Connect with us

Features

TENNIS LOSES FEDERER HOMAGE TO A GENIUS

Published

on

By Anura Gunasekera

Roger Federer, the most celebrated Tennis player in history, after an illustrious two-decade career, departs the arena he graced with such virtuosity. Over an improbably long period he dominated in the most star-studded period of professional Tennis, unarguably that which showcased the greatest depth of talent of any era.

Federer concedes his mortality with the same dignity and equanimity, with which he has greeted both victory and defeat, the defining features of his public conduct over the years. It has been a stellar display, definable only in superlatives – even at the risk of sounding mawkish. Ideally, instead of this gradual fade-out, loyal fans would have cherished a more spectacular finale, a dream farewell, but sport is cruelly indifferent, even to its icons.

Like all greats who enforce change on their domain, Federer imposed his writ on his sport. To match his authority, delivered with silken skill , he forced rivals to improvise, restructure, to reach in to unsuspected depths and , in the process, to uplift their own competencies. That the top twenty in the last two decades, Roddick, Nadal, Djockovic, Murray, Wawrinka , Berdych and Hewitt included, became the players that they are, is in large measure due to the excellence and the challenge Federer presented. Had he not been around, his opponents would have been lesser players, lesser men.

In a sport which was subsiding in to constant, tedious contests, amongst a group of lusty base-line hitters with massive forehands and looping double-fisted backhands, Federer re-conjured a vanished finesse; the beauty of all-court shot-making, comprising a captivating mix of serve and volley, mid-court aggression and delicate passing shots, threading invisible gaps with surgical precision, reinforced by dexterous serving and solid back-court play.

Shot-for-shot, in the bread-and-butter armoury of all good Tennis players, through all his playing years Federer was superseded in consistency and power, by most of his close rivals. In an era when 200 kmph serves are a commonality, in terms of speed Federer was unexceptional. One could easily name a dozen players, some of them not even in the top hundred, who would out-gun the maestro on a given day. Yet, in terms of total career aces, Federer is third in the list, not far behind the two giant artillerymen, Isner and Karlovich.

When talking of powerful single-handed backhands, the names that come to mind are Wawrinka, Gasquet and, latterly, Thiem, Tsitsipas and Shapovalov. Federer is not the natural first. Forehands were delivered with greater power and consistency, by Del Potro, Djockovic, Nadal, Berdych, Verdasco and a host of other, lesser players. Amongst the top ten serve-volley specialists of the last three decades, Federer rates an honourable mention, but pundits would not rank him above Cash, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Stitch or even Henman. His return of serve was reliable but rarely exceptional, mostly a neutral shot to ease him in to the point. In that department he will not be rated above Agassi, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic or Hewitt.

Given the superiority of all those players in specific aspects of the game, what enabled Federer’s lengthy dominance over a host of rivals, with individual weapons bigger than anything in his arsenal?

One can talk of Federer’s court coverage, a dance choreographed personally by the master, feathery light on his feet, an exhibition of fluid, balletic grace; the unreadable serve, delivered with identical action, whether down the centre or nicking the side lines; the back-hand down the line, its classic beauty masking the raw power; the topspin, back-hand cross-court flick, from deep in the ad-court, defying the mechanical limitations on shot-making and conjuring angles a double-fisted hitter would envy; the flat, rocketing, off-forehand, delivered at full stretch, described by John McEnroe, a genius of an earlier era, as the “greatest shot in our sport”; the running passes on both wings; the reflex volleys from mid-court and the overhead smashes with feet three feet off the ground, the backhand smash and the “tweener”.

Perhaps it was all of these, combined with the freshness that he brought to the game, the elegant all-court artistry, beguilingly creative, its freedom of expression defying the fear of error percentages , confident that the winners would eventually override the errors; a magical shot-making, his racquet a fencer’s foil, probing chinks in the opponent’s armour.

His brilliance is captured by McEnroe, commentating at Wimbledon a few years ago; from his deuce court Federer delivers an explosive backhand return winner, against a massive first serve, the ball nicking the side- line of the opponent’s service box, and McEnroe declaims in awed tones, “that shot does not exist, It Does Not Exist !!!” Federer made the impossible look both casual and natural, persuading the spectator that genius was a universally attainable goal.

