Connect with us

Midweek Review

IN JULIUS CAESAR,THE SHAKESPEAREAN PLAY

Published

on

Moral Depravity in Politics on Display

By DR. SIRI GALHENAGE
PSYCHIATRIST [Retired]
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]

It is a measure of Shakespeare’s stature that he explores the complexities in human nature, so skilfully. For him, the ‘political theatre’, where humans compete with each other for power, provides a fertile ground for such exploration.

Vying for power in affairs of the state, exercised inappropriately, is a favourite theme of Shakespeare. Drawing from history, he gives dramatic expression to such a scenario in his popular play, ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, in which the nature of politics and those who participate in it, and their motivations, seep into every aspect of the drama.

The plot depicts the assassination of Julius Caesar as the pivotal event of the play, preceded by the rationalization of the action by the conspirators, and the political consequences thereof. The propensity to manipulate the truth in political machinations is the prominent mode of the play – one of the most rhetorical in all Shakespeare. “Men may construe things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act1- 1.3.34 – 5]. It brings forth the moral depravity in politics, making the main characters and their patterns of behaviour, the focus for interpretation – the purpose of this essay.

HISTORICAL BACKDROP

The Republicans had governed the city of Rome and its territories for over four centuries. The Roman Republic was founded by the inhabitants of the city who drove away the hereditary kings and took over power by electing their own to the Senate. The Senate was initially controlled by the patricians, the city’s aristocratic class, but in time, the plebeians, the common folk, campaigned for and achieved a greater say in the assembly by appointing their own representatives [tribunes] to safeguard their interests. Yet, the common folk remained a hapless lot, poor and disgruntled, and averse to any ruler gaining too much power.

The aristocrats continued to dominate the Senate, but with time their quality and integrity declined due to their extravagant life style and corrupt practices. Two of the generals who prevailed and formed the First Triumvirate – a cabal of three rulers – were Pompey and Julius Caesar, along with Crassus. Pompey was a defender of the Republic and statesman, and Caesar, a military expansionist. The alliance was put to the test as Caesar gained power following his successful campaigns in Europe, expanding the Territories of the Roman Republic. He became Governor of the vast region of Gaul [north-central Europe] where he commanded a large army. The contention for leadership of the Roman state, in its entirety, between Caesar and Pompey led to a bitter civil war. Following the defeat of Pompey and his progeny, Caesar emerged as the formidable leader of the Roman territories.

THE PLAY

Shakespeare’s play begins at this point with Caesar’s triumphal return to Rome accompanied by his followers, including the military and political figures – Brutus, Cassius and Antony – to be welcomed by scores of cheering Romans.

CAESAR

Caesar dominates the drama from the start and his spirit lives on even after his departure in Act 3, justifying the title of the play. He was a man with a paradoxical mixture of characteristics: arrogance and towering authority on the one hand and a blemished physique on the other, with partial deafness and prone to attacks of epilepsy. ‘He fell down in the market-place, and foamed at mouth, and was speechless’. [Casca: Act 1. Scene 2.]

While the plebeians celebrate the arrival of their new leader from his military expeditions, bringing ‘many captives home to Rome….whose ransoms, did the general coffers fill’, there is growing concern among some of Caesar’s close associates that their leader may use his supreme power to override the Republican form of governance to establish a new monarchy. The two senior Generals – Cassius and Brutus – who too had leadership ambitions, were particularly concerned about Caesar’s rise to power: whether he will ‘soar above the view of men’, as the tribunes grudgingly described.

Cassius and Brutus fought with Pompey against Caesar in the civil war. Caesar, in his magnanimity, was merciful towards his defeated opponents, but was insightful about Cassius. Astute in his judgement of character, Caesar once remarked: ‘Cassius has a lean and hungry look/ He thinks too much: such men are dangerous’.

CASSIUS

Cassius harbours a personal resentment towards Caesar: ‘So vile a thing as Caesar…he doth bear me hard’, at the same time being envious of his might: ‘Bestride the narrow world’ like a ‘Colossus’. He instigates a plan to remove Caesar from power and hatches a plot to draw Brutus and others into the conspiracy. He believes that his liaison with Brutus is beneficial, in order to avoid any accusations of self-interest and to lend respectability to the project, as Brutus is held in high regard by the populace.

