Reply to Gananath Obeyesekere
by Raja de Silva
Obeyesekere, Gananath 2019.
The Buddha in Sri Lanka Histories and Stories.
London: Routledge. 336 pp.
The author [GO], an eminent anthropologist, has rejected the evidence (archaeological and literary) that I depended on in my interpretation (de Silva, Raja 2002, 155 pp) of the meaning of Sigiriya and its paintings: that the site was a monastic complex and the paintings were representations of the goddess Tara. He has criticized my thesis (1) by resorting to assertions, several untrue and the rest of no merit and (2) by asking rhetorical questions. He has mentioned without criticism the interpretation of Sigiriya by Siri Gunasinghe (SG) (2008), his friendly colleague of the Peradeniya University. SG’s thesis is that (1) Kassapa built a palace at Sigiriya, and was the patron of the paintings, (2) that the paintings do not represent the goddess Tara, but depict nondescript beautiful women. It should be noted that (1) above is the unquestioning acceptance of that story in the 13th century literary work, the Mahavamsa (Mhv.) regarding the alleged building activity of Kassapa I, datable to the 6th/7th century. All the archaeological evidence at the monumental complex, which is to the contrary, has been ignored by SG and GO.
My later study of the many aspects of the Sigiriya paintings (de Silva, Raja 2009. 220 pp) does not seem to have come to GO’s notice; there, I gave a detailed response to the stand taken by Siri Gunasinghe, and described it as a flimsy tissue of untenable conjectures (pp. 175-183).
This is an appropriate place to record the most notable of GO’s assertions and give my comments on them.
Assertion 1. GO states (2019, p.146), regarding my attitude to the reliability of the Mhv.
‘Raja de Silva rejects the Mahavamsa totally’.
Comment 1. What I did state about the Mhv. is (to quote from de Silva, 2002, p. 7)
‘Considering the pattern of omission of historical facts demonstrated above, it is evident that the Mhv. Cannot be relied upon to be an authentic record of secular history in the absence of other corroborative material’. (emphasis added)
GO’ s assertion, therefore, is not true.
Assertion 2. Furthermore, GO states (p. 148)
‘Gunasinghe does not deny all of the Mahavamsa story as de Silva does. For example, he agrees that Kashyapa established two monasteries in honour of his two daughters and himself’.
Comment 2. This is a distortion of what I have written (See Comment, above; Sig. & Signif. 2002, p. 9 1.4). 1 have not denied the Mhv. story of the religious works of Kassapa I, and I did mention (before Gunasinghe, 2008) his building of two viharas named after his daughters.
‘Kassapa built a vihara in the garden known as the Niyyanti Garden and named this vihara too after his daughters (Mhv.’39, v. 14)’.
Assertion 3. GO has commented on my attitude to the Mhv.vis-a-vis my interpretation that Sigiriya was no pleasure dome, capital, fortress of Kassapa I, but a monastic complex (p.149). His assertions as numbered by me are
i. ‘Paranavitana’s main hypothsis is that Sigiriya was a cosmic-city modelled on the basis of Kuvera’s palace’.
ii. ‘De Silva’s basic thesis wipes out the Mahavamsa account from the slate’
iii. ‘Kashyapa in this [de Silva’s] account becomes a kind of nonentity’.
iv. ‘The actual monastic complexes were pre and post Kashyapa’
Comments. 3. i. GO is referring here, with approval, to Paranavitana’s long paper entitled Sigiriya, the abode of a god-king (JRAS(CB) 1 n.s., 129 – 183. But here is the rub: GO does not refer to my paper (de Silva, Raja 2005, 223 – 240) where I criticized in detail Paranavitana’s god-king theory. This assertion, therefore is of no value.
3, ii, iii, iv. My monastic interpretation of Sigiriya does not entail denying the Mhv. in toto, but only where the compiler writes of a grand palace for Kassapa I on the summit. To explain, let me quote from my thesis (Sigiriya and its Significant, p. 11)
‘The Mhv. has recorded that Kassapa I built a vihara in Sigiriya and named it after himself and his two daughters. All these literary records (detailed above) indicate that Buddhist shrines existed on and around the Sigiriya rock before, during and after the rule of Kassapa 1’.
Furthermore, I have conceded there that, as recorded in the Mhv., Kassapa I had built a surrounding wall, a lion-staircase house, and a vihara. I discussed the question of the palace Kassapa I was stated to have built, and concluded (ibid. pp. 12, 13, 14)
‘It is reasonable to conclude, from the foregoing critical look at the references in the Mhv, that the story of a palace on the summit of the Rock cannot be true’
The assertions made by GO have no merit.
