Features

Our Common Heritage One country – one land – one people

Published

4 years ago

2020/08/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ashley de Vos

(Continued from yesterday’s Midweek Review)

It was King Senerath the Sinhala King, in the 16th C, who transported 4,000 followers of Islam from the west coast and settled them on the east coast to save them from being routed, eliminated and even annihilated by the aggressive Portuguese. The east coast Muslims share this common ancestry. The assimilation into the general cultural matrix has been stifled by a ghetto mentality that grew out of a mindset where the women felt more secure in a ghetto, while the men were out trading. This is clearly seen in Katankudi and other such areas in the coastal zone.

Five Portuguese who wished to settle in the island free from Dutch discrimination, approached the Sinhala King and requested protection from the Dutch. There were Catholic priests in the Kandy court, who helped the King to correspond with the King of Portugal in the Portuguese language, and hence access was easy. The benevolent King invited these ex- soldiers and gave them a presumably disused Buddhist monastery to settle in. Their offspring who settled in the surrounding lands are proud of this ancestry. The Siripathula votive slab from the earliest Anuradhapura period that belonged to this early monastery, was still there at the site, when it was visited in late 2005. This area referred to as Wahakotte is today a major pilgrim destination for the Catholic community.

During the British colonial occupation of the island and into independence, those inhabiting the coastal areas of the country, who had already cohabited closely with the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British, had favoured access to the ownership of lands. They felt superior on learnt caste lines, and were soon encouraged to participate in new professions. Their children had easy access to an English education, facilitated by a group of committed Christian Missionaries. This helped them to gain ready admission to the prestigious British universities and professions and in turn, to corner all the prized jobs offered by the British administration.

Those who benefitted from a missionary education, even from the north of the island moved to the metropolis Colombo in search of their fortunes. They built palatial dwellings, many from the north even married Sinhala women and relegated Jaffna that far off place, as a resting place to keep their older relations. The journey to Jaffna became less frequent.

If this is one country, every citizen has the right to live and work wherever they wish, and this has been amply demonstrated in the past. Sri Lankans should be afforded the privilege to live, work and purchase property wherever they decide even if it means enacting special legislation to facilitate this process. Why the special privilege only for some?

J.T Ratnam states that “some of the wealthiest Tamils came from Manipay. Most of them left their palatial buildings untenanted or in charge of some poor relation in order to reside and work in the metropolis. They returned home finally only in their old age, this was the rule.” (Jane Russell). Most professionals from the north, totally neglected Jaffna and instead concentrated all personal development on Colombo and other centres that were conducive to their chosen line of work. Prompting R.W. Crossette-Thambiah to record that “it was the Tamils living in Colombo who had the money and the prestige to become leaders in Jaffna” (Jane Russell). Many were reinforced by dowry wealth infused by the Malaysian pensioners.

These professionals who left the north to settle in the south should take some responsibility for all that happened in the north in the past 70 years. In fact, the later youth uprising was against the severe communal caste based hierarchy, disorientation and governed by an acquired strong caste difference that was forcibly perpetrated in the north. According to Jaffna Superintendent of Police, R. Sundaralingam, it was controlled by a neo-colonial Vellahla elite. In the Maviddapuram Temple dispute it included, even at times, beating of the lower castes with heavy Palmyra walking sticks, on any attempt to enter the controlled temple premises.

One always believed that the Gods had a widespread benevolence to encompass all groups of people, irrespective of status in life, but it seems that man has changed the paradigm to suit his own narrow desires.

Having enjoyed the benefits that an English education offered them, the English educated population remained silent when the larger Sinhala population was kept down for centuries by the three colonial powers, even castigated by the newly elevated caste groups in the south, who owned lands. They enjoyed all the perks that fell off the colonial table. As many of these people were far removed from their roots, they joined in the protest, when this large silent population was given a voice.

Those who criticised the new voice were mostly those who had enjoyed a privileged English education. Another marginalised group who may or may not have enjoyed the interlude, felt cheated; they left for greener pastures to Australia, the UK and Canada. Unfortunately, this generation continues to live in a time warp centred on the 1960s, craving for the good times and feeding on the special food types they had grown up with.

The same criticism is still flaunted as the reason for the plight Sri Lanka finds itself in today although many fingers could point in many directions. Many successful countries who had and still have a pride in their own heritage and culture have survived; they learned their mother tongue well and learned the colonial tongue later in life to become world leaders in their chosen fields.

