Midweek Review

Thinking outside Kuppi-box

Published

3 years ago

2021/06/23

by Panduka Karunanayake

The recent series of articles in The Island, entitled ‘Kuppi Talk’, should be commended, for attempting to generate a much-needed discussion on some crucial issues in education. Education builds nations. Destroying education destroys the nation – Sri Lanka (and Ceylon before that) being an evocative example of this. Everyone who knows and acknowledges this would value a discussion like Kuppi Talk.

Several articles in the series were excellent, brief expositions of important issues in education, especially higher education. Everyone with an interest in education, particularly young recruits to the academia, must read them – even if, sadly, they might not make an iota of difference to policy. They could still make an enormous difference within the academia, in its ideas, practices and directions. After all, to command respect from the wider society, the academia must first prove worthy of it – and this proof can come only from within.

Lessons to learn

Niyanthini Kadirgamar’s article on the underfunding of education (March 16) reminded me of the days of University Teachers for Dialogue & Democracy (UT4DD), when we first grappled with this problem. Although time has marched on, it appears that we have remained on or circled around the same spot. Nevertheless, she has brought us uptodate on the situation.

It was particularly saddening for me to note that we missed the bus in the years soon after 2015, not only with regard to improving funding for education but also with regard to the reforms to university governance that we attempted. The report on the university governance workshop that was spearheaded by Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda and published in 2016 remains burried in the dusts of time.

Shamala Kumar’s article on ragging (March 30) is the best encapsulation of the subject I have read. She has brought into it her long experience, wide knowledge, analytical acumen and genuine concern. It would be an unpardonable folly for anyone to embark on trying to understand or solve this problem without first reading this article.

Anushka Kahandagamage’s article (April 13), on the value of arts for nation-building in our conflict-riddled society and the danger of pursuing an exclusively STEM-focused line in education, brought together its argument very eloquently. But I wonder whether she could have balanced her focus on Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy in textbook officialese, by also looking at the co-existing, parallel system of Muslim education and its contribution to differentiation, dissociation and discord (which even moderate Muslims have highlighted). It is noteworthy that this parallel system has a long history (see for instance Mahroof, Journal of Islamic Studies 1995;6:25).

Kaushalya Perera’s article on quality in higher education (May 25) nicely summarised a complex, multi-faceted topic. I was especially pleased to see that she touched on the importance of qualification inflation (although not using that term) in graduate unemployment. This is an aspect that policy-makers and politicians gloss over, because it threatens to take the problem from its soft end (i.e., changing curricula in universities) to the hard end (i.e., expanding the industries to enhance employment opportunities). Her exposition of the dangers of the corporatisation of the academia was excellent.

Kaushalya Herath wrote on the need to decolonise our universities from neocolonial hegemonic knowledge structures and situate them more firmly on our own soil (June 08). It provided an eloquent argument in the fewest of words. Herath rightly laments that “universities, once the executors of cultural colonisation, are being colonised by the corporate sector”. In the 1950s this happened to Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara pirivenas when they were converted to universities (i.e., cultural colonisation), and in the present day it is happening to indigenous medicine where its academics are on a mission to ‘modernise’ it to answer the call of the market (i.e., corporate colonisation).

Thus, current efforts in our universities that try to ‘re-discover’ indigenous knowhow run the risk of re-inventing indigenous knowhow through western epistemologies to fit it into western-styled markets, garnished with a populist layer of ‘heritage’ or ‘naturalness’. If our minds are so successfully ‘colonised’, where can indigenous knowhow turn to? Probably to non-university institutions funded and run by philanthropists (which don’t themselves turn into universities after a few decades). And that says something about our universities!

The other articles were focused on the problem of unemployment or ‘unemployability’ of Arts graduates. This was highlighted by a National Audit Office (NAO) report released in November 2020, which stated that more than 50% of our Arts graduates were unemployed (which the Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts then famously quoted in March 2021). Sivamohan Sumathy in her article (March 02) shed some valuable light on the methodological problems of the studies that had formed the basis for the NAO report. The articles by Farzana Haniffa (April 27) and Hasini Lecamwasam (May 11) elaborated the problem further.

Let me now turn to some points to ponder that this series should trigger.