Cassius is malcontent and conniving, reminiscent of Iago in Othello. Alerting his fellow conspirators to the danger of Caesar returning Rome to monarchical rule, also questions his fitness to govern in view of his infirmities. He tries to win over an ambivalent Brutus by planting forged letters of public discontent about Caesar in his house knowing that Brutus is receptive to the voice of the populace.

BRUTUS

Brutus is faced with having to balance his personal friendship with Caesar against the general good of the Republic. Mark Antony, a strong ally of Caesar, wishes the new leader to be crowned. But, if crowned, broods Brutus, will he change his current nature and turn dangerous? How could it be stopped?

‘It must be by his death’. And for my part/ I know no personal cause to spurn at him,/ But for the general. He would be crowned./ How that might change his nature, there’s the question./ It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,/ And that craves vary walking, Crown him: that!’ [Brutus: Act 2. Scene 1]

Brutus’s dissonance of thought crystallises into a sense of resolve. At a meeting of the conspirators, a decision is made to assassinate Caesar. Brutus takes control of the plot. ‘Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy’.

‘Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully/ Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods’ [Brutus: Act 2. Scene 1]

THE IDES of MARCH

Caesar, on his arrival at the Senate on ‘the ides [or 15th] of March’, which celebrated the first full moon of the New Year with festivities and sacrifice, is stabbed to death by the conspirators, one after the other. Before his last gasp, Caesar turns to Brutus, the last to attack, and utters his last words: ‘et tu Brute?’, [even you Brutus?], in bewilderment of his friend’s act of betrayal. The assassins bathe their hands with the blood of Caesar, an act suggestive of taking responsibility for bringing down a potential dictator, which they anticipate would be perceived by the masses as a deed of heroism.

JUSTIFICATION

In a funeral oration at the Forum that followed, Brutus explains to the masses his reasoning behind Caesar’s assassination: that despite his love for Caesar, he loves Rome more, and that Caesar’s ambition posed a danger to the Liberty of the nation. The speech pacifies the agitated crowd.

MARK ANTONY

Mark Antony grieves the death of Caesar. A loyalist of Caesar, Antony, while harbouring the thought of avenging Caesar’s death, skilfully negotiates an opportunity for a funeral oration by engaging with Brutus by shaking his bloodied hands in a gesture of amity. Brutus grants him permission to speak despite the reservations of Cassius. Antony outdoes Brutus in a rhetorical speech with an energising opening triad: ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’ [Act 3. Scene 2], the memory of which lives on as captivating lines. In his speech replete with irony, Antony repeatedly referring to Brutus as ‘an honourable man’ refutes the latter’s claim that Caesar acted out of ambition and self-interest. He declares that Caesar brought much wealth and glory to Rome and that he, on three occasions, turned down the offer of the crown [perhaps a theatrical demonstration of humility!]. Coming down from the pulpit, Antony exposes Caesar’s wounded body to the public and reads [after an initial reluctance] the dead leader’s deed bequeathing his [plundered!] wealth to the masses.

Following the stirring funeral oration by Antony, Cassius and Brutus are driven away by an enraged crowd, calling them traitors.

In exile, the two assassins raise an army to combat a newly formed alliance of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius, the latter, the adopted son and appointed successor to Caesar. Cassius and Brutus regroup after an initial dispute over funding, and Brutus is grief-stricken by the news that his wife, Portia, has committed suicide in his absence. Undeterred, Brutus is ready to march on to combat the enemy at Philippi:

‘There is a tide in the affairs of men,/ Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted all the voyage of their life,/ Is bound in shallows, and in miseries…’ [Act4. Scene2]

But the tide did not lead to plain sailing. Cassius and Brutus witness the poor performance of their men at the Battle of Philippi. Cassius misconstrues an event in the battlefield as signalling defeat and falling into the shallows of despair gets one of his men to kill him with his own sword.

‘Alas, thou hast misconstrued everything’ [Titinius: Act 5 – Scene 5]

Brutus, learning about the death of Cassius, and facing defeat, commits suicide by running through a sword held by a colleague. He ended his life to avoid further dishonour.