What happened in Sri Lanka? The “Kaduwa” is nothing but the affluent English speakers laughing at the down trodden majority if they were to make a mistake in the use of the colonial foreign language.

Tourism has created a new generation that is able to converse in many foreign languages; they learnt the language with the help of the tourists who corrected them if they made mistakes, and they were never ridiculed or laughed at. Whether to sing alternate verses of the national anthem, or the whole in two languages, is not a great debate.

Sri Lanka has a flag, the only one in the world that celebrates pronounced ethnic division, a precise notification with a late beginning. Should we not change and go back to the flag originally hoisted at independence, this especially, as we all share a common heritage.

Much is discussed about the persons who have disappeared during the war, this recurrent issue, this wound, is kept ever festered, by generous NGO funding and is used as a clarion call to win sympathy especially when foreign dignitaries surreptitiously or otherwise visit the North of the island. Except for this controlled group, nothing is heard of the many more Tamil politicians, civil officers, lecturers, teachers, ordinary citizens and the hundreds of Tamil youth who were eliminated by the LTTE in the north, where is the regress for them? They have mothers as well?

Less is heard of the 800 or 900 policemen who were forced by the leadership of the day to surrender to the LTTE. They all vanished into thin air, a trick Houdini would have given an arm and a leg to learn. The 1,000 odd IPKF soldiers who were killed; where are their bodies? An IPKF battalion that went astray and never came back; the 5,000 odd Sri Lankan soldiers are still missing. The hundreds who were eliminated in the “border” villages, in the North Central Province, on roads, in buses, in the numerous bomb blasts. My friend, the charismatic Cedric Martinstyne, where is he, who was responsible?

The thousands of young men and women went missing in 1971 and the thousands of young men and women tortured and burnt on the roadside in 1988 – 89. They were all human; they had families, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and some even had children. Why is no one talking about them? Is it only fashionable to follow the International NGO gravy train?

The solution for facilitating and encouraging the sustainable development of a common heritage as a single country is simply to legislate and ban, and remove politicians or parties that survive on highlighting ethnicity, hatred and religious bias from the equation and instead introduce a new breed of specially identified benevolent technocrats chosen for their capability. Certainly not chosen from a group that has volunteered on the basis that they think, yes, they arrogantly think, they have the solutions to all the problems the country is faced with.

This will only lead to disaster, for a benevolent leadership.

The technocrats should be chosen after a careful and diligent head hunt to identify the most suitable and proven individual who is not only capable but also cares for and has a commitment to this country first. With a willingness to give all up to deliberate and run the engines of this country as patriots. But beware the arrogance of these espiocrats. They may need further education and training at a staff college on a holistic vision on where Sri Lanka would like to be in fifty years in the future.

Those representing Sri Lanka at the world stage should be focussed, well briefed, brave enough to stand tall and committed to the wellbeing of the country only, first, and should not be made up of the agenda driven dealers who are willing to compromise to be in the good books of foreigners with devious plans or to satisfy their personal ends: there are many such individuals around. These chosen technocrats with special abilities should be carefully nurtured. Running Sri Lanka, a country of twenty million, is not an insurmountable task; it requires honesty, discipline and commitment only. Across the pond, Mumbai is a city state of eighteen million run by a mayor and a council.

Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, there are too many incongruous layers of superfluous repetition and astronomical cost escalation to satisfy mediocracy with their never ending assiduous demands and perks. It has now become a livelihood worth killing for. Much of it forced on us by the 13th Amendment, purposely introduced by India. The cunning “Big Brother Gift”, knowing full well that if implemented, Sri Lanka would never ever recover. This would always remain to the advantage of the hegemony of the subcontinent. We have witnessed the repercussions. This is where most of the support for the corruption stems from.

In the historical period, the kings did not administer the people; the village heads did and their word was respected and obeyed. No one from outside decided for the village. The responsibility of the king lay with ensuring that the unique irrigation system was protected and enhanced, secondly, there was protection for Buddhism, respect for other people and their beliefs, the continuation of the natural Sinhalisation process and most importantly, it was to ensure, the security of the people and the country from foreign invasions.

Kings who had an interest in Ayurveda planted the Aralu, Bulu, Nelli forests in the hope that someone, someday, may benefit from them. Our new guardians and extended families instead enjoy cutting the forests for personal gains, thereby, threatening the future water security of the whole nation and the biodiversity in the forests.

The holistic security of a country should always be decided only by the local security experts concerned, not by selfish emotional considerations by a group in a district, or by foreign “experts”. The security of a nation requires careful study and strategic understanding of the possible threats and with major contributions by the three forces charged with securing the country from illegal immigration and any other internal or external threats.

