Connect with us


Carlyle Perera : Doyen of University Cricket



by Merril Gunaratne

Dr.Carlyle Perera of St Joseph’s College and University of Ceylon who died a few days ago was a gifted cricketer, well known in cricket circles in the 1950’s and 60’s. He left his imprint on University cricket by winning the Saravanamuttu cricket trophy in 1962-63. It was a unique achievement, for not only did he wrest the trophy from the monopolistic control of established clubs, but also created a record by achieving a feat unrivaled before or after by the University.

Carlyle reached such dizzy heights with a band of exceptionally talented schoolboy cricketers who had gained admission to the University. It was an era when cricket was more a pastime than a full time commitment. But a change came after the country received Test status. Cricket was earlier played to give expression to passion and enjoyment, to evoke praise and appreciation for display of talent, and to gain recognition. Money was yet to enter the picture. Therefore, before the transition in the divide, with nothing but recognition being the only reward or compensation for excellence, schoolboy cricketers often sought to secure their future by commitment to studies. Others looked for gainful employment to face future challenges of life.

Two examples come to mind. L.R. Gunatillake, the speedster in the 1950’s and 60’s, was arguably one of the best fast bowlers, if not the very best, to have graced the national scene. But at the summit of success, he opted for employment out of Colombo. His loss was also the country’s loss. It was therefore a period when more time was spent on studies and gainful employment, and less on cricket. Stability of the future and a rewarding profession or means of income predominated time and exertions required for the game.

On the other side of the divide when money came to influence the game, cricket as a discipline became highly challenging and competitive. Therefore, considerable time had to be devoted for practices and matches. Inevitably, cricket became both a passion and a serious profession. With more devotion to the game, there was less time for studies or practicing professions seriously. Those who carved big names, were amply compensated, for cricket was more lucrative than employment. Kumar Sangakkara epitomised the period after the transition. He was equipped to emerge as an eminent lawyer, but wisely preferred to devote time to his exceptional skills in cricket, to emerge as one of the best batsmen in the world. He therefore gained both opulence and fame.

The University was blessed with a galaxy of outstanding cricketers in the 1950’s and 60’s. But they epitomized the breed before the divide or the transition. They spent more time on studies, and less on the game, to prepare for the challenges of life. One could only conjecture how they would have performed after the transition, amidst attractive enticements. Scarcity of space constrain a narrative of a large number of names that come to mind, but at least some of them deserve mention; Carlyle Perera, HIK Fernando, DH De Silva, Buddy Reid, Brendon Gooneratne, Mano Ponniah, Lareef Idroos, Ranjit Doranegama, Cyril Ernest, Nihal Gurusinghe, Raja De Silva, Priya Perera, Neil Chanmugam, Mohanlal Fernando, Kingsley Fernando, Skandakumar, Malsiri Kurukulasooriya, Anton Rambukpota, Michael Roberts, Sarath Wimalaratne and Sarath Seneviratne. There were many more. The list would be endless.

To my recollection, University of Ceylon came third in the “Sara” trophy tournaments of 1960-61 and 1961-62. Carlyle Perera was the vice captain in 1961-62 to Brendon Gooneratne. Mano Ponniah, Lareef Idroos, Cyril Ernest, Kingsley Fernando, Harsha Samarajiva, NJS de Mel and Sivanandan, well known for their prodigious feats as schoolboys, entered the University in 1961-62.

Carlyle Perera took over the reins of leadership in 1962-63. He had lost reputed seniors from the team of the previous year: Brendon Gooneratne, Priya Perera and Neil Chanmugam amongst others. I too had opted out of cricket to prepare for the final exam, since travelling to and from Peradeniya disturbed preparations for the exam. I however played just one match, against the SSC, on a request from Carlyle to try and capture the wicket of Ivers Gunasekara, having done so thrice previously. Carlyle led the relatively raw, untested team to the pinnacle of success, and carved an indelible niche in the annals of University cricket by winning the championship trophy. Buddy Reid was the ideal vice captain to him, both working “in tandem”.

The performances of established players, Buddy Reid, Nihal Gurusinghe, URP Gunatillaka, Mohanlal Fernando, Ernest and Idroos were not exactly outstanding in the previous year. Besides, players of the calibre of Ponniah, Idroos, Nanda Senanayake, Samarajiva, Ernest and Kingsley Fernando did not acquire permanent positions in 1961-62. Perhaps the senior players could not be omitted to make way for them, or their talent and potential had not been fully recognized and harnessed.