Undergraduate numbers vs. quality

There appears to be some resentment among Social Science and Humanities (SSH) academics regarding reducing the number of students following Arts degree programmes. To me this is puzzling. Would it not be better to settle for a smaller number of students? The available resources could then be used more effectively, to enhance the quality of the graduate (whichever way they may want to define quality).

Perhaps this resentment is driven by a worry that some Arts degree programmes and departments may become redundant. I wonder, however, whether we can innovate solutions to this. For instance, can we not provide SSH as compulsory studies for all undergraduates (and even postgraduates) in their foundation years?

This is not something new. The value of a multi-faceted education in the formative years is increasingly recognised. In 2005 the Supreme Court of India in a much-celebrated, public-spirited decision determined that every undergraduate must be taught a course on environment studies. In 2009 Professor Carlo Fonseka in his Kannangara Oration suggested something similar: “Once students are selected for different courses in the universities, they should be required to spend a year on a Foundation Course in English,…computer literacy [and] cultural studies.” Our university senates still have enough academic freedom to introduce changes of this nature.

Or is this resentment merely driven by an ideology? Is ideology preventing us from seeing the obvious?

Why dichotomise?

To solve the Arts graduates’ unemployment problem, we are constantly asked to choose between two options. On the one hand is the transformative educational experience that academics propose, handsomely described by Sivamohan Sumathy in her article. On the other hand is the neoliberal, competencies-focused education that the World Bank proposes.

But why do we have to choose between them? Why can’t we combine the two? Can’t we combine the “package of skills and competencies” with the sense of “self, person, society” that we want the graduate to develop – rather than seeing these as opposites that can’t mix? The transformative education is what the people need (in our opinion), and the neoliberal model is what they want. Why can’t we give students an education that they need in a form that they would want? In fact, this sort of education is the only sort of education that is worth giving and receiving.

It is true that these current threats and anxieties are due to an externally imposed challenge (i.e., neoliberalism), and one might not like it. But it is important to remember that universities have never been free of or immune to such challenges.

Historically, the arrival of printing, the rise of the nation state, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy, the Cold War, the rise of the knowledge industries, the slow economic recession of the 1970s and the fall of the Communist bloc all challenged, re-defined and re-shaped the university. (Eric Lybeck’s The University Revolution is a fascinating recent book on this.) It is true that the academia should have its own terms of engagement with society and its own definition of itself (and Sivamohan Sumathy’s article is a good starting point for this). But it is also imperative that we cannot expect to remain meaningful and relevant to society if we lack sensitivity, flexibility and manoeuverability towards society’s immediate anxieties.

Semantic errors

A common error in academic circles is bundling together globalisation, corporatisation, commoditisation and privatisation into one basket of despised entities. This is evident in Sivamohan Sumathy’s article: “In the current context, globalization is another name for the rapid development of capitalist financialization, and a dissolution of labour as a collective force and as a movement toward socialized citizenry.” Well, actually not. Globalisation, as everyone knows, is a neutral phenomenon that can be applied for various tasks, bad and good. She does qualify this tectonic shift in the meaning of globalisation by appealing to “the current context”. But then, let us at least keep in mind that contexts are generated, fluid and reflexive. After all, our context belongs to us.

I have no problem in accepting that corporatisation of the academia is something bad, or that commodification of education is bad. I also appreciate that uncontrolled privatisation of education paves way for the commodification of education. But here, there are two problems. First, uncontrolled privatisation is not the only form that privatisation of education can take place (unless if we prevent the other forms). Second, privatisation of education in one form or the other is here to stay, because of the huge demand, and the public is already consuming it – our real challenge is to shape it to the nation’s advantage.

Privatisation can take many forms. It can be not-for-profit. We have had examples of private educational institutions that were started by philanthropy and served communities enormously. Sivamohan Sumathy will know the value of the education that American missionaries in the nineteenth century and the philanthropy-funded Jaffna Public Library in the twentieth century added to Jaffna culture. Her friends from the South will know how much H.W. Amarasuriya added to the educational culture of the Southern Province in the twentieth century. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens and families have benefitted from the many private schools and pirivenas set up by indigenous revivalist movements of all three main ethnic groups at the turn of the twentieth century; they were originally private (but supported by the colonial government), and were only later taken over by the state.