While there may be an argument that war technology has changed and that it calls for restricting the location of camps. The locations of the camps, even if it meant acquiring land, should be done according to a carefully studied, but strict pattern that suits the country concerned and not to suit “External War Consultants”. There are examples of a thousand bases placed by waring nations around the world in locations far removed from the countries concerned. Some through invitation, some located by way of war booty. All of them follow a single pattern.

Sri Lanka should avoid falling into providing a ready gateway to such a pattern. It should also stay away from agreeing to draconian treaties and agreements like the MCC and other related documents on the cheap, at totally discounted rates, only $90 Million a year for five years, permitting unlimited access to the use of the country under their own terms and rules. Sri Lanka is not for sale. What is implied in these documents are detrimental to the generations to come and would be regarded by them as acts of treason against an innocent people.

We the people need guidance by example; we don’t require a supercilious individual to tell us what to do, especially to interfere with the natural action of reconciliation and interaction, of coming together again, a progression that is usually built on mutual trust, an activity that the self-centred politician wilfully and constantly interfere with. From earliest times Buddhists and Hindus shared a common understanding,; this was to concretise in the 14th C after King Bhuvanakabahu introduced the shrine of God Vishnu as the protector of Buddhism into the temple complex.

Today, every Buddhist temple has a Vishnu shrine incorporated at the entrance, in a mutual respect for all. Unfortunately, fundamental Hinduism is raising its head for the first time on the island in the guise of the “Ramayana Trails” that was commenced by a desperate and irresponsible tourism industry. Will it lead to the building of a myriad of new shrines to Hindu Gods and Goddesses to commemorate events in fictitious locations is to be seen. A development that will host fundamental Hinduism, a progression this island could do without.

The people of this island, as a group of intelligent, enlightened humans, are capable of eliminating the years of induced suspicion that has been created by these self-centred politicians. The people can and will sort it out. These politicians should be kept away as they are more of an irritant, a hindrance to real reconciliation and a selfish, destructive element in nation building.

The unnatural rush, corona or no corona, to submit nominations for a future election, shows the unusual zeal in the rush to collect the spoils. Thereafter most applicants went into hibernation, to hell with the constituents. This is sensed, suffered and remarked on by the long suffering farming community who commented that they saw the people’s representatives only just before an election. These farmers should be trusted and looked after. Instead they are forced to sit on heaps of rotting vegetables and face the unscrupulous money lenders, head on.

Eventually, it is a scientific approach to agriculture that will save this country, not urbanisation and its proliferation of partner industry. If you don’t have markets, you cannot eat the products your industry will roll off the production line. But as proved by “Coronavirus” vegetables and fruit, you can.

Let reconciliation happen the way it should, a slow but sure natural process. As Sri Lanka moves forward, she deserves to be free of worthless heavy shackles. Let’s relegate them to the trash heap of history.

All News Advertisement

Features

BRICS and De-Dollarization: Implications for India and Global Power Dynamics

Published

20 hours ago

2024/12/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the BRICS Summit in Russia (Source: ING Website)

BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) has proposed ambitious financial reforms, including the creation of a common currency. The BRICS New Development Bank and regional development banks are seen as key players in promoting mutual trade and reducing reliance on the dollar. Proponents argue that a common BRICS currency, potentially backed by gold or other resource assets, could transform the global monetary system and strengthen economic ties within the bloc.

De-dollarisation refers to the reduced dominance of the US dollar in global transactions, tracked through its declining share in areas such as international reserves, cross-border lending, debt securities, derivatives, and payments. To accurately assess trends, currency shares are adjusted for exchange rate fluctuations.

BRICS+, an informal bloc of nations, consists of the core five members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and four recent additions (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, UAE), collectively representing 37% of global GDP (by PPP) and 44% of the world’s population. Numerous countries, including Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Turkey, and Venezuela, have applied for membership, contributing an additional 5% of GDP and 8% of the global population. Saudi Arabia, producing 11% of the world’s oil, has been invited but has yet to respond.

The de-dollarisation process has notably benefited BRICS and other emerging market (EM) currencies. Over the past four years, BRICS currencies have increased their share of cross-border bank claims by 6 percentage points (pps) to 15%, while other EM currencies grew by 4 pps to 19%. In international debt securities, BRICS currencies gained 5 pps to 11%, with other non-core currencies rising 4 pps to 9%. On the broader external debt level, BRICS currencies show a consistent upward trend, currently accounting for 34%.