Carlyle as captain transformed them from good players to “giants”. Reid, Ponniah, Gurusinghe, Ernest, Nanda Senanayake, NJS de Mel, URP Gunatillake and Kingsley Fernando scored heavily, whilst the three all rounders, Idroos , Ernest and Mohanlal Fernando excelled with both bat and ball. Mohanlal had been my opening bowling mate in the previous years, but bowling with venom and hostility, he was an entirely different bowler in 1962-63 under the inspiring leadership of Carlyle. All rounders Mohanlal Fernando, Idroos and Ernest excelled consistently to be the envy of many clubs, for it was uncommon for them to boast of such a luxury of gifted allrounders. The prodigious performances of Reid, Mohanlal Fernando, Idroos , Ponniah, Ernest and Nihal Gurusinghe were rewarded, with all of them being selected to represent either Ceylon or C.C.A. (Ceylon Cricket Association). Ponniah proceeded to Cambridge and performed with panache, partnering Mike Brearley as opener.

On assuming the captaincy, Carlyle set himself the target of becoming champions in the tournament, and drilled his team to work towards it. He requested his players to abandon their carefree approach to the game, spend more time at practices despite studies, regain fitness, and practice fielding intensely. He infused confidence in each and every player. He made them trust their yet hidden, untapped potential. He changed the mindset of his players by constantly coaxing them to perform better. He dangled the carrot and wielded the stick, and made the team a cohesive, well knit team. As matches progressed, performances prospered and confidence abounded, the team developed a type of fighting spirit alien to many competing clubs. They often fought tooth and nail to wriggle out of situations. Carlyle converted a relatively untested group of players to a formidable outfit which became the cynosure of adoring spectators.

The players reached a point in thinking that they could surmount any challenge. It is not often that a group of players which made a modest impact in the previous year, could emerge as “greats” within just one year; and for some of them to gain national recognition. Carlyle had no material benefits to offer to bait his players but only words of inspiration, sincerity, and exemplary leadership. He was yet a mere student amongst students. He was also a martinet, but only when necessary. Carlyle’s inestimable worth as a leader was confirmed by the inability of the University to reach “cup glory” before 62-63 or after.

He was also skilful in tactics and strategy, working in concert with Buddy Reid. They meticulously sat and planned tactics against opposition batsmen and bowlers before each match. Carlyle’s obsession and unwavering commitment influenced the entire team. It was as if he had cast a benevolent spell over his players. Carlyle was in actual fact, captain, coach and manager of the side, blending all roles into one. He found his true metier in leadership, planning strategies, and management. Posterity has to recognize Carlyle Perera as the undisputed doyen of University cricket, for his unique achievement will remain an undimmed beacon in it’s history.

Writer can be contacted at

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Have Humanities and Social Sciences muddied water enough?



By Maduranga Kalugampitiya

The domain of the humanities and social sciences is under attack more than ever before. The relevance, as well as usefulness of the degrees earned in those fields, is being questioned left, right, and centre. The question of whether it is meaningful at all to be spending, if not wasting, the limited financial resources available in the coffers to produce graduates in those fields is raised constantly, at multiple levels. Attempts are being made to introduce a little bit of soft skills into the curricula in order to add ‘value’ to the degree programmes in the field. The assumption here is that either such degree programmes do not impart any skills or the skills that they impart are of no value. We often see this widely-shared profoundly negative attitude towards the humanities and the social sciences (more towards the former than towards the latter) being projected on the practitioners (students, teachers, and researchers) in those areas. At a top-level meeting, which was held one to two years ago, with the participation of policy-makers in higher education and academics and educationists representing the humanities and social sciences departments, at state universities, a key figure in the higher education establishment claimed that the students who come to the humanities and social sciences faculties were ‘late-developers’. What better (or should I say worse?) indication of the official attitude towards those of us in the humanities and the social sciences!

While acknowledging that many of the key factors that have resulted in downgrading the humanities and social sciences disciplines are global by nature and are very much part of the neoliberal world order, which dominates the day, I wish to ask if we, the practitioners in the said fields, have done our part to counter the attack.