Yet, this audacity , with minimal margin for error, was constantly shadowed by the likelihood of failure, particularly against more conservative opponents. Some of Federer’s significant losses are attributable to the high-risk nature of his game. But it was also his vulnerability, which enthralled and kept the audience on edge, all the time.

Federer had no formula, unlike the more calculating Djockovic , who relied on the metronomic precision of repetitive shot-making , with minimal variation from the first to the last stroke, even in a forty-shot rally; or Nadal, the man who troubled Federer the most, shackling opponents with relentless, top-spin, baseline bludgeoning ; or the choleric, unhappy, Murray, scrambling from side-to-side like a terrier, constantly at war with himself, his impregnable defence more effective than his attack. In stark contrast to all his peers, Federer in full flow was a joyous exhibition of spontaneity and improvisation.

Federer’s genius was summed up best by a great of a different era, Jimmy Connors, who once said, “in an era of specialists you are either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, a hard court specialist…..or you are Roger Federer “.

How does one define greatness in sport? Statistics, of course, are a prime consideration. Federer has 20 Major Singles titles in his cupboard, surpassed recently by both Nadal and Djokovic. He has figured in some of the most scintillating duels in the history of Tennis, most of which he has won. The only warp in a glittering tapestry is his record against Nadal who, as the Aussies would say, had the “wood on him”. But that too has to be viewed in context. In 40 encounters, of the 24-16 tally in Nadal’s favour, 14 of Federer’s losses are on clay, a surface on which Nadal, unarguably, has no peer. On the faster surfaces Federer leads, 19-11.

Federer’s supremacy fostered magnificent rivalries which enriched tennis of his period, in a manner not seen in any previous era. Apart from Nadal, against Djokovic it is 27-23 in favour of the Serb with the rigidly structured game, 23-3 against Wawrinka, 14-11 against Murray and 17-6 against Berdych. Against Roddick, who himself said that given Federer’s 21-3 dominance that there was no rivalry , 18-9 against Hewitt and 15-5 against the giant Del Potro; reaching further back when Federer was yet to cement his superiority, it is 11-8 against both Safin and Nalbandian and 8-3 with Agassi .

Federer’s supreme individualism does not leave a legacy for new entrants to inherit. Rigidly structured playing styles, which regularly produce thousands of clones in tennis courts the world over, are based on predetermined formulae, supported by proven results and easily passed on from coach or academy to aspiring players. In the universal context of production-line tennis, Federer’s talent was a radiant aberration. Out on the court Federer wrote a script birthed in his own psyche.

What of Roger Federer , the man? Great athletes tend to be viewed only in the context of the discipline that they dominate. Similarly, Federer the man is largely obscured by Federer the tennis player, with his involvement in and contribution to worthy causes rarely reaching the public eye. There is the Roger Federer Foundation for disadvantaged children, totally funded by him, and its affiliation with the South Africa – Swiss Charity, IMBEWU, to assist disadvantaged African children in sports, social and health awareness. In addition there is the leadership he has provided, through numerous sporting events, to generate funds for disaster victims all over the world. Federer, clearly, is a rare synthesis of sporting greatness and civic goodness.

Federer is also the only athlete of the Open era, to combine an obviously busy family life with that of being a world top five player. In an unrelentingly demanding sport, which precludes distractions outside the game, Federer is clearly a dedicated family man at the head of a large and loving family. This sense of proportion and balance, the awareness of the transient nature of supremacy in a sport, and the active contribution to a greater calling outside that dominance, invests Federer’s persona with a completeness, that no other great of the game has demonstrated in his playing days.

The “Greatest of All Time” (GOAT) debate needs mention, even briefly, in any dialogue involving Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. The Serb, with his growing collection of majors, may finally be defined, statistically, as the best craftsman of all time whilst the Spaniard, with his tenacity and physicality, is already spoken of as the toughest opponent of the Open era. However, greatness embraces multiple dimensions. For instance, It cannot admit the international embarrassment that Djokovic is, today. Greatness is a composite of longevity and successful outcomes, reinforced by visual beauty, lethalness of delivery, impeccable conduct, charisma, and the respect accorded by society. It is as much about style and manner of execution, and influence outside the sport, as it is about win-loss statistics.

