Connect with us

Features

Standing on the shoulders of giants

Published

on

Keynote address delivered by
Prof. Premakumara de Silva
at a recent ceremony to mark the launch

of Prof. C. R. de Silva Felicitation Volume
on ‘Essays on History and Society’ at the Senate Hall, University of Peradeniya.

I am sure all of you will agree with me that Prof. C.R. de Silva is one of the greatest scholars Sri Lanka has ever produced in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences, particularly within the discipline of Sri Lankan History. I first got to know Prof. C. R. de Silva as a Sri Lankan intellectual through his work, particularly, his masterpiece ‘The Portuguese in Ceylon, 1617-1638 (1972)” when I was an undergraduate at the University of Colombo.

I had a chance to associate with him closely when I was a visiting lecturer for the ISLE programme, under his directorship. In 2021, I again had an opportunity to engage in intellectual discussions with him when he contributed two co-edited chapters to the three-volume series of ‘Hundred years of Humanities and Social Sciences Education in Sri Lankan Universities’ ; I was the chief editor. Prof. C.R.’s contribution to Sri Lankan scholarship is wide ranging, moving back and forth between the 16th century and 21st century while finding remedies for some of the challenging problems in our country. Though I am not a historian, I am keen to situate my sociological and anthropological analysis in understanding the historical process of human problems. That is one other reason that made me happy about this opportunity to be here today.

Let me elaborate on this point a bit further. There is a very close relationship between history and sociology/anthropology. Sometimes historians turn into anthropologists and anthropologists turn into historians. If you look at the close connections between these two branches of knowledge production, Sri Lankan academia is no exception. Within anthropology the interest in history appears to have received legitimacy and gathered momentum in recent years. In his 1961 lecture “Anthropology and History”, British anthropologist Evans-Pritchard appealed for an integration of functionalist and historical interpretation in anthropology.

He emphasized the need for greater historical understanding in anthropology, but anthropology did not turn towards history until the early 1980s. However, it is important to highlight here, that by early 1960s historical analysis is quite evident in anthropology of India and Sri Lanka through the works of M. Marriortt (1955), MN Srinivas (1952, 1955, 1962), and in Sri Lanka Ralph Pieris (1956); Edmond Leach (1961), Gananath Obeyesekere (1964, 1984), Kitsiri Mallalgoda (1978), HL Seneviratne (1978) and others.

Nevertheless, broadly speaking, by the 1980s the importance of history in anthropology was revived, particularly after the works of well-known anthropologists such as Michael Taussig, Bernard Cohn, Marshall Sahlins, and also the writings of historians like Ranajit Guha and his group of subalternists . Bernard Cohn’s call for anthropology to collaborate with history in his landmark essay “An Anthropologist Among the Historians,” first published in 1962, represented an early attempt by anthropologists to take the question of history seriously.

Indeed, today, both anthropologists and historians probe into the dynamic interrelationship between culture and history, to understand culture mediated by history and history mediated by culture. This is because many critical historians have realized the need to move from the archive to the field, in order to ‘explore the concept of history through the anthropological experience of culture’ (Sahlins 1985: 72).

This ‘historicization’ of anthropology and ‘anthropologization’ of history has come about as the result of several important processes. One is the decolonisation of the ‘third world’ nations from the late 1940s through to the 1960s which served to produce questions about the traditional binaries of anthropological enquiry, like, ‘modern’ and ‘primitive’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘static’. The perceptions and assumptions of European colonizers about the colonized, and the methods by which they categorized the subject populations, came in for radical criticism.

Under these conditions anthropologists began to study ‘native’ intellectual traditions and historical schools, and elaborate on indigenous renderings of history. It has been pointed out that the concentration on the ‘local’, and the great dependence on ‘fieldwork’ do not necessarily make ethnographic accounts authentic and authoritative representations of other societies. Thus ethnography is caught in a ‘historical predicament’ where it often invents rather than represents cultures. As Bernard Cohn suggests, anthropology in a historical mode has moved away ‘from the objectification of social life to a study of its constitution and construction’ (Cohn 1980: 217).