Assertion 4. Regarding my interpretation of Sigiriya as being a monastic complex, GO has asserted
‘On the face of it Raja de Silva’s argument that Sigiriya was a monastic complex is a persuasive one.’
Let’s face it, GO has softened the blow, but the fact remains that he has shown his hand: intrinsically, he has summarily rejected my thesis. I have spent much thoughtful time (Sigiriya and its Signifiance: 5 – 14; 63 – 65) on the evidence of the literary record, and (ibid: 15 – 62) on the archaeological evidence at the site, to show that Sigiriya is a monastic complex.
GO has not given reasons for his rejection; instead of meeting my arguments, he has posed two questions (the second in exasperation), given below, that I am prepared to answer:
i. ‘If indeed Sigiriya was entirely a monastic complex and in general the Mahavamsa extols such achievements, why did it ignore this case, especially because Sigiriya was a combination of both Mahayana and Theravada according to de Silva?
ii. ‘And why on earth did they focus instead on Kashyapa?
Comment 4. i. The Mhv. did not ignore the case of Sigiriya from the religious point of view. My Sigiriya and its Significance 2002: 10 shows that 2/3ds of the page is devoted to Mhv. records of Mahayana-Theravada viharas built by several kings at Sigiriya.
ii. Gott im Himmel! Careful reading of the Mhv. would show that far from focussing on Kassapa I, instead of on Sigiriya (as GO wails) the Mhv. compiler has recorded works of this king at Sigiriya (See Comment 2 and 3.ii,iii, and iv, above).
The assertions made above, disguised as rhetorical questions, are shown to have no basis.
Assertion 5. GO has published further critical assertions about my monastic complex – interpretation of Sigiriya. He has stated (Buddha in SL: 150)
`If indeed Sigiriya was a monastic complex, how does one reconcile the wonderful gardens with its many ponds and fountains with the ascetic tradition that our author thinks was characteristic of his version of Buddhism T (question mark included by me).
Comment 5. This is another distortion of what I have stated (Sigiriya and its Significance: 52). 1 have not stated that the ascetic tradition was characteristicof my version of Buddhism (at Sigiriya). To the contrary, I stated
‘The terraces of the cave shrines which have been in occupation for more than a millennium, show development (emphasis added) from the initial residential quarters for ascetic monks to serve larger purposes connected with the introduction of Mahayanist forms worship of dagobas, the Buddha and female bodhisattva statues and statuettes, and the rituals connected thereto’.
Elsewhere (ibid:106, 123), 1 have described the abode of Tara, Mount Potala, with its forested trees bearing fruit, creepers, fragrant flowers, frequented by birds and cooled by water-falls. I have also shown that Sigiriya (taken symbolically as an island) with its gardens, parklands, thickly wooded areas difficult of access, intricate water-ways and fountains, fits the description of Mount Potala; I have concluded that the significance of Sigiriya is that it was another Mount Potala, the abode of Tara.
I have also shown (ibid.: 63 — 65), that literary light shed on ancient viharas shows that they had beautifully laid-out gardens.
Assertion 6(1) GO has criticized (Buddha in SL, p. 150) my detailed identification of the Sigiriya paintings with the goddess Tara; I had done this by utilizing the known iconography of Tara (as given in several Mahayana sacred texts) with such information elicited from a study of the Sigiriya paintings. GO’s view of iconography for this purpose is that ‘We must, I think, be cautious in our interpretation of iconography’.
He goes on to recommend that one should be able to show the resemblance of the Sigiriya Taras to other Taras; that one ought to be able to demonstrate that this iconographic representation of Tara can be verified on the basis of similar archaeological features in the record of of South Asia.
Comment 6(1). Since I have not done as he would have wished, he says that the female figures have to be taker} faith as those of Tara. This is an example of the difference between the two cultures – the scientific attitude on the one hand ,,and the arts and humanities on the other, as descried by CP Snow, the scientific writer. 1, having been educated in the scientific attitude, believe that the simplest theory is the best: it is a fact that n established iconographic features peculiar to Tara (as stated in sacred books of the Mahayana Buddhist pantheon are identical with n of the same features seen in the Sigiriya paintings. I shall be specific for the information of a reader who has not seen my book titled Sigiriya paintings ntings (2009: 96 – 122). 1 have identified there ten special iconographic features showing such identity, i.e., n 10. 1 have also shown, earlier, that
‘The similarity between Mount Potala and Sigiriya is derived from design. The significance of Sigiriya, then, is that it was another Mourit Potala, the abode of Tara’.
