‘Disciplining’ Humanities and Social Sciences
By Nandaka Maduranga Kalugampitiya
‘Discipline’ is a buzz word today. It is one of the most invoked words, from multiple angles and for a variety of reasons, within the Sri Lankan context at the present historical juncture. We commonly encounter this word in statements, both formal and informal, made by politicians, activists, and also prominent military personnel. We also see this word figuring prominently in a spectrum of contexts, ranging from protest demonstrations to Poya-day religious discussions. The importance that the word has acquired in the present context warrants some engagement with it.
A quick Google search would return two meanings for the word/noun ‘discipline’. The first is “the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience.” The corresponding verb, which has the same form as the noun, means “train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience.” The words ‘train’, ‘rules’, and ‘punishment’ figure prominently in this definition. According to this definition, a disciplined individual is one who has been trained to conduct herself/himself, according to a set of established rules, and who is conscious of the fact that any deviation from the rules could result in punishment. A disciplined society is a society made up of such individuals. The definition itself suggests that the ideal conduct, or behaviour, is one born out of one’s fear of punishment than out of her/his preference for that behaviour over the alternative options.
The second meaning that Google returns for the word discipline is “a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education.” Each of the different subject areas that are studied, typically at the university level, is a discipline in this sense. If I may risk a terrible oversimplification of Foucault’s lifelong work in this area, a discipline is a historically produced body of knowledge, which is structured in a particular way and whose organisation reflects the unequal power relations that are characteristic of what enabled the creation of that body of knowledge. A discipline, in this sense, is not knowledge in some pure and objective form, nor is it the pure and objective truth; it is always a particular take on what is considered to be the truth at a particular moment in time. In simpler terms, sociology is a discipline in the sense that it is a particular take on what it defines to be the social. Similarly, physics is a discipline in the sense that it is a particular take on what it defines to be the physical. This also means that a discipline could have taken a form that is different from the form that it takes had it come into existence under different historical circumstances. And because disciplines are historically produced, the possibility of change is always already embedded within them.
The birth of the academic disciplines that we engage with today could be traced back to the Renaissance, which took place in Europe in the 15th Century. During the Middle Ages in Europe, which preceded the Renaissance, knowledge was seen as something that was always in service of God. All the bodies of knowledge, which in today’s terminology could be termed disciplines, reflected a God-centric universe. This was the case with what would today have come not only under liberal arts but also under the hard sciences. The engineering, technological, and architectural knowledge that went into the construction of magnificent structures like cathedrals in the Middle Ages could be shown as a case in point. The Romanesque innovations, such as flying buttresses, pointed arches, and ribbed vaults, which enabled the construction of massive architectural structures, were born out of the spirit of the time that underscored the supremacy of God.
The Renaissance marks the collapse of this spirit and the birth of disciplines whose focus was a human-centric universe. The new knowledge, which came into existence during this time, had to self-consciously distance itself from the kind of knowledge that celebrated the supremacy of God. This move towards humanism made questioning the existing bodies of knowledge a compulsory step in the process of knowledge construction. In this way, questioning became part of the inner life of the new disciplines; it was an integral part of the broader conceptual framework that enabled the creation of the new disciplines. To cut a long story short (and also to risk certain overgeneralisations), almost all the disciplines, that we are engaging with today, are more or less within the broader humanistic tradition, which the Renaissance brought about, or rather reinstated from the Greek Classical period. By virtue of the fact that they are within the humanistic tradition, challenging existing knowledge in every step of the way is part of the very life of those disciplines.
It is the questioning of existing knowledge that is expected to happen in research. Such questioning is expected to identify the problems and deficiencies in existing knowledge and point in the directions of possible new knowledge that addresses those problems and deficiencies. The new knowledge that thus comes into existence is expected to be questioned again. This is how knowledge is supposed to evolve. This is exactly what a scientist does. She/he raises questions about the knowledge that she/he has received, with the hope of reforming it, sometimes by filling in the gaps, sometimes by changing existing knowledge, and sometimes even by discarding existing knowledge and replacing it with new knowledge. The research that she/he carries out in the laboratory keeps the humanistic tradition alive.
