Opinion
Downhill after 2009 victory
By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Though obviously the current mess in the country is exceptionally bad, the rot has been going on for a very long time. This was brought home to me vividly when I had home for dinner an African friend who had served in Geneva in 2009 and been a solid supporter when we were under attack by several Western countries. He said that had seemed the highest point of Sri Lankan diplomacy whereas now he saw us lower than we had ever been.
What went wrong?
I have often observed that the rot began almost immediately when Mahinda Rajapaksa sacked Dayan and replaced him with someone who totally ignored the coalition he had built to defend us. But I have not closely explored the reasons for that dismissal in that while it was obvious Mahinda was being pressured by several of those he relied on, more foolishly than he did on Dayan given the internationalisation that had taken place, the exact responsibility of those concerned seemed beyond precise understanding.
Dayan himself was convinced that Gota was the moving force behind the dismissal. He felt by then that Gota was a disaster, a feeling he has not swerved from since then, whereas I was not convinced. It seemed sad to me that whereas in 2007 we had both thought Gota by far the most able of the brothers, and had in fact discussed the possibility of Basil positioning himself instead as the successor, two years later Dayan viewed both of them as equally incapable of statesmanship.
Ironically, the diehard nationalists blamed Dayan for what they claimed was dragooning Mahinda into indulgence towards the Indians whereas it was in fact both Gota and Basil who along with Lalith Weeratunge signed an agreement with India before the final victory in the war. It was totally shameful that none of them thereafter made it clear that Dayan was not responsible for this; nor was he responsible for the communique Mahinda issued together with Ban ki Moon just before the special session in Geneva.
Indeed, only Dayan and I registered that the commitment to address concerns about the war that Mahinda made could lead to problems whereas Prasad Kariyawasam, who managed thereafter to win favour from all regimes, assured me that it was not the case. Dayan was instructed to use that communique which contributed to the immense victory Sri Lanka achieved in Geneva. Unfortunately, neither Dayan nor I ever thought that Mahinda would welsh on that agreement, setting up a Commission only after Ban ki Moon in despair had set up his own, and then failing to fulfil its recommendations. This was despite C R de Silva having presented them in a way that would have enabled us to get rid of the sword of Damocles that has hung over us for the last decade.
What went wrong with Mahinda? Why did he make not just Ban ki Moon bitter, but also the Indians who had stood by us so forcefully during the war? Why did the consummate politician give in to those who understood nothing of international realities, nor the economic problems that would arise if we alienated all our major trading partners?
Dayan had told me long before this happened about what he described as the Brotherhood, extremists loyal to Gota who thought they could model themselves on Israel – which was very bitter about Dayan and had almost got him sacked three months earlier, a disaster which was thankfully averted, or else the West would have stopped us in our tracks through resolutions in Geneva before the war ended. But Israel was assured then that Dayan would be dismissed after the war ended, and that is what happened.
At this point, I should add that a major contributory factor to our relentless decline since then is the fact that hardly anyone in senior positions dares to criticise decisions made at the top. I was the only one who had worked with Dayan who spoke to him after what was seen as his fall from grace. The other exception was Mahinda himself, who made much of him when he finally returned to Sri Lanka, and said when Dayan mentioned how he had been ignored that of course that would have been done by those who had treated him so badly.
When I urged Mahinda to make further use of Dayan, he did appoint him to Paris, but he did not defend him against the persecution of those who by then ran foreign policy, and ran us into the ground. While this was being done, the Brotherhood ensured that nothing was done about reconciliation, about fulfilling vital recommendations of the LLRC, and worst of all about maintaining Indian support.
I think Mahinda did not know what was happening, for he did on occasion say things that suggested he had no idea that the establishment was determined to avoid reconciliation initiatives. And, he did after the first debacle in Geneva ensure that there was an Action Plan on the LLRC recommendations. But then he lapsed into lethargy again and did not ensure follow up so that despite the best efforts of Dhara Wijayathilaka and Anura Dissanayake, vital areas were left untouched.
