominent approach employed in his short stories was the highly individualised narrative mode. Although the mouth-piece of the writer is quite obvious, significantly, it does hamper neither the content nor the tropes employed in the text. The writer’s prime objective seemed to narrate the story exploring the complexities of life. In many instances, Navagaththegama was successful in achieving his objectives.


Insightful diction
A prominent factor which made Navagaththegama’s literary productions extremely popular among readers was his outstanding diction full of subtleties that subject to plurality of readings. His remarkable diction seemed to derive its luscious prosperities from diverse literary and linguistic sources such as contemporary Sinhala idiom, folk idiom and the classical Sinhala literary idiom. However, what establishes beyond doubt within the nuanced narrative mode and style is the literary colossus of Simon Navagaththegama the writer. Navagaththegama exploited the intrinsic properties of his potent diction in almost all of his short stories.


For instance, his short story Ohuge Kathawa (His own story) in the collection of short stories of the same name, depicts the state of mind of newly married young man whose love for his wife is increasingly waning while seeking solace from a sex worker. The meat of the short story is the confused mind of the young man.


In Ohuge Kathawa, the protagonist Wimal’s character is revealed not through a lengthy description as in the case of a conventional short story but through a series of well-crafted dialogues. In the short story Sagara jalaya madi handuwa oba sanda in the collection of short stories of the same name and the short story Ohu Miyagiya Pasu in the collection was subsequently turned into a film by veteran filmmaker Sumitra Peries as Sagara jalaya madi handuwa oba sanda , is woven around a story of a teacher who falls in love with a young female student and explores the disturbed mind of the teacher who could not marry the girl.


Even in the short story Snahaya in the collection of short stories Bavanava, Navagaththegama explores the sublime nature of love; in this particular context fatherly love towards his son. The story is set against the harsh landscape of Vanni and around the lives of a peasant’s family; Rankira, Pinchi Mahaiyya and their son. The old man, Rankira becomes invalid following a snake bite and is in a delirious state. However, Rankira responds only when his wife speaks about his son. A significant aspect of characters depicted in Navagaththegama’s short stories is their unassailable authenticity as they are almost based on and born out of the arid landscape of Vanni.


His footprints in cinema
Apart from his own literary productions such as his novel Suddilage Kathawa and short story Ohu malagiya pasu which were turned into cinema as Suddilage Kathawa and Sagara Jayala Madihanduva Obasanda respectively, Simon Navagaththegama wrote scripts for the films Sirimadura and Seilama. His very first film script Neranjana which unfortunately had never became a film, was turned into a novel under the title Shira Sagaraya Kalabini. His film scripts entitled Kappetipola and Sansara Arangnaye Asabada were also not made into films. Outside the cinema, Simon Navagaththegama wrote scripts for teledramas such as single episode series entitled Bhavana by Bertrum Nihal; the series was made up of Pretavastuva, Bhavana and Akala Rathriya and Pretavastuva was from Navagaththegama’s collection of Short stories entitled Bhavana. Besides writing scripts for films, Navagaththegama played diverse roles in nine films; Sevanali Ada Minnissu, Thunveni Yamaya, Doringe Sayanaya, Bava Duka, Bava Karma, Kinihiriya Mal, Salupata Ahasata, Bambara Sanakeli and Premavantayo.


His life in brief
Simon Navagaththegama was born on September 15, 1940 and passed away on October 9, 2005. Navagaththegama commenced his illustrious as well as controversial literary career, which expanded the horizons of contemporary Sinhala literature, with Ohuge Kathawa (1960). His voluminous as well as extraordinary literary contribution included Saagara Jayala Madi Handuwa Obasanda (Short Story collection), Saahithyaya ,Samajawadaya saha kala vicharaya, Suddhilage Kathawa, Sansaranyaye Dadayakkaraya which was translated into English as The Hunter in the wilderness of Sansara by Malinda Seneviratne, Sansaranyaye Urumakkaraya, Sansaranyaya Asabada, Dadayakkarayage Kathawa, Saankawa


Sapeshani, Ksheera Sagaraya Kalabina, Himalaya tharanayakala kala Arjuna kumarayage Kathava, Wanaraya (Radio play), Acharya Bryan De Cretser , Ohy saha ohuge adahas, Kalawa, Samajawadaya saha Kala Vicharaya.


Some of his dramas are Gangawak, Sapathukabalak saha Maranayak, Puslodan, Suba saha Yasa, Sthrii (woman), Sudu saha Kalu and Pandukhabaya.