Opinion

Valorising mythology to invalidate known history

Published

4 years ago

2020/10/17

By ROHANA R. WASALA

Feisal Mansoor (‘Muslims and ban on cattle slaughter’/The Island/October 9, 2020) opens his piece with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, obviously taken from the web: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” However, there is some doubt about the authenticity of that alleged Gandhi quote, because it is not traceable to his writings or his speeches according to quote-researchers; besides, he was usually better known for his great concern for the weak members of human society than for animals. But even if someone just imagined it, there’s no harm done, for the expression of concern for animal welfare attributed to Gandhi, can be easily supported by what we know about him as a champion of non-violence. But the problem here is this: Whether genuine or fake, the Gandhi quote has little or no relevance to the truth that FM’s arbitrary opinions about Sri Lanka’s ‘ancient culture’ misrepresent or conceal, in favour of something else. He seems to completely ignore the millennia long recorded history of the island, which is almost entirely coterminous with its established Buddhist religious culture and is inseparable from it. (Incidentally, the spirit of secularism and democracy that it encourages in governance is a distinctive feature of the country’s majority Buddhist culture; but this is something difficult for most believers of other religions and Sri Lanka-baiters to understand or appreciate.) The greatness of our culture is that it is absolutely tolerant and accommodating towards minority cultures, subject to the implicit legitimate condition that they don’t try to make undue inroads into its space or to subvert it in other ways. To me it looks like FM’s statements are meant to distort, rubbish, and obviate, if possible, Sri Lanka’s ancient Sinhala Buddhist cultural heritage. Is the Gandhi quote meant to imply that our nation has no claim to greatness, and that our treatment of animals falls short of required moral standards observed in civilized countries?

Having said that, it must be stated with emphasis that it is perfectly alright for FM to try to share his personal convictions with others. That is his right as a free citizen. I am enjoying here the same right to articulate my reaction as a Sri Lankan to his views about the ancient history and culture of our beloved Motherland.

First of all, let’s be clear about this: At the very inauguration (i.e., in official terms) of the Buddha Sasana in the island of Lanka, Buddhist missionary Arhant Mahinda Thera admonished the monarch of the land king Devanampiya Tissa in 236 BCE (2256 years ago) thus as recorded in the Mahavamsa (Chapter XIV):

“O great king, the beasts that roam the forest and the birds that fly the skies have the same right to this land as you. The land belongs to the people and to all other living things, and you are not its owner but only its guardian.”

Isn’t this considerably before today’s animal rights protectors, animal ‘status’ guarantors, animal welfare standard maintainers, and various other ‘a fair deal for animals’ worriers, represented in organizations that annually celebrate the World Wildlife Day (March 3), World Animal Day (October 4), etc., at some cost, started talking about the subject?

Compassionate treatment of all sentient beings is an ideal that people brought up in our culture, take for granted. Of course, there are instances where the ideal is observed in the breach. That is human nature. A whole society should not be judged on the basis of the behaviour of a few individuals, who could themselves be victims of circumstances.

FM’s first paragraph is an attempted fusion of the Ravana myth and his religious beliefs, to the exclusion of the historically factual Buddhist element. That Ravana flew his ‘dandu monara yanaya’ (wooden peacock aircraft) and abducted Seetha from what is now called India, is a story. Not even children take that as proven history, but it is a wonderful story, wherever or whenever it originated. Talking monkeys, animal fortune tellers, and other human personality attributed birds and beasts are common in literature in all cultures. The stories that compose our Jataka Potha are shared property in various North Indian literary traditions. The Sanskrit ‘Panchatantra’ from India, interweaves five skeins of moral traditions into a single text composed of stories in which so many animals feature, invested with human qualities. We have a number of talking, philosophising, admonishing birds in Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