It is of course possible that Mahinda told me what he thought I wanted to hear and had no qualms about the failure to reconcile. He is after all a consummate actor. But Dayan, like me, thinks that he was not responsible for the extent of neglect, though of course he was culpable for it was after all his commitments that he was flouting, and thus endangering the country of which he was President.
Dayan has no doubt that Gota was the villain of the peace, though I was not so sure, for Gota did tell me that he had urged an early Provincial Council election in the north, and it was Basil who had given Mahinda contrary advice. Mahinda himself told me that Gota had told him not to go for an early presidential election, a Pavlovian response that presidents from the days of JR’s disastrous Third Amendment have engaged in whenever they feel that their parliamentary majorities are in danger.
The bankruptcy for which the seeds were sown during Mahinda’s second term as President will have to be discussed in another article. But suffice it to say here, where I have concentrated on the political disasters that followed thick and fast on our war victory, that the recourse to elections when feeling insecure meant of course that Mahinda engaged in populism that cost a lot. This was not only in terms of money spent and permanent unproductive jobs created, but also of the enormous expenditure elections lead to in this country, expenditure which is recouped through greater corruption.
Opinion
A paradox of history
There seems to be a striking similarity between ancient Greece and modern Britain. Both countries remain paradoxes of history. Greece was a small city state constantly at war with neighbouring countries. It did not have a big army, but it had considerable sea power. However, Greece was a leading state over the whole of the Mediterranean. In fact, Greece was once a super power in the Western world.
Britain was very powerful in the 19th century. British justice was administered in Africa, India and Ceylon. British factories flourished in many countries and schoolchildren started reading R.L. Stevenson’s ‘Treasure Island’ and the works of Rudyard Kipling. What Ralph Waldo Emerson said in the 1850s is still valid today. He said, “If there’s one test of national genius universally accepted, it is success; and if there be one successful country in the universe for the last millennium, that country is England. It is the best of actual nations.”
In World War I, Britain faced a crushing defeat. Eventually, the British Empire was reduced to a Commonwealth. World War II shattered the image of Britain further. Although Britain lost much of its power, it continued to be an influential country. Even after achieving independence, India retained English as an official language. The British parliament system is well established in many Commonwealth countries. Some people still wonder how England still exercises its influence over the minds of men and women.
Staying power
There are many powerful countries in the world today such as the United States, Russia and China. Although England is not a super power, she has staying power. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, a good part of greatness is simply being there. For that matter, England has been there for many centuries. So far no other country has been able to defeat her. As a result, sometimes we wonder whether we can have a world without England.
England has had an unwritten Constitution for a very long time. Other countries have emulated her political institutions. The British people have an established church with complete religious freedom. Although there are social classes in Britain, there has been no major clash among them. Unlike in many other countries, there are only two leading political parties in England. When the Labour Party is in power, the government is not subservient to labour. Similarly, when the Conservative Party is in power, the government is not conservative.
Most British colonies in the East including India and Ceylon did not sever the cultural and emotional links with Britain and retain them even after achieving independence. India became independent in 1947, but she decided to retain English as an official language. By doing so, India produced a number of English writers such as R.K Narayan. However, Ceylon did not give English any official status and treated it as a link language. As a result, students paid less attention to learning English. They were made to understand that everything can be done by learning Sinhala and Tamil. We have failed to produce English writers in the calibre of J. Vijayatunga who wrote ‘Grass for my feet.’
Politically shrinking
The United Kingdom is politically shrinking. However, its influence vibrates throughout the world. English has brought many nations together. There is a common understanding among countries that share the English language and literature. William Shakespeare’s dramas are staged in countries such as China where English is not an official language. People have come to the conclusion that English has become a broker of ideas and institutions.
England is not an aggressive country. However, if provoked, it can deliver a mortal blow to its enemy. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher showed her mettle as the iron lady. Britain held the fort against the might of Napoleon Bonaparte who ruled France. The country can still boast of a heavy moral credit. The British stick to their international agreements. The power of England draws mainly from its language. British people say ‘It’s right’ when it is right’. When it is not right, they say, ‘It’s not right.’ Meanwhile English occupies a pre-eminent place in world languages. All the research work in many parts of the world is available in English. You can learn any subject easily through English.
