Connect with us

Midweek Review

Celebrating ‘Independence’ Day again – hopefully last!

Published

on

By Prof. Susirith Mendis

susmend2610@gmail. com

Another ‘Independence’ day has been celebrated with a military parade, with all the pomp and pageantry worthy of a sovereign republic. But unfortunately, it was on the day that we were given ‘self-rule’ while still being under the tutelage of the Queen of England!

I, and like-minded people, have repeatedly written in the print and social media about not only the incongruity, but more so, the shamelessness of continuing to celebrate ‘Independence’ Day – the day in which we attained Dominion Status in 1948 – when we are have been a sovereign republic since 22nd May 1972 (see my articles in ‘The Island’ of 5th February 2018 and 3rd February 2020).

 

It seems that all our pleas have fallen on deaf ears of recalcitrant governments – the previous and more surprisingly, the present.

In these articles, we have explained in some detail as to why we should abandon celebrations on ‘Independence’ Day – 4th February, and instead celebrate, with all pomp and pageantry, our Republic Day on 22nd May – (Ref: to my article in ‘The Island of 3rd February 2020).

Let us look at our neighbours who obviously have greater national self-respect and a greater sense of sovereign dignity than we seem to possess – India and Pakistan, who got ‘independence’ from the British colonists at almost the same time.

India –

Republic Day is a national holiday in India. It honours the date on which the Constitution of India came into effect on 26 January 1950, replacing the Government of India Act (1935) as the governing document of India and thus, turning the nation into a newly formed republic.

The Constitution was adopted by the Indian Constituent Assembly on 26th November 1949, and came into effect on 26th January 1950, with a democratic government system, completing the country’s transition towards becoming an independent republic. 26th January was chosen as the date for Republic Day because it was on this day in 1929 that the Declaration of Indian Independence (Purna Swaraj) was proclaimed by the Indian National Congress, in lieu of the ‘Realm status’ as a Dominion, which was later instituted by the British Regime.

The Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force with their bands march past in all their finery and official decorations. The President of India who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Armed Forces, takes the salute. Various para-military forces and the police also take part in this parade. The Chief Guest of this annual event is the President of India. It is a public holiday.

On the other hand, India achieved ‘independence’ from the British Raj on 15 August 1947 following the Indian independence movement. This ‘independence’ came through the Indian Independence Act of 1947, an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that partitioned British India into the two new independent Dominions of the British Commonwealth. India obtained its ‘independence on 15 August 1947 as a constitutional monarchy with George VI as Head of State and Earl Mountbatten as Governor-General. Just as Ceylon obtained its ‘independence’ on 4th February 1948.

The Republic Day (26th January) parade is held in the capital, New Delhi and is organised by the Ministry of Defence, commencing from the gates of the Rashtrapati Bhavan. This event is the main attraction of India’s Republic Day Celebrations. The parade showcases India’s defence capability, cultural and social heritage.

Since the Republic Day became the day of celebration of India’s sovereignty, on each subsequent ‘Independence’ Day, the incumbent Prime Minister customarily raises the flag and gives an address to the nation. That was the day the National flag of India (the Tricolour) was first raised and unfurled by the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru over the Red Fort. Since then, it has been the tradition for the PM to hoist the national flag at the Red Fort on ‘Independence’ Day. This is not dissimilar to what the first PM of Ceylon did over ‘Independence’ Square in Colombo on 4th February 1948. It is also a national holiday. Please note: The President of India does not attend the ‘Independence’ day commemoration. And there is only a short, formal ceremony attended by the PM.

It must be remembered that ‘Independence’ in India coincided with the partition, in which British India was divided along religious lines into the Dominions of India and Pakistan. The partition was accompanied by violent riots and mass casualties, and the displacement of nearly 15 million people due to religious violence.