FM writes: “As Creation is the supreme force in the universe, the beneficence of life and its comprehension through love, is to facilitate as many expressions of life as possible.” That belief is not shared by the predominant religious culture of our country, but is not targetadly criticised or attacked so as to hurt others’ religious beliefs or sentiments. There is evidence that our ancestors ‘worshipped’ the sun as the source of all life, especially plant life, hence important for agriculture. If they deified the sun, it was very meaningful. That ancient religious tradition survives today in the secular Surya Mangalyaya or the Sinhala Aluth Avurudda, held in the month of Bak (Felix/Lucky) in the Sinhala calendar. The ignorant insensitive British colonial authorities arbitrarily renamed it Sinhala Hindu New Year for their own purposes. Tamils and Sinhalese can and do live peaceably together, while observing their separate culturally distinctive festivals. Whether our ancestors called themselves Aryans because they were sun worshippers is highly improbable. Aryans were a white skinned race.The Sinhalese are not. It is not impossible that the Swastika – a sign that symbolizes the Sun was later appropriated by those white people, including Adolf Hitler. The legendary Vijaya of the Mahavamsa could have descended from such a tribe, but that origin story is not accepted today. Newly available archaeological evidence provides proof that our ancestors were a civilised a people (with their pure dark skin) even during the time of the Buddha, and that there were lay Buddhists and Buddhist monks before the arrival of Arahat Mahinda; whose coming appears to have been the result of an official diplomatic mission; he and his retinue were, most probably, royal emissaries from Emperor Asoka’s court as much as Buddhist missionaries. (Read between the lines, the Mahavamsa passages support this impression.)

FM’s reference to Aldous Huxley needs a comment. In the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha tells the monks: ‘Atta dipa viharatha’ – ‘Be islands unto yourselves’, meaning you are your own saviour, that is, ‘Realise Nibbanic Bliss, put an end to samsaric suffering, through your own effort’ (which is not beyond you, if you are diligent enough). Writer and brilliant intellectual Aldous Huxley might have independently arrived at this island metaphor to describe his own illusion of self, elusive self-identity. The contemplative W.B. Yeats, himself no mean intellectual, expressed it as ‘How can we know the dancer from the dance?’ It is also possible that both of them came across this idea in Buddhist literature.

Apparently, FM mistakes this profound idea for selfish self-absorption. In his confusion, he imports the phrase ‘enlightened self-interest’ that Adam Smith (considered the ‘father of modern economics’) coined to express his idea that by pursuing one’s own economic benefit one ultimately contributes to the good of others as well, without probably intending to do so. (But it can be thought that he tried to elaborate it as a morally acceptable concept, rather than as a coldly amoral economic one.) However, that is something very different from the Buddhist idea of working for the benefit and wellbeing of others without expecting a reward, generosity or altruism.

FM has written:

“As such, enlightened self-interest is the only personal inquiry we can make, with the all- important caveat that in our self-discovery we may not interfere with anything else’s self-discovery.”

He may be seen as giving idiosyncratic twists to the terms ‘enlightened self-interest’ and ‘self-discovery’, which are actually technical terms in their respective characteristic contexts. FM also makes a confusing verbal medley out of words like ahimsa, Dhamma, and Mahasammata. These are words charged with meaning and emotion for Buddhists. ‘Mahasammata’ (the Great Elect/the Universally Chosen One/The People’s Choice) occurs in Chapter II of the Mahavamsa as the earliest genealogical ancestor of the Buddha (and humankind, probably) who lived countless aeons ago. For Sinhalese Buddhists ‘Mahasammata’ is not a historical figure; he is the legendary first king on earth. In the Agganna Sutta (On Knowledge of Beginnings) the Buddha mentions Mahasammata as the first ruler who was appointed, based on his handsome appearance and moral strength, by common consent, to rule over the group of rice growers that was the loosely formed human society then. He was tasked to prevent stealing, to punish the miscreants by banishing, etc. Mahasammata was given a share of the rice crop as payment for his service. Actually, the Agganna Sutta can be interpreted as a scientific account of an alternately expanding and contracting universe, and a gradually evolving earth; and much later anatomically modern humans and organized human societies emerging on earth. There is no talk of a creator or creation, which FM takes for granted. Dharma is what the Buddha preached. Ahimsa is the ideal of nonviolence that is common to most Indian religions, including principally, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism.