Federer’s on-court conduct was invariably civil and understated, untainted by the often embarrassingly theatrical bellicosity and provocative histrionics of some of the other stars. That timeless grace extended beyond the court and inhabited his public persona as well. He is still the superstar of Tennis, continuing to transcend the sport despite the decline of his on-court dominance. In the Open Era, no other player has impacted the game as beneficially, as Federer has done. The retirement of no other tennis player has evoked such universal regret, acclaim and tributes, especially from former opponents and fellow contestants. Given all those elements, Federer, the supreme aristocrat of Tennis, wins the GOAT contest, hands down. Federer was the greatest, in a time of greats.

Federer’s career was akin to a glowing comet traversing the Tennis galaxy. Sadly, whilst other galactic wayfarers return at predictable intervals, this is one stellar being who is destined to disappear in to the sun. There will be no heir because he leaves behind no mould for recasting. What a bereaved Tennis world is left with is an enduring legacy of displays of genius, of consummate artistry, unique to the man. The statistics of his dominance will always be available for analysis but the elegance, the grace, and the unimpeachable conduct, both on and off the court, must remain enshrined in collective memory, particularly for those fortunate enough to have witnessed the peerless athlete in his prime.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Zelensky tells BBC Putin has started World War 3 and must be stopped

Published

on

By

The government enclave in Kyiv is heavily-protected [BBC]

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to send out a firm message of defiance.

When we met this weekend in the government headquarters in Kyiv, he said that far from losing, Ukraine would end the war victorious. He was firmly against paying the price for a ceasefire deal demanded by President Vladimir Putin, which is withdrawing from strategic ground that Russia has failed to capture despite sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers.

Putin, Zelensky said, has already started World War Three, and the only answer was intense military and economic pressure to force him to step back.

“I believe that Putin has already started it. The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him… Russia wants to impose on the world a different way of life and change the lives people have chosen for themselves.”

What about Russia’s demand for Ukraine to hand over the 20% of the eastern region of Donetsk that it still holds – a line of towns Ukraine calls “fortress cities” – as well as more land in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? Isn’t that, I asked, a reasonable request if it produces a ceasefire?

“I see this differently. I don’t look at it simply as land. I see it as abandonment – weakening our positions, abandoning hundreds of thousands of our people who live there. That is how I see it. And I am sure that this ‘withdrawal’ would divide our society.”

But isn’t it a good price to pay if that satisfies President Putin? Do you think it would satisfy him?

“It would probably satisfy him for a while… he needs a pause… but once he recovers, our European partners say it could take three to five years. In my opinion, he could recover in no more than a couple of years. Where would he go next? We do not know, but that he would want to continue the war is a fact.”

A map showing Russian military control in Ukraine as of 2100GMT on 18 February 2026

I met Volodymyr Zelensky in a conference room inside the heavily-guarded government enclave in a well-to-do corner of central Kyiv. In the interview he spoke mostly in Ukrainian.

You get a sense of the weight of leadership carried by Zelensky from the diligence of his security guards.

Visiting any head of state requires rigorous checks. But entering the presidential buildings in Kyiv takes the process to a level I have rarely experienced before.

It is not surprising in a country at war, with a president who has already been targeted by Russia.

Despite all that, the man who started as an entertainer, who won the Ukrainian version of Strictly Come Dancing in 2006, and played the role of an unexpected president of Ukraine in a TV comedy, before becoming the real-life president of Ukraine, seems to be remarkably resilient.

US President Donald Trump said on the eve of the most recent ceasefire talks in Geneva that “Ukraine better come to the table fast”.

He continues to default to putting more pressure on Ukraine than on Russia.

Western diplomats have indicated since last summer that Trump agrees with Putin that territorial concessions from Ukraine to Russia are the key to the ceasefire Trump wants, ideally before this coming summer.

Plenty of analysts outside the White House also judge that Ukraine cannot win the war and, without making concessions to Moscow, will lose it.

I asked Zelensky whether Trump and the others had a point.

“Where are you now?” Zelensky asked in return. “Today you are in Kyiv, you are in the capital of our homeland, you are in Ukraine. I am very grateful for this. Will we lose? Of course not, because we are fighting for Ukraine’s independence.”

Zelensky has often said that Ukraine can win, but what would victory look like?

Of course, he said, victory meant restoring normal lives for Ukrainians and ending the killing. But the wider view of victory he presented was all about a global threat that he says comes from Putin.

“I believe that stopping Putin today and preventing him from occupying Ukraine is a victory for the whole world. Because Putin will not stop at Ukraine.”

You are not saying that victory is getting all the land back, are you?