Now, when it comes to many of the disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences, the laboratory where the ‘scientist’ carries out her/his research is society. The existing knowledge that she/he is supposed to question and challenge includes the rules, norms, and values of the very society, which she/he is part of. Most of the time, these rules, norms, and values are what define her/his existence, and it may even be the case that she/he and her/his loved ones benefit from them and therefore hold them dear to their heart, but as a ‘scientist’ in the area of the humanities and the social sciences, she/he should be capable of looking at them from a critical point of view. What is important here is that one cannot impose limits on the kinds of rules, norms, and values that the ‘scientist’ in the humanities and the social sciences could challenge. Imposing such limits would be similar to saying that those in medicine can conduct research only into the anatomy of the lower part of the body and not the upper part; that those in geology can study the coastal terrain and not the hilly terrain; that those in engineering can study aerodynamics and not avionics. Needless to say that such restrictions are counter-productive, but we have somehow come to accept such restrictions in the areas that come within social research. Many of the disciplines that are within the humanities and social sciences have responded to the pressure by unfortunately limiting themselves to those areas of study that are less socially sensitive or engaging with their subject matter in less socially sensitive ways. The violence that such measures have done to the disciplines in question as well as to the possibilities of knowledge production in general is huge.
So to put it bluntly, this means that being a ‘trouble-maker’ in a socially sensitive manner is an important part of the role that one in the humanities and social sciences has been historically called upon to play. This does not however mean that those in the other fields are not supposed to be ‘trouble-makers’ in a socially sensitive manner. The point is this role is specifically expected of those in the humanities and the social sciences. In fact the success of such an individual as a scholar depends on the extent to which she/he manages to play this role. One can be considered ‘disciplined’ primarily—and I would go to the extent of saying ‘only’—if she/he is capable of becoming a socially-sensitive trouble-maker. Every time she/he plays the role of a socially-sensitive trouble-maker she/he is being true to the spirit of the humanistic tradition, which defines the broadest possible framework for the production of knowledge in modern times. The inability of a programme in these fields to convert individuals into socially-sensitive trouble-makers is an indication that the programme is a failure. One knows that the public funds expended on the programmes in the humanities and the social sciences have not gone to waste if they manage to produce socially-sensitive trouble-makers. Any programme in these fields that produces citizens who remain silent in the face of social injustice has only wasted public funds expended on them.
Finally, if the first meaning of the word discipline is invoked with the express intention of censoring the role that those in the humanities and the social sciences have historically been called upon to play that says a lot about the agency that invokes that particular meaning than about anything else.
(The writer is a senior university teacher.)
Blind security sector reforms:
Assurance to US on the size of military
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The Defence Ministry recently quoted State Defence Minister, Pramitha Bandara Tennakoon, as having assured US State Department official, Afreen Akhter, that the military would be ‘right-sized’ to perform their classic role.
The assurance was given on 15 May at his office, in Colombo, just ahead of the14th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s triumph over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), when our security forces brought the war to a successful conclusion, on the morning of 19 May with the Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment (VIR) troops wiping out a small group of hardcore LTTE cadres, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon. Among the dead was LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran.
Why did the State Defence Minister make such a pledge? Did Akhter, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, South and Central Asia Bureau of the State Department, seek a clarification as regards security sector reforms? If the military had continued to perform their classic role of being a ceremonial Army, the LTTE could have achieved Eelam. But the nearly three-year long sustained offensive brought the LTTE to its knees, 14 years ago.
Afreen Akhter oversees Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and the Maldives, as well as the Office of Security and Transnational Affairs.
Her visit was the first by a State Department official, since National Freedom Front (NFF) leader, Wimal Weerawansa, last month alleged, in a published book ‘Nine: The Hidden Story;, that the US had a direct role in the removal of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last year. The former industries minister is on record as having disclosed that US Ambassador here, Julie Chung, personally offered Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena an opportunity to succeed Gotabaya Rajapaksa, regardless of constitutional impediment, to bypassing Ranil Wickremesinghe, in an unannounced visit to his official residence.
