Midweek Review

Mahatma Gandhi 1869 – 1948

Published

2 years ago

2021/02/3

Oil portrait by Kamalam Krishnadasan in November 1927 when the Mahatma was in the house of her father C.Arumugam in his Colombo Villa, “Ark”. Courtesy: Sri Lanka Tamil Women’s Union

We publish an article written on the day Gandhi was assassinated with a comment on it by Tarzie Vittachchi.

“One evening – January 30, 1948 – everyone seemed to be out. The Chairman of Lake House and the Editor had gone to see the Deputy Editor playing the lead in an amateur dramatic performance of Ibsen’s “Ghosts.” I was told to see the paper to bed. An hour later, the Reuter machine clacked out the message, “Mahatma Gandhi Shot Dead.” The Editor was called. He came in shedding his jacket, and said, “Fetch the Gandhi files and any other material you can lay your hands on.”

The library ‘morgue’ had a thick file on the Mahatma, including obituaries written and stowed away by Amaratunge at every fast Gandhi had undertaken. I read them out to the Editor as he went on tapping his typewriter, seemingly heedlessly and without a pause. “Read out bits you find interesting in the books on Gandhi,” said the Editor, continuing to pound away at the machine. Within an hour he had written his 1500 words. “Now, edit it and give it a decent headline,” he ordered, walking away to supervise the layout on the stone in the case room. The 1500 words were a classic of journalism. Herbert Hulugalle had reeled it out from his mind, using the bits I had read out to give it colour, texture and depth. It was history in a hurry composed by a master of the art of connecting discrete facts with a thread of humane understanding.”

By H. A. J. Hulugalle

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in a small harbour-town on the west coast of India, in Kathiawar, called Porbandar, on October 2, 1869. He belonged by birth to the Vaishya, or trading caste. His grandfather and father both held the post of Dewan, or Prime Minister, under the Rajah in the Porbandar State.

Mohandas was the youngest son in a family of four children. His father died when he was 15 years old, and from that date his mother became the greatest influence in his life. Her widowhood was spent in prayer and devotion, and she became noted for the saintliness of her life. Her spiritual teacher was a Jain devotee named Bechar Swami. Among the Jains in India the central doctrine is the “sanctity of all life.” The greatest sin is to destroy life. This doctrine is called “Ahimsa,” which is often translated “Non-Violence,” but has a deeper meaning, implying compassion for all living creatures. Mohandas learnt this teaching from his mother, and it remained paramount with him all through his life.

In 1896 Mohandas Gandhi, as a young barrister, went out to the Transvaal in order to help a client in a legal suit. He signed an agreement to remain there for a year and his practical work as a barrister brought him a large income, and he was able to earn as much as 5,000 pounds a year. When he saw the political and social disabilities to which his fellow-countrymen were exposed, he determined at the end of the year to stay on in South Africa in order to help them in their struggle. Very soon after this he became their recognised leader and adviser. Meanwhile a religious conflict had been taking place within him, which had left him no peace of mind. He wavered for a time, at one period attracted by theosophy, at another by the Christian faith. At last he found complete satisfaction through reading the later works of Count Tolstoy, with whom he later corresponded as a disciple. He related these to his own Hindu scriptures, especially the Bhagavad Gita and to the end of his life he remained a devout Hindu.

Realising that his continued agitation for equality of status in South Africa was met only by the imposition of fresh restrictions upon the Indian Communities, Gandhi concluded that the only hope of amendment lay in a policy of active opposition to the authorities. It was then after about 13 years of more or less constitutional agitation, and following the enactment of a law which he considered an affront to Indian self-respect as well as Indian religion that Gandhi took his first vow of passive resistance.

The upshot of these events was the arrest and imprisonment of Gandhi at Pretoria until a compromise was reached but upon his release he resumed the agitation which led to the great strike of Indian workers in 1913 and the imprisonment of many of their leaders. On representations from Indian and Imperial Government circles the South African authorities at length adopted a more conciliatory attitude, and the Indian Relief Act and other reforms did much to remove the grievances.