What the humanities and the social sciences engage with is essentially and self-consciously social. What these disciplines have to say has a direct bearing on the social dimension of human existence. It is near impossible to discuss phenomena in economics, political science, or sociology without having to reflect upon and use examples from what happens in our lives and around us. One cannot even begin to talk about teaching English as a second language without taking a look at her/his own experience learning English and the struggles that many people go through at different levels doing the same. One cannot talk about successful ways of teaching foreign languages without recognizing the need to incorporate an engagement with the cultural life of those languages at some level. No reading of an artwork—be it a novel, a movie, a painting, a sculpture, a poem, whatever—is possible without the reader at least subconsciously reflecting upon the broader context in which those artworks are set and also relating her own context or experience to what is being read. A legal scholar cannot read a legislation without paying attention to the social implications of the legislation and the dynamics of the community at whom that legislation is directed. The point is our own existence as social beings is right in the middle of what we engage with in such disciplines. To steal (and do so self-consciously) a term from the hard/natural sciences, society is essentially the ‘laboratory’ in which those in the humanities and social sciences conduct their work. There may be some areas of study within the humanities and social sciences which do not require an explicit engagement with our social existence, but I would say that such areas, if any, are limited in number.

Needless to say that every social intervention is political in nature. It involves unsettling what appears to be normal about our social existence in some way. One cannot make interventions that have a lasting impact without muddying the water which we have been made to believe is clear. How much of muddying do we as practitioners in the field of humanities and social sciences do is a question that needs to be asked.

Unfortunately, we do not see much work in the humanities and social sciences which unsettles the dominant order. What we often see is work that reinforces and reaffirms the dominant structures, systems, and lines of thought. Lack of rigorous academic training and exposure to critical theory is clearly one of the factors which prevents some scholars in the field from being able to make interventions that are capable of muddying the water, but the fact that we sometimes do not see much muddying even on the part of the more adept scholars shows that lack of rigorous training is not the sole reason.

Muddying the water is no simple matter. To use a problematic, yet in my view useful, analogy, a scholar in the said field trying to make an intervention that results in unsettling the order is like a hydrogen atom in H2O, ‘water’ in layperson’s language, trying to make an intervention which results in a re-evaluation of the oxygen atom. Such an intervention invariably entails a re-evaluation of the hydrogen atom as well, for the reason that the two atoms are part of an organic whole. One cannot be purely objective in its reading of the other. Such an intervention is bound to be as unsettling for the hydrogen atom as it is for the oxygen atom. Similarly, in a majority of contexts, a scholar in the area of the humanities and social sciences cannot make an intervention, the kind that pushes the boundaries of knowledge, without unsettling the dominant structures and value systems, which they themselves are part of, live by, and also benefit from. For instance, the norms, values, and practices which define the idea of marriage in contexts like ours are things that a male scholar would have to deal with as a member of our society, and any intervention on his part which raises questions about gender-based inequalities embodied in such norms, values, and practices would be to question his own privilege. Needless to say that such an intervention could result in an existential crisis for the scholar, at least temporarily. Such interventions also entail the possibility of backlash from society. One needs thorough training to withstand that pressure.

In place of interventions that unsettle the existing order, what we often see is work, which re-presents commonsensical knowledge garbed in jargon. To give an example from an area that I am a bit familiar with, much of the work that takes place in the field of English as a Second Language (ESL) identifies lack of motivation on the part of the students and also teachers and also lack of proper training for teachers as the primary reasons for the plight of English education in the country. This reading is not very different from a layperson’s understanding of the problem, and what we often see as research findings in the field of ESL is the same understanding, albeit dressed up in technical-sounding language. Such readings do not unsettle the existing order. They put the blame on the powerless. Very limited is the work that sees the present plight of English education as a systemic or structural problem. Reading that plight as a systemic problem requires us to re-evaluate the fundamental structures which govern our society, and such re-evaluation is unsettling is many ways. I argue that that is what is expected of scholarship in the ESL field, but unfortunately that is not what we see as coming out of the field.

If what gets produced as knowledge in the humanities and social sciences is jargonized commonsense, then the claim that such fields have nothing important to say is valid. If what a scholar in those fields has to say is not different to a layperson’s understanding of a given reality, the question whether there is any point in producing such scholars becomes valid.

In my view, the humanities and social sciences are in need of fundamental restructuring. This restructuring is not the kind which calls for the incorporation of a bit of soft skills here and a bit of soft skills there so that those who come out of those fields easily fit into predefined slots in society but the kind that results in the enhancement of the critical thinking capacity of the scholars. It is the kind of restructuring that would produce scholars who are capable of engaging in a political reading of the realities that define our existence in society and raise difficult questions about such existence, in other words, scholars who are capable of muddying the water.