– Sigiriya and its Significance 2002: 123
It is safe to take it that these items of identity with characteristics of Tara are not accidental but have been introduced into the Sigiriya paintings by design, and the paintings represent Tara.
Besides, the greater the number of paintings there are in which these traits of the Tara iconography are to be seen, the greater is the confidence in my mind, that the paintings do represent Tara; and in Sigiriya, there are to, be seen many such paintings in the fresco pockets and and elsewhere (24 figures).
There is no need for me, then, to go to other countries for comparison in order to further support my case. See NA Jayawickrama (2002) and Richard Gombrich (2002) for their approving comments on my thesis. So, GO is loath to accept my interpretation, which he criticizes.
He takes the step of using euphemistic language to induce readers not to readily accept my reasoning: he warns them to be wary about the usefulness of iconography, i.e., to be cautious about accepting my conclusion (Buddha in SL, p. 150). Thus, he sidelines my interpretation, which is based on iconography, the only way an art critic can identify the (human) subject of an ancient paint ng that is not named by the artist concerned.
GO’s attempt to devalue the usefulness of iconography in art criticism is baseless.
Assertion 6(2). GO asserts (Buddha in SL, 150) that there is, for me, an insurmountable hurdle concerning my Tara-interpretation:
‘He refers to Mount Potala as the abode of Tara which is true: but we know that Tara’s consort is Avalokitesvara and he is indeed the main deity in Potala and in most of Mahayana. There is no mention of Avalokitesvara in the famed monastic complex of Sigiriya, supposedly strongly influenced by Mahayana, according to de Silva.’
Comment 6(2). 1 cannot accept GO”s argumentum ex silentio (that there being no mention of Avalokitesvara, the paintings cannot be of Tara) for the following reasons.
Though Tara and Avalokitesvara both have their abode in Mount Potala, Tara who was early recognized an assocate of Avalokitesvara and a bodhisattva gradually became known as a goddess (“in the seventh century Tara is established as a deity in her own right, and is said in particular to save devotees from eight great fears “(Paul Williams 2009: 225, which GO has noted in his biblgraphy); Miranda Shaw 2006: 314 states “Literary sources, too, trace a rapid expansion of interest in Tara, first as an associate of Avalokitesara and then as an object of reverence in her own right’. Oral traditions in religious practice existed for several centuries before they were put down in writings, as shown by AK Coomaraswamy (1932) 1994: 97. Thus, hymns to Tara written down in the 7’1′ century would have been in oral usage several centuries earlier, just as much as the the hymn about Tara composed by Matrceta in the time of King Kanishka co. AC 218 – 151 would have been known and chanted for several centuries before being put down in writing (See Sigiriya and its Significance 2002: 90. Therefore, we can take it that when the paintings were done in Sigiriya (co mid-6th century AC Tara was being worshipped in her own right (See ibid. 2002: 107 – 115 on dating of the paintings),
GO’s complaint that there is no mention of Avalokitesvara in my interpretation is of no value.
The accumulated archaeological evidence unearthed from more than a century of fieldwork at Sigiriya, and reported in ASCAR, was used by me (together with evidence from ancient Buddhst literature) in interpreting the meaning of the vast complex: it is a series of Buddhist monasteries. GO has presumed to dismiss this thesis without devoting even one sentence to considering/ appreciating this major archaeological and literary evidence.
I say to GO in the slightly altered words of Alexander Pope (18th century)
Know then thyself, presume not Goddess to scan, The proper study of mankind is Man.
George Floyd, African-Americans, and Sri Lanka’s Estate Tamils (Part I)
By Uditha Devapriya
Over two weeks, the George Floyd protests spread practically everywhere. From Kansas to Kenya, from Baltimore to Berlin, they turned into symbols of dissent against not just the racism, but also the xenophobia, of White America.
One of the most haunting images to emerge from the demonstrations was that of a young Sri Lankan girl, draped in the flag of her country, posing defiantly on the streets of an American city. The image and the girl in it attracted both support and opposition, the latter coming from militant Sinhala nationalists who felt she dishonoured a national symbol by using it as a sign of civil disobedience involving a domestic issue of another country.