However, the feasibility of such a currency remains uncertain. Analysts highlight significant obstacles, including low liquidity in local currencies, the volatility of digital currencies, and the yuan’s restricted convertibility. Even within BRICS, there are divergent interests regarding the modalities of a common currency, reflecting broader geopolitical tensions.

Strategic Choices and Global Dynamics

The rise of the BRICS alliance, coupled with recent trends towards de-dollarization, has placed India at the centre of a complex geopolitical and economic debate. As emerging economies seek alternatives to the US dollar, India faces a conundrum: whether to align with the BRICS’ de-dollarization efforts or prioritize its strategic partnerships with the West, particularly the United States. This essay critically examines India’s position, the broader implications of de-dollarization, and the strategic choices facing New Delhi in the shifting global economic landscape.

Strategic Implications for India and Global Power Dynamics

The de-dollarization debate within BRICS highlights the broader reconfiguration of global power dynamics. China’s push for financial reforms and its emphasis on “integration of integrations” within BRICS aim to reshape the international monetary system. However, this vision often clashes with India’s aspirations to lead the Global South and maintain strategic autonomy.

India’s dual alignment strategy—engaging with BRICS while deepening ties with the G7 and the Quad—illustrates its attempt to balance competing interests. However, China’s growing influence within BRICS poses a direct challenge to India’s regional and global ambitions. The lack of clarity in India’s foreign policy, particularly regarding its relationship with Moscow and alignment with Western powers, complicates its strategic calculus.

India’s Position on De-Dollarization: Pragmatism Over Ideology

India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, recently articulated New Delhi’s cautious stance on de-dollarization at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He emphasized that India has not actively targeted the dollar as part of its economic strategy, underscoring a pragmatic approach to maintaining economic stability while exploring alternatives. India’s decision reflects its broader foreign policy objectives: fostering economic growth, maintaining regional stability, and asserting leadership in the Global South.

However, India’s position is challenged by the endorsement of de-dollarization by other BRICS members, particularly China and Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have aggressively pursued alternatives to the dollar, framing it as a geopolitical strategy to counter US hegemony. While their motivations align with broader BRICS goals, India recognizes the risks of such a shift, particularly given its reliance on dollar-denominated trade and investments.

India’s Strategic Path

Experts have advised that India must adopt a multifaceted approach which include, strengthening economic resilience, prioritize economic policies that enhance trade diversification and reduce vulnerabilities to external shocks. Promoting regional cooperation: India can play a leadership role in fostering regional financial autonomy within South Asia and the Indo-Pacific, aligning with countries like Japan and Australia to counterbalance China’s influence. Engaging constructively with BRICS: While remaining cautious about China’s dominance. Leveraging multilateral platforms: India’s active participation in the G20, Quad, and other multilateral forums can strengthen its global standing and counterbalance the influence of authoritarian regimes within BRICS. And focusing on currency stability, means recognizing the continued importance of the dollar, India should avoid premature shifts to alternative currencies that could destabilize its economy.

The Expansion of BRICS and India’s Economic Concerns

The 2024 BRICS Summit in Kazan marked a significant moment with the inclusion of new members—Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. While proponents argue that the expansion strengthens BRICS’ influence, skeptics, including many in India, highlight the challenges it poses.

Firstly, the economic benefits of BRICS membership remain uneven. For instance, while India has pursued bilateral projects, like the Chabahar Port development, these initiatives are not directly tied to BRICS. Moreover, China’s economic dominance within the bloc has led to concerns about its disproportionate influence. China’s trade aggression and its strategic use of the BRICS platform to advance its agenda undermine the cooperative spirit that BRICS ostensibly represents.

Secondly, the inclusion of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran complicates consensus-building within BRICS. The European Union has expressed concerns that the expanded bloc could disrupt the Bretton Woods order and complicate international decision-making, particularly on issues like the Ukraine war.

De-Dollarization and the US Factor

The push for de-dollarization is not just an internal BRICS debate but also a response to perceived vulnerabilities in the US financial system. The US dollar’s dominance has been challenged by rising debt levels and declining foreign-held reserves, which have fallen from 33% in 2015 to 22% in 2023. These trends raise questions about the long-term stability of the dollar as a global reserve currency.

The return of Donald Trump as US President in 2024 adds another layer of complexity. His protectionist policies, including threats of 100% tariffs on countries decoupling from the dollar, could have severe economic repercussions for India, particularly in sectors like tea and rice exports.