It is of interest to note that India celebrated ‘Independence’ Day before ‘independence’. At the 1929 Lahore session of the Indian National Congress, the Purna Swaraj declaration, or “Declaration of the Independence of India” was promulgated, and 26 January 1930 was declared as ‘Independence’ Day at that time. The Congress called on people to pledge themselves to civil disobedience. This tradition continued until India attained complete independence. Celebration of such an ‘Independence’ Day was envisioned to stoke nationalistic fervour among Indian citizens, and to force the British government to consider granting independence. The Indian National Congress observed 26 January as the Independence Day between 1930 and 1946. The celebration was marked by meetings where the attendants took the “pledge of independence”.

Pakistan –

Pakistan Republic Day is a national holiday in Pakistan, commemorating the Lahore Resolution passed by the Muslim League on 23 March 1940, and the adoption of the first constitution of Pakistan during the transition of the Dominion of Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 23 March 1956. A Republic Day parade by the Pakistani armed forces is a part of the celebrations.

On this day, a resolution was passed stating that Muslims in India wanted independence and a separate homeland as they were persecuted in India. Since then, the day is celebrated annually throughout the country as a public holiday.

The main celebrations are held in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. The President of Pakistan is the Chief Guest; also attending are the Prime Minister of Pakistan alongside the Cabinet ministers, military chiefs of staff, and chairman joint chiefs. A full inter-services joint military parade is broadcast live by the news media.

Pakistan gives greater prominence to ‘Independence’ Day observed annually on 14 August, than India does. It commemorates the day in 1947, when Pakistan achieved independence and was declared a sovereign state following the end of the British Raj and Pakistan came into existence. It too is a national holiday in Pakistan.

Back to Ceylon –

Unfortunately, Ceylon did not have a day similar to the Purna Swaraj day as in India, to rally people yearning for true independence. Perhaps, if we had enough patriots with a true fervour for true independence and freedom, we, as a people, could have celebrated 26th November as the commemorative day for celebration prior to 1948. If some of us do not know of its significance, let me remind them. That was the day in 1818, when the Uva Wellassa rebellion broke out. But it never was and was not ever to be. We got our ‘independence’ relatively, “on a platter” as they say, thanks to the Indian independence struggle, when our leaders – DS Senanayake, Oliver Goonatilleke and SWRD Bandaranaike, togged up in bow ties and tailcoats, accepted “the platter” in great deference from the Duke of Gloucester. After all, the Duke represented the King of Ceylon!

When we compare the three nations that got ‘independence’ almost at the same time, we see a stark difference. A total erasing of what should have been the most important date in our annual national calendar in our history since 1505 – i. e. , the day, after more than 450 years we became a sovereign Republic, 22 May 1972.

But what have our leaders been doing since 22nd May 1972? Never celebrated it as Republic Day with parades. If my fading memory serves me right, the government of the time gave a holiday, but called it ‘National Heroes’ Day’ and continued to celebrate 4th February with pomp, pageantry and military parades. This has been the case, surprisingly, during the presidential tenures of Presidents Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and now, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. If there are any claimants for the most national-minded leaders, it must fall on MR and now, GR. But this year, it is the second year that ‘independence’ Day has been celebrated in the usual way with no concern and awareness of what 4th February stands for.

Here is my final plea to the government of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Next year is the 50th anniversary since we became a sovereign fully independent and free republic. Let this year be the last 4th of February we celebrate. Let all the pomp and pageantry be reserved for the Republic Day of Sri Lanka on 22nd of May. If this government does not have the backbone to finally sever the umbilical cord that binds us to British colonialism, no other government is likely to do so in the near future.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Sri Lanka caught up in Canadian Indo-Pacific Strategy

Published

on

Eric Walsh, the New Canadian High Commissioner, arrives at the President’s House, in Kandy (above), to present credentials to President Ranil Wickremesinghe (right) on Feb 02, 2023 (Pic: Courtesy Foreign Ministry)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Eric Walsh presented his credentials to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, on Feb. 02, at the President’s House in Kandy. Wickremesinghe was flanked by Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, and Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake.

Canada, with the concurrence of Sri Lanka, appointed Walsh as High Commissioner of Canada to Colombo.