ANTONY and OCTAVIUS

Antony and Octavius celebrate their victory. Antony speaks over Brutus’s body in a powerful closing speech eulogising the defeated Brutus as ‘the noblest Roman of them all’ [5.5.68], who acted ‘not in envy of great Caesar’ but ‘in honest thought/ And common good to all’. ‘This was a man!’. Octavius orders an honourable burial for Brutus.

The power sharing alliance by the three victors – Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, appear shaky. Octavius and Antony discuss how to eliminate Lepidus, and the struggle for supremacy between the first two continues. At the end, Octavius, exercises his authority by calling it a day: ‘So call the field to rest, and let’s away/ To part the glories of this happy day’ [5.5.80 -1].

CONCLUSION

‘The play’s thing’ in Shakespeare, as Prince Hamlet showed us in his play within the play. Through the portrayal of characters, and the situations they create, the playwright endeavours to alert our senses and raise our conscience about humanity, with all its strengths and weaknesses. He does not take sides, but prompts us to look into the patterns of behaviour that lie beneath the ebb and flow of history and politics that are deeply rooted in our collective psyche.

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare goes back to ancient Rome to discover a story with underlying themes that capture the imagination of his contemporary audiences at the end of the sixteenth century. He brings to life the so called heroes, the traitors, the conspirators, the betrayers, the assailants and the opportunists, who appear to cluster on the political stage; not to mention the gullible masses that constantly get carried away with the tide of rhetoric. The themes that emerge include: anticipatory anxiety about authoritarianism and militarism; fact and fiction in political rhetoric; personal interest against common good in the quest for power; war as a continuation of politics, as Clausewitz aphorises; and the lack of permanent friends or enemies in the affairs of the state. Shakespeare is, as always, our contemporary! Isn’t he?

And also, in Julius Caesar, the play, he conveys a few eternal truths about humanity: that beneath the bravado of a hero is a flawed man; that men of intellect who ought to show the way may be lacking in wisdom; that passion to save a nation may turn to hatred; and the so called honourables are prone to fall from grace. And, as the curtain comes down, one may recall [with apologies to Prospero in Tempest], ‘These our actors‘… ‘are such stuff as dreams are made on, and their little life is rounded with a sleep’.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Daya Pathirana killing and transformation of the JVP

Published

on

JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe, who returned to Sri Lanka in late Nov, 2001, ending a 12-year self-imposed exile in Europe, declared that India helped him flee certain death as the government crushed his party’s second insurrection against the state in the ’80s, using even death squads. Amarasinghe, sole surviving member of the original politburo of the JVP, profusely thanked India and former Prime Minister V.P. Singh for helping him survive the crackdown. Neither the JVP nor India never explained the circumstances New Delhi facilitated Amarasinghe’s escape, particularly against the backdrop of the JVP’s frenzied anti-India campaign. The JVP has claimed to have killed Indian soldiers in the East during the 1987-1989 period. Addressing his first public meeting at Kalutara, a day after his arrival, Amarasinghe showed signs that the party had shed its anti-India policy of yesteryears. The JVPer paid tribute to the people of India, PM Singh and Indian officials who helped him escape.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Forty years after the killing of Daya Pathirana, the third head of the Independent Student Union (ISU) by the Socialist Students’ Union (SSU), affiliated with the JVP, one-time Divaina journalist Dharman Wickremaretne has dealt with the ISU’s connections with some Tamil terrorist groups. The LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) hadn’t been among them, according to Wickremaretne’s Daya Pathirana Ghathanaye Nodutu Peththa (The Unseen Side of Daya Pathirana Killing), the fifth of a series of books that discussed the two abortive insurgencies launched by the JVP in 1971 and the early ’80s.

Pathirana was killed on 15 December, 1986. His body was found at Hirana, Panadura. Pathirana’s associate, Punchiralalage Somasiri, also of the ISU, who had been abducted, along with Pathirana, was brutally attacked but, almost by a miracle, survived to tell the tale. Daya Pathirana was the second person killed after the formation of the Deshapremi Janatha Vyaparaya (DJV), the macabre wing of the JVP, in early March 1986. The DJV’s first head had been JVP politburo member Saman Piyasiri Fernando.