The close scrutiny and consequent critique of the ways in which colonial states generated knowledge of the people they colonized has also directly influenced the dialogue between history and anthropology. This critique became centrally visible after the groundbreaking work of Edward Said, Orientalism appeared in 1978. Said argued that European knowledge about the Orient enabled Europe to define, classify, dominate, and restructure – to thus have authority over – the Orient. From its beginning, Orientalism was nurtured by scholars and intellectuals, and it continues to live on academically.

While it is true that Said’s Orientalism frequently relapses into ‘essentializing modes’ particularly by overemphasising the negative dimensions of Orientalism and imputing varied discourses of cultural difference with ‘hostility and aggression’ (Thomas 1994: 26), it also succeeds in questioning a number of important anthropological and historical categories, and challenging the progressive and liberal idea that former stereotypes have been superseded by a more objective way of seeing.

The immense challenge posed by Said’s arguments has prompted scholars to reflect on their assumptions, sources, and methods. Historians and Anthropologists working on South Asia have sought to extend Said’s analysis by penetrating scholarship on others, a scholarship that viewed the Orientalist in a relation of intellectual dominance over the Orientals whom they studied and represented.

All these interventions have prompted historians and ethnographers to abandon the search for the ‘real’ or the ‘essential’, and replace it instead with a sense of the production of culture. The conjunction of history and anthropology is not just ‘another new speciality’, a means for the writing of hyphenated histories and anthropologies (Cohn 1980: 216). ‘Ethnographic history’ and ‘historical anthropology’ are hybrid labels that strive to bring about a meaningful collaboration between the two disciplines so that the subject matter common to both may be reasserted, and the limits of each transcended.

It is in this context, I would like to situate the felicitation volume of Professor C.R. de Silva titled ‘ESSAYS ON HISTORY AND SOCIETY’. Interestingly, this volume was edited by a Sociologist and a Historian and many of the writers in this volume are interested in dealing with historical sources and analysis. Intellectually C.R. de Silva’s expertise is lying on colonial history of Sri Lanka. As we now know, authoritative discourse on the ‘colonized’ was largely produced through the agents of the colonial governments, military personnel, Christian missionaries, philologists, and administrators, of course not to mention uncritical historians as well.

But there is a limitation in such analysis, in my view, because most of the “decolonising projects” in South Asia, including Sri Lanka, have located their fields of work and expertise in the 19th and 20th centuries to unpack ‘British colonial knowledge production’ and they have paid scanty attention to ‘pre-British knowledge production’ for example as far as India and Sri Lanka are concerned, the Portuguese and the Dutch ‘colonial knowledge productions’. In my view, a reasonably comprehensive understanding of culture, religion, and history of the various sub-continental regions in the early 18th century and before, is a prerequisite for our understanding of the transformations which the British instituted.

Surely, there are great many historians who deal with pre-colonial history(ies), KM de Silva, RLH Gunawardena, Karl Gunawardene, Michael Roberts, Sirima Kiribamune, Lona Devaraja, Indrani Munasinghe, Amaradasa Liyanagamage come to my mind, to name a few of them. Historians in Sri Lanka are known and usually identified by the historical period which is the subject of their research. For instance, there are ancient historians, medieval historians, modern historians and so on. Each historian will also have a more specific time span such as the Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa period or even a specific kingdom or a specific dynasty as his or her specific concern in terms of teaching and research. CR de Silva would be identified as a modern historian or more precisely specialist on Portuguese colonial history.

A lively debate has sparked over the nature of “colonial knowledge” that enabled European colonizers to achieve domination over their colonised subjects in South Asia and even beyond. As a result of this debate two opposing approaches on the production of colonial knowledge have emerged; one sees colonialism introducing a profound epistemic disjuncture or rupture in the historical fabric of the society subjected to colonialism.

Hence, there can be no significant continuities across the production of colonial knowledge. Scholars like Inden (1986, 1990); B. Cohn (1987, 1996); N. Dirks (1996, 2001); and P. Chatterjee (1993) supported this line of argument.

The other approach is largely conceived as revisionist critique of this post-colonialist view and it sees continuities between the late pre-colonial and early colonial periods. Historians such as C.A. Bayly (1998); S. Bayly (1999); N. Peabody (2001); J. Rogers (2004) belonged to this school of thought. Therefore, the production of knowledge over colonized subjects in Sri Lanka in particular South and Southeast Asia in general should not be limited to one particular colonial power because ‘colonial history’ in these regions is much more complex and deeper than some of the scholars have thought out.