To see this broader picture, we need to rename private education as ‘non-state education’ and accept that it belongs in the ‘public sphere’ of our communities and the country – because the word ‘private’ carries too many erroneous connotations and emotive baggage. These institutions serve the public, and the benefits are therefore also public – both individually and collectively. What we must focus on is not their dissolution or ‘nationalisation’, but their quality, cost and access. Quality should be supervised by the state. Cost can be brought down by incentives, which do not necessarily require state funds. And access can be widened by financing mechanisms such as bursaries and loan schemes that ensure that deserving students admitted on merit would not be denied access.

Back to the past or to the future?

Even if one didn’t agree with such arguments, they are still part of a healthy, diverse and inclusive discussion. Such a discussion is not helped by defining globalisation as what it is not, pushing privatisation into the devil’s corner, or presenting the unemployment problem as a dichotomy without middle ground, and building the argument thereon. When our discussion becomes irrelevant and detached from reality, the people ignore us and go on to take whatever option available to them – franchised degrees, cross-border higher education, etc. While we debate on the dichotomy, our students still yearn for those skills and turn elsewhere.

Should we limit our discussion to what our ideologies allow, or have a discussion unhindered by them? Should we live in our past, or reach for the future? That is the crucial question that the UT4DD failed to answer then, to its detriment. Kuppi Talk must address it now.

_______________

The writer is Professor in the Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo. His email address is panduka@clinmed.cmb.ac.lk

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

North: A change in status ahead of Maaveerar Naal

Published

15 hours ago

2024/11/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Premier Dr. Harini Amarasuriya receives her letter of appointment from President Dissanayake. The NPP government’s success will largely depend on the duo: AKD, who entered Parliament in 2000 and new entrant HA (pic courtesy PMD).

* One-time LTTE mouthpiece TNA is no more

* N & E Tamil speaking representation enhanced

* Fresh look at Sarath Fonseka’s performance at 2010 Prez poll in North required

The new government’s main challenge is ensuring the full implementation of the IMF-led post-Aragalaya economic recovery in line with the Economic Transformation Bill approved by the previous government without a vote. Whatever the side-shows, the focus not only of the government but the Parliament should be on preparing the country to resume debt repayment in 2028 or be ready to face the consequences.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

In a way it was a great thing for the country that the National People’s Power (NPP) scored an emphatic victory at the Nov. 14 general election. Now the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led NPPers can have no excuses for not being able to fulfill their promises as would have been the case if the preceding September Presidential election outcome was repeated with the combined Opposition having the lion’s share of the vote, which would have left the country with a virtual hung Parliament of no benefit to anyone other than creating a parliamentary stalemate, leading to fresh political chaos.

We will, however, grant the fact they have a very tall order to fulfill after the previous governments having virtually signed away our sovereignty with the deals they had inked during their tenures.

But we do have a nagging suspicion about someone working in not so mysterious ways against us behind the scene, after what the former US Secretary of State, John Kerry, publicly stated not too long after the defeat of President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2015 presidential election when he crowed to the whole world how they had spent several hundred million dollars for regime change operations at the time in several countries, including Sri Lanka. Then we also know since then how a US engineered coup ousted the popularly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan by way of parliamentary and military shenanigans, and then the more publicised way they ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and then virtually ruined that country as was the case during the Aragalaya here in 2022 to oust the legally elected President, with a wide mandate, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The NPP has accomplished the impossible, even in the North, in the form of securing the Jaffna electoral district at the recently concluded parliamentary election. The NPP obtained three seats, nothing but a historic watershed.

The ruling party also won the Vanni electoral district, the scene of some of the bloodiest fighting during the Eelam War IV (Aug 2006-May 2009). Securing Jaffna and Vanni consisting of Vavuniya, Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu administrative districts, is as difficult as eradicating the conventional fighting capability of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The NPP won two seats in the Vanni.

The final phase of the ground offensive was conducted in a corner of the Vanni electorate where LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran met his maker.

The NPP secured two seats in Trincomalee and one in the Batticaloa districts, whereas Digamadulla gave President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s party four more seats. Altogether 12 out of 29 parliamentary seats available in the five above-mentioned electoral districts ended up with the NPP.

The NPP delivered the stunning blow to those who still pursued separatist agenda, regardless of the LTTE’s demise over 15 years ago. The combined armed forces brought the war to a successful conclusion in May 2009.

The Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that dominated the Northern and Eastern provinces since 2001 hadn’t been in the fray at the 2024 general election. The TNA that had been in the grip of the LTTE, during 2004-2009, disintegrated 15 years after the end of war, with the ITAK unceremoniously ending the partnership. Ex-TNA members, EPRLF, TELO and PLOTE contested the general election under the ticket of Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA).

The ITAK obtained seven seats (Batticaloa three, Jaffna one, Vanni one, Digamadulla one, Trincomalee one) whereas DTNA won just one (Vanni one). It would be pertinent to mention that ITAK and DTNA fielded a common list for the Trincomalee district to ensure a split in the Tamil vote wouldn’t cost the community much valued representation therein. ITAK Trincomalee leader Kathiravelu Shanmugam Kugathasan, who replaced R. Sampanthan in Parliament at the last Parliament, won that seat.

In addition to the seven elected, the ITAK that contested under the ‘House’ symbol won one National List slot. Ahila Ilankai Tamil Congress (AITC) was the only other party to secure a seat (Jaffna/ Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam) while Independent Group 17 (Jaffna/ Ramanathan Archuna) won one. Altogether Tamil political parties obtained 11 seats, one less than the NPP.

M.A. Sumanthiran (ITAK/Jaffna), Dharmalingham Siddharthan (DTNA/Jaffna) and Sashikala Nadarajah (DTNA/Jaffna), widow of slain ITAK MP Nadarajah Raviraj were some of the big losers. In the east, one-time Chief Minister of the Eastern Province Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pilleyan, formerly of the LTTE, failed to retain his Batticaloa district seat. Former LTTE field commander and ex-lawmaker Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan aka Karuna Amman made an unsuccessful bid to re-enter Parliament also from the Batticaloa district.

In the previous Parliament, there had been 16 MPs representing five Tamil political parties (ITAK, AITC Eelam People’s Democratic Party [EPDP], Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal [TMVP] and Tamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani [TMTK]. Last week’s poll eliminated EPDP, TMVP and TMTK while new entrant NPP created political history by winning 11 seats.

In spite of the humiliating setback suffered by those who had been previously in Parliament, the NPP tally has increased the total strength of the Tamil-speaking group representing N & E in Parliament. Perhaps, the successful formation of NPP’s Tamil-speaking wing may influence other political parties to re-examine their overall political strategy. They may not have any other alternative as failure to do so can further weaken their position at the forthcoming Provincial Council and Local Government polls. PC and LG polls are expected to be held next year.

Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, who re-entered Parliament with a convincing win in Batticaloa, consolidated his position, within the party and the district, due to ITAK’s admirable performance there. If not for three Batticaloa seats, ITAK aka Federal Party would have been in an utterly embarrassing position. Batticaloa electoral district is the only one that the NPP couldn’t win. Therefore, the outspoken Rasamanickam can be really happy to have thwarted the NPP in the eastern district.

Now to bury the hatchet between the two or, more correctly, the three literally warring communities here, NPP will have to think out of the box to find a solution that may be by way of sharing power at the centre rather than the periphery, as was successfully done under the Donoughmore Constitution.

Accountability issues

At the presidential election held in Sept. the NPP couldn’t win at least one electorate in the North but did so well several weeks later, it could win Jaffna and Vanni electorates. If not for that sterling performance, the NPP couldn’t have secured an unprecedented 2/3 majority. President AKD should be ever grateful to the northern and eastern electorates for facilitating a 2/3 majority.

Since the introduction of the proportional representation at the 1989 Parliamentary election, no party succeeded in securing a 2/3 though many alleged the Rajapaksas abused such huge mandates. They were, of course, referring to the UPFA securing 144 seats and 145 seats at the 2010 and 2020 general elections, respectively. For a simple majority, the winning party needs 113 seats while 2/3 means 150 seats.

Against the backdrop of NPP’s victory in the N & E, the new Parliament should review Sri Lanka’s response to post-war accountability issues. Since the eradication of the LTTE, the TNA propagated politically motivated unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, both here and abroad. Finally, the treacherous Yahapalana government (2015-2019) betrayed the war-winning armed forces at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Oct 2015. The accountability resolution that had been co-sponsored by the US-led grouping and Sri Lanka was meant to pave the way for a new Constitution aimed at doing away with the country’s unitary status.