These South African experiences and the concomitant issues go far towards explaining Gandhi’s later views and accounting for his deliberate attitude to Western civilization in general and British Imperialism in particular.

In 1914 he returned to India with certain definite convictions already settled in his mind and in accordance with which his whole subsequent policy has been regulated. Without relaxing his efforts to redress the “wrongs” of his countrymen, Gandhi for a number of years believed it was possible for India and Britain to enter into a righteous and honourable partnership, by means of which India would be able to build up her own particular constitution and take her full place in the fellowship of nations within the Empire.

During the world conflict of 1914-18 he was actuated by this belief. He encouraged and assisted the recruitment of Indian troops – thousands of whom served the Allied Cause on various fronts – and he willingly sacrificed his personal interests on behalf of the sick and wounded. He believed, as many others did, that through the tears and blood of those four terrible years a new spirit would be kindled to regenerate the British nation and Empire; and in that new spirit the just claims of India would surely receive generous recognition. Thus, as late as 1918, Gandhi defined “Swaraj” as partnership within the Empire making no secret of his confidence that the nationalist cause would be rapidly furthered by his country’s generous war services.

After the conclusion of hostilities Gandhi’s hopes were completely shattered by Britain’s repeated refusals to recognize what he regarded as her obligations. His disillusionment with the British rule in India was aggravated by what he and his countrymen regarded as irrefutable evidence that the attitude and spirit of the British “Raj” had changed but little. By the very force of circumstances Gandhi felt compelled to abandon all ideas of partnership and to adopt an attitude of hostility to British rule.

The report of the “Sedition Committee” in 1919, and the “Rowlatt Acts,” made clear the Indian Government’s intention to restrict the scope of active political agitation. Also the serious disturbances in the Punjab – culminating in the tragic affairs at Amritsar in April of the same year, when British troops under General Dyer fired upon a helpless and terrified mob, of whom more than 350 were killed and some 1,200 wounded – roused ill-feeling upon both sides.

Gandhi thereupon initiated the great “non-co-operation movement” throughout India, and instituted the vow of “Satyagraha” or passive resistance which pledged his followers to boycott the new constitution drafted by the Government, including the Provincial as well as the Central Legislature; and all the Government Services, even the schools, and – not least in importance – all goods of European origin. They swore to disobey the laws aimed at suppression of the widespread nationalist propaganda carried on by means of Congress resolutions at the same time “following the truth and refraining from violence.”

This stupendous crusade – to which Gandhi devoted himself with relentless energy – was intended to cripple and paralyse the whole British-Indian administration; and India’s salvation was to be arrived at by means of a complete severance from an alien civilization denounced by him as inherently immoral and evil. The campaign involved the renunciation of everything given or offered to India by the Western world, a return to the spinning wheel and the simple life of the East in its primitive peace and purity.

Gandhi had at this time the largest personal following of any leader in the whole world; he won the unequivocal admiration of men of every community in India, even political opponents gladly recognizing his fine personal character.

Gandhi sternly and repeatedly forbade the use of force or any weapon other than that of passive resistance, and his own passions were held in complete subjection even in situations of unusual provocation; but again and again his followers broke out into acts of violence.

In 1922 Gandhi the recognized leader of Indian nationalism, was arrested for sedition and sentenced to six years imprisonment. In February 1924, however, he was released on the ground of ill-health and he stood before the world a pathetically frail little man; yet one whose least word could sway millions even though it should be whispered from a hospital veranda. The great crusade had, of course, wrought irreparable harm upon British trade with India, but from all practical points of view it had to be written down as a failure.

All the world knows how Nationalist India – under Gandhi’s leadership – continued to agitate unceasingly for self-government, and how all the constitutional advances proposed by the Imperial Government were rejected as inadequate. The “Indian National Congress” and its “Working Committee” most of the time declined to co-operate with the British authorities, preferring to follow a policy of open defiance. It was on December 31, 1929, that Congress declared for nothing less than complete independence, and new ideas to this end were set in motion.

