In the wake of Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s appointment as President, an unsettling narrative has emerged from a small but vocal group of intellectuals within the Sri Lankan society. This faction seems intent on portraying the National People’s Power (NPP) as a social entity burdened with history of violence, a portrayal that is not only misleading but also dangerous in its potential repercussions for national unity.

The intellectual critique in question often draws upon past events from Sri Lanka’s turbulent history—specifically the insurrections of 1971 and 1988. These events, which were marked by political unrest and significant bloodshed, are being referred to create a negative image of the NPP, depicting it as an organisation with a legacy of violence.

While these incidents undoubtedly left deep scars on the national psyche, the selective emphasis on these periods, while glossing over other equally important historical contexts, is concerning. Most notably, the narrative ignores the three-decade-long terrorism perpetuated by the LTTE, which claimed thousands of lives and posed an existential threat to the country’s sovereignty. This omission, whether deliberate or inadvertent, raises questions about the motives behind such critiques.

Interestingly, this narrative is not confined to private intellectual circles. It has found its way into the mainstream media, including television programmes where a small section of the elite has voiced these concerns. Their views, though presented under the guise of objective analysis, appear to be rooted in specific historical grievances rather than a balanced understanding of the NPP’s present-day policies and leadership.

The portrayal of the NPP as a violent faction is not only misleading but also problematic for the broader national discourse. By continuously referring to past insurrections without addressing the socio-political context in which the NPP operates today, these intellectuals risk fostering division, rather than promoting constructive dialogue about the country’s future.

What is particularly troubling is the potential impact of these narratives on the minds of the innocent populations in the North and East of Sri Lanka. These regions, already burdened by decades of conflict, are especially vulnerable to manipulations of historical narratives. The attempt to seed fear and distrust through selective memories of the past could widen ethnic and political divides, reversing the hard-won progress made in reconciliation and peacebuilding efforts.

The implications of these actions are profound. If left unchecked, this manipulation of historical facts could fuel distrust, especially in communities that are still healing from the traumas of war. Such divisive rhetoric, which paints certain political movements in broad, negative strokes, undermines efforts to foster national unity, which is critical at this juncture in Sri Lanka’s development.

It is imperative that both the government and the informed public remain vigilant in the face of these developments. While free speech and intellectual discourse are essential in any democracy, the dissemination of false or misleading information must be addressed with caution. The current administration, along with media outlets and thought leaders, must prioritise the accurate representation of political parties and movements, ensuring that all voices are heard in an atmosphere of respect and truth.

Furthermore, the intellectual elite must recognise their responsibility in shaping public opinion. Rather than perpetuating narratives rooted in selective memory and old political rivalries, they should engage in constructive dialogue about how Sri Lanka can move forward—socially, politically, and economically. Only by acknowledging the complexities of the past and focusing on the present can the country achieve the progress and development it desperately needs.

In conclusion, the emerging portrayal of the NPP as a faction tainted by historical violence is a dangerous oversimplification of a more complex reality. It is crucial that all stakeholders, from the government to the intellectual elite, approach political discourse with a sense of responsibility and an eye toward the future. Only then can Sri Lanka continue its path toward reconciliation, unity, and sustainable development.

K R Pushparanjan

Canada

One of the key happenings in human history, is the so-called “Industrial Revolution,” that originated about two centuries ago, (principally in Europe, North America and Japan), as the focal points. These are now broadly defined as “Developed Countries.” They distinguish themselves as having higher per capita incomes, and thereby offering their citizens better living conditions than do the “Developing” or “Less developed” ones.

It is tempting yet erroneous, to believe that what prevailed two centuries ago, can be transposed today to other countries including Sri Lanka, presently classified among the “Developing Countries.”

Typically, the industrial era manifested as a movement away from farming and towards machinery driven enterprises. The unspoken corollary is that what worked for them then, should do for us now.

This is a presumption that is unlikely to happen. Although a small tropical country within the Monsoon belt, we are fortunate in being spared weather-related atmospheric perturbations such as hurricanes, cyclones and tsunamis, that assail other similar countries and locations.

Overall, we are fortunately blessed with largely favourable climatic conditions and reasonably fertile soils, to ably support a sustainable, diversified and a seemingly unique mosaic of farming, livestock and forestry. This is worthy of protection.

By virtue of our geography, climate, tradition and aptitude, we are well positioned to be a dominant base for a vibrant Agrarian Economy.

A composite of the sectors deriving from plants and animals, best suits our natural strengths. This leads us logically to seek economic advancement through this sector, with a blend of farming, livestock and forestry, to best support environmental stability as our long-term goal.

Two factors that are poised to impact on Worldwide agriculture, are “global warming” and a looming water crisis. These will affect different regions with differing severity. This has aroused much international concern. Sri Lanka would do well to prepare itself for this eventuality.

In the particular context of Sri Lanka, the priority considerations in the agricultural sector, calling for close and timely attention are as follows:

(i) Correcting weaknesses in the Extension Services which are primarily blamed for under- performance. All officers concerned, would benefit from periodic exposure to training that is designed for upgrading knowledge and sharpening requisite skills.

(ii) The Sri Lankan Agricultural Sector divides into two components, –namely, the Export and Local Crop sectors. Animal farming is set apart, and historically has received less attention. However, the recently expanding poultry industry, has resulted in greater attention to livestock expansion.