Interestingly, the war-winning Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka, who had been promoted to the rank of Field Marshal, in March 2015, served in that Yahapalana Cabinet, chaired by President Maithripala Sirisena. The role played by the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and the late Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera in that despicable act is in the public domain. The failure on the part of Fonseka, who served President Sirisena’s Cabinet to vigorously oppose the government move is still a mystery.

The writer repeatedly discussed the failure on the part of Parliament and urged concerned political parties to raise the Yahapalana-TNA Geneva operation after the same lot fielded Fonseka as the common presidential candidate in 2010. Although Fonseka lost the contest by a massive 1.8 mn votes to war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he handsomely won the Jaffna, Vanni, Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Digamadulla electoral districts at the same election.

The NPP’s excellent showing in the N & E at the recently concluded general election should be examined taking Fonseka winning the former war zones 14 years ago.

Having alleged Fonseka’s Army of war crimes throughout the northern campaign, the TNA had no qualms in backing the Sinha Regiment veteran. Unfortunately, political parties represented in Parliament never bothered to raise TNA’s duplicity. Instead, all of them shamelessly and brazenly played politics with the issue, seeking petty political advantage at the expense of the armed forces. There hadn’t been a single instance of a war-winning country betraying its armed forces hitherto anywhere in the world. It was only the Maithripala Sirisena/Ranil Wickremesinghe govt. that achieved that dastardly act.

The JVP, though being not part of the Yahapalana Cabinet, never opposed the government’s move against the armed forces. However, the NPP’s victory in the North, perhaps would give an opportunity for President AKD, who is also the Defence Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to address the issue at hand afresh. President AKD retained the Defence portfolio when the new Cabinet of Ministers was sworn in last Monday.

The developing situation in the North may help post-war national reconciliation efforts. Successive governments deliberately allowed further deterioration of relations between the two communities by not taking apt remedial measures. Those who propagated lies were allowed to do so much to the disappointment of the armed forces. Parliament turned a blind eye even when the US and Australia et al denied visas to retired and serving officers and US imposed travel ban on the then Army Commander Gen. Shavendra Silva, the incumbent Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Maj. General Chagie Gallage, now retired, is another victim of external reprisals.

Maaveerar Naal (Great Heroes’ day)

The Tamil Diaspora must have been quite surprised by the outcome of the general election. Some interested parties played down the importance of NPP victory in the North on the basis of low turnout of voters. It would be interesting to observe how the Diaspora and political parties here mark this year’s Maaveerar Naal. Commencing 1991, the LTTE used to celebrate Nov. 21-27 week as Great Heroes Week. During the period the group wielded power, the weeklong celebrations and activities received even international media attention.

This year, Maaveerar week is scheduled to commence on Nov 21 (tomorrow), the day the 10th Parliament meets. What would those elected from the NPP, ITAK and other parties do this year? Would interested parties seek to cause some unnecessary commotion in a bid to embarrass the government. Let us hope the government would handle the situation cautiously as opportunistic elements on both sides seek to exploit the developments. ITAK’s Sivagnanam Shritharan paid tribute to fallen Maaveerar at Kanagapuram, Kilinochchi.

The NPP’s unexpected victory in the north may compel not only Tamil Diaspora but Western countries, particularly Canada, to review their position.

Canada declared May 18 as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day as Premier Justin Trudeau’s government sought to appease Canadian voters of Sri Lankan origin. Canada cannot under any circumstances ignore the Tamil vote received by the NPP as people discarded unsubstantiated war crimes allegations directed at the government, for the second time. Had the northern electorate believed the Army wantonly killed civilians on the Vanni east front in 2009, as alleged by the UN, they wouldn’t have voted for Fonseka. Perhaps, the people wanted the government to bring the war to an end at any cost. Having waged two terror campaigns in 1971 and 1987-1990, the JVP should be able to comprehend the need and the responsibility on the part of the government of the day to take whatever measures necessary to deal with the challenge.

The NPP was formed in 2019 just months ahead of the presidential election as the JVP realized it couldn’t push ahead on its own but needed wider public support. The NPP achieved that with ease within six years.

In August 2006, the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa went ahead with an-all-out campaign against the LTTE after failing to convince them to negotiate for a final settlement. President Rajapaksa had no option but to go on the offensive after the failed LTTE assassination attempts on the then Army Commander Lt. Gen. Fonseka (April 2006) and then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa (Oct. 2006). The TNA remained committed to the LTTE’s murderous cause until the very end.