(Maduranga Kalugampitiya is attached to Department of English, University of Peradeniya)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall thatparodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading


Selective targeting not law’s purpose



By Jehan Perera

The re-emergence of Donald Trump in the United States is a reminder that change is not permanent. Former President Trump is currently utilising the grievances of the white population in the United States with regard to the economic difficulties that many of them face to make the case that they need to be united to maintain their position in society. He is coming forward as their champion. The saying “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is often attributed to the founders of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, among many others, though Lord Denning in The Road to Justice (1988) stated that the phrase originated in a statement of Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790. The phrase is often used to emphasise the importance of being vigilant in protecting one’s rights and freedoms.

Ethnic and religious identity are two powerful concepts by which people may be mobilised the world over. This is a phenomenon that seemed to have subsided in Western Europe due to centuries of secular practices in which the state was made secular and neutral between ethnicities and religions. For a short while last year during the Aragalaya, it seemed that Sri Lanka was transcending its ethnic and religious cleavages in the face of the unexpected economic calamity that plunged large sections of the population back into poverty. There was unprecedented unity especially at the street level to demonstrate publicly that the government that had brought the country to this sorry pass had to go. The mighty force of people’s power succeeded in driving the leaders of that government out of power. Hopefully, there will be a government in the future that will bring the unity and mutual respect within the people, especially the younger generations, to the fore and the sooner the better as the price is growing higher by the day.

But like the irrepressible Donald Trump the old order is fighting to stage its comeback. The rhetoric of ethnicity and religion being in danger is surfacing once more. President Ranil Wickremesinghe who proclaimed late last year that the 13th Amendment to the constitution would be implemented in full, as it was meant to be, and enable the devolution of power to be enjoyed by the people of the provinces, including those dominated by Tamils and Muslims, has gone silent on this promise. The old order to which he is providing a new economic vision is clearly recalcitrant on ethno-religious matters. As a result, the government’s bold plan to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as promised to the international community in 2015 to address the unresolved human rights issues of the war, is reportedly on the rocks. The main Tamil political parties have made statements that they will not legitimise or accept such a mechanism in the absence of a genuine devolution of power. Politics must not override policies.


The sense of threat to ethnicity and religion looms too large once again for forward movement in conflict resolution between the different communities that constitute the Sri Lankan nation which is diverse and plural. Two unlikely persons now find themselves at the centre of an emotion-heavy ethno-religious storm. One is a comedian, the other is a religious preacher. Both of them have offended the religious sensibilities of many in the ethno-religious Sinhala Buddhist majority community. Both of their statements were originally made to small audiences of their own persuasion, but were then projected through social media to reach much larger audiences. The question is whether they made these statements to rouse religious hatred and violence. There have been numerous statements from all sides of the divide, whether ethnic, religious or political, denouncing them for their utterances.

Both comedian Nathasha Edirisooriya and pastor Jerome Fernando have apologised for offending and hurting the religious sentiments of the Buddhist population. They made an attempt to remedy the situation when they realised the hurt, the anger and the opposition they had generated. This is not the first time that such hurtful and offensive comments have been made by members of one ethno-religious community against members of another ethnic-religious community. Taking advantage of this fact the government is arguing the case for the control of social media and also the mainstream media. It is preparing to bring forward legislation for a Broadcasting Regulatory Commission that would also pave the way to imprison journalists for their reporting, impose fines, and also revoke the licences issued to electronic media institutions if they impact negatively on national security, national economy, and public order or create any conflict among races and religions.

In a free society, opportunities are provided for people to be able to air their thoughts and dissents openly, be it at Hyde Park or through their representatives in Parliament. The threat to freedom of speech and to the media that can arise from this new law can be seen in the way that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is the world’s standard bearer on civil and political rights has been used and is being abused in Sri Lanka. It was incorporated into Sri Lankan law in a manner that has permitted successive governments to misuse it. It is very likely that the Broadcast Regulatory Commission bill will yield a similar result if passed into law. The arrest and detention of comedian Natasha Edirisooriya under the ICCPR Act has become yet another unfortunate example of the misuse of a law meant to protect human rights by the government. Pastor Jerome Fernando is out of prison as he is currently abroad having left the country a short while before a travel ban was delivered to him.