Next, FM quotes two passages from the book ‘Portuguese Encounters with Sri Lanka and the Maldives’ edited by C.R. de Silva, Ashgate, 2009, to assert “that there was no slaughter of cattle in Lanka prior to colonisation”. It is ridiculous in this trivial context to quote from an eminent historian like the professor mentioned. These encounters took place in the 16th to 17th centuries. The book is a scholarly collection of writings taken from Portuguese histories and archives in translation combined with those from local sources. Publishers say: “These documents contribute to the growing understanding that different groups of European colonizers – missionaries, traders and soldiers – had conflicting motivations and objectives. Scholars have also begun to emphasize that the colonized were not mere victims but had their own agendas and that they occasionally successfully manipulated colonial powers.” (I took this extract from Google.com- RRW)

So, the book shows that the natives of these countries matched those invading European interlopers bent on ‘temporal and spiritual conquest’ in their cunning and countervailing skills. They were not half-civilized savages. By the way, I don’t think FM found himself nodding in agreement when reading sentences like the following written by an ignorant Portuguese scribe:

“… In this country there are many false beliefs sown by the devil, and to eradicate them there is a need for much time and trouble…..” (This must be a reference to local Buddhist and Hindu religious beliefs of the time; but the colonizers were too uneducated and uncultured to understand that Buddhism and Hinduism are not ‘religions’ in their sense of the term, and that religion in the colonizers’ sense was, as it still is, a facile superstition to Buddhists. – RRW)

“They (some native people who didn’t kill even the meanest of creatures) do not eat bread, however hungry or needy they might be. Their food is made up of the leaves of a certain creeper (betel leaves) that climbs other trees like ivy. These leaves are smeared with the same kind of lime that they use for whitewashing their houses…”

“There is another class of people that eats fowl and wild boar and deer, but does not eat the flesh of cows, since they believe their souls enter into cows after death; they will never kill a cow and eat its flesh…”

It looks like FM has missed this book: ‘A 16th Century Clash of Civilizations: The Portuguese Presence in Sri Lanka’ by Susantha Goonatilake, 2010. It gives a clear assessment of the effects of the Portuguese colonial presence in our country, which was actually ahead of those European invaders in terms of human civilization. The Portuguese went to Sri Lanka in compliance with a papal bull.

FM makes extremely fallacious claims like the following about his fictitious ‘Lanka of Mahasammata’:

“A vocational caste system handed down secrets to successive generations, in a system where one’s knowledge was one’s wealth, with the Divine as the Supreme Master of one’s craft, one performs one’s duty with an aim to perfection in union of mind and spirit so each attempt brought one closer to the Ultimate Prize.” (Divine as the Supreme Master of one’s craft, Ultimate Prize, What are these?)

“In a land ruled by the Unseen King, in both metaphor and practise, the King embodies Mahasammata and sets the standard for the people”. (There was no Mahasammata in our country’s history. I explained the ‘Mahasammata’ concept above. Who is this Unseen King, FM? Surely a figment of your imagination?)

“The people know that if they live in dhamma, Dhamma would protect them, and the land would be safe”. (This is a misinterpretation of the piece of wisdom which runs in Pali: ‘dhammo have rakkati dhammacarim’ ‘The Dhamma protects the one who lives by the Dhamma’. There’s no protective magic or divine intervention here. But don’t take it literally. You may be sure you live according to the Dhamma. But be mindful enough not to stand in front of an oncoming train.)

The rest of FM’s article makes even less sense. From this point onwards, I fail to find anything in FM’s article worth talking about. The next to nothing he has to say about the subject proposed in his title is: ” I believe that as a Sri Lankan Muslim, it is incumbent on me to respect the mores of my compatriots and to live in a way that will lead to greater social cohesion, amity and unity of purpose…” That is a harmless thought, but I for one do not believe that pre-colonial Sri Lanka was paradise on earth. Besides, that sentiment runs in the face of what FM has been trying to prove to the very end.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

The Presidential Youth Commission and current social challenges

Published

2 hours ago

2025/03/21

Thilina Walpola

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D.
(Sri Lanka);
Rhodes Scholar, Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

I. The Youth Commission in Retrospect

My tenure of office as Vice Chancellor of the University of Colombo coincided with the most turbulent period in the history of the university system in our country. There was a near total collapse of all systems, and the cost in terms of the loss of life, destruction of public and private property and disruption of all sectors of national life, was exorbitant.

