Midweek Review

Vignettes of the Open-Air Theatre

Published

4 years ago

2020/11/25

by Prof. K. N. O. Dharmadasa

It is indisputably The Open-Air Theatre – the first of its kind in the country and the most well-known. There indeed are some other similar constructions, like the one at Vihara Maha Devi Park, Colombo. But when theatre lovers talk of ‘the Open-Air Theatre’, the reference is unmistakably to the Open-Air Theatre in the ‘University Park’, Peradeniya. Incidentally, the appellation ‘University Park’ was a creation of Sir Ivor Jennings, the Founder Vice Chancellor of the University. The area where the university buildings were located was known by this name. Sir Ivor was so enamoured of the site that he called it ‘one of the most beautiful environments in the world” (his autobiography The Road to Peradeniya,198). His Annual Reports usually had a sub-section titled ‘University Park’; he reported on the building programme and the landscaping, etc. Coming back to the Open-Air Theatre, which was constructed three years after he left in January 1955, undoubtedly adds to the beauty of the whole landscape – a good example of how a tastefully constructed structure which blends with the surroundings can enhance the natural beauty of a place.

The conception

The Open-Air Theatre was ceremonially declared open in early 1958. The first drama staged there was Sarchchandra’s epoch making Maname. As all theatre lovers know, the initial staging of Maname was on Nov. 3, 1956 at the Lionel Wendt Theatre in Colombo and nearly 100 performances would have taken place during the 15 or so months before it was staged at the newly constructed Open-Air Theatre in Peradeniya. Prof. Sarachchandra in his Memoirs, Pin Ethi Sarasavi Waramak Denne, (published in 1985) gives a detailed account of the founding of the Open-Air Theatre, which aptly bears his name today.

Maname had already been staged and the first accolade had come from an unusual quarter. Regi Siriwardene, a highly respected critic and journalist attached to the Lake House Group of Newspapers called it “the finest thing I have seen on the Sinhalese stage” (Ceylon Daily News, Nov. 5) Many shows followed in Colombo, Kandy and other cities and several other writers to the English newspapers showered praise on this remarkable achievement as exemplifying what the national theatrical form could be. But the Sinhalese newspapers remained silent for quite some time and Sarachchandra kept wondering why it was so. “Was it due to the habitual antipathy towards the University by most of the journalists or was it because they failed to understand what Maname signified?” But the breakthrough came eventually. Sri Chandraratne Manavasinghe, the highly respected writer and journalist attached to the editorial staff of the daily Lankadeepa, wrote a highly complimentary review of the play in his daily column Waga –Tuga and called it an Abhiranga (super-drama).

Sarachchandra with his vast experience in Oriental and Occidental theatre traditions, believed that “a super-performance of Maname could be done, not on a proscenium stage which was meant for staging naturalistic plays, but on a circular stage, (ranga madala)”. And he was on the lookout for such a place … amidst the hilly terrain of Peradeniya. He adds:

“Those days I was residing in one of the three bungalows on Sanghamitta Hill. While descending the hill and walking towards the Arts Block, I noticed a piece of land concave in shape, like a part of a broken clay pot. This was a terraced paddy field which had been abandoned and was overgrown with weeds. At the bottom of the land was a flat space. Although I had been passing that place daily it was only after I started thinking of an open-air theatre that it struck me as a suitable location for what is known as an Amphitheatre – an auditorium with a stage. The space at the bottom could be used as a stage and the audience could sit in the terraces” (p. 209)

Acoustics

Sarachchandra was not prepared to rush into conclusions. Although the land appeared suitable in appearance, there was a crucial consideration when it came to an open-air theatre. “It was essential,” he adds. “To find out what the acoustics of this place was like for theatre performance. One evening I went there with a group of students. I think Gunasena Galappaththi was one of them. I placed several of them in various places in the pit and made them talk and sing. Then I realized that it was a place with natural amplification of sound. The Epidorus Amphitheatre in Greece came to my mind. If you stand anywhere and strike a match you will be able to hear it. (p.210).

Now the problem was that of the logistics. At this time (1956-7) Sarachchandra was only a lecturer. He had no ‘clout’ to order officials in the administration. Of course, his fame and prestige were growing rapidly and by 1960 a special Chair of Sinhala was created for him, which was the first such occasion in the history of the University. But that is anticipating events. We resume the story of the construction of the OAT as narrated by Sarachchandra himself. Sarachchandra says:

“I had no power to give orders to the Works Department or to the Administrative Section. That could be done only by the Vice Chancellor or the Registrar. The expenses involved in constructing even an amphitheatre at the site I mentioned would be minimal. What had to be done was cutting and removing the weeds on the terraces, constructing in cement a circular stage at the bottom and putting up a cadjan shed behind it.” (pp. 210-11)

Now, the dilemma Sarachchandra was faced with was whether or not the Vice Chancellor would accept his proposal to construct an open-air theatre. Sarachchandra’s estimation of the Vice Chancellor Sir Nicholas Attygalle was not at all complimentary. “Like most people of the English-speaking upper class,” says Sarachchandra,

“He was completely devoid of any taste for the arts (kalaa vihiina). Although he was a Professor in the Faculty of Medicine before becoming Vice Chancellor, his range of knowledge was small (alpasruta). He did not have even a modicum of interest on theatre, literature, music, etc. I do not know whether he had read any other book outside the field of medicine.” (p.211).