Focusing on the Portuguese in Sri Lanka, CR de Silva compares a Portuguese and Sinhalese account of their first encounters and then shows how each text was modified as they came to know each other better. The historical contribution made by CR de Silva to our understanding of colonial time is lucidly depicted by the well-crafted introduction written by Kalinga Tudor Silva in this felicitation volume. Let me quote him:

“In keeping with the twists and turns in the career of Prof. C. R. de Silva and my direct engagement with him at several junctures of my own career, I prefer to divide up this essay into four sections as follows: (1) CR’s contribution to understanding the Portuguese period in the colonial history of Sri Lanka (2) His contribution to research and academic culture at University of Peradeniya (3) The establishment of a research track on ethnicity and politics in Sri Lanka and (4) The interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary nature of his contributions.

I must state upfront that these remarks are based on my personal reflections on a leading scholar of the earlier generation whose work also influenced the trajectories of research in subsequent generations rather than a meticulous analysis of his writings and scholarly work in the areas listed above with the possible exception of his work on ethnicity and politics.”

While agreeing what Prof. Tudor Silva’s formulations of Prof. CR’s career as an academic, an efficient administrator and a researcher I much admire and appreciate his interdisciplinary approach to understand Sri Lankan society, culture, politics, and history in a context where many Sri Lankan academics are reluctant to position themselves in.

By focusing on CR de Silva’s life and work one of his students Ramani Hettiarchchi commented on what kind of personality and a remarkable teacher he was. I quote her:

“A remarkable feature of his teaching is that he presented facts not only in a simple, coherent, and interesting manner but also in an analytical and critical way enabling the students to understand the past in its broad perspective together with the intricacies and complexities of the discipline of History.”

The immense contribution CR de Silva has made to the advancement of historical knowledge is quite evident if one even pays a cursory look into the publication list that Ramani has produced in the volume. After the introductory remarks to the volume there are eleven chapters contributed by reputed local and international scholars on various subject matters with serious historical and analytical depth.

For example, Nihal Perera argued in his chapter on ‘History, Space, Amnesia: Invented Memories and Convenient Forgetting in Sri Lanka’ that the society, culture, and space of the colony was produced and structured from Colombo, as opposed to Colombo evolving from Ceylon or Sri Lanka. Spatially, the colonials superimposed the social and spatial structures they were producing on pre-existing ones, destroying, using, and incorporating them.

Hence, evolution cannot explain the post-colonial culture and space in independent Sri Lanka for there is no continuity. Rather, these were modified by external powers within the worldviews they were producing. His essay speculates on a crucial missing dimension in Sri Lankan historiography, especially in regard to the memory, history, and culture while denying voluntarily accepted colonial history without questioning the sources and exploring novel approaches to it.

In Ananda Abeysekara’s essay on ‘The Loss of Kingship and Colonial and Other Uses of the “People” in South Asia’, provides a good example for such novel approaches to interrogating and deconstructing our colonial past.

By using recent publications of Obeyesekere’s The Doomed King (2017) and Piliavsky’s Nobody’s People (2020) which were written on two different instances of the past in South Asia obstructed by the violence of colonialism he provides how unquestionable history writing effectively reproduces the colonial notion of the category of ‘people’ which he sees rearing its head in the colonial operations of power that made possible the destruction of the Kandyan kingdom and the forms of life.

Rather than talking about the destructive aspect of colonial governmentality, Ann Blackburn in her essay on ‘Buddhist Collaborations in Later Colonial Singapore’, shows that how colonized made creative use of the “wider opportunities” available to them in colonial-era networks and the communications technologies of that time to spread Buddhism and commercial interests far from Sri Lanka. These networks or collaborations depended on contingent historical circumstances, including the availability of land and liquid capital, and the circulation of Buddhist monastics across the South China Sea and along Indian Ocean routes.