As this time of upheaval drew to a close, the Government, in October 1989, appointed a Presidential Commission to examine, inter alia, “the causes of disquiet, unrest and discontent manifesting itself in the rejection of existing institutions and in acts of violence”.

As one of 7 Commissioners I played an active role in the work of the Commission and in the preparation of its Report. Revisiting its content recently, I was struck by the immediate relevance of its major themes and recommendations, and the thinking underpinning them, to dominant challenges in our society today.

II. Politicisation a Central Malady

“The oral and written representations to the Commission indicated virtual unanimity that politicisation and perceptions about the abuse of political power are some of the main causes of youth unrest in contemporary Sri Lanka”. This was the first sentence in the Report of the Commission which identified, as the main issue, “the abuse of political power in the undermining of democratic institutions”.

Pre-eminent among the recommendations of the Commission was the setting up of a Nominations Commission “which will recommend to the President the names of persons who will constitute the membership of (a) important Commissions responsible for recruitment, promotion,transfer and dismissal in certain vital areas; and (b) Commissions responsible for policy making in selected areas”. The composition of the Nominations Commission was to reflect the balance of political parties in Parliament.

Disenchanted youth, giving evidence before the Commission throughout the length and breadth of the Island, insisted that, although they were not averse to acceptance of adversity – inevitable at times in a nation’s history – what they would vehemently reject and rebel against was deprivation accompanied by palpable injustice.

III. An Institutional Response: The Constitutional Council

This concept of a Nominations Commission was the origin and inspiration of the Constitutional Council introduced into our Constitution by the Seventeenth Amendment in 2001.

Militating against the “winner takes all” mindset and seeking to establish merit and fairplay as the cornerstones of a rules-based system of public administration, the Constitutional Council mechanism dominated political events for a quarter of a century.

Dramatic swings of the pendulum from progress to backlash characterised developments during the whole of this period. The Seventeenth Amendment envisaged a Constitutional Council consisting of 3 Members of Parliament (Speaker, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition) and 7 representatives of civil society nominated by political parties in Parliament. The Eighteenth Amendment, in 2010, replaced the Constitutional Council with a Parliamentary Council which departed in crucial respects from the role of its predecessor, in that the Parliamentary Council consisting of 5 members – 3 from the Legislature and 2 from outside – could only make recommendations to the appointing authority, the President, but their concurrence was not required as a condition for validity of appointments. It was, therefore, a relatively weak instrument.

The Nineteenth Amendment of 2015, which brought back into being a Constitutional Council of 10 members – 7 Parliamentarians and 3 from outside – represented movement in the opposite direction by investing the Council with real authority. A further twist in the skein was signified by the retrogressive Twentieth Amendment, in 2020, which restored the largely impotent Parliamentary Council functioning as a mere advisory body.

The wheel came full circle with the Twenty First Amendment in 2022 which embodies the current law. This precludes the President from appointing personnel of vital Commissions – dealing with elections, the public service, the national police, audit, human rights, bribery and corruption, finance, delimitation, and national procurement – without an explicit recommendation by the Council.

Moreover, a whole range of important officials – the Attorney-General, the Governor of the Central Bank, the Auditor General, the Inspector General of Police, the Ombudsman and the Secretary General of Parliament – could not be validly appointed unless the appointment had been approved by the Council on a recommendation made by the President.

IV. Vigilance the Key

These are landmark achievements, in restricting the scope for partisan political influence in the higher echelons of governance; they serve to reinforce public confidence in the integrity of institutions.

There is no room for complacency, however. The nation was witness to the unedifying spectacle of an incumbent President upbraiding the Constitutional Council, on the floor of Parliament, for purported interference with the performance of executive functions. The current controversy between the National Police Commission and the Acting Inspector General of Police has the potential to thwart the former in the exercise of its constitutional responsibilities. Institutional norms of independence and objectivity can hardly be swept away by exigencies of operational control.

V. Legislative Sovereignty and Judicial Oversight

My distinguished predecessor in the Office of Minister of Constitutional Affairs, the late Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, was a protean figure in constitution making. Unyielding in his insistence on sovereignty of the Legislature, he fiercely resisted, on grounds of principle, judicial surveillance of any kind over the legislative functions of Parliament.