Its first victim was H. Jayawickrema, Principal of Middeniya Gonahena Vidyalaya, killed on 05 December, 1986. The JVP found fault with him for suspending several students for putting up JVP posters.

Wickremaretne, who had been relentlessly searching for information, regarding the violent student movements for two decades, was lucky to receive obviously unconditional support of those who were involved with the SSU and ISU as well as other outfits. Somasiri was among them.

Deepthi Lamaheva had been ISU’s first leader. Warnakulasooriya succeeded Lamahewa and was replaced by Pathirana. After Pathirana’s killing K.L. Dharmasiri took over. Interestingly, the author justified Daya Pathirana’s killing on the basis that those who believed in violence died by it.

Wickremaretne’s latest book, the fifth of the series on the JVP, discussed hitherto largely untouched subject – the links between undergraduates in the South and northern terrorists, even before the July 1983 violence in the wake of the LTTE killing 12 soldiers, and an officer, while on a routine patrol at Thinnavely, Jaffna.

The LTTE emerged as the main terrorist group, after the Jaffna killings, while other groups plotted to cause mayhem. The emergence of the LTTE compelled the then JRJ government to transfer all available police and military resources to the North, due to the constant attacks that gradually weakened government authority there. In Colombo, ISU and Tamil groups, including the PLOTE (People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) enhanced cooperation. Wickremaretne shed light on a disturbing ISU-PLOTE connection that hadn’t ever been examined or discussed or received sufficient public attention.

In fact, EROS (Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students), too, had been involved with the ISU. According to the author, the ISU had its first meeting on 10 April, 1980. In the following year, ISU established contact with the EPRLF (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front). The involvement of ISU with the PLOTE and Wickremaretne revealed how the SSU probed that link and went to the extent of secretly interrogating ISU members in a bid to ascertain the details of that connection. ISU activist Pradeep Udayakumara Thenuwara had been forcibly taken to Sri Jayewardenepura University where he was subjected to strenuous interrogation by SSU in a bid to identify those who were involved in a high profile PLOTE operation.

The author ascertained that the SSU suspected Pathirana’s direct involvement in the PLOTE attack on the Nikaweratiya Police Station, and the Nikaweratiya branch of the People’s Bank, on April 26, 1985. The SSU believed that out of a 16-member gang that carried out the twin attacks, two were ISU members, namely Pathirana, and another identified as Thalathu Oya Seneviratne, aka Captain Senevi.

The SSU received information regarding ISU’s direct involvement in the Nikaweratiya attacks from hardcore PLOTE cadre Nagalingam Manikkadasan, whose mother was a Sinhalese and closely related to JVP’s Upatissa Gamanayake. The LTTE killed Manikkadasan in a bomb attack on a PLOTE office, in Vavuniya, in September, 1999. The writer met Manikkadasan, at Bambapalitiya, in 1997, in the company of Dharmalingham Siddharthan. The PLOTE had been involved in operations in support of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s administration.

It was President Premadasa who first paved the way for Tamil groups to enter the political mainstream. In spite of some of his own advisors expressing concern over Premadasa’s handling of negotiations with the LTTE, he ordered the then Elections Commissioner Chandrananda de Silva to grant political recognition to the LTTE. The LTTE’s political wing PFLT (People’s Front of Liberation Tigers) received recognition in early December, 1989, seven months before Eelam War II erupted.

Transformation of ISU

The author discussed the formation of the ISU, its key members, links with Tamil groups, and the murderous role in the overall counter insurgency campaign during JRJ and Ranasinghe Premadasa presidencies. Some of those who had been involved with the ISU may have ended up with various other groups, even civil society groups. Somasiri, who was abducted along with Pathirana at Thunmulla and attacked with the same specialised knife, but survived, is such a person.

Somasiri contested the 06 May Local Government elections, on the Jana Aragala Sandhanaya ticket. Jana Aragala Sandhanaya is a front organisation of the Frontline Socialist Party/ Peratugaami pakshaya, a breakaway faction of the JVP that also played a critical role in the violent protest campaign Aragalaya against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That break-up happened in April 2012, The wartime Defence Secretary, who secured the presidency at the 2019 presidential election, with 6.9 mn votes, was forced to give up office, in July 2022, and flee the country.