I have to apologies, for not giving due attention to other essays that were contributed by Shihan de Silva Jayasuriya, Maura Hamet, John Clifford Holt, Shimon Shetreet, G. H. Peiris, Annette Finley – Croswhite and Gayle K. Brunelle due to time constraints. However, their scholarly contribution to the Felicitation volume of Prof. CR de Silva must be well recognized and appreciated.

Let me windup my intervention here by saying this. As most of us know Prof. C. R. de Silva begun his academic career at the University of Peradeniya, then at Indiana State University and finally at Old Dominion University, and over the years he has made tremendous contributions not only to university administration, but also, most importantly, to scholarly work as a dedicated teacher who inspired critical thinking, creative explorations, and empathetic understanding among his students.

Finally, let me reiterate what I mentioned at the beginning of this talk that, Prof. CR de Silva is one of the greatest scholars Sri Lanka has ever produced in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences, particularly within the discipline of Sri Lankan History. I wish him a happy, productive, and healthy life for many more years!



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Shame! Ragging raises its cowardly head again

Published

on

Ragging at Sabaragamuwa university has resulted in the loss of another student’s life and there is another incident of barbaric attack on an anti-rag student of J’pura university by some students from the same university. Whether the bullies are backed by political parties or not, they show their undeveloped and conformist minds that need urgent refinement; if they are connected to political parties and student unions, the latter show only their vulgarity and duplicity when they wax eloquent about modern education, culture, decadent politics, human rights, corruption and all that jazz. That this barbarous practice continues in broad daylight and under the very nose of university and law enforcement authorities is deplorable and puzzling to say the least. It is ironic that the best minds, the superstars in academia, the leading lights in education and the guardians of all that is progressive have become helpless spectators of this bullying happening in their universities. The ignominious records of rag victims in our country are a crying shame as all those perpetrators have been from that somewhat musty and largely conservative ‘cream of intelligence’ as they are called at all inauguration ceremonies where their egos are pampered.

Ragging in our universities is a sure sign of the backwardness of our culture and education, in comparison with that of civilized societies. The brutal practice of ragging shows that education in our country, both in schools and universities, has a lot of room for improvement about making the undergraduate population sensitive and sensible, more than ‘educated’. Of course, we can understand torture if it is something which happens in the underworld or in any place where the new recruits must be brutaliesed before they are admitted to their circles, but how can one understand when it happens in the highest seats of academia? Professor O. A. Ileperuma has, in his article “Ragging and loss of life” published in The Island of 5 May 2025, stated that some academics turn a blind eye to ragging perhaps “because they themselves were raggers in the past and see nothing harmful in such sordid instances of ragging”. This is pathetic and may perhaps prove some of the accusations that have been made ad nauseum about the lack of a wholesome education in our university system, which is said to be obsessed with mass producing ‘employable graduates’.

As they say, desperate times call for desperate measures. As far as the ragging culture in our universities is concerned, desperate measures are long overdue. In the highest institutes of learning where knowledge is produced and all the progressive and advanced ideas are supposed to be generated, there has been unfathomable brutality, crudeness and conventionality in the name of an acquired beastliness which they call ‘ragging’ to give it a quasi-academic smell when all it amounts to is lack of refinement which can be linked to numerous reasons.

Most of the culprits are the victims of a system which esteems hierarchy where it is accepted that superiority is synonymous with repressive power and inferiority is another term for meekness and passive acceptance of all commands coming from above. It is a mentality which is based on the warped logic that superiority is absurd if the seniors have no right to snub the juniors. Those who have tasted humiliation in one form or another for long due to reasons inherent in society can grow up to be vengeful. Most of these diehard raggers often show signs of this mentality in the way they behave the minute they have been automatically lifted to their pathetic superiority after one year in the university where they enjoy a mistaken sense of immunity from the law. The widely publicised idea of ‘freedom’ associated with universities and their relative aloofness from the rest of society and the aura they have acquired have made them safe havens for the raggers if the unmitigated brutality in ragging over the long years is any indication. The question is why (oh why?) these learned bullies despise civilised behaviour so much in their enclaves of power merely on the strength of one year’s seniority. If it is their one year’s accumulated knowledge which makes them feel superior to the newcomers in an aggressive way, surely, such knowledge is questionable, which must intrigue educationists, psychologists, sociologists and all academics interested in the role of education in character building.