Walsh, who had served as the Canadian Ambassador in Seoul (2015-2018), succeeded David Makinnon, amidst the ongoing controversy over Canada’s declaration of two former Presidents, Mahinda Rajapaksa (2005-2015), and Gotabaya Rajapaksa (2019-2022), as war criminals. Ottawa has unilaterally found them guilty of alleged offenses, without going through any acceptable legal procedure, during the time they held the posts of President and Defence Secretary respectively (2005-2015). It was during this period that the LTTE, which was for a long time generally regarded by the West as being unbeatable, was well and truly vanquished, in the battlefield, by our valiant security forces, in May 2009. This is all the more shocking as some leading military/academic experts in the West had given written evidence that we did not commit any war crimes. May be nature alone will give justice to all the victims of the white man’s unimaginable crimes, especially against the natives of the Americas, who were the victims of genocide, since the arrival of Christopher Columbus there, and millions of Africans enslaved there, while outwardly espousing “all men are created equal”. And they continue to practice similar heinous acts against those people, while claiming to follow the gospel of the Lord!

The new Canadian High Commissioner was among several foreign envoys who presented credentials on Feb. 02, at an event that drew wide condemnation at a time Sri Lanka is continuing to experience severe economic difficulties. The criticism was so much that the President’s Media Division (PMD) issued a statement justifying the event. Colombo-based Walsh also serves as Canadian High Commissioner to the Maldives.

A section of the public, as well as the media, questioned the extravagant event at a time the vast majority of Sri Lankans was struggling to make ends meet. However, President Wickremesinghe, receiving credentials from the new Canadian High Commissioner, didn’t receive public attention.

Would Canada have imposed sanctions on Gotabaya Rajapaksa if he remained the President? Ottawa would have done so, probably as part of its overall strategy to appease Tamil Canadian voters of Sri Lankan origins. Public protests compelled Gotabaya Rajapaksa to give up the presidency on July 14. Of course it is also pretty obvious Ottawa is merely behaving as Washington’s pet poodle doing the bidding of its master.

“The Special Economic Measures (Sri Lanka) Regulations impose on listed persons a prohibition on any transaction (effectively, an asset freeze) by prohibiting persons in Canada, and Canadians outside Canada, from engaging in any activity related to any property of these listed persons or providing financial or related services to them,” the Canadian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“The individuals listed in the Schedule to the Regulations are also rendered inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,” the statement added.

Having negotiated the Ottawa Treaty, banning antipersonnel mines in 1996 to 1997, Walsh couldn’t have been unaware of the origins of the Sri Lanka war. No one demanding accountability on the part of hapless Sri Lanka ever questioned the origins of the war here. Canada is no exception. Canada wouldn’t have been home to such a large group of Sri Lankans if not for the despicable Indian destabilization project launched here in the early ’80s.

On January 11, Sabry summoned Acting Canadian High Commissioner, Daniel Bood, over the imposition of sanctions on the Rajapaksa brothers, Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayaka, and Lt. Commander P. Hettiarachchi over what Ottawa called ‘gross and systematic violations of human rights’ during the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The acceptance of the new Canadian High Commissioner’s credentials meant that the humiliation of war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother Gotabaya, who played a significant role in Sri Lanka’s successful war against the LTTE, is not an issue at all. The then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s Army brought the war to a successful conclusion, on the morning of May 19, 2009. Interestingly, Canada has not found fault with Fonseka, who contested the 2010 presidential election, with the backing of the United States.

The Foreign Ministry owe an explanation as to how they intend to counter the latest Canadian move that has given a turbo boost to the ongoing campaign against Sri Lanka. Imposition of sanctions on the two Presidents followed the Canadian Parliament’s recognition of “Tamil genocide” in Sri Lanka on May 18, 2022. The then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government failed to address the issue having been overwhelmed by violent domestic issues.

“Canada becomes the first national parliament, in the world, to recognize May 18th, of each year, as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day,” tweeted Gary Anandasangaree, MP for Scarborough-Rouge Park, who brought forward the motion on the 13th anniversary of the LTTE’s crushing defeat at Mullivaikkal, on the Vanni east front. The Canadian MP’s father is Point Pedro-born Veerasingham Anandasangaree, an ex-lawmaker and one-time TULF stalwart.