The rationale for this view was set out by him pithily in an address to the United Nations Association of Ceylon in 1968: “Do we want a legislature that is sovereign, or do we not? That is the true question. If you say that the validity of a law has to be determined by anybody outside the law making body, then you are to that extent saying that your law making body is not completely the law making body”.

So unflinching was the architect of the Constitution of 1972 in his adherence to this conviction that, even when a Constitutional Court with limited functions had to be provided for, he insisted that the Secretary- General of Parliament must serve as the Registrar of the Court, and that its sittings had to be held not in Hulftsdorp but within the precincts of Parliament.

It is a matter for satisfaction that this view has not taken root in the constitutional traditions of our country. Instead,we have opted for adoption of justiciable fundamental rights as a restraint on the competence of Parliament, in the interest of protection of the citizenry. This is a measure of acknowledgement of the dangers of untrammelled power and the lure of temptation. Contemporary experience demonstrates the wisdom of this choice.

The idea itself is not unfamiliar to our legal culture. Although the Constitution Order-in-Council of 1948 made no explicit provision for judicial review, our courts showed no disinclination to embark on substantive judicial review of important legislation including the Citizenship Act of 1948, the Sinhala Only Act of 1956, and the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act of 1962. The latter statute was struck down in its entirety by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the ground of repugnance to the basic scheme of the Constitution.

Judicial oversight of legislation, then, is a defining principle of our legal system. However, the manner of its application is exposed to legitimate criticism in two ways.

(a) The Content of Fundamental Rights

It is disappointing that only civil and political rights have been deemed worthy of entrenchment in our Constitution, to the rigid exclusion of economic,social and cultural rights.This approach, which continues to receive expression in Chapter III of the present Constitution, runs counter to current international recognition that the latter category of rights is of overriding importance,especially in the context of the developing world.

(b) Exclusion of Post-enactment Review

Judicial scrutiny of legislation is confined in our system to pre-enactment review. There is provision for gazetting of bills and for challenge by the public on the basis of conflict with constitutional provisions. The proposed legislation cannot be debated or passed in Parliament until the Determination of the Supreme Court is received by the Speaker. The Court is required to decide, within a stipulated period, whether the legislation, or any portion of it, contravenes the Constitution and, if so, whether a special majority (two-thirds of the total membership of the House) is sufficient to secure its enactment or whether endorsement by the People at a Referendum is needed, as well. Amendments required by the Court must be compulsorily included at the Committee Stage, as a condition of validity (Articles 78 and 121).

A serious lacuna has been laid bare by recent events. In an egregious affront to the mandatory constitutional scheme, the Government, during passage of the Online Safety Bill, secured enactment of the legislation at the Third Reading, without moving all of the Amendments insisted upon by the Court. This resulted in a Vote of No Confidence being moved by the Opposition against the Speaker for intentional violation of the Constitution.

There have been other instances of flagrant abuse of the legislative process. A Bill which, as presented to Parliament and adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, dealt with representation of women in Provincial Councils, was fundamentally altered in content AFTER judicial scrutiny through extensive Amendments at the Committee stage, making it virtually impossible to hold Provincial Council elections at all.

Deliberate manipulation of this kind, enabling subversion of constitutional procedures, goes without remedy because of the unqualified exclusion of post-enactment review. This derives from the conclusive bar imposed by Article 80 (3) of the Constitution: “When a Bill becomes law upon the certificate of the Speaker, no court or tribunal shall inquire into, pronounce upon or in any manner call in question the validity of such Act on any ground whatsoever”.

In the overall reform envisaged in the near future, this anomaly calls for urgent attention as a key issue.

VI The Public Service: Neutrality or Control?

Provision for an enabling environment for public officials to fulfil their responsibilities in a spirit of independence, without fear or favour, is generally considered an essential feature of a robust democracy.

However, this has not been looked upon as elf-evident at every stage of our constitutional history. On the contrary, political control of the public service has been sanctified as a cardinal virtue, and its cultivation assiduously promoted.