Raggers have been saying ad nauseam that ragging is given to make the new entrants tough enough for academic work. As we know their methods include using foul language, humiliation, intimidation, physical and psychological abuse, torture, beating and forcing rigorous exercises even leading to death. The resultant trauma has led some to commit suicide. All this is done to help the new students with a proven capacity for hard work in the academic field!

However, there are some pertinent questions to be asked. Is this method of building resilience of potential academics backed by research? Should this ‘programme’ be conducted by senior students (who are apparently mentally unsound)? Aren’t there better qualified people to conduct a civilised programme which would help make the newcomers ready to face the trials of academic life? Do they believe that no refined programme can be as ‘effective’ as their ragging? Why should they spend their valuable time doing it when it can be done by experts in a more organised and civilised manner? Have they ever been cultured enough to discuss this so-called ‘personality development’ programme with the relevant authorities and academics, with any reliable evidence to prove its effectiveness?

As we know, these raggers who are self-appointed ‘experts’ in character building of sorts expect total submission from the juniors they try to brutalise, and those who dare resist this bullying are viciously suppressed. To what extent does this compulsory compliance expected from the new students at the beginning of their academic career help them to be better undergrads?

How much more brutality in ragging is to be endured by the new university entrants for “desperate measures” to be called for?

by Susantha Hewa

Continue Reading

Features

80th Anniversary of Second World War

Published

on

The beginning of World War II: German warplanes attacking Poland in Sept. 1939.

One of the most important dates in World War II, is May 9, 1945, when the Soviet red flag with the hammer and sickle emblem was raised over the Reichstag building, the German parliament. This confirmed Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Soviet Union. Since then, 80 years have passed upto May 9, 2025. It is very timely to look back on the past 80 years of history, and to briefly discuss some of the current issues and the future.

Beginning and End of the 2nd World War

World War II began on September 1, 1939, when Nazi Germany attacked Poland. Within a year of the war, the world’s imperialist powers had divided into two camps. Germany was on one side, targeting Europe, Italy Africa, and Japan Asia, while Great Britain, the United States, and France were on the other side of the war.

Within a short time from the start of the war, Germany had conquered many countries in Europe, and on June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union joined the anti- Nazi Allies and launched the “Great Patriotic War” to defend the world’s first socialist state, and progressive forces around the world acted in a way that supported the Soviet Union.

Three major battles known as the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk turned the tide of World War II, shattering Hitler’s dream of capturing Moscow in a few months (4 months) through Operation “Barbarossa” and celebrating the victory from Red Square. By the beginning of 1945, the entire Soviet Union had been liberated from Nazi Germany, and by March 1945, the Soviet Red Army had surrounded Berlin from the east, south, and north, and then surrounded the entire city, surrendering the German forces, ending the European War of World War II on May 9.

World War II was a major war in which 61 countries, representing 89% of the world’s population participated, and the total number of deaths in this war was 50 million, of which 25-30 million were Soviet citizens. The Soviet Red Army, which ended the Great War for the Liberation of Europe on May 9, 1945, entered the Battle of Manchuria three months later on August 9, 1945, and defeated imperialist Japan. By then, the United States had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (on August 6 and 9). Thus, the Soviet Union played the major role in defeating the fascist military coalition, including Nazi Germany, during World War II.

Post-World War order

Negotiations, to shape the post-war world order, began while World War II was still ongoing. In talks held in Washington in January-February 1942, in Canada in 1943, later in Moscow, and in Tehran, Iran in November-December 1943, the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, and China agreed to establish an international organisation with the aim of preserving world peace. Later, the Soviet, American and British leaders who met in Yalta in Crimea agreed on the structure of the United Nations, the Security Council, and the veto power, and the United Nations Charter, signed by 50 countries in San Francisco in 1945, came into force on October 24, 1945.

Rise of Socialist world and collapse of colonialism

With the Soviet victory in World War II, the world underwent unprecedented changes. Although Mongolia was the only socialist state other than the Soviet Union at the start of World War II, after that war, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Albania in Eastern Europe also became socialist countries. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was established in 1945, and in 1947 a socialist state was established in East Germany under the name of the German Democratic Republic. The Chinese Revolution triumphed in 1949, and the Cuban Revolution triumphed in 1959. Thus, the socialist system established in a single country by the October Revolution in 1917 developed into a world system against the backdrop of the unique victory of the Soviet Union in World War II.