Gary Anandasangaree hasn’t acknowledged India’s culpability in terrorism here or atrocities committed by his own community during the conflict.

Parliament Hill agenda

The Tamil Diaspora has received access to Canada’s Parliament in a big way. Against the backdrop of Canadian recognition of Tamil genocide (May 2022) and sanctions on Rajapaksa brothers (January 2023), Canada allowed the Federation of Global Tamil Organizations (FGTO) to address the accountability issue on Parliament Hill.

Canadian media quoted the member of the FGTO board, Vel Velautahpillai, as having called for a new Nuremberg-like tribunal to prosecute the leadership of the government of Sri Lanka.

President Wickremesinghe received the new Canadian High Commissioner’s credentials, a few days later. The FGTO recently requested Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Mélanie Joly, to bring Sri Lanka before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). That request was repeated by Velautahpillai, in Parliament Hill.

Sri Lanka should be grateful for the impartial coverage of the latest developments by the national news agency of Canada. In fact, the Canadian Press handled the FGTO onslaught much better than the Sri Lankan government did.

The Canadian Press quoted Sri Lanka’s Deputy High Commissioner in Canada, Anzul Jhan, as having said: “Some of the extreme groups, with separatist agendas, do not wish to see progress in Sri Lanka, as it will jeopardize their livelihood in Canada. It is only natural for these groups to be motivated by the Canadian sanctions. The sanctions come in the backdrop of tangible and meaningful progress made by the government in addressing issues of accountability and reconciliation, and in strengthening the country’s democratic and governance structures.”

Career diplomat Jhan said, in her response to the Canadian Press inquiry, “Given the significant community of Sri Lankan heritage of all ethnicities, Canada should play the role of peacemaker.”

Jhan alleged Ottawa harmed both its own relations with Sri Lanka and her country’s internal reconciliation process. Canada imposed sanctions on the Rajapaksa brothers, on January 10, 2023.

Hats off to Jhan and the Sri Lankan High Commission for the intrepid stand taken on behalf of Sri Lanka at a time the Foreign Ministry seems to be so unsure of its strategy, possibly in fear of President Wickremesinghe, who, as PM, previously ensured the sponsoring of a resolution against Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights body. Perhaps Sri Lanka lacked even the basic strategy to counter the Western agenda. Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in Ottawa, Harsha Kumara Navaratne, has been trying to set the record straight. The one-time prominent civil society figure faces a daunting task in neutralizing the growing Canadian threat.

In the absence of a cohesive Sri Lankan action plan, the FGTO may well succeed in convincing more countries to follow suit. In his Parliament Hill statement, Velautahpillai urged the G 7 countries to impose sanctions on Sri Lanka. However, Velautahpillai refrained from urging India to impose sanctions on Sri Lanka. Did Velautahpillai fear at least to mention India’s culpability? Did the likes of Velautahpillai, and his associates ,who used Parliament Hill to promote separatist agenda, at least bother to inquire how many Tamils died in the hands of the LTTE, and other Tamil terrorist groups, trained by India? Did they want to know how many Tamils perished in the hands of the Indian Army, deployed in Sri Lanka during the July 1987-March 1990 period?

The death of nearly 1,300 Indian soldiers, and twice that number wounded, some maimed for life,underscored the fierceness of fighting.

The new Canadian High Commissioner must be reminded how the Indian-trained Sri Lankan terrorists made an abortive bid to grab power in the Maldives in early Nov. 1988. Those who have conveniently forgotten the origins of Sri Lanka terrorism, and want the international community to haul Sri Lanka up before the ICJ, must be compelled to acknowledge the ugly truth.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as recommended by the government of South Africa, and accepted by Sri Lanka, can examine the entire range of issues, including the attempt by the People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) to assassinate the then Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to pave the way for a Colombo-based Maldivian businessman, Abdulla Luthufee, to seize power.