A study by the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center confirms that the U.S. dollar remains the dominant global reserve currency, with neither the euro nor BRICS nations making significant progress in reducing global reliance on it. The Dollar Dominance Monitor underscores the dollar’s continued leadership in foreign reserve holdings, trade invoicing, and currency transactions, securing its primacy for the foreseeable future. The dollar’s strength is attributed to the robust U.S. economy, tighter monetary policy, and heightened geopolitical risks. While Western sanctions on Russia have spurred BRICS to explore alternative currency systems, their de-dollarization efforts have seen little success.

Impact on Seri Lanka

Sri Lanka stands to benefit significantly from alternative trade systems, such as a common currency or a barter system independent of the US dollar, especially with key partners like India, China, Russia, and Iran. Such mechanisms, potentially based on purchasing power parity, could alleviate the country’s dollar shortages and ease its economic struggles.

However, China’s growing influence within BRICS raises concerns about Sri Lanka’s ability to balance relations with both BRICS nations and Western allies, given its reliance on favourable trade agreements with the EU and the US. While closer ties with BRICS, especially China, could strengthen economic security, Sri Lanka risks diminished Western influence, aligning with China’s strategic goals.

At the recent BRICS summit, Sri Lanka emphasized the importance of fairness, justice, and respect for sovereignty, calling for a balanced global system where all nations have equitable opportunities. The country’s non-aligned foreign policy adds complexity, as joining BRICS+ may be perceived as favouring one bloc over others. Nonetheless, BRICS members and potential entrants are largely non-aligned, suggesting that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy stance could remain intact while seeking economic and geopolitical security.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@slit.lk and www.researcher.com)

Features

A case for the non-essential

Published

2 days ago

2024/12/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

A street drama performance at the Sri Jayewardenepura University. (Image courtesy SJU)

by Ruth Surenthiraraj

Recent events surrounding the ABBA tribute concert held in Colombo brought to light certain long-standing questions particularly to do with the arts and the idea of leisure. While I will not pretend that I can capture the spectrum of responses that were offered on the fact that some NPP politicians had attended the concert, I am intrigued by what I thought was a dominant critique. The politicians were viewed as being hypocrites because they came in on a promise of focusing on the most immediate needs of the people and were then seen at a concert, something non-essential to the jobs they were elected to do.

This vein of critique is not really a new one to the arts, particularly to the performing and fine arts. Often, artists find themselves having to defend their creations because they are viewed as being non-essential. Indeed, anything that is remotely related to entertainment or leisure is often seen as being unnecessary and, therefore, easily dispensable. This is true regardless of whether you are studying or working. In fact, entertainment, leisure, or the space to create is often perceived as being directly and positively correlated to being able to afford either the time or the resources to enjoy it.

In this sense, we seem to have ample historical evidence. Certain forms of either entertainment or leisure have been specifically linked to having access to a certain lifestyle. You are more likely to be able to enjoy painting or sport or music if you are more well-to-do or you are born into a certain class. And if we have stories of artists or sportspeople from lower income families, it is more often than not because they have struggled against the grain and perhaps even caught a lucky break.

The problem with this view, however, is that it often leads to a faulty conclusion: we assume that leisure or alternative interests are only feasible when one has money to dispose of comfortably – or if you come from a certain class or can claim a particular social status. If you extended this argument to its rational conclusion, we are really suggesting that the poor or the working classes need not enjoy something that is not directly linked to the fulfilment of their basic needs. We often assume that if you are struggling to make it from day to day, then you can dispense with the idea that leisure or entertainment is necessary This assumption is a dangerous one because it ascribes more value to the life of the rich or the ‘well-born’ and feeds into the lie that leisure is not a vital part of enjoying life as a human being with dignity.

This acknowledgement becomes even more important when we think of students today. While they are often encouraged to get involved in extracurricular activities because it will flesh out their CVs and get them through the door into better employment opportunities, the discussion does not often go beyond this point. I am not saying that extracurricular or leisure activities cannot make you a better employee. But does this mean that our entire lives are defined by the employment we have or hope to have? Does it also mean that we should cut out all ‘non-essential’ activities that do not directly benefit our careers? And what happens when we give students the impression that if anything does not directly benefit their future employability, then they should be spending less time and effort on it?