Apart from the language, people respect British standards which are technical specifications and quality benchmarks developed by the British Standards Institution. The United Kingdom’s independent national standards body was established in 1901. It maintains over 37,000 standards covering industries such as construction, manufacturing and technology ensuring safety and reliability.
British English
Standard British English is the variety of English that has undergone codification to the point of being socially perceived as the standard language associated with formal schooling, language assessment and official print publications. For historical reasons dating back to the rise of London in the ninth century, the form of language spoken in London and the East Midlands became the Standard English used in schools, universities, literature and law.
British English functions as one of the two major foundational and standard varieties of the English language alongside American English. It serves as a primary reference point for spelling and grammar. It acts as a global standard, and international institutions are often defined by specific pronunciation.
Most Sri Lankan doctors primarily move to England for postgraduate training, higher specialisation and better career prospects. They are driven by superior training infrastructure, world-class facilities and globally recognised qualifications.
To sum up, when you think of learning an international language, there is no alternative to English. If you wish to read literature, you cannot ignore eminent English dramatists and poets such as William Shakespeare and John Milton. Many leading Sri Lankans like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike were Oxford University products. Therefore, English deserves to be made an official language in Sri Lanka.
By R.S. Karunaratne
Opinion
State Literary Awards only for the rich?
The Department of Cultural Affairs has once again called authors, and publishers to lodge their entries for selection of the prestigious State Literary Awards 2026.The criteria and conditions required and notified in the public domain, makes it mandatory for the literary work to be printed and published prior to submission for consideration of the awards. There is absolutely no provision for writers to submit their work in Manuscript form.
Where does that leave the financially impoverished writers who are talented, creative and wish to submit a well edited typescript of their work as manuscript for consideration of the State Literary Awards? In a literary environment that encourages a proliferation of self-published books of all forms and features presented by vanity publishers who have their eye on the purse of the author than on literary merit and artistic excellence, it is easy to show that you are an ” established writer” by spending your cash abundantly towards glossy covered books which the printing industry and fawning publishers will lap up with greed.
Even the Gratiaen Prize in Sri Lanka, sponsored by world-renowned Michael Ondaatje allows for Manuscript entries together with published books. Significantly, the manuscript entries that win the prize are assisted to publish their work which is part of the winnings. Many a young, aspiring writer with little funds who won the Gratiaen Prize on merit, but had submitted their entry in manuscript form have been thereby encouraged to submit their work on merit basis only.
It is a fact that the Commonwealth Short Story Prize, a massive state-supported initiative across 56 nations accepts only unpublished short fiction. Further, several countries in the world have established national or state level literary prizes that specifically accept unpublished manuscripts to provide equity in discovering new talent and supporting national literature without bias or favour. In Australia, Jamaica, Philippines, major national awards organised by the State for literature, specifically accept unpublished manuscripts for consideration.
Let’s face the truth. The printing costs are escalating. There is little demand in Sri Lanka for literary work in the English Language in particular. Traditional Publishing where the literary work is reviewed and assessed for talent and creativity and thereafter published is seldom found. The reviews and critical analysis of literary works are rare. But publishers make a pile by pandering to the vanity of aspiring writers who have the financial clout to pay their way through to being featured in prestigious award ceremonies and accolades. Thereafter, their substandard works get a further fillip by bearing the label of “Won the State Literary Award for Literature”! It is a cycle of literary charlatans and their pimps in the publishing industry for whom the price that is paid for publishing and not Meritocracy is the sine-qua-non.