Somasiri and Jana Aragala Sandhanaya were unsuccessful; the group contested 154 Local Government bodies and only managed to secure only 16 seats whereas the ruling party JVP comfortably won the vast majority of Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas.

Let us get back to the period of terror when the ISU was an integral part of the UNP’s bloody response to the JVP challenge. The signing of the Indo-Lanka accord, in late July 1987, resulted in the intensification of violence by both parties. Wickremaretne disclosed secret talks between ISU leader K.L. Dharmasiri and the then Senior SSP (Colombo South) Abdul Cader Abdul Gafoor to plan a major operation to apprehend undergraduates likely to lead protests against the Indo-Lanka accord. Among those arrested were Gevindu Cumaratunga and Anupa Pasqual. Cumaratunga, in his capacity as the leader of civil society group Yuthukama, that contributed to the campaign against Yahapalanaya, was accommodated on the SLPP National List (2020 to 2024) whereas Pasqual, also of Yuthukama, entered Parliament on the SLPP ticket, having contested Kalutara. Pasqual switched his allegiance to Ranil Wickremesinghe after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster in July 2022.

SSU/JVP killed K.L. Dharmasiri on 19 August, 1989, in Colomba Kochchikade just a few months before the Army apprehended and killed JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera. Towards the end of the counter insurgency campaign, a section of the ISU was integrated with the military (National Guard). The UNP government had no qualms in granting them a monthly payment.

Referring to torture chambers operated at the Law Faculty of the Colombo University and Yataro operations centre, Havelock Town, author Wickremaretne underscored the direct involvement of the ISU in running them.

Maj. Tuan Nizam Muthaliff, who had been in charge of the Yataro ‘facility,’ located near State Defence Minister Ranjan Wijeratne’s residence, is widely believed to have shot Wijeweera in November, 1989. Muthaliff earned the wrath of the LTTE for his ‘work’ and was shot dead on May 3, 2005, at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. At the time of Muthaliff’s assassination, he served in the Military Intelligence.

Premadasa-SSU/JVP link

Ex-lawmaker and Jathika Chinthanaya Kandayama stalwart Gevindu Cumaratunga, in his brief address to the gathering, at Wickremaretne’s book launch, in Colombo, compared Daya Pathirana’s killing with the recent death of Nandana Gunatilleke, one-time frontline JVPer.

Questioning the suspicious circumstances surrounding Gunatilleke’s demise, Cumaratunga strongly emphasised that assassinations shouldn’t be used as a political tool or a weapon to achieve objectives. The outspoken political activist discussed the Pathirana killing and Gunatilleke’s demise, recalling the false accusations directed at the then UNPer Gamini Lokuge regarding the high profile 1986 hit.

Cumaratunga alleged that the SSU/JVP having killed Daya Pathirana made a despicable bid to pass the blame to others. Turning towards the author, Cumaratunga heaped praise on Wickremaretne for naming the SSU/JVP hit team and for the print media coverage provided to the student movements, particularly those based at the Colombo University.

Cumaratunga didn’t hold back. He tore into SSU/JVP while questioning their current strategies. At one point a section of the audience interrupted Cumaratunga as he made references to JVP-led Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) and JJB strategist Prof. Nirmal Dewasiri, who had been with the SSU during those dark days. Cumaratunga recalled him attending Daya Pathirana’s funeral in Matara though he felt that they could be targeted.

Perhaps the most controversial and contentious issue raised by Cumaratunga was Ranasinghe Premadasa’s alleged links with the SSU/JVP. The ex-lawmaker reminded the SSU/JVP continuing with anti-JRJ campaign even after the UNP named Ranasinghe Premadasa as their candidature for the December 1988 presidential election. His inference was clear. By the time Premadasa secured the presidential nomination he had already reached a consensus with the SSU/JVP as he feared JRJ would double cross him and give the nomination to one of his other favourites, like Gamini Dissanayake or Lalith Athulathmudali.