“We’ll do it. That is absolutely clear. It is only a matter of time. To do it today would mean losing a huge number of people – millions of people – because the [Russian] army is large, and we understand the cost of such steps. You would not have enough people, you would be losing them. And what is land without people? Honestly, nothing.”

“And we also don’t have enough weapons. That depends not just on us, but on our partners. So as of now that’s not possible but returning to the just borders of 1991 [the year Ukraine declared its independence, precipitating the final collapse of the Soviet Union] without a doubt, is not only a victory, it’s justice. Ukraine’s victory is the preservation of our independence, and a victory of justice for the whole world is the return of all our lands.”

A year ago, Zelensky visited the White House and received a reception one senior Western diplomat described to me as a pre-planned public “diplomatic mugging” from Donald Trump and his Vice-President, JD Vance.

Their argument, in the presence of the world’s media, was watched by millions around the world.

Trump, just inaugurated as president for the second time, was sending the strongest possible signal that the era of support Zelensky and Ukraine had relied on from President Joe Biden was over. Nato members were already on notice from the new administration. Vance had just got back from shattering Western European illusions about the strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Since then, reportedly coached by Britain’s National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell among others, Zelensky has avoided public confrontations with Trump.

The US president has stopped almost all shipments of military aid to Ukraine. But the US still provides vital intelligence, and European countries are spending billions buying weapons from the Americans to give to Ukraine.

Getty Images U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office at the White House on February 28, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump is raising a finger at Zelensky and leaning in close, while Zelensky is gesturing in frustration
Trump publicly berated Zelensky at the White House in February 2025 [BBC]

I asked Ukraine’s president about Trump’s often contradictory statements, recalling that among the untruths he has uttered is the accusation that Zelensky is a dictator who started the war – a precise echo of claims made by Vladimir Putin.

Zelensky laughed.

“I am not a dictator, and I didn’t start the war, that’s it.”

But can you trust President Trump? If you extract a security guarantee from him, I asked, would he keep his word? He is after all a man who changes his mind.

“It is not only President Trump, we’re talking about America. We are all presidents for the appropriate terms. We want guarantees for 30 years for example. Political elites will change, leaders will change.”

He meant that US security guarantees needed approval from Congress in Washington DC to make them watertight.

“They will be voted on in Congress for a reason. It’s not just presidents. Congress is needed. Because the presidents change, but institutions stay.”

In other words, Donald Trump might be unreliable, but he will not be there for ever.

Zelensky says those security guarantees would have to be in place before he could consider another American demand – the US demand for Ukraine to hold a general election by the summer, echoing another Russian talking point that Zelensky is an illegitimate president. Trump has not demanded elections in Russia, where Putin became leader for the first time on the last day of the 20th Century.

Zelensky said he had not decided whether to stand again, whenever an election is held: “I might run and might not.”

Elections were due in 2024, but they could not be held under martial law that was introduced after Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Holding postponed elections, Zelensky said, was technically possible if they had time to change the law to allow them to happen. But he needed security guarantees for Ukraine first.

He went on to raise so many potential problems about holding an election with millions of Ukrainians abroad as refugees and significant tracts of the country occupied by Russia that I suggested that in reality he was against the idea.

“If this is a condition for ending the war, let’s do it. I said, ‘honestly, you constantly raise the issue of elections’. I told the partners, ‘you need to decide one thing: you want to get rid of me or you want to hold elections? If you want to hold elections, (even if you are not ready to tell me honestly even now), then hold these elections honestly. Hold them in a way that the Ukrainian people will recognise, first of all. And you yourself must recognise that these are legitimate elections'”.

Volodymyr Zelensky has opponents and harsh critics here in Ukraine.

His government was rocked last autumn by a corruption scandal that led to the departure of his closest adviser.

But Zelensky, with a new team, still commands approval ratings that most leaders in Western Europe can only dream about.

He has irritated his allies at times with constant demands for more and better equipment. One of the accusations directed at him in the Oval Office by Trump and Vance a year ago was that he was not sufficiently grateful.

The latest item on his list is permission to manufacture American weapons under licence, including Patriot air defence missiles.

“Today the issue is air defence. This is the most difficult problem. Unfortunately, our partners still do not grant licenses for us to produce systems ourselves, for example, Patriot systems, or even missiles for the systems we already have. So far, we have not achieved success in this.”

Why won’t they do that?

“I don’t know. I have no answer.”