Luthufee may never have had an opportunity to challenge Gayoom without the PLOTE support. At the time of the sea-borne raid, the PLOTE operated under the guidance of the Indian Army, as well as India’s premier intelligence service Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

The PLOTE carried arms and ammunition, provided by the Indian military. In fact, it was one of the groups extremely close to Indian intelligence services, and the beneficiary of both weapons as well as funds. Did somebody, within the Indian intelligence community, know about the PLOTE operation? How the PLOTE preparations for the Male operation went totally unnoticed is an unfathomable question? And, most importantly, what would have happened if the coup attempt succeeded?

None of those seeking to establish the circumstances under which the combined Sri Lankan forces eradicated the LTTE, on the Vanni east front, were bothered about regional instability and uncertainty caused by the Indian action. India thereby, unwittingly, caused the assassination of one-time Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, by LTTE terrorists.

The UN, the EU, as well as the Commonwealth, didn’t even issue statements regarding the Male crisis, caused by Indian intervention in Sri Lanka. Instead, India was praised for saving democracy in the Maldives by swiftly responding to the sea borne raid, mounted by Sri Lankan terrorists. Had the terrorists succeeded, there would have been a bloodbath leading to a protracted conflict. Strangely, the security crisis, caused by Sri Lankan terrorists, had never been an issue at international forums, particularly because the government in Male was sensitive to India’s concerns. The bottom line is that the Maldives didn’t want to embarrass India. The Sri Lankan government largely remained silent for reasons best known to the then UNP leadership.

Indo-Pacific strategy

Sri Lanka is among the countries under Canadian sanctions over alleged human rights issues. The following are the other countries sanctioned by Ottawa: Belarus, Central African Republic, China, North Korea, Congo, Haiti, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Myanmar , Nicaragua, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine (linked to Russia’s ongoing violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity according to Global Affairs Canada), Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

According to a message, posted on the Canadian High Commission website, new High Commissioner Walsh has declared that in terms of their Indo-Pacific Strategy, his country was ready to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to achieve meaningful and lasting post-war national reconciliation. Actually, Canada owe an explanation on how it intended to promote national reconciliation by targeting those who spearheaded Sri Lanka’s war effort. On one hand, Canada, and the like-minded countries, want to protect those who had perpetrated atrocities on behalf of the LTTE and other Tamil groups and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) that recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people. On the other hand, they are determined to humiliate the war-winning political and military leaderships.

Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, launched in 2022, should be examined, along with the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, unveiled the year before, by the Biden-Harris administration. Truly, the Canadian initiative can be safely described as an integral part of the overall Western response to the Chinese challenge.

Obviously, Sri Lanka, struggling to cope up with a deepening balance of payments crisis, and its inability to pay back its debt, is under tremendous pressure to align with Western powers. The accountability issue is being cleverly exploited to build up pressure on a hapless country that wouldn’t have experienced war on such a destructive scale if not for the West allowing New Delhi to go ahead with its destabilization project here.

Western strategy, in respect of Sri Lanka, is absolutely clear. Western powers have been rattled by Sri Lanka’s relationship with China, an all-weather friend, like Pakistan, at a time the US and Europe hesitated to help Colombo fight terrorism, though New Delhi gradually changed its approach, after a Sri Lankan Tamil suicide bomber assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, in May 1991.

According to the Canadian Indo-Pacific Strategy, its actions, as well as the response of like-minded countries, are influenced by their assertion that China is a disruptive global power. Having perused the Canadian Indo-Pacific strategy, the writer is quite convinced of the exploitation of the Sri Lanka accountability issue to advance their agenda. Sri Lanka has been entangled in a conflict, due to its strategic positioning.