I am myself guilty of this utilitarian approach. In one of my classes recently, I discovered that a fair number of students had not seemed to have done very much extracurricular work in school. I expressed my shock and horror and proceeded to tell them to try at least a few other activities in university. I then found myself having to justify why I would ask them to do such a thing and found myself blithely going on about how it will teach them skills of teamwork and handling difficult tasks or complex personalities. But when I thought back to that experience much later, I realized that I too had been guilty of reducing the inner or alternative lives of my students into something that was or was not capable of adding to their employability.

When we treat employability as the only measurement by which we decide if an activity is valuable or not, we are inadvertently telling our students that other measurements, like enjoyment or beauty or satisfaction, are invalid ways of deciding if something can be important to us. Students should not be made to feel guilty about spending their time on activities that are not directly seen as gainful. Instead, they should be encouraged to see that a fully embraced life requires multiple ways of measuring experiences that we encounter. In fact, an individual who can coherently hold together these varying ways of valuing the world will be more easily able to embrace realities that are complex.

But let’s get down to the brass tacks of why we should be encouraging students to do more activities that they enjoy instead of hyper-focusing everything they do on employability.

When did we last do something we truly loved without thinking twice about whether it would be helpful to our careers? But this joy of indulging in something that brings you satisfaction is exactly what we might be taking away from our students. By increasingly pressurizing them to keep performing within a hypercompetitive world, we seem to be sapping the last of their individuality and sense of self. If they are not routinely taught that they can enjoy themselves outside of their study or work, we will be facilitating the advent of a generation that eventually lacks the capacity to enjoy life itself. In fact, it is even more difficult to remind our students that they are allowed to not excel at something in life. The greatest pitfall of the employability perspective on extracurricular activities is that students now feel that if they do something other than studies, they must do it perfectly or perform at the highest level in order to justify their continuing of that activity. Practice does make perfect – but have we ever considered also telling them that it’s ok to not be the best in everything they undertake? In fact, I think we must consciously begin to encourage students to do something they love even if they are bad at it, rather than hail students who might be average at something they are indifferent to.

My point is that being indifferent (basically incapable of intense emotion) towards an activity is the worst way a learner could approach something – because this indifference strips you of any need to envision a better outcome or want something that is different. And I would argue that we need to actively encourage the ‘loves’ of our students – regardless of their success – if we are to combat this crippling and far more insidious indifference to life itself. A student who is capable of love towards an extracurricular or leisure activity can be enticed to love the curiosity of learning: a student who is indifferent may offer us no inroad to entice them at all.

I also strongly believe that encouraging students to have lives that encompass spheres other than their education or potential employment will help them navigate the reality of loss and failure with more composure and resilience. We often end up mistaking the fact that interest in something should automatically lead to easy success at it.. Often, though, we are deeply unaware or consciously blinding ourselves to the reality of failure or defeat. While failure can have very far-reaching consequences in education or employment, should we not have an alternative way in which our students might be able to prepare themselves for failure as a normal part of life itself? Continuing to do something I am bad at simply because I love to keep trying is a wonderful way in which I can think of how to navigate disappointment and failure as normal experiences.

To me, the discourses surrounding the ABBA event served as a reminder of how easily we seem to dismiss the vital nature of extracurricular or leisure activities. These ‘non-essentials’ often help us discover what truly brings us joy outside of our work or study. And it is good to be occasionally reminded that we need not feel guilty about creating the time or the space for enjoying other aspects of our lives.

(Ruth is a teacher of English as a second language at a state university)

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

Features

Different scene for Manilal

Published

2 days ago

2024/12/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Manilal’s son-in-law Toby, with grandson Matteo, and his four children – Tashiya, Riccardo, Zak and Viola

Manilal Perera is well-know, both here and abroad, as a singer of repute, and a classy entertainer, as well, and he has been doing this scene for 40-plus years.

He has no plans to retire, he says, and will go on entertaining as long as he has the strength to get up on stage and do his thing. And, I’m sure this is good news for music lovers.

The singer’s foursome at daughterTashiya’s house, in Germany, after the wedding

The ‘different scene,’ Manilal referred to, is his personal life and he quite proudly said that he has probably created history…as a Sri Lankan!

The record he has set, according to the singer, is that he has four kids, from three marriages: Two from his Italian wife (Viola, 22, and Riccardo, 19), one from his British wife (Zack, 26), and one from his German wife (Tashiya, 29).

In fact, Manilal travelled to Germany for Tashiya’s wedding, which was on 3rd October, 2024, and he had for company all of his kids, at the weddig.

He was there solely as the father of the bride and didn’t take the mic to exercise his vocal cords in order to entertain the guests. However, there was a German band in attendance, he said.