In March, 1930, Gandhi set out to begin a fresh “civil disobedience” movement by openly infringing the Salt Laws and advocating the non-payment of certain taxes in addition to the trade boycott. The manufacture and sale of salt being a Government monopoly, this movement was inspired by the twofold idea of flouting British authority and embarrassing the Government by the withholding of revenue. In spite of repeated warnings, and the arrest of his chief lieutenants, he and the Congress carried on undaunted. When at length riots and disorders broke out, and a critical situation arose in the turbulent North-West Provinces, Gandhi was again arrested and interned at Yeravda Goal, Poona in May, 1931.

In January, 1932, a truce between Gandhi and the Viceroy was arrived at in view of the proposed Round Table Conference in London, which it was hoped would produce what the rejected “Simon Report” of the summer of 1930 had failed to provide, namely an acceptable basis of discussion for a new Indian constitution. After some hesitation, Gandhi-along with representatives of every section of Indian opinion – attended the Conference on behalf of Congress; in face of the Nationalist claim for complete “Swaraj” his presence was a welcome step towards conciliation.

On his return from the London Conference, Gandhi received a tumultuous welcome from his followers; but he immediately came into conflict with the authorities. The struggle carried on after the Government of India Act gave India provincial autonomy and a majority of the Provinces came under Congress rule is recent history. Mahatma Gandhi was not directly concerned with the political and administrative work and for a number of years he was not even a member of Congress. When war broke out in 1939, India’s attitude towards the conflict gradually crystallised. Pandit Nehru has described how Congress specifically demanded that India should not be committed to any war without the consent of the people or their representatives and that no Indian troops should be sent for service abroad without such consent.

About the middle of 1939 it became known that Indian troops had been despatched overseas. Immediately there was an outcry at this having been done without any reference to the representative of the people. Steps were also being taken through the British Parliament to amend the Government of India Act of 1935 under which the Provincial Governments were functioning with a view to concentrating all power in the Central Government.

While this tug-of-war was going on in India’s mind and a feeling of desperation was growing, Gandhi wrote a number of articles which suddenly gave a new direction to people’s thoughts and gave shape to their vague ideas. Inaction at that critical stage and submission to all that was happening had become intolerable to him. The only way to meet that situation he said was for Indian freedom to be recognised and for a free India to meet aggression and invasion in co-operation with Allied nations. If this recognition was not forthcoming, then some action must be taken to challenge the existing system and wake up the people from the lethargy that was paralysing them and making them easy prey for every kind of aggression. In a conflict between nationalism and internationalism Gandhi’s new writing created a stir all over India.

In August 1942 the All-India Congress Committee passed the famous Quit India resolution which resulted in the incarceration of all the Congress leaders including Mr. Gandhi. When he was in jail, his wife who had shared with him all the hardships of his political struggle died.

Mr. Gandhi’s part in the negotiations with the Cripps Mission in 1942 has been misrepresented. Behind the scenes he always worked for a settlement with England on honourable terms. He succeeded in most of his aims except the achievement of complete Hindu-Muslim unity which was his life’s aim. He has now made the supreme sacrifice for that cause.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act jolts Opposition

Published

4 days ago

2023/06/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

New laws contemplated by the government appears to have caused much concern among Opposition political parties for obvious reasons. The constitutionality of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The whole process of law making raised quite a stir in the wake of the recent shocking Supreme Court determination that one-third of the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ is contrary to the Constitution and several dozens of amendments are required to pave the way for its passage with a simple majority. It also shows that our judges have a backbone and are not easily swayed by the incumbent all-powerful Executive President, who is only there on a ‘contract’ to complete the remainder of the previous President Gatabaya Rajapaksa’s term after he was ousted by violent protests instigated from outside.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, continuing to struggle on the economic front, is keen to consolidate its position, both in and outside Parliament.