Another direct result of the victory in World War II was the collapse of the colonial system. National liberation struggles intensified in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and new independent countries emerged one after another on these continents. In the 25-30 years that followed the end of World War II, the colonial system almost completely collapsed. The United Nations, which began with 50 member states, now has 193 members.

With the end of World War II, working class struggles intensified. Communist parties were formed all over the world. Although the Sri Lankan working people’s movement was in a state of truce during World War II, the war ended in May 1945 and by August it had gone on a general strike. The 8-hour workday, wage boards, holiday systems and monthly salary systems were won through that struggle. The working class movement in this country was able to win many rights, including pension rights, overtime pay, and other rights, through the general strike held in 1946. Although the general strike of 1947 was suppressed, there is no doubt that the British government was shocked by this great struggle. In the elections held in 1947, leftist and progressive groups were elected to parliament in large numbers, and independence with Dominion status was achieved in 1948.

World is in turmoil

Until this era, which is 80 years after the end of World War II, the world has so far managed to prevent another world war. Although there have been no world wars, there have been several major conflicts around the world. The ongoing Middle East conflict over the forced displacement of the Palestinian people, the conflict created by Western powers around Iran, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the recently escalating Indo-Pakistan conflict are among them. The limited military operation launched by Russia to prevent the NATO organization reaching its borders, has transformed into a battle between Russia and the collective West. But the conflict now seems to have entered a certain path of resolution.

Several parties have launched trade wars that are destabilising the world, perhaps even escalating into a state of war. Thousands of trade sanctions have been imposed against Russia, and the US President has declared a trade war by imposing tariffs on dozens of countries around the world.

Meanwhile, the world has not yet been able to provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of global warming, which has threatened the existence of the entire human race.

The Bretton Woods Organizations (International Monetary Fund and World Bank), which were economic operating institutions established after World War II, have not only failed to lead the world’s economic development, but there is a strong allegation that the guidance of those institutions has exacerbated the economic problems of newly independent countries.

At this time of commemoration of the 80th anniversary of World War II, it is our responsibility to resolve the above problems facing the people of the world and to dedicate ourselves to the future of humanity.

Way forward

Accordingly, a futuristic, new economic order is emerging, and a multipolar world has been formed. The most important point to emphasise here is that the world order that was established after World War II, which encompasses various fields, is a system jointly developed by the great powers that won that war, and the reforms that need to be made in accordance with the demands to change this world order to suit the current reality must be identified collectively. No single country can change these world structures.

People are rallying all over the world for issues related to the survival of the entire human race, such as controlling global warming. New programmes that contribute to the economic development of most countries in the world have been or are being developed. The New Silk Road projects, the BRICS organisation, the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are such programs/new institutions. A global process has been launched to prevent a nuclear war and maintain world peace.

Many of the above-mentioned issues and problems have arisen through imperialist military and economic planning and operations, and therefore, the contradiction between imperialism and the people has become the main contradiction of this era. Therefore, it must be emphasized on the 80th anniversary of the Second World War that the way forward in the world will be through the people’s struggle against imperialism.

by Dr. G. Weerasinghe
General Secretary, Communist
Party of Sri Lanka

Continue Reading

Features

New Mayors; 80th Anniversary of VE Day; Prince Harry missteps yet again

Published

on

This week’s Cry is put together as the voting goes on for mayors of Municipal Councils. Cass is rather confused about this second tier of government, so she googled and here is what she got: “There are currently 29 municipal councils in Sri Lanka. These councils govern the largest cities and first tier municipalities in the country. The local government system also includes 36 urban councils and 276 Pradeshiya Sabhas.” Not that this has made matters clearer to Cass.

She believes that for a small country of 22 m people, we are too heavily governed from above, with a central government and then all these councils and sabhas below.  Consider the number employed in them; most underworked and underworking. Another matter is that if you want a matter seen to, regarding property rates, etc., you are most often sent from this Sabha to that council.