A matter for serious concern

An unbelievably large number of voters skipped the general election. All political parties, including the NPP, should be concerned over the unprecedented deterioration of voter interest, especially after a thrilling presidential election brought AKD to power just six weeks ago. A substantial increase for the NPP from 5,634,915 votes (42.31 %) at the presidential to 6,863,186 (61.56%) at the general election just weeks later shouldn’t be allowed to divert attention to the massive drop in public interest. Well over half a million rejected votes, too, must worry all.

The NPP won 159 seats, including 18 National List slots, nine more than required for a 2/3 majority. At the presidential election 3,520,438 voters refrained from exercising their franchise. But that figure increased to 5,325,108 at the general election while the number of rejected votes, too, recorded a significant increase. According to the Election Commission, at the presidential poll, the number of rejected votes was 300,300 while the general election recorded 667,240 rejected votes.

What really caused such an increase in the number of rejected votes was when the number of polled votes dropped from 13,619,916 votes (79.46%) to 11,815,246 (68.93%)? In other words of the 17,140,354 people eligible to vote, a staggering percentage decided not to. Voter apathy is not healthy. Not healthy at all.

A rethinking on the part of the SJB and New Democratic Front (NDF/consisted of former SLPP lawmakers and UNP) is necessary as they couldn’t at least retain the number of votes received at the presidential election. SJB that polled 4,363,035 votes (32.76 %) at the presidential poll could muster only 1,968,716 (17.66%) at the general election, while NDF could secure 500,835 (4.49%) having polled 2,299,767 (17.27%) just weeks ago. The SJB and NDF ended up with 40 seats (including five NL slots) and five seats (including 2two NL slots) while the SLPP that won 145 seats at the 2020 general election had to be satisfied with three seats, including one NL slot.

Both Sajith Premadasa and Ranil Wickremesinghe should seek remedial measures before the EC announced PC and LG polls. Perhaps, divided groups have to unite under one banner either under SJB or UNP or face annihilation at the PC and LG polls. For Premadasa and Wickremesinghe time seemed to have run out.

The SLPP obtained 350,429 votes (3.14%) at the general election up from 342,781 (2.57 %) at the presidential election. For the SLPP a rapid recovery process will never be possible as its only NL member and leader of the minute group Namal Rajapaksa is likely to be the target of corruption investigations. The SLPP group consists of Namal Rajapaksa, newcomer Chanaka Sampath (Galle) and D.V. Chanaka (Hambantota).

Fifteen political parties represented the last Parliament. They were SLPP (145), SJB (54), ITAK (10), NPP (03), EPDP (02), AITC (02), TMVP (01), SLFP (01), MNA (01), TMTK (01) TMTK, ACMC (01), NC (01), SLMC (01), UNP (01) and OPPP (01). The new Parliament will be represented by 13 political parties and one independent group – namely NPP 159, SJB 40, ITAK 08, NDF 05, SLPP 03, SLMC 03, Sarvajana Balaya (NL), UNP (01), DTNA (01), ACTC (01), ACMC (01), Jaffna Ind. Group 157 (01) and SLLP (01).

Midweek Review

‘Ramayanizing’ Sri Lanka by Courtesy of SriLankan Airlines

Published

15 hours ago

2024/11/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Srilankan advertisement

(The author is on X as @sasmester)

SriLankan Airlines’ five-minute commercial promoting the so-called ‘Ramayana Trail’ in Sri Lanka is being accepted very naively as an enticing and heartwarming advertisement by Sri Lankan and Indian viewers across social media. Predictably, the video has also gone viral. It shows a young child being educated about aspects of the Ramayana legend by his grandmother, while zooming in on locations in Sri Lanka where local mythology has made associations with some narratives of the Ramayana. Beyond the rave reviews of the commercial in Sri Lanka and India, an astute observer would in fact see it as a very problematic rendition for one simple reason. That is, when viewed from the perspective that it is paid for by SriLankan Airlines, a government entity funded by local taxpayers, what is said and promoted, in effect, would be through the voice of the state and the government. Therefore, for instance, when the granny tells the child, “all the places in Ramayana are real. Today, we know Lanka as Sri Lanka”, in one careless and ill-thought-out fell swoop, SriLankan Airlines has given credence to belief as evidence, myth as history, fiction as fact, asserting Ramayana’s Lanka as present-day Sri Lanka when numerous Indian renditions of the story locate parts of Ravana’s Lanka well within contemporary India.