Is this the level playing field promised by the NPP Government and their Marxist protagonists? A government that was voted into power on the platform of affording fair opportunity and equality seems to discriminate in favour of the Haves against the Have- nots in the cultural department to say the least! Anil Fernando
Opinion
Delivering on English
English literature offers a rich heritage of wonderful ideas and thoughts. The reader can be intellectually uplifted. It brings refreshing new vistas and stimulating new ideas. However, this English literature has to be first introduced to the student in order to fire up his or her interest and be made aware of this rich source of culture. Students of basic English as a second language work hard and learn all the hum-drum mechanics of the language, for which they get tested and graded. But importantly, nae crucially, this should be followed up with intellectual rewards for the students’ efforts – which, of course, is the enjoyment of the works of literature of the many great writers in the English language. This is the great payoff, the great dividend for all their efforts but this, apparently goes missing.
One of the obvious reasons for the lack of “follow through” may be lack of time allocated in the curriculum – or, perhaps, more darkly, the teachers’ own lack of knowledge of the great range of good reading materials produced by the countless generations of literary geniuses who have gone before. Such writers have laid down for us a heritage of glorious literary works in books and essays, all of which are to be found in any good library. It is thought that much of this good literature ought to be introduced to all students of English, “full stop,” as part of developing a knowledgeable and cultured society. (Isn’t that what we want?) Reading English literature should bring an intellectual enrichment to all those willing to drink from this Bacchanalian horn of plenty.
It must be said finally, that it can be fairly expected that most young people, especially those learning English as a second language, are totally unaware of the many outstanding pieces of writing that propel English to stand tall amongst the rest. That is, students need to be first introduced to great writings and have a spark of interest ignited in these great works of literature.
For example, by being introduced to “Daffodils,” a short descriptive poem by William Wordsworth, the student can get some very pleasant ideas to think on.
Do not overlook Conan Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes” detective stories, each one captivating the reader’s attention right to the end. It is by these short stories that the novice reader can first consolidate his power of reading.
For light reading Jerome K. Jerome’s book “Three Men in a Boat” is suggested. On one occasion he goes to the library suffering from a slight hay-fever (allergy) seeking a cure. He consults a book, “Lexicon of Pharmacology”, and recoils in horror as his symptoms fit most of those diseases described in the book! He concludes he cannot live much longer and staggers home to rest and recuperate! This is a well related tale in the book – although seemingly quite implausible!
Similarly, by having the poem meanings explained, e.g. “What is Life if Full of Care?” by William Henry Davis – how he regrets that we humans are always in a hurry, too busy to notice or see the delights of nature, and scenes of natural beauty, e.g., a young woman’s smile as she passes by; we have no time to make friends and even kiss her. Regrets! Explaining this to students would bring a certain intellectual insight.
John Keats’s poem, “Ode to Autumn” is another great work describing the ripening fruits of the autumn season and how nature as a living being, brings to fruition all the good things of a rural landscape quietly humming with warmth after a hot summer.
Again, it is likely necessary to explain to a young, Sri Lankan mind the meaning of the descriptive poetry found in this magnificent poem.
This is the real English to be tasted and then swigged at lustily in pleasure and satisfaction, not some writing airing historical grievances for children to study!
1970 British Cohort Study
It should be observed here that the ‘1970 British Cohort Study’ followed 70,000 people to examine various aspects of their lives. One result discovered was that if a young person reads a lot, it develops his/ her general intelligence no-matter his parents; it makes him smarter.
It was also noted that reading brings life-long benefits; it improves mood, it helps with social skills, increases empathy, reduces anxiety, protects against depression and slows brain decay, the study found.
But these days many young people never gain a great competence in reading English; the fear is that standards are falling. This is bringing poorer critical thinking, less depth of personality and less empathy for others which has the result of a more turbulent society.
People are urged to switch off their headphones and read more of what they like – try reading the newspapers!
Priyantha Hettige
-
Life style1 day agoMarriot new GM Suranga
-
Midweek Review5 days agoA question of national pride
-
Features1 day agoMonks’ march, in America and Sri Lanka
-
Business5 days agoAutodoc 360 relocates to reinforce commitment to premium auto care
-
Opinion4 days agoWill computers ever be intelligent?
-
Features1 day agoThe Rise of Takaichi
-
Features1 day agoWetlands of Sri Lanka:
-
Midweek Review5 days agoTheatre and Anthropocentrism in the age of Climate Emergency