This came about with the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution introduced on November 14, 1987, following the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, which aimed to address the ethnic conflict by granting some autonomy to provincial councils.  As Cass believes it was imposed on us by India after the threat expressed by India, instigated by Tamil Nadu, when Prabhakaran in his military childhood, was cornered and almost captured in Vadamarachchi.

India rained parippu on the northern peninsular, demanded no arrests of LTTE; and it was rumoured Indian forces were poised on the southern and south eastern coasts of the subcontinent ready to sail to war to the island below them. PM Rajiv Gandhi came instead; Prez JRJ was constrained to meet, greet and honour him. One rating in a guard of honour which handsome Rajiv inspected, expressed the majority people’s opinion; “We don’t want you here!”  After which guards of honour worldwide are kept strictly at a safe distance from the VVIP honoured.

To Cass the most important fact of the election progressing now and its outcome is that she hopes newly elected mayors will insist on the Municipal Councils’ employees doing the work allotted to them: mostly garbage collectors; sprayers against mosquitoes; PHIs inspecting kitchens of eating houses and those in charge of general cleanliness of cities keeping s clean.

Complaints are numerous that roads are dirty, garbage piled up and drains and small waterways clogged so water remains stagnant and thus the rapid spread of most debilitating chikungunya.

May 8 1945 – VE Day

This date marked Victory in Europe. “… after Britain and its allies formally accepted Nazi Germany’s surrender after almost six years of war. At 15.00, the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced World War Two in Europe had come to an end.” Allied Forces marched into Germany from west and South and the Russians entered from the north. Hitler committed suicide and the Nazi so far invincible forces were shattered, battered and splintered. It was Emperor Hirohito who surrendered Japan and himself on August 15, 1945, after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (Aug 6,9).

Thus, this year is the  80th anniversary of the end of World War II and Britain brought out its Palace Guards, forces and cheering crowds to celebrate the event, and more to pay homage  to veterans still living and extend gratitude to those soldiers, sailors and airmen and women who laid down their lives to save their country. King Charles III was present in a special seating area which had other members of the royal family; politicians and veterans and their families, while some of those who had served in the war rode in open cars to the cheers of the spectators.

The Netherlands and Canada too mounted celebrations. Canada made it a point to pay allegiance to the British Monarch as their head, and Cass feels sure King Charles III reciprocated with acknowledgement. Commented on were video statements Cass heard that this reiteration was for the benefit of Prez Trump with his plans to annex Canada as the 51st State of the US.

Prince of groans and complaints 

In the midst of this pageantry and show of British royal family’s unity was Prince Harry cutting a very poor figure of himself, most in an interview given to the BBC after he lost his British Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements. “The Duke of Essex, who attended both days of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice last month, was appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK” He was demanding  armed security for himself and his family if and when they visit England. This was refused because of his own withdrawal from royal duties, opting not to be a working member of the British Royal Family; and moving to the US to live.  Videos Cass watched tore him to pieces on several counts. He said he could not bring his wife and children to Britain. He said he wanted reconciliation but his father would not speak with him. Then the blunder of adding the sentiment that King Charles’ days on earth were numbered. “We don’t know how long he has to live.”

He was very annoyed with a compere of a British late-night show for referring to him as Harry with no Prince or Duke salutation.  He and his wife are not allowed to use HRH by King Charles’ orders, but it was said Meghan loves using the title. Here is a straightforward case of wanting and not wanting something, of utter selfishness and gross grasping.

Local news in English

Cass bemoans the fact she is no longer able to watch MTV News First at 6.30 of a morning. MTV late news in English is at 9.00 pm but it was repeated the next morning. Served lots, I am sure. In Cass’ case the TV set is monopolised by the two helpers she has with her. They watch teledramas on various channels all through the late evening almost to midnight. Can she butt in? Never! They need entertainment. So, no local news for her these days until she goes to another TV channel for news in English – few available. She hopes TV One will resume its news relay in English at 6.30 am after the welcome chanting of pirith. 

Cassandra wishes everyone and our much-loved country a continuation of the peace of Vesak. Oneness of the people as good persons was demonstrated in the crowds in Kandy recently. Mosques opened their doors wide to let in anyone and everyone come in and sleep. All races supplied food and water. Such unity was not seen before. A propitious sign for the future.

 

Continue Reading

Trending