For the present-day reader, I have to give an explanation. Without digressing too far it needs be noted that during the Attygalle phase of the University administration, there was a sharp division in the academic staff as pro-Attydalle and anti-Attygalle, and that was due largely to the dictatorial administrative style of the Vice Chancellor. It is clear where Sarachchandra stood in this division. In any case Prof. Attygalle had not displayed any interest in the arts. And the problem then was how to get the approval of a man like that for the construction of an open-air theatre. Then the miracle happened once again.

The Vice Chancellor came to know about Maname under fortuitous if not trivial circumstances. Continues Sarachchandra, “He came to know for the first time that a play named Maname had been created by a person named Sarachchandra, who was on his staff and that it was winning accolades in the country, from a group of lecturers who used to sit before his table daily, rumour-mongering and engaging in empty prattle. It was difficult for Mr. Attygalle, who had never seen a play, to understand what Maname was. He did not want to understand either. But because of the persuasions, he summoned me and asked me what this wondrous thing I had done was about which he had heard so much.” (p.211)

Sarachchandra now had to be humble. “I told him it was not a big miracle, but the production of a play. ‘Then why are they praising it so much’ he asked ‘and telling me I should see it somehow?” Next came the crucial question “Can it be shown in the University?” This created the opening Sarachchandra was looking for.

“I told him that there is no suitable theatre in the University where it could be shown. ‘But would it be possible,’ Then I asked, ‘whether such and such a place could be prepared for the purpose?’ He summoned the officers immediately and ordered them to construct without delay an open-air theatre on the site I had mentioned.” (p.211)

Sarachchandra then describes in humorous Sinhala how the officials set about their job and finished it in no time:

“The officers bent themselves double and treble, ran there, cut down the bush, pounded the ground, got a pretty circular stage made in cement, got a cadjan shed put up and created an amphitheatre in two or three days.” (p.211)

Sarachchandra’s narration about the opening of the Open-Air Theatre is quite informative, albeit with a touch of humour:

“On that day was presented the first ‘performance on orders’ (agnapita rangaya) of Maname before an audience which consisted of the Vice Chancellor, some members of the staff, Mr. Kilpatrick of the Rockefeller Foundation, the students and village folk coming from the neighbourhood. That was the day the Open-Air Theatre in Peradeniya was born. Maname came into being on 3rd November, 1956. It was performed in an ideal atmosphere, without damaging the traditional Nadagam style, at the Open-Air Theatre on a night of either February or March 1958 ((p. 212).

Mr. Kilpatrick referred to here is the Rockefeller Foundation representative who, after reading Sarachchandra’s well researched The Sinhalese Folk Play (1952) had granted him a travelling scholarship some years ago, to study theatre in any country he wished, which eventually enabled him to see the Japanese Kabuki giving him the clue to bring a traditional folk theatre on modern stage. Let us get back again to our discussion about the Peradeniya Open Air Theatre.

Improvements

During the early days the ‘seating’ terraces were levelled earth with trimmed grass. As the location, an abandoned paddy field with a running stream in the vicinity was damp the whole year round, it was a good breeding ground for leeches. During the days when plays were being performed, the leeches had a gala time. I myself remember my first experience of watching a play there, back in my first year 1959, Dayanada Gunawardena’s Parassa. There was a blood patch on my trousers and it was no easy task stopping the blood flow because it is said leeches inject their saliva, which prevents blood-clotting! Eventually, however, the terraces came to be constructed in granite and the leach population dwindled although one finds a stray leech climbing up one’s legs if one were to stand on the grass. Another casualty of the granite and cement intrusion was the lushly grown Tabubia Rosea tree which used to spread a carpet of light pink flowers on the terraces during the blooming season. Most probably its roots were suffocated by the cement construction.

The original Green Room, which was a cadjan shed as described by Sarachchandra, later came to be a Takaran shed with walls and roof made of galvanized sheets. It was painted in Green! Anyway, in the 1990s when I was the Chairman of the Arts Council, we managed to get a permanent Green Room constructed during the period 1991-92. I gratefully acknowledge the support we got from the Vice Chancellors Prof. Lakshman Jayatilaka and Prof. J. M. Gunadasa for these improvements. It was on March 24, 1993 that we named the theatre as Sarachchandra Elimahan Ranga Pitaya in honour of the man who had done so much for the Sri Lankan drama. I remember him attending the naming ceremony (again with a performance of Maname) and rising from his seat in the front row, facing the audience acknowledging the cheering of the massive crowd with hands clasped in Namaskara. He left us three years later on 16 August 1996.