The media has emerged as the major challenge to the government due to the failure on the part of the Opposition to adopt a cohesive political strategy.

Both the government and the Opposition seem to be in disarray and unable to come to terms with the continuing political-economic and social crisis, fuelled by external forces.

The move to introduce a controversial Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act should be examined, taking into consideration current political and economic challenges faced by the incumbent administration.

Did the Justice Ministry or the Media Ministry, at least, informally consult President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the Minister of Defence, in addition to being the Finance Minister and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, on the proposed Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act, at least after being so thoroughly educated by the highest court in the land on the ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ Bill? A section of the Opposition believes the President hadn’t been aware of this move.

However, former External Affairs Minister and SLPP rebel Prof. G. L. Peiris and Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) spokesman Pubudu Jayagoda didn’t mince their words when they alleged the whole exercise was for the benefit of President Wickremesinghe. Prof. Peiris has alleged that the President intended to rein in media in line with his overall political strategy to consolidate his power whereas Jayagoda explained how the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government launched the project soon after the UNP leader’s election as the President in late July last year. Jayagoda insists that the Cabinet has cleared the Bill.

The Broadcasting Regulatory Commission and the committee tasked to investigate complaints against television and radio stations would be dominated by the President’s men to such an extent, it couldn’t be expected to discharge its responsibilities in an impartial manner. Jayagoda pointed out how two persons of the Regulatory Commission could take far reaching decisions regardless of the consequences. In case any member failed to carry out directives received from the President, he or she faced the axe.

Jaygoda questioned the absurdity in appointing the commission for a period of five years in line with the five-year presidential term. Both Prof. Peiris and Jayagoda emphasized the grave danger posed by the President exercising power over the media regardless of some sections of the media pursuing politically motivated agendas.

Against the backdrop of fierce criticism of the proposed law, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, on 02 June came up with the face saving reply that no final decision has been taken in this regard.

The former President of the Bar Association said that the issue at hand was still under discussion and a set of proposals, pertaining to the proposed Broadcast Authority Act, were in the public domain. The Minister insisted that the relevant bill is yet to be prepared.

The Colombo District lawmaker said so in his capacity as the Chairman of a Cabinet sub-committee tasked with preparing a regulatory mechanism in this regard. The Cabinet-sub-committee consists of Media Minister Bandula Gunawardena, Labour Minister Manusha Nanayakkara, Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and Ports and Shipping Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva.

The media raised the proposed Bill with Minister Rajapakse at a briefing in the Justice Ministry especially called to address issues pertaining to the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP) established in 2016 during the Yahapalana administration.

Dr. Rajapakse has assured that media organizations would be given an opportunity to make representations in this regard.

The latest controversy over the proposed Bill with a set of proposals outlining its possible content already in the public domain, should be examined against the backdrop of strong opposition to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill and Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ In addition to those disputed and much discussed Bills, a major debate is likely over the proposed Budget Office. The text of the Bill meant to specify the powers, duties and functions of the Budget Office is now in the public domain. The government certainly owed an explanation as to why it cannot seek a consensus with the Opposition at the relevant consultative committee/sectoral oversight committee in this regard. The country is in such a desperate situation, it cannot under any circumstances afford further political turmoil.

Unfortunately, the government appears to be hell-bent on bulldozing its way through the legislature, regardless of whatever consequences.

The recent sacking of Janaka Ratnayake, the outspoken and highly ambitious Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission underscored the government strategy.

Ratnayake is on record as having said before a parliamentary watchdog committee that he received the influential position for serving the Rajapaksas. But, he was removed by the Rajapaksas’ SLPP at the behest of President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Altogether 123 lawmakers voted for the motion to remove Ratnayake whereas 77 opposed. Government member Ali Sabri Raheem voted against the motion to protest against the failure on the part of President Wickremesinghe and Premier Dinesh Gunawardena to intervene on his behalf after he was caught with undeclared gold and smartphones worth Rs 74 mn and Rs 4.2 mn, respectively, while coming through the VIP/VVIP channel at the BIA, where such people are normally whisked through without any checks.