Ambassador Chung swiftly rejected the allegation made no sooner ‘Nine: The Hidden Story’ was launched at the Sri Lanka Foundation on 25 April. However, Speaker Abeywardena gave credence to lawmaker Weerawansa’s shocking claim by remaining dead silent.
Since the conclusion of the war, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government quietly began downsizing the SLA, which was little above 200,000 at the height of the war. However, the present government officially acknowledged the downsizing of the war-winning, Army on 13 January, 2023. State Minister Tennakoon was quoted as having said that the SLA strength would be further reduced to 135,000 by the end of next year and 100,000 by 2030.
Of course there cannot be an issue over the need to gradually decrease military strength in peace time, taking into consideration post-war national security requirements and the pathetic economic situation, confronting the country.
Regardless of the developing political-economic-social crisis, it would be the responsibility of the military top brass to brief the political leadership of the ground situation. Post-war national security requirements shouldn’t be looked at only on the basis of economic indicators. That would be suicidal. In other words, the country is in such a precarious situation, political leadership may tend to conveniently ignore basics, especially to please Uncle Sam, the obvious king-maker here now, thereby jeopardizing the country’s national security.
Declaration that the SLA would be reduced to 100,000 by 2030 means the total strength would be cut by half, from its peak.
The Defence Ministry statement didn’t refer to any other issue. But that doesn’t mean contentious issues hadn’t been taken up with Akhter during her visit. The US continuing to needle Sri Lanka, 14 years after the eradication of the LTTE’s conventional military capability, despite Washington’s own hands dripping with so much innocent blood from so many of its worldwide military misadventures, to retain its international hegemony, is mired in continuing controversy.
The designation of Sri Lanka’s most successful Navy commander (2005-2009) Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, in late April, this year, over a spate of abductions carried out in 2008-2009, at the height of the war with the world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit, as was even acknowledged by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, highlighted how the Washington establishment continues to pursue an agenda severely inimical to Sri Lanka.
Sanctioning of Karannagoda is the latest in a series of US measures directed at the war-winning military here. Among the sanctioned are Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and General Shavendra Silva, the controversial travel ban on the celebrated wartime General Officer Commanding (GoC) of 58 Division formerly Task Force 1, the Numero Uno among the SLA fighting formations that literally took the fight to the LTTE, was imposed in Feb. 2020.
Expansion of SLA
The LTTE couldn’t have been defeated if not for the rapid expansion undertaken during the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s tenure as Commander of the Army (2005-2009). The SLA lacked the wherewithal to sustain a large scale ground offensive while deploying sufficient troops on a holding role. For want of adequate infantry battalions, the SLA couldn’t undertake large scale offensives, simultaneously. But the rapid expansion, since the launching of operations on multiple fronts, in Vanni, from 1997, paid dividends soon enough.
Sri Lanka should review post-war developments, taking into consideration the overthrowing of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in July last year. The overall failure of the security apparatus to meet the public protest campaign that had been backe, clandestinely by the US, as alleged repeatedly by lawmaker Weerawansa, quickly overwhelmed law enforcement authorities and the military. Law enforcement authorities and the military should have been prepared to meet any eventuality. Unfortunately, a public protest campaign that was launched on 31 March, last year, targeting the private residence of the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, exposed the serious weakness in overall government response to hitherto unknown threat.
Military strength should be the prerogative of the government. The Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security, now headed by retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera MP, should closely examine the developments and take up matters of importance, both in and outside Parliament. It would be a grave mistake, on Sri Lanka’s part, to consider/implement defence sector reforms at the behest of literally bankrupt external powers, with sinister motives. Defence sector reforms should be in line with overall security-political doctrine, instead of piecemeal restructuring. There cannot be a better example than the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s readiness to enhance the SLA’s strength by nearly 100,000. That decision, taken in the aftermath of Velupillai Prabhakaran declaration of Eelam War IV, in August 2006, was perhaps the single most decisive factor in Sri Lanka’s final victory over terrorism against so many odds placed against it.