The Canadian response to the Chinese challenge is dealt at domestic, bilateral, regional and multilateral levels in their Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Seventy five years after gaining independence, from the UK, the country is at the mercy of Western powers, and India, the regional power and key member of the US-led ‘Quad ‘military alliance, despite New Delhi’s often proclaimed ‘Neighbourhood First Policy.’ Bankrupt Sri Lanka needs to overhaul the corrupt, wasteful and extravagant political system responsible for ruination of the national economy.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Alienness within walking distance

Published

on

(Text of a lecture delivered

by Rajan Hoole

at ICES, celebrating Malaiyaham 200 on 21 January 2023)

Citizenship was not originally a contested area. At the first session of the Ceylon National Congress, on 11th December 1919, where Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam was elected president, it was assumed without dissent that all communities in the Island would be represented. In 1927, the Donoughmore Commissioners, who proposed universal adult franchise for ordinary residents did not themselves envisage a distinction. But it was clear to the Sinhalese plutocrats that under the scheme of one man – one vote, the balance of power would shift to the labouring classes.

In 1928, W. A. de Silva, president of the Ceylon National Congress, wanted the most vulnerable Plantation Tamils denied the vote because ‘their highly deprived living conditions and isolation made their vote a danger to the ‘community.’’ Any outsider visiting them was legally an intruder and subject to prosecution. Asked by the Indian journalist, Sant Nihal Singh, why not remove the restrictive regime in the Plantations, including his own, and allow the labour freedom to mix freely? De Silva admitted that then, the chief reason for denying them the vote would be gone. Seeing such specious denial of the vote made universal franchise farcical, the British Administration settled for minimum five years residence as condition for the vote.

Proof of five years residence seemed reasonable in 1929 and the Plantation Tamils too exercised the franchise in the 1931 and 1936 elections, but were by 20 years of insult and administrative harassment based on small-minded technicalities, rendered voteless in 1949. In 1941 the Legal Secretary had told the Council that 80% of the Plantation Tamils were either born here or had resided more than 10 years. Any government with a meagre sense of justice would in 1948 have taken the five years’ residence for granted. But even though they were paupers at the backbone of the economy, they were denied citizenship and the vote, making them slaves, on the risible pretext that they were, as D.S. Senanayake put it, citizens of India.

During the 20 years of the Donoughmore era, education too followed the social hierarchy; in 1927 a teacher in an English medium school could earn Rs. 70 to 200 and in a vernacular school from Rs.35 to Rs. 60. But the estate children were nominally taught reading, writing and arithmetic by teachers paid almost a plantation labourer’s salary of Rs. 20 a month in 1948. The labour was totally unprepared for the challenges of contesting disenfranchisement in the courts by proof of five years’ residence, even when many judges were sympathetic. The Registration bill of 1941 aimed at the Plantation Tamils, showed Senanayake whom the British favoured for the transfer of power, with the Left opposition jailed, established a stranglehold over the House. Amazingly, with the Left behind bars, no Sinhalese voted against the Bill. When the independence bill was put to the State Council in 1945, no Ceylon Tamil was willing to face up to the tragedy in train.

In the process, we destroyed the trust and good neighbourliness within the country to the point of driving the Tamil minority to seek lethal weapons; and in the unfolding dynamic, the majority and minority sought to overcome internal dissent by terror.

In today’s reality, this was defending the unaffordable Army doubling up as archaeological experts; scouring the North-East for tokens that could be turned into grandiose monuments for the Sinhalese among non-Sinhalese; and in turn driving the starving Sinhalese to desperate measures.

Academic historians and archaeologists have from their dull enclaves been shot into stardom as their professions became politicised. Written history will be of value only if it broadly reflects truth, rather than confirms the reader’s bias. The writer must interrogate his writing to check the validity of his conclusions.

To prove that the Indian labourers came only for short stay, Prof. S.U. Kodikara argued from the comparatively low proportion of unemployable elderly persons on the estates in the early 20th Century, that the elderly generally returned to India. But, in truth, conditions were harsh and the relative death rate very high, so that few survived to return. The blackout of Indian labour’s crucial contribution which kept the economy afloat, during the second world war and long after, to the tune of 65 per cent of our foreign earnings until 1965, is an injustice committed by both Sinhalese and Tamil politicians. That began the move to devalue everything Tamil.