Admittedly, the commercial will certainly attract Indian tourists and pilgrims, particularly from the northern parts of the country. The question that comes to mind however is whether this is the only way to promote the trail? Many of my friends have already made the trip without the nudging of the new advert. The advert also begs the question, whether local sensitivities and cultural meanings linked to the Sanskrit epic were ever considered when it was conceptualised, or at any point even after in the process. More importantly, who gave the final seal of approval?

The hegemonic narrative in the commercial is what one might call a ‘North Indian Brahminic’ approach to the Ramayana, which erases other versions of the epic including the Ravana-centric myths in Sri Lanka itself. Unfortunately, it is this hegemonic narrative that has been making the rounds for some time in India with Rama as its protagonist and Ravana as the absolute villain, the all-evil-encompassing antagonist. In this rendition, it is no longer simply an ancient epic or a story of innocence and faith, but a contemporary political narrative with considerable cultural power, authority and reach, performed and used by the state itself. This narrative feeds directly and indirectly into the somewhat imperialist designs of certain contemporary Indian political forces so aptly encapsulated in the hegemonic political concept of Akhand Bharat. However, in real life, understandings of the Ramayana have never been this simple or linear.

The title of Prof A.K. Ramanujan’s seminal essay, ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation’ offers a clear indication into the many versions of the Ramayana and the complex narrative traditions of both India and lands beyond where aspects of the epic have become part of local myths, folktales or performance traditions. Interestingly, Prof Ramanujan’s essay was dropped from the Bachelor of Arts in History (Honours) degree programme at Delhi University in 2011 amidst considerable agitations lead by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, a right-wing students’ organization, precisely because its contents complicate the way in which the political narrative that is the Ramayana today is presented.

It is truly unfortunate that the narrative given prominence in the Sri Lankan Airlines advert stems from this dominant, parochialized and utterly politicized version of the Ramayana which sweepingly demonizes Ravana. This broad-brush demonization reaches its peak in India during Dussehra, the festival during which effigies of Ravana are burnt to symbolize the vanquishing of evil (Ravana) by good (Rama). However, interestingly, in many of India’s tribal areas, the narrative is closer to that in Sri Lanka, where Ravana is seen as a hero, and importantly as a source of knowledge and ethics. In 2017, in the Katol area in the State of Maharashtra, tribal people forced the local administration to stop the burning of Ravana effigies during Dussehra. In Nashik, also in Maharashtra, tribal folklore suggests that the area was part of Ravana’s kingdom and was governed by his sister Surpanakha along with her husband. This understanding of Ravana’s kingdom is nowhere near Sri Lanka as promoted by SriLankan Airlines. In some tribal Gond villages in Maharashtra, Ravana is worshiped as a god, clearly evident during Dussehra. He is also worshiped in many other locations including, Mandsaur and Ravangram in Madhya Pradesh; Bisrakh in Uttar Pradesh; Kangra in Himachal Pradesh; Mandya and Kolar in Karnataka, and Jodhpur in Rajasthan. Similar practices are seen in the tribal areas of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and West Bengal as well.

In Tamil Nadu in India’s south, there are many people who align themselves with ‘Dravidian’ ideologies, promoting Ravana as a politico-cultural icon. One source of motivation for this stems from the manner in which Ravana is eulogised for his valour in Kambaramayanam – the Tamil version of the Ramayana – even though here, too, the main premise of the hegemonic account is maintained. The more obvious source for this reverence is Ravana Kaaviyam written by Pulavar Kuzhandhai and published in 1946. It is a 20th century attempt to deconstruct the Ramayana based on the argument that the mainstream Ramayana was an attempt to establish the supremacy of the ‘Aryan race’ who lived in northern India, over the ‘Dravidians’ in the south. Here, Ravana is seen as a ‘Dravidian’ king, and in essence very similar to the Sinhala renditions of Ravana. In both these popular Sinhala and Tamil versions, he is presented as a noble king, epitomising justice, courage and compassion, and also a wise person and scholar. While categories such as ‘Dravidian’ and ‘Aryan’ as ethno-cultural references as opposed to linguistic references are not part of my academic vocabulary, the attempted deconstruction is nevertheless interesting as it also offers a glimpse into the manner in which 20th and 21st century hegemonic North Indian politics are understood by some sections in the country’s south.