At the end of the interview, he switched from Ukrainian to English.

Given everything he had said, I asked him whether we needed to get ready for an even longer war in Ukraine.

“No, no, no, it’s two parallel tracks… you are playing chess with a lot of leaders, not with Russia. There is not one right way. You have to choose a lot of parallel steps, parallel directions. And one of these parallel ways will, I think, bring success. For us, success is to stop Putin.”

But Vladimir Putin isn’t going to end this war, is he? Unless he’s under massive pressure and he doesn’t seem to be.

“Yes and no. We will see. Yes and no. He doesn’t want, but doesn’t want doesn’t mean he will not. God bless. God bless, we will be successful. Thank you.”

And with that, he posed for photographs, shook hands with the BBC team, and strode out of the room.

[BBC]

Continue Reading

Features

Reconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government

Published

on

From the time the search for reconciliation began after the end of the war in 2009 and before the NPP’s victories at the presidential election and the parliamentary election in 2024, there have been four presidents and four governments who variously engaged with the task of reconciliation. From last to first, they were Ranil Wickremesinghe, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa. They had nothing in common between them except they were all different from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his approach to reconciliation.

The four former presidents approached the problem in the top-down direction, whereas AKD is championing the building-up approach – starting from the grassroots and spreading the message and the marches more laterally across communities. Mahinda Rajapaksa had his ‘agents’ among the Tamils and other minorities. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the dummy agent for busybodies among the Sinhalese. Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe operated through the so called accredited representatives of the Tamils, the Muslims and the Malaiayaka (Indian) Tamils. But their operations did nothing for the strengthening of institutions at the provincial and the local levels. No did they bother about reaching out to the people.

As I recounted last week, the first and the only Northern Provincial Council election was held during the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency. That nothing worthwhile came out of that Council was not mainly the fault of Mahinda Rajapaksa. His successors, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister, with the TNA acceding as a partner of their government, cancelled not only the NPC but also all PC elections and indefinitely suspended the functioning of the country’s nine elected provincial councils. Now there are no elected councils, only colonial-style governors and their secretaries.

Hold PC Elections Now

And the PC election can, like so many other inherited rotten cans, is before the NPP government. Is the NPP government going to play footsie with these elections or call them and be done with it? That is the question. Here are the cons and pros as I see them.

By delaying or postponing the PC elections President AKD and the NPP government are setting themselves up to be justifiably seen as following the cynical playbook of the former interim President Ranil Wickremesinghe. What is the point, it will be asked, in subjecting Ranil Wickremesinghe to police harassment over travel expenses while following his playbook in postponing elections?

Come to think of it, no VVIP anywhere can now whine of unfair police arrest after what happened to the disgraced former prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in England on Thursday. Good for the land where habeas corpus and due process were born. The King did not know what was happening to his kid brother, and he was wise enough to pronounce that “the law must take its course.” There is no course for the law in Trump’s America where Epstein spun his webs around rich and famous men and helpless teenage girls. Only cover up. Thanks to his Supreme Court, Trump can claim covering up to be a core function of his presidency, and therefore absolutely immune from prosecution. That is by the way.

Back to Sri Lanka, meddling with elections timing and process was the method of operations of previous governments. The NPP is supposed to change from the old ways and project a new way towards a Clean Sri Lanka built on social and ethical pillars. How does postponing elections square with the project of Clean Sri Lanka? That is the question that the government must be asking itself. The decision to hold PC elections should not be influenced by whether India is not asking for it or if Canada is requesting it.

Apart from it is the right thing do, it is also politically the smart thing to do.

The pros are aplenty for holding PC elections as soon it is practically possible for the Election Commission to hold them. Parliament can and must act to fill any legal loophole. The NPP’s political mojo is in the hustle and bustle of campaigning rather than in the sedentary business of governing. An election campaign will motivate the government to re-energize itself and reconnect with the people to regain momentum for the remainder of its term.

While it will not be possible to repeat the landslide miracle of the 2024 parliamentary election, the government can certainly hope and strive to either maintain or improve on its performance in the local government elections. The government is in a better position to test its chances now, before reaching the halfway mark of its first term in office than where it might be once past that mark.