Rebel SLPP lawmaker Prof. Charitha Herath mounted a no holds barred attack on the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act. At his regular briefing at Nidahasa Jathika Sabhawa (NJS) office at Nawala. The one-time Media Ministry Secretary explained how the proposed law could be utilized against television and radio stations which refused to toe the government line.

The NJS comprises 13 MPs elected and appointed on the SLPP ticket/accommodated on its National List.

Acknowledging the need and the responsibility on the part of the government to introduce the Broadcasting Authority Act, National List lawmaker Herath questioned the intention of those behind what he called a despicable move.

The country’s radio and television stations are allowed to operate in terms of the Ceylon Broadcasting Corporation Act (No 37 of 1966) and the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act (No 06 of 1982), respectively. Herath also explained how the Telecommunications Act applied to broadcasting operations.

The MP said that no one could dispute the need to introduce a new law to regulate radio and television stations. But the proposed Bill now in the public domain revealed the government’s intention to suppress those who would dare to challenge it on whatever issue, lawmaker Herath said, warning the government of dire consequences if it pursued such a strategy.

Asked to explain, MP Herath alleged that the proposed Act dealt with radio and television stations in a manner that they were yet to be established in Sri Lanka. The architects of the new law conveniently ignored the fact that radio and television stations were in operation here for several decades and couldn’t be subjected to a new law the way it dealt with a new entrant.

“The bottom line is that the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act completely ignored Article 14 of the Constitution that guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression, including publication. If the enactment of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act takes place as it is, that will deliver a deadly blow to democracy. We do not want a North Korea type situation here.”

Referring to the composition of the commission, MP Herath questioned the rationale in restricting the total number of members to five and the quorum three. Pointing out that of the five members of the proposed commission, two – a Secretary to a Ministry (most probably Media Ministry) and the Director General of Telecommunication Regulatory Commission were ex-officio, the lawmaker said the President would name three remaining members subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council.

Alleging that this commission would be nothing but a highly dangerous tool in the hands of those at the helm of political power, lawmaker Herath said that it could be used selectively against any media organization that took a stand contrary to that of the government in respect of any issue – ranging from national security to what the architects of this destructive piece of legislation called the national economy. The operations of the offending media could be either suspended or permanently closed down, the academic said, urging the print and electronic media to vigorously take up this issue.

MP Herath lambasted the government for seeking to prohibit the media taking up economic issues. Alleging that such provisions were political, the lawmaker said that the issue is who would interpret the term ‘national economy’ in an economically ruined country. Would it be President Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, State Finance Minister Shehan Semasinghe or the International Monetary Fund, he asked

Prof. Herath expressed serious concern over the proposed committee consisting of three persons headed by the Director General, TRC, to investigate complaints directed at radio and television stations. Pointing out that there is ambiguity pertaining to the appointment of such a committee, the MP questioned how two out of the three-member committee could decide either to suspend or permanently close down operations of an ‘offending’ broadcaster.

Impact on Parliament

However, MP Herath didn’t discuss how the proposed new law could even hinder the coverage of parliamentary proceedings as well as the reportage of shocking disclosures at parliamentary watchdog committees. Depending on the stand taken by the government on a particular issue, in terms of the Broadcasting Authority Act, action can be initiated against a television station for its reportage on a matter even discussed in Parliament.

The UNP may use the new law to suppress reportage and discussion on Treasury bond scams perpetrated in 2015 and 2016 under its watch. The SLPP may find the new law useful to pressure the media over the reportage of circumstances leading to the economic ruin due to a spate of ill- advised decisions taken by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The committee tasked with investigating complaints against media organizations may find even the exposure of serious lapses on the part of the bureaucracy offensive. A case in point is the shocking disclosures made in the relevant parliamentary watchdog committees how the officialdom addressed critical issues at hand. The recent revelation that taxes, interest and penalties amounting to Rs 904 bn hasn’t been collected by the Inland Revenue underscored the need to address this issue urgently.