Root and branch opposition to the idea of a public service beyond the reach of political authority is exemplified by the Constitution of 1972, the sheet anchor of which was the principle that “The National State Assembly is the supreme instrument of State power of the Republic” (Article 5). Political control of the public service was held to be a necessary corollary.

This found expression in the emphatic statement that “The Cabinet of Ministers shall have the power of appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of all State officers” (Article 106 (2)). For the exercise of this power, it was declared that the Cabinet “shall be answerable to the National State Assembly” (Article 106 (1)).

The State Services Advisory Board consisting of 3 persons appointed by the President, as its designation made clear, was no more than an advisory body. This, indeed, was true even of the Judicial Services Advisory Board set up under the Constitution of 1972: “The appointment of judges shall be made by the Cabinet of Ministers after receiving the recommendation of the Judicial Services Advisory Board” (Article 126). This Board was required to send a list, but the Cabinet had full power to appoint persons not on the list, with the reasons applicable tabled in the National State Assembly.

The Legislature, then, with the Cabinet as its delegate, became under the Constitution of 1972 the clearly identified source of authority over all State officers including judicial officers. The seed had been sown; and an abundant harvest was reaped in succeeding years.

Happily, our constitutional values took a different trajectory, leaving this tradition behind. The aborted Constitution Bill, which I presented to Parliament as Minister of Constitutional Affairs on behalf of President Chandrika Kumaratunga in August 2000, sought to reverse this trend frontally.

Making a radical departure from the policy stance of political control over the public service, the present Constitution provides unequivocally that this authority “shall be vested in the Public Service Commission” (article 55 (3)). An exception is made in the case of Heads of Department, in relation to whom the corresponding power is vested in the Cabinet of Ministers (Article 55 (2)). The power of appointment of Heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force is placed in the hands of the President (Article 61E). These are reasonable exceptions.

VII Precept vs. Example

Laws, skilfully crafted, do not furnish cast-iron guarantees. They simply provide a conducive environment for persons of goodwill and competence to fulfil their public duties, unencumbered by pressure: the rest is up to individual conscience. Constitutional provisions confer security of tenure on judges, prevent reduction of salary and other benefits during their tenure of office and protect them against attacks harmful to the dignity of their office.

The Lawyers’ Collective, comprising public-spirited members of the legal profession, pointed out last week the danger of judges, upon retirement, accepting lucrative appointments within the gift of the government in power. Public perception is the overriding factor in this field. To be remiss is to invite debilitating weakness and to risk erosion of confidence in the foundations of a functioning democracy.

Opinion

Resolution of grief, not retribution

Published

1 day ago

2025/03/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Ahamed Kathrada, friend and advisor to Nelson Mandela said of Robben Island, where Mandela was imprisoned for close to 30 years, that “While we will not forget the brutality of apartheid, we will not want Robben Island to be a monument to our hardship and suffering.”

Similarly, we do not want our beloved country to be a monument to our suffering. As Kathrada said, we want our country to be a symbol of the triumph of the human spirit against the forces of evil, a triumph of courage and determination over human frailty and weakness. Managing the painful history of this country should be focused on achieving this objective.

Emotions, such as sadness, worry, anger and in some cases, hatred, festering in our society over the past forty years appear now to be reaching boiling point.

Considering my professional background and knowledge of the mind, I am not surprised by that.

Violence is wrong no matter which side it comes from and regardless of its source. However, the bitter truth that emerges when examining the history of the past forty years, even when looking at it from the best possible angle, is that the foundation of the immoral, illegal and violent politics established took root in Sri Lanka, after 1977.

Actions and counteractions of the negative political culture including violence then established, brought nothing but destruction to Sri Lanka.

The bitter truth is that our collective conscience, sensitivities and actions as a nation, are shaped and coloured by this ongoing aggression and violence that equally affected both the South and the North.

The specific period of terror of 1987 – 1989 was focused mainly in the South. Accepting the fact that the majority of those who suffered during this period were Sinhala Buddhists is merely stating the reality; it is not approaching the problem from a narrow, racist or religious perspective.

It should also be added that I myself was a victim of that terror.