The NPP can and must draw electoral confidence from the latest (February 2026) results of the Mood of the Nation poll conducted by Verité Research. The government should rate its chances higher than what any and all of the opposition parties would do with theirs. The Mood of the Nation is very positive not only for the NPP government but also about the way the people are thinking about the state of the country and its economy. The government’s approval rating is impressively high at 65% – up from 62% in February 2025 and way up from the lowly 24% that people thought of the Ranil-Rajapaksa government in July 2024. People’s mood is also encouragingly positive about the State of the Economy (57%, up from 35% and 28%); Economic Outlook (64%, up from 55% and 30%); the level of Satisfaction with the direction of the country( 59%, up from 46% and 17%).

These are positively encouraging numbers. Anyone familiar with North America will know that the general level of satisfaction has been abysmally low since the Iraq war and the great economic recession. The sour mood that invariably led to the election of Trump. Now the mood is sourer because of Trump and people in ever increasing numbers are looking for the light at the end of the Trump tunnel. As for Sri Lanka, the country has just come out of the 20-year long Rajapaksa-Ranil tunnel. The NPP represents the post Rajapaksa-Ranil era, and the people seem to be feeling damn good about it.

Of course, the pundits have pooh-poohed the opinion poll results. What else would you expect? You can imagine which twisted way the editorial keypads would have been pounded if the government’s approval rating had come under 50%, even 49.5%. There may have even been calls for the government to step down and get out. But the government has its approval rating at 65% – a level any government anywhere in the Trump-twisted world would be happy to exchange without tariffs. The political mood of the people is not unpalpable. Skeptical pundits and elites will have to only ask their drivers, gardeners and their retinue of domestics as to what they think of AKD, Sajith or Namal. Or they can ride a bus or take the train and check out the mood of fellow passengers. They will find Verité’s numbers are not at all far-fetched.

Confab Threats

The government’s plausible popularity and the opposition’s obvious weaknesses should be good enough reason for the government to have the PC elections sooner than later. A new election campaign will also provide the opportunity not only for the government but also for the opposition parties to push back on the looming threat of bad old communalism making a comeback. As reported last week, a “massive Sangha confab” is to be held at 2:00 PM on Friday, February 20th, at the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress Headquarters in Colombo, purportedly “to address alleged injustices among monks.”

According to a warning quote attributed to one of the organizers, Dambara Amila Thero, “never in the history of Sri Lanka has there been a government—elected by our own votes and the votes of the people—that has targeted and launched such systematic attacks against the entire Sasana as this one.” That is quite a mouthful and worthier practitioners of Buddhism have already criticized this unconvincing claim and its being the premise for a gathering of spuriously disaffected monks. It is not difficult to see the political impetus behind this confab.

The impetus obviously comes from washed up politicians who have tried every slogan from – L-board-economists, to constitutional dictatorship, to save-our children from sex-education fear mongering – to attack the NPP government and its credibility. They have not been able to stick any of that mud on the government. So, the old bandicoots are now trying to bring back the even older bogey of communalism on the pretext that the NPP government has somewhere, somehow, “targeted and launched such systematic attacks against the entire Sasana …”

Anura Kumara Dissanayake

By using a new election campaign to take on this threat, the government can turn the campaign into a positively educational outreach. That would be consistent with the President’s and the government’s commitment to “rebuild Sri Lanka” on the strength of national unity without allowing “division, racism, or extremism” to undermine unity. A potential election campaign that takes on the confab of extremists will also provide a forum and an opportunity for the opposition parties to let their positions known. There will of course be supporters of the confab monks, but hopefully they will be underwhelming and not overwhelming.

For all their shortcomings, Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa belong to the same younger generation as Anura Kumara Dissanayake and they are unlikely to follow the footsteps of their fathers and fan the flames of communalism and extremism all over again. Campaigning against extremism need not and should not take the form of disparaging and deriding those who might be harbouring extremist views. Instead, the fight against extremism should be inclusive and not exclusive, should be positively educational and appeal to the broadest cross-section of people. That is the only sustainable way to fight extremism and weaken its impacts.

Provincial Councils and Reconciliation

In the framework of grand hopes and simple steps of reconciliation, provincial councils fall somewhere in between. They are part of the grand structure of the constitution but they are also usable instruments for achieving simple and practical goals. Obviously, the Northern Provincial Council assumes special significance in undertaking tasks associated with reconciliation. It is the only jurisdiction in the country where the Sri Lankan Tamils are able to mind their own business through their own representatives. All within an indivisibly united island country.