(iii) In Ceylon’s colonial history, it was the British, who exercised their sovereignty over the whole island, succeeding the Portuguese and Dutch, who were confined to the coastal regions. Cinnamon was the first crop that attracted the colonizers, this was followed sequentially by Cinchona (Pyrethrum, on a small scale) and Coffee. In the 1840’s, the invasion by the Coffee Rust (Hemileia vastatrix) laid waste the Coffee plantations. Tea took over and rapidly expanded, mainly by encroaching into Highland Forest areas. Little attention was given to environmental and social consequences. Meantime, Rubber plantations dominated in the wetter Lowlands. A while later, attention was directed towards coconut.

Research Institutes – TRI, RRI and CRI were established to cater to the needs of the fast-developing Plantation Crops.

The introduction of Plantation Crops had far-reaching and lasting Economic, Political, Social, Environmental and Cultural consequences. The recently established Minor Export Crops, mainly serviced the Spice Crops Cinnamon, pepper, Nutmeg and Cardamom. Also, Cocoa and Coffee. Sugar, Cashew and Palmyra are crops that are developing their own support structures.

All others are catered for by the Department of Agriculture, whose main efforts are focused on the Paddy sector. This is a sector that had received scant attention from the colonial British, who had an understandable preference for importation of rice from colonial Burma and Thailand.

(v) This cleavage (into export and local sectors), while having several operational advantages, also created problems. These include social and citizenship complexities, arising from the large importation of labour from South India, to develop the rapidly increasing new plantation areas. The early tea estates were in the Central Hills, and also resulted in widespread expropriation of private and peasant- owned lands. This is still a silent concern.

(v) Since it is impossible to balance the requirements and production of agricultural produce, scarcities and gluts are not uncommon. Scarcities are met by imports, while surpluses largely result in wastage. This can be as high as 35% in the case of perishable vegetables and fruits. To deal with such surpluses, obvious remedies include providing better storage facilities with protection from insects, fungi, rodents and other marauders. Such storage could suit Paddy, maize, pulses, peanuts and some fruits.

In the case of vegetables, much fruit and other perishable produce,

post-harvest handling and transport are key needs.

Where appropriate, preservation by simply drying (by Sun, ovens or other equipment), freezing, canning, bottling and packaging are means of coping with surpluses and in most cases, also as a means of value addition.

These are the considerations paramount in developing a profitable and sustainable Agriculture – which will continue to play a key role in the National Economy.

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

by Satyajith Andradi

The Oxford Dictionary of Music compiled by Michael Kennedy is an invaluable source of reference material on the whole gamut of western classical music. Its 1994 second edition has the following entry on Rohan De Saram, in its usual telegraphic language : “De Saram, Rohan ( b Sheffield, 1939 ). Sri Lankan cellist. Studied in Florence with Cassado and later with Casals in Puerto Rico. After European recitals made Amer. Debut in NY, 1960. Settled in Eng. 1972, joining teaching staff of TCL. Wide repertory from Haydn to Xenakis, specializing in contemp. works. Cellist of *Arditti String Quartet.” Rohan De Saram is certainly one of the greatest musicians Sri Lanka has ever produced. He passed away in the UK on 29th September 2024 at the age of 85.

I had the good fortune to see this great musician perform in two occasions. The first was way back in 1975, when my parents took me to see his cello recital, which was given at the newly opened BMICH on 16th August that year. The second was when I took my daughter to his concert at the British Council auditorium on 27th February 2007. There was a marked difference in the type of music he performed at the two recitals. The 1975 programme was dominated by the music of Rachmaninov, Schubert, and Shostakovich, with the first movement of Zoltan Kodaly’s Sonata for Solo Cello added as a sort of outlier. It belonged to the traditional western music repertoire, if you like. In contrast, the 2007 concert was dominated by more contemporary music, although it included pieces by Bach, Beethoven, Rimsky Korsakov, Gabriel Faure, Saint Sean, and Benjamin Britten. The highlights of the evening were Luciano Berio’s Sequenza 14 for solo cello, a through and through avant garde work, and the last two movements of Kodaly’s Sonata for Solo Cello. Needless to say, the two programmes reflected the tremendous change in Rohan De Saram’s artistic orientation from being a performer of classics to that of avant garde music by composers such as Iannis Xenakis and Luciano Berio.

Rohan De Saram was born in the UK on 9th March 1939. He belonged to a well-to-do cultured family. Due to the outbreak of the Second World War, he had to spend much of his early childhood in Sri Lanka. As he showed a special gift for cello playing, he was taken to Europe for his musical education. Initially he studied cello under the renowned Spanish cellist and composer Gaspar Cassado in Florence, Italy. His first appearance as a soloist at the Royal Festival Hall in London was at the age of sixteen. This was followed by performances as soloist at London’s Wigmore Hall and Royal Albert Hall. Winning the Guilhermina Suggia award, enabled him to take master classes from the great Spanish cellist and composer Pablo Casals, who wrote of him: “There are few of his generation who have such gifts” and ” Rohan is already a remarkable cellist of fine technique and musical taste. I can predict for him a brilliant career.”

Casals’ prophesies were to come true. Rohan De Saram had his Carnegie Hall debut at the age of 20. He went on to perform as a soloist with many of the world’s leading orchestras such as the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra under the leadership of renowned conductors such as Adrian Boult, Malcolm Sargent, John Barbirolli, Colin Davis, and Zubin Mehta. During this early period of his career, he was essentially a virtuoso performer of the classics. However, joining the Arditti Quartet in he late 70s as its cellist signaled a turning point in his musical orientations. This quartet specialized in contemporary avant garde music. Henceforth, the main focus of Rohan De saram was on the works of avant garde composers such as Iannis Xenakis and Luciano Berio. He was a member of the Arditti Quartet from 1979 to 2005. As a virtuoso cellist of international renown, he introduced contemporary music to numerous musical audiences throughout the world. His passing away leaves a void in the musical firmament.