The Sinhala Buddhist culture has a distinctive tradition process for alleviating the grief due to a death by holding awake: sharing the pain of loss with those closest to you, and engaging in religious activities specifically in remembrance of the dead person, a sequence of events including offering alms, that provides time to heal.

It is this cultural heritage of managing loss and grief that was taken away from those who lost their lives and their loved ones in 1987- 89. It is only those who have faced such unfortunate experiences who know the compulsion and pain left by that void, where there was no time to process loss and grief. It is time for introspection – for genuine reflection.

With this background as our legacy over multiple generations, we need to pay greater attention to guarding ourselves against the potential response of “identification with the aggressor.” Identification with the aggressor is an involuntary or sub-conscious psychological defence mechanism and a reaction to trauma where the victim who underwent the trauma identifies with and mimics the behaviour of the person who carries out the violence, as a psychological coping mechanism.

Such responses can be seen in, for example, children undergoing abuse, or young people undergoing ragging. The usual reaction one would expect is for the victim to refrain from abuse or ragging. However, contrary to that expectation, research has revealed that the victim displays behaviour similar to that of the person who abused or ragged him/her.

A clear understanding of how is this concept likely to impact the current political climate is critical at this juncture.

Wielding immense political power, politically less experienced and matured social strata may unknowingly become prone to treating their opponents in the same way that the oppressors of the past victimised them. Therefore, the leadership should be sensitive to the potential of former victims almost unknowingly impose past sufferings on current opponents. It is the responsibility of politically enlightened social strata to identify and prevent that situation in advance. It is a moral obligation of all political parties not just the ruling party.

I would like to share a personal experience in this context. Assistant superintended Senaka de Silva was the man who brutally tortured me at the torture camp at Chitra Road, Gampaha, run alongside the Batalanda torture camp.

After my release, I was working as the Head of the Emergency Treatment Unit at the Sri Jayewardenepura Hospital, when the former ASP de Silva brought his niece there for treatment, unaware that I worked there. He was disconcerted to see me and immediately turned back and walked away. I sent the security officer to bring that child back, admitted her to the hospital and did my best to treat her. The thought process and action that I followed that day is what I adhere to date as well. At the time I was only a specialist in family medicine, today, as a professor of psychiatry, I see these events from a much broader point of view.

The force of emotions arising due to pain or injustice can be destructive to society, but it is also possible to divert it into a force for good. For example, the lack of any post-election violence at the Presidential elections of 2024 indicated a commendable positive direction in social movements. Similarly, the dialogue arising around the Batalanda torture camp, too, should be constructive and forward thinking, so that we shall never again see such an immoral political culture in Sri Lanka.

This does not mean that we have to essentially follow the South African model of truth commission for reconciliation but we do it in a culturally sensitive way that suits us.

As a Nation we all need to understand that situations arise neither to laugh nor to weep, but to learn from past experience.

(The author of this article became a JVP activist as a student in 1977. He was the Secretary of the Human Rights organisation of Sri Lanka in late 1970s and early 1980s. He was known as the personal physician to the late leader of the JVP Rohana Wijeweera.

He was arrested and imprisoned in 1983, but later released without any charge. He was abducted in broard daylight on the 19 July 1988, held in captivity and tortured. He was released in 1990.

An internationally renowned academic, he is an Emeritus Professor of Global Mental Health at Kings College London and Emeritus Professor Keele University. He is also the Director, Institute for Research and Development in Health and Social care and the Chairman of the National Institute of Fundamental Studies.)

by Professor Athula Sumathipala

Opinion

Haphazard demolition in Nugegoda and deathtraps

Published

2 days ago

2025/03/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

A haphazardly demolished building

The proposed expansion of the Kelani Valley railway line has prompted the squatters to demolish the buildings and the above photograph depicts the ad-hoc manner in which a building in the heart of Nugegoda town (No 39 Poorwarama Road) has been haphazardly demolished posing a risk to the general public. Residents say that the live electric wire has not been disconnected and the half-demolished structure is on the verge of collapse, causing inevitable fatal damages.

Over to the Railway Department, Kotte Municipality Ceylon Electricity Board and the Nugegoda Police.

Athula Ranasinghe,

Nugegoda.