During the media briefing lawmaker Herath explained how the media could be targeted on the basis of alleged abuses in the coverage of issues. In the absence of interpretation of the term abuse of power, the committee headed by the Director General, TRC would be able to find fault with any broadcaster to appease his/her political master. It would be pertinent to mention that just two out of a three-member committee is authorized to decide on the fate of a media organization. Even the criticism of the controversial postponement of the much delayed Local Government polls indefinitely may attract the attention of the Broadcasting Authority as the government propagated the myth that economic recovery should be given priority, therefore election process can wait.

Prof. Herath explained how members of the commission can be removed in case they didn’t toe the government line. Instead of the very purpose a Broadcasting Authority is required to primarily have a level playing field, the one proposed can be a threat to media freedom. In the hands of politicians who pursue destructive self-aggrandizing strategies regardless of consequences, therefore the proposed Broadcasting Authority can be a tool to harm the free media. Prof. Herath regretted that the previous attempts to establish a Broadcasting Authority hadn’t been successful.

Harsha takes a strong stand

Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) front liner Dr. Harsha de Silva is another MP who came out strongly against the proposed law. The former UNP non-Cabinet minister flayed the government over the move at a media briefing held at the Opposition Leader’s Office on Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha.

The top SJB spokesman warned that this legislation, touted as an effort to advance the mass media, actually would serve as a tool for the government to crack down on and manipulate the media to suit its own agenda.

According to Dr. de Silva, the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill contained provisions that enabled the government to exert pressure on and control media outlets that do not align with its ideology. Such measures, the economist argued were fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.

“One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the freedom to hold differing opinions. The media cannot be subject to the whims of a particular authority that operated at the behest of the government. The media should enjoy the independence to express their views”, Dr. de Silva asserted. “This right to free expression is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society. The proposed Broadcasting Authority Act aims to stifle the media, and we will not stand for it”.

Dr. de Silva further cautioned that the government’s motives behind this legislation mirror its previous attempts to suppress the media through the failed Anti-Terrorism Act. The MP asserted that, having faced resistance to their oppressive measures, the government is now seeking alternative avenues to fulfill its objective of muzzling critical voices, and the Broadcasting Authority Act is their latest attempt to do so.

The concerns raised by Dr. Harsha de Silva who was once widely tipped to be the Finance Minister of the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, underscored the need for a robust and independent media, one that could act as a vital check on governmental power and foster a thriving democratic society. The MP stressed the pivotal importance policymakers and citizens alike closely examine the proposed legislation and its potential implications on press freedom, ensuring that any changes made to media regulations did not infringe upon the democratic principles that underpin our society.

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has alleged that the government’s latest bid was meant to create an environment in which only those who propagated the government line could operate.

Lawmaker Premadasa has said that the move to throttle the media seemed to be a critical part of the government’s overall strategy and should be considered as an extremely dangerous move against the backdrop of indefinite postponement of Local Government polls. MP Premadasa, like his opposition colleagues Prof. Herath and Dr. de Silva, alleged the licenses were to be issued on the basis of the media organizations’ loyalty to the government.

Censorship

Several decades ago, Sri Lanka exercised censorship to control the media, at a time television posed no real challenge.

Having joined The Island in June 1987, the writer remembered how print media had to submit all ‘copies’ that dealt with security and political issues to the government censor for approval. Successive governments imposed censorship to cover up military reversals in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and part of the overall strategy to deal with the second JVP-led insurgency 1987-89.

Successive governments harassed the print media and attacks directed at journalists and private media institutions over the years were part of that despicable strategy. Whatever the provocations, the assassinations of journalists cannot be condoned. Perpetrators of such heinous crimes had never been arrested. The assassination of The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickremetunga on January 08, 2009 is perhaps the case that attracted the most media coverage though there were many other attacks.