What is evident is that a counterculture movement is currently mobilising tribal and Dalit communities in several Indian states such as the above to vindicate Ravana and ‘rescue’ him from the negative light in which he has been portrayed in the current dominant version of the Ramayana, the one SriLankan Airlines has blindly based their commercial on. Due to this blindness, these interesting and telling complexities and intriguing political and cultural references have no resonance whatsoever in the SriLankan Airlines advert.

I come again to the question posed at the beginning of this essay: is this the only way to do such a promotion funded by the Sri Lankan government? Cannot the state-funded national carrier attract Indian tourists and pilgrims by presenting the places the local tourism industry and Indian tour and pilgrimage operators want these travellers to visit by offering the local interpretation? After all, Sri Lanka does not have a performance tradition of the Ramayana and hardly any concrete memories of the epic and its numerous episodes as a specific text. Instead, fragments of these exist scattered on the landscape throughout the island as places where specific incidents related to the Ramayana had supposedly happened. These manifest through several local folk tales and myths where Ravana is ever present as a local hero and Rama is virtually absent except when contextually required. Moreover, some of these places refer to many other stories too, which have been historically more prominent locally than the Ramayana-related narratives. However, right now, the Ramayana ‘stories’ are given considerable local and national prominence as a rational economic decision taken by people in these areas in the interest of tourism which translates into simple commercial gain. This is understandable.

The question is, what prevented SriLankan Airlines from beginning its advert with the famed flying machine of Ravana known in Sinhala as dandu monaraya (and in India as Pushpaka Viman), often referred to in influential local interpretations as the first of its kind, and predating the Wright Brothers’ invention? Is it a lamentable lack of imagination and creativity, or sheer ignorance? After all, the logo of Air Lanka, the predecessor to SriLankan Airlines, found its genesis in this story, which continues to date in a different form. This way, potential tourists could have been shown the same locations referred to in the current advert, but viewed from the sky, as if one were flying in the dandu monaraya like Ravana may have done in mythical times. This would also be very similar to the way ancient Sri Lankan poets of the sandesha tradition described local landscapes and built environments from the point of view of a bird in flight taking a message to a king, a Buddhist monk or some other such personality. Salalihini Sandeshaya and Hansa Sandeshaya written in the 15th century during the Kotte Period come to mind.

In this manner, the core places in the ‘Ramayana Trail’ could have been flagged for tourist and pilgrim interest while maintaining a distinct sense of local culture and identity that SriLankan Airlines should ideally be marketing. This is not to make Indian tourists and pilgrims cast aside their own beliefs, narratives and interpretations when visiting Sri Lanka. That is their right and not in any doubt. The crux of the matter is, why would SriLankan Airlines be so north Indian and Brahminic, and willingly succumb to the dominant and exclusivist version of the Ramayana promoted by the Indian state and many ordinary people to the exclusion of all other narratives in India itself? By doing so, SriLankan Airlines is taking itself, the government, the state and by extension all of us Sri Lankans, right into the bosom of the Indian state’s cultural and political colonialism typified by the concept of ‘Akhand Bharat’ as noted earlier. If picked up by opposition forces in the politically polarised Sri Lankan society, the advertisement can become a political statement, which has the potential to create needless rifts within Sri Lanka itself.

But then again, one cannot expect these complexities to be understood by the decision makers at SriLankan Airlines who obviously are far removed from the local cultural terrain as well as existing cultural hegemonism emanating from across the Palk Strait. The national carrier, in its haste to soar, as well as absence of foresight and lack of enlightenment of local culture has imprisoned Sri Lanka in a hegemonic North Indian politico-cultural narrative. This is also a sign of lacking national pride despite constant and oftentimes annoying rhetoric. One can only hope, the Sri Lankan government will revisit how this was done in the first place and ensure this kind of culturally crude reductionism of our own traditions and folklore does not take place in the future in state-sponsored activities carried out with public funds.

I cannot but be reminded of a quote by Voltaire when reflecting on the manner in which politics of this kind flow, emerge, and reemerge in Sri Lanka while nothing is ever learned: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”