An event highly significant in the annals of Sinhala theatre is the first staging of Sinhabahu on 31 August, 1961 at the Open-Air Theatre. There was a slight drizzle at the start of the performance which stopped after some time. I remember sitting on the damp grass watching the play on that memorable night. Fifty years later, on 28 November 2011, we were able to commemorate the Golden Jubilee of this play at the same venue, although we badly missed our beloved Guru. Special mention should be made of the patronage we received from the Vice Chancellor, Prof. S.B. Abeykoon, who made arrangements to show the play free of charge. Incidentally, he hails from Uda Peradeniya and has told us how as a child he had watched shows at the OAT seated on his father’s lap!

Drama Festivals

The most important annual event in the Open-Air Theatre was the Annual Drama Festival. In the good old days before the university calendar got disrupted, the Drama Festival was held in mid or the last week of January. This was the beginning of the third Term which consisted of 10 weeks of teaching and the examinations were scheduled for the last two weeks of March. January was selected because it was normally a dry period with no rains to disrupt the shows.

here would be a slight drizzle as the festival begins. Normally, the festival lasts seven or eight days and two invariable items would be Maname and later, Sinhabahu. when that university ‘term system’ got severely disrupted, the drama festivals came to be held in different periods, even during rainy seasons. One of the indelible memories I have of the OAT is of a show in the 1990s, when the packed audience sat there with rapt attention in the pouring rain.

When the festival is on, there is a festive atmosphere in the area. When the evening falls, people start gathering and various itinerant traders come, vendors of gram, peanuts, sara vita and even balloon vendors because sometimes parents come there with their children. I forgot to mention that this is not a mere university drama festival but a drama festival for the whole vicinity. People from Uda Peradeniya, Hidagala as well as other adjoining villages throng to the Open-Air Theatre during the festival.

Acid Test

There is a belief among theatre lovers in Sri Lanka that if a play could be staged at the Open-Air Theatre and come off unscathed that would be the best touchstone for ascertaining its success. It is difficult to explain the origins of this belief. With my experience from 1959 onwards, I can say that in those early days there was no unsuccessful play as such. It could be that all the plays staged there were good plays, carefully selected by the Arts Council, which managed the Annual Drama Festival. But in the 1970s, there were three unfortunate incidents, all of them involving plays by leading dramatists in the country, where the jeering by the crowd became unmanageable and the performances had to be abandoned. The first instance, if my memory is correct, was the play Sarana Siyot Se Putuni Hamba Yana by Henry Jayasena. The second, I think was Bak Maha Akunu by Dayananda Gunawardena. And the third was Cherry Watta by Somalatha Subasinghe. If my memory is correct, the failure of the first and the last mentioned, Sarana Siyot Se…and Cherry Watta were due to their lack of dramatic concentration and long spells of dialogue which tired the audience. In the case of Bak MahaAkunu what provoked the jeering was the over enthusiasm of the actor who played the role of the servant Jason. He got carried away in his diatribe against his master, the Mudalituma, who was making advances to his beloved Pabulina . He came on stage with sarong half tucked up, and uttered something that just fell short of a four-letter word and the audience protested immediately. The furore was uncontrollable and the show had to be abandoned. Possibly, these early experiences led to the belief that a show at the OAT is an acid test for the success for a play. At the same time, it needs be added that the two “failed” plays, Sarana Siyot Se and Cherry Watta were plays not quite suitable for an open-air theatre. But this leads to a theoretical problem which needs be addressed separately. The three incidents mentioned were sad occasions as all three dramatists involved were people dedicated to their vocation. Furthermore, Dayananda and Somalatha were respected alumni of the Peradeniya University.

It needs mention that that not all dramatists were prepared to take these judgments of the OAT audience lying down. I remember two incidents, both in the 1980s when the dramatists came on stage and challenged the jeering audience. One instance was when Namel Weeramuni, who was giving a performance of his Nettukkari, where he himself was playing a leading role. Incidentally, he himself is an alumnus of Peradeniya of the period when the OAT was constructed and he would have been thoroughly annoyed at this behaviour of the campus denizens of a later period. He came on stage in his costume and addressed the audience telling them that it was with great difficulty that anybody produces a drama and it should not be treated with such disrespect. Whoever did not like the play, could leave the audience allowing those who wished to stay back, watch the play. The shouting died down after some time and the play was resumed. The other incident involved Solomon Fonseka, who had won accolades all round for his star performance in Dayananda Gumawardena’s Nari Bena, some years back. Since then he had studied the art of theatre in a European university and obtained a Doctorate. This time he had produced his own play and was staging it in the OAT. For some reason which I forget, the audience became restive and started hooting. Solomon stopped the show, sent the other actors to the Green Room and addressed the audience in a defiant tone: “You fellows (umbala) call yourself educated. But what kind of education do you have if you are not civilized enough to behave yourself in a theatre? If someone does not like a play he can walk out and allow those who want to watch it, do so.” That worked. And the audience became quiet allowing the show to continue.

PS The reader would have noticed that I have refrained from using the trivial term “wala” which has come into much use in referring to this theatre. That is because it demeans the stature of this special theatre in our country.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

North: A change in status ahead of Maaveerar Naal

Published

6 days 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

6 days 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.”