In spite of the increasing military strength, as the LTTE gradually stepped up the offensive, and, finally, its threat became conventional in 1990, Sri Lanka never gave a real boost to military personnel numbers as explained in the chart published on this page. The period from 1981 to 1987 can be categorized as the Eelam War l. The Eelam War ll and lll were fought from 1990 to 1994, and 1995 to 2001, respectively.
Sri Lanka launched Division-sized ground offensives during Eelam War lll that began with the sinking of two gunboats, berthed at the Trincomalee harbour, and the downing of two Avros, with 100 officers, and men all, in April 1995, during an informal ceasefire with the Chandrika Kumaratunga regime. But the military top brass, or the political leadership, at that time, never felt comfortable in executing a real expansion of the SLA.
In hindsight, they never wanted to go the whole hog. Operation ‘Riviresa.’ launched in Oct. 1995. was meant to bring Jaffna town under military control and consolidate government positions in the Jaffna peninsula. The operation that involved three Divisions was the largest combined security forces campaign until the Vanni campaign in 2007-2009.
However, the SLA never received the boost it desired during Eelam War lll. President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga authorized Operation ‘Jayasikurui’ (victory assured) to restore the overland Main Supply Route (MSR) to Jaffna peninsula. Having launched the offensive in May 1997, the government called it off, in 1999, following unbearable debacles. It was a miracle that the Army did not crumble at the time down to Anuradhapura or even beyond with a Commander in Chief like that, who was nothing but a cunning chatterbox with no sense of time. The government quite conveniently refrained from making a real difference on the ground by enhancing the number of infantry battalions available for ground commanders. According to the chart on this page, the SLA strength had been 117,705 officers and men (volunteers included) in 1996, the year before the launch of Operation ‘Jayasikurui’ and by 1999 when it was called off the paid strength in that particular year was 121,473.
The chart reveals a drop in the paid strength in 2000 to 116,739 in the wake of a series of humiliating battlefield defeats, culminating with the worst single debacle in the entire war when SLA abandoned the strategically located Elephant Pass base. A Division plus troops couldn’t repulse the LTTE offensive and the base collapsed in April 2000. Regardless of the Elephant Pass fall, the following year paid strength recorded a marginal increase. According to the chart, the paid strength in 2001 had been 118,331 while the strength dropped again in 2002 and 2003 during the operation of Oslo-arranged infamous Ceasefire Agreement.
The situation started gradually improving in 2004 and by 2007 paid strength stood at 151, 538. Having neutralized the LTTE in the Eastern theatre, the SLA was on the move on the Vanni west in 2007. That year marked the turning point in the war against the LTTE as the latter was overwhelmed on the Vanni front. The opening of multiple fronts on the Vanni theatre wouldn’t have been possible without the continuous flow of fresh recruits for newly raised Divisions as well as Jaffna-based formations.
It would be pertinent to mention that Sri Lanka acquired Mi-24 helicopter gunships in 1995, Kfirs in 1996, MiG27s in 2000 and a range of naval platforms since 1980s, though successive governments that ignored the need to expand the fighting strength. During the deployment of the Indian Army (July 1987- March 1990) the military ignored the basic requirement to provide sufficient troops to protect the MSR northwards from Vavuniya to Elephant Pass. The situation was so bad, Vavuniya-Elephant Pass stretch was held by isolated and poorly manned detachments at the time the LTTE resumed hostilities in June 1990 following 14-month-long ‘honeymoon’ between President Ranasinghe Premadasa and Velupillai Prabhakaran.
At the time Eelam War ll erupted in 1990, the paid SLA strength had been 60,596 whereas it consisted of 37,759 officers and men. Sri Lanka, in 2015, cancelled the war Victory Day parade following Western pressure. The last Victory Day parade was held in Matara in 2014. The rest is history.