Keith Noyahr, Defence correspondent at the now defunct The Nation newspaper earned the wrath for his critical weekly column titled ‘Military Matters.’ His abduction and subsequent release in May 2008 exposed the then government though the investigation was never brought to a successful conclusion even after the defeat of that government in January 2015!

The proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill has taken the government’s battle (whichever party in power) to a new level. Now political strategy is aimed at closing down whole television or radio stations.

Midweek Review

Jayantha Dhanapala (1938 – 2023)

Published

4 days ago

2023/06/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Tissa Jayatilaka

The splendid career as well as the many glittering prizes won by Jayantha Dhanapala is common knowledge and does not require reiteration here. Rather I wish to focus on the man himself in this tribute to an exceptional person whom I had the privilege of getting to know personally at the tail end of the 1980s. I had of course heard of Jayantha and his many accomplishments long before our first meeting. Having read a newspaper review of North-South Perspectives, an international affairs journal that I edited, which focused on the promotion of greater understanding between the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ world, Jayantha telephoned me to ask if we could meet. I readily agreed and thus began a friendship that lasted until his death a few days ago.

Although I had not known at the time of that first meeting of ours, I soon learnt that encouraging those of the younger generation to contribute their mite to the betterment of Sri Lanka and the world outside of her shores was a priority for Jayantha. In the process, he enabled those of us who came into contact with him to better ourselves in order to continue to give of our best. In his appreciation of Jayantha ‘s life and career, former diplomat A.L.A. Azeez (who joined the Sri Lanka foreign service in 1992) talks at length of the marvellous role of guide and mentor of younger colleagues, including himself, that Jayantha played throughout his days in the foreign service. In the same spirit, after his retirement from the UN and upon his return to Sri Lanka, he served as a Trustee and member of the Board of Advisers of Sri Lanka Unites, mentoring a local youth movement dedicated to the transformation of Sri Lanka to a land free of religious and ethnic strife. He was involved from the inception in the establishment of the Friday Forum, an informal and self- financed group of older citizens dedicated to democracy, good governance, human rights and the rule of law.

Our friendship grew over the years, I happen to think, because we shared much in common. We both schooled and spent our formative years in Kandy– he at Trinity in the 1950s and I at Kingswood in the 1960s. Later he and I both entered the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya at different times, given that he was a decade older, where we both read for the Special Degree in English. His extra-curricular activities at Peradeniya, like mine, included sports– rugger in his case and cricket in mine– and theatre. We both took part in plays, held office and were participants in the diverse activities of the University Drama Society (DramSoc).

Jayantha and I also shared a fondness for the spoken and written word and, not infrequently, combined our resources in this area. We jointly edited A Garland for Ashley: Glimpses of a life celebrating the life of Ashley Halpe and His 50 Years of University Teaching (2008). He was instrumental in making me the editor of SIRIMAVO – Honouring the world’s first woman prime minister (2010) for which publication he wrote an excellent essay on The Foreign Policy of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. He contributed a chapter titled, A City Upon a Hill for Excursions and Explorations Cultural Encounters Between Sri Lanka and the United States that I put together in 2002. He reviewed Peradeniya: Memories of a University (1997) that I jointly edited with K.M. de Silva. Jayantha served as keynote speaker while I introduced the publication at the launch of the late Tissa Abeysekera’s collection of essays on culture and the arts titled, Roots, Reflections and Reminiscences (2007). A couple of years ago, Jayantha and I teamed up one more time to write an essay titled, A Study in ‘Creative Compassion’ for The Fourth Lion – Essays for Gopalkrishna GANDHI (2021) edited by Venu Madhav Govindu and Srinath Raghavan.