But people in the north will not be able to do anything unless there is a provincial council election and a newly elected council is established. If the NPP were to win a majority of seats in the next Northern Provincial Council that would be a historic achievement and a validation of its approach to national reconciliation. On the other hand, if the NPP fails to win a majority in the north, it will have the opportunity to demonstrate that it has the maturity to positively collaborate from the centre with a different provincial government in the north.

The Eastern Province is now home to all three ethnic groups and almost in equal proportions. Managing the Eastern Province will an experiential microcosm for managing the rest of the country. The NPP will have the opportunity to prove its mettle here – either as a governing party or as a responsible opposition party. The Central Province and the Badulla District in the Uva Province are where Malaiyaka Tamils have been able to reconstitute their citizenship credentials and exercise their voting rights with some meaningful consequence. For decades, the Malaiyaka Tamils were without voting rights. Now they can vote but there is no Council to vote for in the only province and district they predominantly leave. Is that fair?

In all the other six provinces, with the exception of the Greater Colombo Area in the Western Province and pockets of Muslim concentrations in the South, the Sinhalese predominate, and national politics is seamless with provincial politics. The overlap often leads to questions about the duplication in the PC system. Political duplication between national and provincial party organizations is real but can be avoided. But what is more important to avoid is the functional duplication between the central government in Colombo and the provincial councils. The NPP governments needs to develop a different a toolbox for dealing with the six provincial councils.

Indeed, each province regardless of the ethnic composition, has its own unique characteristics. They have long been ignored and smothered by the central bureaucracy. The provincial council system provides the framework for fostering the unique local characteristics and synthesizing them for national development. There is another dimension that could be of special relevance to the purpose of reconciliation.

And that is in the fostering of institutional partnerships and people to-people contacts between those in the North and East and those in the other Provinces. Linkages could be between schools, and between people in specific activities – such as farming, fishing and factory work. Such connections could be materialized through periodical visits, sharing of occupational challenges and experiences, and sports tournaments and ‘educational modules’ between schools. These interactions could become two-way secular pilgrimages supplementing the age old religious pilgrimages.

Historically, as Benedict Anderson discovered, secular pilgrimages have been an important part of nation building in many societies across the world. Read nation building as reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The NPP government with its grassroots prowess is well positioned to facilitate impactful secular pilgrimages. But for all that, there must be provincial councils elections first.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

Barking up the wrong tree

Published

on

The idiom “Barking up the wrong tree” means pursuing a mistaken line of thought, accusing the wrong person, or looking for solutions in the wrong place. It refers to hounds barking at a tree that their prey has already escaped from. This aptly describes the current misplaced blame for young people’s declining interest in religion, especially Buddhism.

It is a global phenomenon that young people are increasingly disengaged from organized religion, but this shift does not equate to total abandonment, many Gen Z and Millennials opt for individual, non-institutional spirituality over traditional structures. However, the circumstances surrounding Buddhism in Sri Lanka is an oddity compared to what goes on with religions in other countries. For example, the interest in Buddha Dhamma in the Western countries is growing, especially among the educated young. The outpouring of emotions along the 3,700 Km Peace March done by 16 Buddhist monks in USA is only one example.

There are good reasons for Gen Z and Millennials in Sri Lanka to be disinterested in Buddhism, but it is not an easy task for Baby Boomer or Baby Bust generations, those born before 1980, to grasp these bitter truths that cast doubt on tradition. The two most important reasons are: a) Sri Lankan Buddhism has drifted away from what the Buddha taught, and b) The Gen Z and Millennials tend to be more informed and better rational thinkers compared to older generations.

This is truly a tragic situation: what the Buddha taught is an advanced view of reality that is supremely suited for rational analyses, but historical circumstances have deprived the younger generations over centuries from knowing that truth. Those who are concerned about the future of Buddhism must endeavor to understand how we got here and take measures to bridge that information gap instead of trying to find fault with others. Both laity and clergy are victims of historical circumstances; but they have the power to shape the future.

First, it pays to understand how what the Buddha taught, or Dhamma, transformed into 13 plus schools of Buddhism found today. Based on eternal truths he discovered, the Buddha initiated a profound ethical and intellectual movement that fundamentally challenged the established religious, intellectual, and social structures of sixth-century BCE India. His movement represented a shift away from ritualistic, dogmatic, and hierarchical systems (Brahmanism) toward an empirical, self-reliant path focused on ethics, compassion, and liberation from suffering. When Buddhism spread to other countries, it transformed into different forms by absorbing and adopting the beliefs, rituals, and customs indigenous to such land; Buddha did not teach different truths, he taught one truth.