Rukmani Devi; Mohideen Baig ; Gamini Fonseka
The Popular Sinhala Cinema:
~ Part two ~
by Laleen Jayamanne
Ethnicity perhaps was not a political problem in the fledgling film industry, unlike in the wider political world, after the ‘Sinhala only’ Act of 1956, which made it the sole national language. In fact, without the entrepreneurial skills and vision of a group of indigenous and Indian Tamil businessmen, it’s very likely that the first steps towards the creation of a Lankan film industry of sorts would have been delayed at least by about a decade or so after political independence in 1947. The connection with India was essential. The first Sinhala film Kadawuna Poronduwa (Broken Promise, dir. B.A.W. Jayamanne, 1947), was in fact filmed in a studio in South India, belonging to the Indian producer S.M. Nayagam, who, subsequently, came to Ceylon and established the Sundera Sound Studio and obtained citizenship. The lack of capital, technical know-how, infrastructure and technology meant that the fledgling industry was dependent on India, in several ways, including the robust Indian melodramatic genre films in Tamil and Hindi which provided a durable prototype for many years to come.
However, despite the fundamental contribution of Tamil and Muslim, businessmen, technicians and artists in developing the Sinhala film industry, since the July 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom, the history of Sri Lankan cinema is blood stained. The pioneer entrepreneurs who established the national film industry were a group of astute Lankan and Indian Tamil businessmen not unlike the pioneering American Jewish entrepreneurs (immigrants from Eastern Europe), who established the major Hollywood studios in the 1920s in a foreign tongue. Despite this contribution to the national culture, the director K. Venkat was burnt alive in his car in July 1983 anti Tamil pogrom, by a Sinhala nationalist mob. Also, the most high-profiled pioneer film producer and industrialist, K. Gunaratnam’s house was attacked in July ’83 but he managed to escape the mobs and found refuge in the Holiday Inn. But his Vijaya Studio was burned down along with a large number of Sinhala films stored there. A large number of imported modern looms he had stored there, to be installed in a new factory for weaving a specialist textile, were also destroyed. In 1989 a JVP gunman shot him dead in his car, at point blank range, during a period of extreme Sinhala terrorist and state violence, between 1988-89. He donated the Tower Hall cinema, which he owned, to the state at President Premadasa’s request, but I read that there was no visible sign of acknowledgment of this magnanimous, rare, public-spirited gesture of Gunaratnam’s. Gunaratnam has been referred to as a movie Moghul because he established and controlled significant assets in all three tiers of the Ceylon film industry, namely production, importation and distribution and exhibition, from the early 1950’s on, producing Sinhala films that were highly successful at the box office. He also astutely diversified his business portfolios into the manufacture of plastics, and other industries, such as tourism, as it grew in importance after the open economic policies of 1977. Sir Chittampalan Gardiner’s Ceylon Theatres funded Lester James Peries’ Rekava, considered the foundational film for a new realist cinema after the nationalist revival of Sinhala culture in 1956, which also introduced Irangani Serasinghe to film. When this pioneering film flopped at the box office, Gunaratnam took a big risk and funded Lester’s historical epic, Sandeshaya which was a box office hit. This is a turning point in Lester’s career and therefore in the fledgling Lankan film history, too. Jabir Cader owned several theatres, including the New Olympia, where Hollywood films were screened.
Two approaches to Lankan Film History
One might approach Lankan film history from two different perspectives or with two different emphases. The first approach is the perspective formulated by the Royal Commission on the Film Industry established in 1962-1965, chaired by Regi Siriwardena, the eminent film critic and independent scholar. The second approach is one that would ask how the Lankan popular Sinhala cinema was produced from 1947, its economic foundations and examine the specific aesthetic reasons for its durable mass appeal in the country for about three decades, focusing especially on the songs, which is where Rukmani Devi and Master Baig come into the picture.