There had been intense discussions involving various factions, especially among the most powerful SSU cadre that led to putting up posters targeting Premadasa at the Colombo University. Premadasa had expressed surprise at the appearance of such posters amidst his high profile ‘Me Kawuda’ ‘Monawada Karanne’poster campaign. Having questioned the appearance of posters against him at the Colombo University, Premadasa told Parliament he would inquire into such claims and respond. Cumaratunga alleged that night UNP goons entered the Colombo University to clean up the place.

The speaker suggested that the SSU/JVP backed Premadasa’s presidential bid and the UNP leader may have failed to emerge victorious without their support. He seemed quite confident of his assertion. Did the SSU/JVP contribute to Premadasa’s victory at one of the bloodiest post-independence elections in our history.

Cumaratunga didn’t forget to comment on his erstwhile comrade Anupa Pasqual. Alleging that Pasqual betrayed Yuthukama when he switched allegiance to Wickremesinghe, Cumaratunga, however, paid a glowing tribute to him for being a courageous responder, as a student leader.

SSU accepts Eelam

One of the most interesting chapters was the one that dealt with the Viplawadi Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna/Revolutionary Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (RJVP), widely known as the Vikalpa Kandaya/Alternative Group and the ISU mount joint campaigns with Tamil groups. Both University groups received weapons training, courtesy PLOTE and EPRLF, both here, and in India, in the run-up to the so-called Indo-Lanka Peace Accord. In short, they accepted Tamils’ right to self-determination.

The author also claimed that the late Dharmeratnam Sivaram had been in touch with ISU and was directly involved in arranging weapons training for ISU. No less a person than PLOTE Chief Uma Maheswaran had told the author that PLOTE provided weapons training to ISU, free of charge ,and the JVP for a fee. Sivaram, later contributed to several English newspapers, under the pen name Taraki, beginning with The Island. By then, he propagated the LTTE line that the war couldn’t be brought to a successful conclusion through military means. Taraki was abducted near the Bambalapitiya Police Station on the night of 28 April, 2005, and his body was found the following day.

The LTTE conferred the “Maamanithar” title upon the journalist, the highest civilian honour of the movement.

In the run up to the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord, India freely distributed weapons to Tamil terrorist groups here who in turn trained Sinhala youth.

Had it been part of the overall Indian destabilisation project, directed at Sri Lanka? PLOTE and EPRLF couldn’t have arranged weapons training in India as well as terrorist camps here without India’s knowledge. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka never sought to examine the origins of terrorism here and identified those who propagated and promoted separatist ideals.

Exactly a year before Daya Pathirana’s killing, arrangements had been made by ISU to dispatch a 15-member group to India. But, that move had been cancelled after law enforcement authorities apprehended some of those who received weapons training in India earlier. Wickremaretne’s narrative of the students’ movement, with the primary focus of the University of Colombo, is a must read. The author shed light on the despicable Indian destabilisation project that, if succeeded, could have caused and equally destructive war in the South. In a way, Daya Pathirana’s killing preempted possible wider conflict in the South.

Gevindu Cumaratunga, in his thought-provoking speech, commented on Daya Pathirana. At the time Cumaratunga entered Colombo University, he hadn’t been interested at all in politics. But, the way the ISU strongman promoted separatism, influenced Cumaratunga to counter those arguments. The ex-MP recollected how Daya Pathirana, a heavy smoker (almost always with a cigarette in his hand) warned of dire consequences if he persisted with his counter views.

In fact, Gevindu Cumaratunga ensured that the ’80s terror period was appropriately discussed at the book launch. Unfortunately, Wickremaretne’s book didn’t cause the anticipated response, and a dialogue involving various interested parties. It would be pertinent to mention that at the time the SSU/JVP decided to eliminate Daya Pathirana, it automatically received the tacit support of other student factions, affiliated to other political parties, including the UNP.

Soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake received the leadership of the JVP from Somawansa Amarasinghe, in December 2014, he, in an interview with Saroj Pathirana of BBC Sandeshaya, regretted their actions during the second insurgency. Responding to Pathirana’s query, Dissanayake not only regretted but asked for forgiveness for nearly 6,000 killings perpetrated by the party during that period. Author Wickremaretne cleverly used FSP leader Kumar Gunaratnam’s interview with Upul Shantha Sannasgala, aired on Rupavahini on 21 November, 2019, to remind the reader that he, too, had been with the JVP at the time the decision was taken to eliminate Daya Pathirana. Gunaratnam moved out of the JVP, in April 2012, after years of turmoil. It would be pertinent to mention that Wimal Weerawansa-Nandana Gunatilleke led a group that sided with President Mahinda Rajapaksa during his first term, too, and had been with the party by that time. Although the party split over the years, those who served the interests of the JVP, during the 1980-1990 period, cannot absolve themselves of the violence perpetrated by the party. This should apply to the JVPers now in the Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB), a political party formed in July 2019 to create a platform for Dissanayake to contest the 2019 presidential election. Dissanayake secured a distant third place (418,553 votes [3.16%])

However, the JVP terrorism cannot be examined without taking into JRJ’s overall political strategy meant to suppress political opposition. The utterly disgusting strategy led to the rigged December 1982 referendum that gave JRJ the opportunity to postpone the parliamentary elections, scheduled for August 1983. JRJ feared his party would lose the super majority in Parliament, hence the irresponsible violence marred referendum, the only referendum ever held here to put off the election. On 30 July, 1983, JRJ proscribed the JVP, along with the Nawa Sama Samaja Party and the Communist Party, on the false pretext of carrying out attacks on the Tamil community, following the killing of 13 soldiers in Jaffna.

Under Dissanayake’s leadership, the JVP underwent total a overhaul but it was Somawansa Amarasinghe who paved the way. Under Somawansa’s leadership, the party took the most controversial decision to throw its weight behind warwinning Army Chief General (retd) Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. That decision, the writer feels, can be compared only with the decision to launch its second terror campaign in response to JRJ’s political strategy. How could we forget Somawansa Amarasinghe joining hands with the UNP and one-time LTTE ally, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), to field Fonseka? Although they failed in that US-backed vile scheme, in 2010, success was achieved at the 2015 presidential election when Maithripala Sirisena was elected.

Perhaps, the JVP took advantage of the developing situation (post-Indo-Lanka Peace Accord), particularly the induction of the Indian Army here, in July 1987, to intensify their campaign. In the aftermath of that, the JVP attacked the UNP parliamentary group with hand grenades in Parliament. The August 1987 attack killed Matara District MP Keerthi Abeywickrema and staffer Nobert Senadheera while 16 received injuries. Both President JRJ and Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa had been present at the time the two hand grenades were thrown at the group.

Had the JVP plot to assassinate JRJ and Premadasa succeeded in August 1987, what would have happened? Gevindu Cumaratunga, during his speech also raised a very interesting question. The nationalist asked where ISU Daya Pathirana would have been if he survived the murderous JVP.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Reaping a late harvest Musings of an Old Man

Published

on

I am an old man, having reached “four score and five” years, to describe my age in archaic terms. From a biological perspective, I have “grown old.” However, I believe that for those with sufficient inner resources, old age provides fertile ground to cultivate a new outlook and reap a late harvest before the sun sets on life.

Negative Characterisation of Old Age

My early medical education and training familiarised me with the concept of biological ageing: that every living organism inevitably undergoes progressive degeneration of its tissues over time. Old age is often associated with disease, disability, cognitive decline, and dependence. There is an inkling of futility, alienation, and despair as one approaches death. Losses accumulate. As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, “When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions.” Doctors may experience difficulty in treating older people and sometimes adopt an attitude of therapeutic nihilism toward a life perceived to be in decline.

Categorical assignment of symptoms is essential in medical practice when arriving at a diagnosis. However, placing an individual into the box of a “geriatric” is another matter, often resulting in unintended age segregation and stigmatisation rather than liberation of the elderly. Such labelling may amount to ageism. It is interesting to note that etymologically, the English word geriatric and the Sanskrit word jara both stem from the Indo-European root geront, meaning old age and decay, leading to death (jara-marana).

Even Sigmund Freud (1875–1961), the doyen of psychoanalysis, who influenced my understanding of personality structure and development during my psychiatric training, focused primarily on early development and youth, giving comparatively little attention to the psychology of old age. He believed that instinctual drives lost their impetus with ageing and famously remarked that “ageing is the castration of youth,” implying infertility not only in the biological sense. It is perhaps not surprising that Freud began his career as a neurologist and studied cerebral palsy.