In the 1990s, when our friendship had matured to an extent that I could ask the Dhanapalas for a personal favour, I would on certain of my regular visits to the United States, stay with Maureen and Jayantha whenever they were free of pressing official commitments. I stayed with them in Washington while he was our ambassador (1995-1997) and later in New York when he was serving as Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs (1998-2003). In New York, they would book tickets in advance for plays on Broadway to make my visits even more enjoyable. Their friendship and warm hospitality knew no bounds. I also recall a visit to the UN with my wife Lilani and our daughter Lara when Jayantha hosted us to lunch at a restaurant in the premises of the UN headquarters.

No account of Jayantha would be complete without a reference to the solid and sensitive supporting role played by Maureen in his life and career. She was a superb fellow-traveller who had known Jayantha from a very young age and were fellow undergraduates at Peradeniya as well. If marriages, as we are told, are indeed made in heaven, then theirs undoubtedly would be one of them. They were an extremely compatible and congenial pair to the very end. After their return to Sri Lanka, we had the opportunity to meet Jayantha and Maureen in more relaxed settings over food and drink, either at our home or theirs or in the homes of common friends.

Lilani and I went up to Kandy to spend a long- promised weekend with our senior colleagues and intimate friends Gananath and Ranjini Obeyesekere at April’s end. Knowing of our strong desire to meet Jayantha and Maureen during our visit and, as all of us were close mutual friends, our kind and thoughtful hosts invited the Dhanapalas to lunch at their lovely home. It was when we sat to lunch that it struck me that all six of us around the table, belonging to different eras, had been through the Department of English and read for the Special Degree in English at the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya which later became the University of Peradeniya. Little did we know that one of us would be gone in less than a month and not be around for another meeting over lunch! Impermanence is all.

My one-time teacher (he taught Lilani too, in later years), senior colleague in Peradeniya’s Department of English and close friend, Professor Thiru Kandiah, and his wife Indranee, have shared a friendship of much longer standing with the Dhanapalas. Thiru was a year senior to Jayantha at Peradeniya while Indranee and Maureen, who had been schoolmates and close friends at Girl’s High School, Kandy, resumed their friendship at a later date at Peradeniya. Their fathers had been members of the Trinity College staff, very close friends and neighbours. Trinity’s Lemuel House was founded when Jayantha was a student at the school with Indranee’s father, the illustrious teacher and Head Master Mr. R.L Kannangara in charge. Jayantha was one of the most outstanding students of Lemuel and Indranee’s father soon came to respect and, also like him very much.

The Kandiahs now live in Perth, Australia and realising that they may be unaware of Jayantha’s passing, I wrote to inform them of the sad event. Soon there was a flurry of emails exchanged amongst the three of us and I found myself in total agreement with their assessment of the Dhanapalas.

Here is Thiru on Jayantha:

Jayantha was held in especially high esteem and regard by absolutely everybody. This was not least for the obvious brilliance of his mind. But closely allied with that, there was in addition this very distinctive way in which he tended to come across to people in his interactions with them- as of his very nature a signally intellectual sort of person: always impeccably reasoned, and very definitely and firmly so, if in an unostentatious and quietly unassertive, also exemplarily courteous, manner that lent him great dignity; with the unmistakable integrity of the positions he adopted on matters and what he stood for adding considerable power to the strikingly impressive impact he had on people.

Indranee’s pertinent observation is that Maureen is as good natured as she is beautiful and gentle and that the school, “could not have found a better head prefect than her”. She goes on to say that Maureen’s father was a very caring and helpful person and her mother, a gentle and gracious lady. These are sentiments that deserve to be widely shared and hence my doing so.

All in all, Jayantha Dhanapala was a formidable personality, though, never aggressive or unapproachable. He was friendly and unfailingly courteous at all times. I wish to end this tribute with another most appropriate quote from Thiru Kandiah:

Much will, I am sure, be said and written of Jayantha at this time of his leaving us. But the man we were fortunate to know and whom we had such affection and respect for will remain in our hearts and minds as long as we are around.