The systematic denial of the Pallava (namely Tamil) contribution to Buddhist Art was to suppress the Tamil role. With scant evidence, the credit was shifted further north to inspiration from Amaravati of the 3rd century. This necessitates suppression of an episode of Indian Tamil immigration in the 8th to 10th centuries that led to excellence in art, expansion of trade, identification and internationalisation of the port of Trincomalee and the coming of China, by invitation.

Movement between Lanka and India was there all along, be it religion, trade, war or peace

The political need for the citizenship Act therefore inserted an official culture of systematic falsehood. Lankan professor of archaeology, Sirima Kiribamune, in ‘Tamils in Ancient and Mediaeval Sri Lanka’ of 1985, says, passing over the Pallava era in silence: “the 8th century, which saw some dynastic stability in the country, appears to have been relatively free of Indian troop movements.” Of Manavamma’s return following more than 20 years in service of the Pallavas, K.M. de Silva, remarks that there was augmentation of royal authority and sophistication of administration.

D.K. Dohanian, however, points out in his paper ‘Sinhalese Sculptures in the Pallava Style’ in Archives of Asian Art Vol. 36 (1983), Duke University Press:

“Lanka’s awareness of Indian neighbours was never so dynamic than during the nearly four hundred years following the flight of the Sinhalese prince Manavamma to political asylum in [Pallava] Kanchi, to the court of Narasimhavarman I. In 684 AD he captured the throne of Lanka in the wake of naval aid from the Pallava monarch, which set off from Mamallapuram. Following his reign of about 35 years, he was succeeded by his sons Aggabodhi V (AD 718 – 724), Kassapa III (724 – 730) and Mahinda I (730 – 733). These sons of Manavamma both shared his exile and were born in the Pallava country. In consequence Pallava influence at the Sinhalese court was quite strong.

“Both the stability and prestige of the Government of Lanka were related to the unbroken alliance with the Pallavas that lasted until the extinction of the Pallava dynasty near the end of the 9th Century. During this time the kingdom of Lanka benefitted from the might of the Pallavas” – who in the late 7th or 8th Century AD turned Trincomalee into a throbbing port city, judging by its wealth from the seabed ruins of Koneswaram Temple, and Mahayana Buddhist remains all over.

The relevant history of Tamil Nadu – inspiration of Buddhism and Jainism

Tamil Nadu has a blank in its history, after the 3rd Century AD, up to about 550 AD. Nilakanta Shastri tells us in his History of South India: “This dark period marked by the ascendancy of Buddhism and probably also of Jainism, was characterised also by great literary activity in Tamil.” Though characterising it ‘the dark period,’ being the great historian he was, Shastri followed with the brighter side of what has been termed the Kalabhra era, a time that saw the golden age of Tamil literature. He added: “Most of the works grouped under the head, the eighteen minor works were written during this period as also the Silappadikaram, Manimekalai and other works. Many of the authors were votaries of the heretical sects.”

It was a period marked by pluralism, if not secularism. David Shulman is a citizen of Israel, who works actively for justice to the Palestinians, from whom we in the University of Jaffna were privileged to have a visit. In his book of 2016, Tamil – a biography – provides a solution to the Kalabhra riddle that avoids the fantastic: “The once prevalent notion of a dark interregnum in which a mysterious dynasty of ‘Kalbhras’ penetrated with devastating effect, into the Tamil country now seems rather exaggerated, if not, indeed, entirely fictive.”

The Kalabhra period had witnessed a social upheaval in which the Buddhists and Jains gained in economic importance. In dealing with a revolution, which was largely pacific, the Pallavas, the emergent power in the Chola country from 550 AD on, whose rulers in turn embraced Jainism and Hinduism, wisely chose to buy into the revolution rather than suppress it. Thus, the Pallava capital Kanchipuram became a city of Jain, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist learning. The merchant marine of the time with Kanchipuram as headquarters carried Mahayana Buddhism and the Tamil language to East Asia. The social atmosphere of the time is captured in the Silappadikaram and Manimehalai, and in Anne E. Monius’ book ‘Imagining a Place for Buddhism.’