The huge popular appeal of the genre cinema and its songs and lyrics (printed on attractive song sheets sold at cinemas), rather than the rather poor dances, often as many as 10 songs per film, has been acknowledged and discussed in the circles of older cinephiles, who collected song sheets and Rukmani Devi’s records for instance from their youth. I am not sure what the younger contemporary critical intelligentsia thinks of this past film culture though. Here, Aruna Gunarathna’s encyclopedic knowledge of Lankan film history, as a long term, but now retired, editor of Sarasawiya and his extensive YouTube programmes on the early popular cinema are in a class of their own. He calls himself a ‘pictur-pissa’, someone crazy about cinema as such, a medium like no other. One would also have to agree with the Royal Commission’s approach outlining the reforms needed to create a local product that was economically, aesthetically and culturally viable. This entailed the rejection of the Indian prototypes. Though the exclusive emphasis on vernacular Sinhala subjects and language, effectively implied an erasure through silence, of the ethnic minorities from the new desired model of a national (appema ‘our very own’ Sinhala) cinema. This idea of ‘our very own’, meaning ‘Sinhala only’, is one that had considerable currency then. This desire for ‘original purity’ resulted in considering the popular Tamil and Muslim artists as ‘honorary Sinhala folk’! That these confident artists from the minority communities (with access to other traditons), were all creating together, durable, hybrid films and songs, which also might have resonated with the minority communities in the country. Such a possibility was rarely actively explored, the exception being Garmini Fonseka.
So, it’s a matter of emphasis now, from this historical distance, when we can assess that past in a non-polemical sophisticated way, after a 30 year civil war waged on the competing, exclusionary claims of both Sinhala and Tamil nationalisms. That is, to not simply reject the ‘song and dance’ films, as they were referred to, in a dismissive manner by critics, who called for a true national cinema, which was ‘Sinhala’ in themes and use of language. The emphasis on songs and dance were abandoned in favour of more ‘serious’ concerns. But it’s worth noting that some ‘serious’ directors still loved using songs and those from say Bambaruawaith and Hansavilak scored by Khemadasa master, have by now become classics with their poetic lyrics. However, once a popular cinema is lost it’s not possible to recreate the conditions that gave rise to it, especially its devoted mass fan base in the first instance. This was so with Classical Hollywood cinema during the studio era with its mass audience and it was so with the Sinhala films made during the first 30 years or so. But India remains the striking exception to this mass cultural historical decline, especially after the advent of Television. India with its diverse folk songs, including Thumri and several classical musical traditions (Drupad, Khayal and Karnataka), and vibrant hybrid pop cultures should teach us that musical and cinematic creativity flourishes only when artists are open to outside influences and exchange of ideas. Indian films inherit all of this diverse cultural patrimony with unshaken confidence, while Lankans in power turn inward by sustaining an obsolete idea of cultural purity.
(To be Continued)
By Lynn Ockersz
In cozy Board rooms,
Of the imperiled Isle,
It’s the ‘bigger picture’,
That’s made to count,
And that goes down well,
With those holding the reins,
But the pain is in the details,
And these easily unfaze,
Those of sound conscience,
For, we have unemployed men,
Furiously tramping the streets,
Their tools lying limp on shoulders,
Hunger gnawing at their innards,
Some taking leave of their senses,
To the amusement and laughter,
Of entertainment-starved fellow men.
Navy divers retrieve 148 from watery graves within a year
Establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Draft report on the inquiry into the destruction of North-Eastern archaeological sites and interference with conservation activities handed over to the Prime Minister
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#Sundayisland Sunday Island- 31 January- Headlines
Features7 days ago
Jerome Fernando and his profane gimmicks
Opinion7 days ago
Pastor Jerome Saga: Buddhist perspective
News6 days ago
Gold smuggling govt. MP walks free after paying Rs 7.4 mn fine
Opinion6 days ago
Jerome Fernando and his profane gimmicks – II
Business7 days ago
Elephant House SuperHeroes powered by Dialog returns for a second phase to discover Sri Lanka’s future leaders
Sports6 days ago
When sport clean-bowls politics
Features5 days ago
Murders, exhumations, sacking: hence never a dull day in Paradise
Business7 days ago
Report to be soon out on those who slip through the tax net