The state media reported that a “Police officer said that since there is information that she was a person who was in the Aragalaya protest, they are looking into the matter with special attention.” This gives rise to the inference that the reason for her arrest was politically motivated. Comedian Edirisooriya was accused of having violated the provisions in the ICCPR in Section 3(1) that forbids hate speech. Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act prohibits advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, violence or hostility. The international human rights watchdog, Amnesty International, has pointed out that in the case of Edirisooriya that for speech to be illegal on the grounds of being hate speech it requires “a clear showing of intent to incite others to discriminate, be hostile towards or commit violence against the group in question.” Amnesty International also notes that “When the expression fails to meet the test, even if it is shocking, offensive or disturbing, it should be protected by the state.”

Ironically, in the past there have been many instances of ethnic and religious minorities being targeted in a hateful manner that even led to riots against them, but successive governments have been inactive in protecting them or arresting their persecutors. Such targeting has taken place, often for political purposes in the context of elections, in blatant bids to mobilise sections of the population through appeals to narrow nationalism and fear of the other. The country’s political and governmental leaders need to desist from utilising the ICCPR Act against those who make social and political critiques that are outside the domain of hate speech. The arrest of Bruno Divakara, the owner of SL-Vlogs, under the ICCPR Act is an indication of this larger and more concerning phenomenon which is being brought to the fore by the Broadcasting Regulatory Commission bill.

The crackdown on the space for free expression and critical comment is unacceptable in a democratic polity, especially one as troubled as Sri Lanka, in which the economy has collapsed and caused much suffering to the people and the call to hold elections has been growing. The intervention of the Human Rights Commission which has called on the Inspector General of Police to submit a report on the arrest and its rationale is a hopeful sign that the independence of institutions intended to provide a check and balance will finally prevail. The Sri Lankan state will hopefully evolve to be a neutral arbiter in the disputes between competing ethnic, religious and partisan political visions of what the state should be and what constitutes acceptable behaviour within it. Taking on undemocratic powers in a variety of ways and within a short space of time is unlikely to deliver economic resurgence and a stable and democratic governance the country longs for. Without freedom, justice and fair play within, there can be no hope of economic development that President Wickremesinghe would be wanting to see.

Continue Reading


Girl power… to light up our scene



Manthra: Pop, rock and Sinhala songs

We have never had any outstanding all-girl bands, in the local scene, except, perhaps…yes The Planets, and that was decades ago!

The Planets did make a name for themselves, and they did create quite a lot of excitement, when they went into action.

Of course, abroad, we had several top all-girl bands – outfits like the Spice Girls, Bangles, Destiny’s Child, and The Supremes.

It’s happening even now, in the K-pop scene.

Let’s hope we would have something to shout about…with the band Manthra – an all-girl outfit that came together last year (2022).

Manthra is made up of Hiruni Fernando (leader/bass guitar), Gayathma Liyanage (lead guitar), Amaya Jayarathne (drums), Imeshini Piyumika (keyboards), and Arundathi Hewawitharana (vocals).

Amaya Arundathi and Imeshini are studying at the University of Visual and Performing Arts, while Gayathma is studying Architecture at NIMB, and Hiruni is the Western Music teacher at St. Lawrence’s Convent, and the pianist at Galadari Hotel, having studied piano and classical guitar at West London University.

They have already displayed their talents at various venues, events, weddings, and on TV, as well (Vanithabimana Sirasa TV and Charna TV Art Beat).

Additionally, the band showcased their talent at the talent show held at the Esoft Metro Campus.

The plus factor, where this all-girl outfit is concerned, is that their repertoire is made up rock, pop, and Sinhala songs.

Explaining as to how they came up with the name Manthra, founder member Hiruni said that Manthra means a word, or sound, repeated to aid concentration in meditation, and that the name was suggested by one of the band members.

Hiruni Fernando: Founder and leader of Manthra

She also went on to say that putting together a female band is not an easy task, in the scene here.

“We faced many difficulties in finding members. Some joined and then left, after a short while. Unlike a male band, where there are many male musicians in Sri Lanka, there are only a few female musicians. And then, there are some parents who don’t like their daughters getting involved in music.”

With talented musicians in their line-up, the future certainly looks bright for Manthra who are now keen to project themselves, in an awesome way, in the scene here, and abroad, as well.

“We are keen to do stage shows and we are also planning to create our own songs,” said Hiruni.

Yes, we need an all-girl group to add variety to our scene that is now turning out to be a kind of ‘repeating groove,’ where we see, and hear, almost the same thing…over and over again!

Continue Reading