Amaravati or Pallava?

Senarat Paranavitana, the doyen of Ceylon’s archaeologists, in his Art of the Ancient Sinhalese (1971), advances the ‘overwhelming’ influence of ‘Andhra art on that of early Ceylon and a branch of that school in Ceylon, producing the sculptures on the frontispieces of the ancient stupas.’ This was speculative, given the censorship of Mahayana in the chronicles of Ceylon and the 400 years that separated Amaravati from the flowering of Pallava art. Nilakanta Shastri traces Roman influence in the ‘vigorous and supple realism, characteristic of all Indian sculpture, particularly from the days of Asoka and Sanchi to the Pallava sculptures of Mamallapuram … Roman influence in the art of Amaravati that foreshadows that of Aihole and Mamallapuram.’

Osmund Bopearachchi, from Sorbonne, one of our eminent archaeologists has pointed to the mass discoveries from the 7th and 8th centuries of statues of Bodhisattva Avalokiteswara, the protector of sailors, along the island’s ports, rivers, and overland routes. He also points to famous Mahayana Buddhist statues in the southeast of the island, as in Budurugala, from this period. But he remarkably fails to make the crucial Pallava connection and leaves these facts as curiosities hanging in the air. The Amaravati claim is focused on one instance. Paranavitana quoted the authority of Ananda Coomaraswamy on the well-known statue in the Abhayagiri grounds [in Anuradhapura], ‘dignified as are the Buddhist statues of Amaravati, the great Buddha at Anuradhapura surpasses them in grandeur.’

Dohanian (ibid) adds: “Perhaps the most celebrated Sinhalese sculpture in the Pallava style is the stone Buddha of the Outer Circular Road in Anuradhapura [cited by] Coomaraswamay … Though originally from the Mahayanist shrine at Abhayagiri vihara, with three similar, if not identical Buddha images, it has been given space in virtually every publication on Buddhism and Buddhist art in modern times. The stone sculpture isolated from its shrine has been much commented upon, and has been placed within dates, ranging as a rule from the 2nd century A.D. to the fifth; there have been some attempts to date it much earlier … The shrine of which this image is a component has been dated within the first half of the eighth century, and I have demonstrated elsewhere, that the sculpture was contemporary, in manufacture, with the shrine.

“Although most scholars have been content to see ‘Gupta’ qualities in it, this image most convincingly resembles the figures carved on the face of the great rock at Mamallapuram, the ancient city of the Pallavas.”

No Lankan scholar seemed to have commented on Dohanian’s paper of 1983. At a seminar in University College London on 6th July 2005, Bopearachchi, repeated Paranavitana’s thesis on the ‘overwhelming’ influence of Amaravati-Nagajunakonda art on the earliest Buddha images in Sri Lanka as having ‘gained unanimous acceptance.’ This he partially retracted on 30th December 2014, at the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts:

“D.K. Dohanian sees a parallel between this type of ascetic Avalokiteśvara and Śiva of the early Pallava style depicted … in Mamallapuram (Mahabalipuram). If this hypothesis is correct, the stone Avalokiteśvara images cannot be dated before the 7th century because the Pallava sculptures at Mamallapuram are generally dated to the reign of Narasimhavarman (630–668 CE).”

But Dohanian’s case on the actual origin of the Statue and its date to 8th Century AD went unanswered. All the while local archaeological publications have tried to protect the State’s ideological positions on the East of the country, particularly Trincomalee.

(To be continued)

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

The Jailor’s Loneliness

Published

on

By Lynn Ockersz

Rest comes slowly in snatches,

For our Jailor of master class,

All alone with his designs,

Keeping heavy-lidded eyes on cells,

Filled with spirits calling for a way out,

Of travails mounting by the day,

Refusing to be weighed down by chains,

Thrust on them by iron fists,

But our Jailor oozes high confidence,

And dares not show lassitude,

Since he has his work cut out,

Which is to carve out an Orwellian Isle,

Where a Big Brother syndrome would thrive.

e.

Continue Reading

Trending