Potential for Growth in Old Age

The model of human development proposed by the psychologist Erik Erikson (1902–1994), which he termed the “eight stages of man,” is far more appealing to me. His theory spans the entire life cycle, with each stage presenting a developmental task involving the negotiation of opposing forces; success or failure influences the trajectory of later life. The task of old age is to reconcile the polarity between “ego integrity” and “ego despair,” determining the emotional life of the elderly.

Ego integrity, according to Erikson, is the sense of self developed through working through the crises (challenges) of earlier stages and accruing psychological assets through lived experience. Ego despair, in contrast, results from the cumulative impact of multiple physical and emotional losses, especially during the final stage of life. A major task of old age is to maintain dignity amidst such emotionally debilitating forces. Negotiating between these polarities offers the potential for continued growth in old age, leading to what might be called a “meaningful finish.”

I do not dispute the concept of biological ageing. However, I do not regard old age as a terminal phase in which growth ceases and one is simply destined to wither and die. Though shadowed by physical frailty, diminishing sensory capacities and an apparent waning of vitality, there persists a proactive human spirit that endures well into late life. There is a need in old age to rekindle that spirit. Ageing itself can provide creative opportunities and avenues for productivity. The aim is to bring life to a meaningful close.

To generate such change despite the obstacles of ageing — disability and stigmatisation — the elderly require a sense of agency, a gleam of hope, and a sustaining aspiration. This may sound illusory; yet if such illusions are benign and life-affirming, why not allow them?

Sharon Kaufman, in her book The Ageless Self: Sources of Meaning in Late Life, argues that “old age” is a social construct resisted by many elders. Rather than identifying with decline, they perceive identity as a lifelong process despite physical and social change. They find meaning in remaining authentically themselves, assimilating and reformulating diverse life experiences through family relationships, professional achievements, and personal values.

Creative Living in Old Age

We can think of many artists, writers, and thinkers who produced their most iconic, mature, or ground-breaking work in later years, demonstrating that creativity can deepen and flourish with age. I do not suggest that we should all aspire to become a Monet, Picasso, or Chomsky. Rather, I use the term “creativity” in a broader sense — to illuminate its relevance to ordinary, everyday living.

Endowed with wisdom accumulated through life’s experiences, the elderly have the opportunity for developmental self-transformation — to connect with new identities, perspectives, and aspirations, and to engage in a continuing quest for purpose and meaning. Such a quest serves an essential function in sustaining mental health and well-being.

Old age offers opportunities for psychological adaptation and renewal. Many elders use the additional time afforded by retirement to broaden their knowledge, pursue new goals, and cultivate creativity — an old age characterised by wholeness, purpose, and coherence that keeps the human spirit alive and growing even as one’s days draw to a close.

Creative living in old age requires remaining physically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially engaged, and experiencing life as meaningful. It is important to sustain an optimistic perception of health, while distancing oneself from excessive preoccupation with pain and trauma. Positive perceptions of oneself and of the future help sustain well-being. Engage in lifelong learning, maintain curiosity, challenge assumptions — for learning itself is a meaning-making process. Nurture meaningful relationships to avoid disengagement, and enter into respectful dialogue, not only with those who agree with you. Cultivate a spiritual orientation and come to terms with mortality.

The developmental task of old age is to continue growing even as one approaches death — to reap a late harvest. As Rabindranath Tagore expressed evocatively in Gitanjali [‘Song Offerings’], which won him the Nobel Prize:: “On the day when death will knock at thy door, what wilt thou offer to him?

Oh, I will set before my guest the full vessel of my life — I will never let him go with empty hands.”

by Dr Siri Galhenage
Psychiatrist (Retired)
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Left’s Voice of Ethnic Peace

Published

on

Multi-gifted Prof. Tissa Vitarana in passing,

Leaves a glowing gem of a memory comforting,

Of him putting his best foot forward in public,

Alongside fellow peace-makers in the nineties,

In the name of a just peace in bloodied Sri Lanka,

Caring not for personal gain, barbs or brickbats,

And for such humanity he’ll be remembered….

Verily a standard bearer of value-based politics.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Trending