Sri Lankan Buddhism is not any different. There was resistance to the Buddha’s movement from Brahmins during his lifetime, but it intensified after his passing, which was responsible in part for the disappearance of Buddhism from its birthplace. Brahminism existed in Sri Lanka before the arrival of Buddhism, and the transformation of Buddhism under Brahminic influences is undeniable and it continues to date.

This transformation was additionally enabled by the significant challenges encountered by Buddhism during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Wachissara 1961, Mirando 1985). It is sad and difficult to accept, but Buddhism nearly disappeared from the land that committed the Teaching into writing for the first time. During these tough times, with no senior monks to perform ‘upasampada,’ quasi monks who had not been admitted to the order – Ganninanses, maintained the temples. Lacking any understanding of the doctrinal aspects of Buddha’s teaching, they started performing various rituals that Buddha himself rejected (Rahula 1956, Marasinghe 1974, Gombrich 1988, 1997, Obeyesekere 2018).

The agrarian population had no way of knowing or understanding the teachings of the Buddha to realize the difference. They wanted an easy path to salvation, some power to help overcome an illness, protect crops from pests or elements; as a result, the rituals including praying and giving offerings to various deities and spirits, a Brahminic practice that Buddha rejected in no uncertain terms, became established as part of Buddhism.

This incorporation of Brahminic practices was further strengthened by the ascent of Nayakkar princes to the throne of Kandy (1739–1815) who came from the Madurai Nayak dynasty in South India. Even though they converted to Buddhism, they did not have any understanding of the Teaching; they were educated and groomed by Brahminic gurus who opposed Buddhism. However, they had no trouble promoting the beliefs and rituals that were of Brahminic origin and supporting the institution that performed them. By the time British took over, nobody had any doubts that the beliefs, myths, and rituals of the Sinhala people were genuine aspects of Buddha’s teaching. The result is that today, Sri Lankan Buddhists dare doubt the status quo.

The inclusion of Buddhist literary work as historical facts in public education during the late nineteenth century Buddhist revival did not help either. Officially compelling generations of students to believe poetic embellishments as facts gave the impression that Buddhism is a ritualistic practice based on beliefs.

This did not create any conflict in the minds of 19th agrarian society; to them, having any doubts about the tradition was an unthinkable, unforgiving act. However, modernization of society, increased access to information, and promotion of rational thinking changed things. Younger generations have begun to see the futility of current practices and distance themselves from the traditional institution. In fact, they may have never heard of it, but they are following Buddha’s advice to Kalamas, instinctively. They cannot be blamed, instead, their rational thinking must be appreciated and promoted. It is the way the Buddha’s teaching, the eternal truth, is taught and practiced that needs adjustment.

The truths that Buddha discovered are eternal, but they have been interpreted in different ways over two and a half millennia to suit the prevailing status of the society. In this age, when science is considered the standard, the truth must be viewed from that angle. There is nothing wrong or to be afraid of about it for what the Buddha taught is not only highly scientific, but it is also ahead of science in dealing with human mind. It is time to think out of the box, instead of regurgitating exegesis meant for a bygone era.

For example, the Buddhist model of human cognition presented in the formula of Five Aggregates (pancakkhanda) provides solutions to the puzzles that modern neuroscience and philosophers are grappling with. It must be recognized that this formula deals with the way in which human mind gathers and analyzes information, which is the foundation of AI revolution. If the Gen Z and Millennial were introduced to these empirical aspects of Dhamma, they would develop a genuine interest in it. They thrive in that environment. Furthermore, knowing Buddha’s teaching this way has other benefits; they would find solutions to many problems they face today.

Buddha’s teaching is a way to understand nature and the humans place in it. One who understands this can lead a happy and prosperous life. As the Dhammapada verse number 160 states – “One, indeed, is one’s own refuge. Who else could be one’s own refuge?” – such a person does not depend on praying or offering to idols or unknown higher powers for salvation, the Brahminic practice. Therefore, it is time that all involved, clergy and laity, look inwards, and have the crucial discussion on how to educate the next generation if they wish to avoid Sri Lankan Buddhism suffer the same fate it did in India.

by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

Continue Reading

Trending