The response of the nationalists to the George Floyd uprisings was, if at all, amusing. One section of this crowd took to social media to condemn White America for exhibiting its racist, chauvinist face yet again. Another section – no less big or significant – took the opposite stance, censuring those protesting against the murder of a black civilian because, to them at least, Floyd’s murder did not warrant the rampaging and the pillaging of public property. To the latter group, these protests seemed disproportionate to what they regarded as an instance of police authority enforcing the law over a minority community.
The few within the nationalist crowd who did support the raging protests were, even more amusingly, taken to task on social media by another group, this one ideologically opposed to nationalism. The latter crowd seemed to think, not without justification, that the nationalists sharing posts and posting comments against White America were myopic: they seemed to sympathise with George Floyd, but not with the Tamils and Muslims of Sri Lanka, whom the anti-nationalists alleged are as discriminated against over here as George Floyd’s community is over there. Thus both nationalists opposed to the protests AND anti-nationalists critiquing the selectivity of those supporting the protests persisted in comparing African-Americans to the Tamils and Muslims of Sri Lanka.
In that sense the protests taught us two important lessons. Though they don’t form the subject of this essay, they are relevant to it, and hence need to be examined.
Firstly, the inability of many Sinhala nationalists to take their struggle against neo-colonialism and Western hegemony forward. Resistance to colonialism has historically formed the bedrock of the Sinhala nationalist lobby, yet their denunciations of this uprising betrayed a failure to think beyond geographic borders. This came out quite despairingly in their reaction to the only local political party that saw it fit to organise a protest in front of the US Embassy. The government’s crackdown on the demonstration didn’t seem to ruffle their feathers, nor did the point that the demonstrators were making.
Secondly, and just as importantly, the inability of local left-liberal outfits to come up with a proper front, in Sri Lanka, against the George Floyd murder. The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) organised the protest against the US Embassy, while the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) organised a discussion on it online. But neither of these belongs to what is traditionally labelled as “civil society.” The point can be made that the issue at the centre of these protests was not Sri Lankan and that is why civil society ignored it, but that excuse pales away when one considers that the moment sections of the nationalist crowd let out their anger at the US’s handling of the protests, certain social media civil society activists focused their energies more on pointing out the hypocrisy of the nationalists.
Despite the hostile exchanges between the two factions, one particular point brought them together: their comparison of African-Americans to Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims. They underscored this comparison from two different vantage points.
Thus the nationalists who critiqued the protests seemed to believe that, like extremist Tamils and Muslims, African-Americans and other minorities in the US were unfairly questioning the legitimacy of rule by an ethnic majority. Those opposed to the nationalists, on the other hand, inadvertently, by their critique of the nationalists’ sidelining of Tamils and Muslims, equated the latter two with the community which Floyd hailed from. The question to be asked here is whether such an analogy is, if not plausible, then at least tenable.
In 2011, a year before Barack Obama won election for a second term, Vinod Moonesinghe wrote a cogent reply to someone who in an article had wished for a Tamil or Muslim to be elected as this country’s leader. Vinod made two points there: considering Obama’s win as a win for all African-Americans failed to distinguish between his class origins and those of most African-Americans; and equating African-Americans with Tamils and Muslims was anachronistic, given the economically privileged status of the latter two groups.
Taking class and caste into consideration, then, Ranasinghe Premadasa’s election win seemed closer to such a comparison than the potential coming to power of a member of a “minority.” Taking class, caste, AND ethnicity into consideration, the analogy would have to extend, not to Jaffna and Colombo Tamils, Moors, and Malays, or Borahs and Sindhis, but instead to a community that, like the blacks of the US, was imported as dirt cheap labour, cut off from the rest of the population, and supervised under a setup no different to the plantations of the southern US. In other words, the migrant Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka.
Before making an analogy between these two groups, though, it would do well to reflect, very briefly, on the historical trajectory of slavery in the West.
Following the Arab invasions of the seventh and eighth centuries, Europe turned inward. The eminent historian Fernand Braudel has written of a “second serfdom” that sprang up in parts of the continent where feudalism failed to give way to capitalism. The result was the growth of a kind of slavery, white slavery, across the East, in what is now Russia; it’s a testament to the legacy of the trade which emerged there that the word “slave” derived from the ethnicity of those marshalled into it from that region, Slav.
With the influence of the Arabs and the Ottoman Turks after them waning after the fall of Granada in 1492 (the same year Columbus “discovered” the New World), a liberated Europe, discovering hitherto unchartered colonies in the Americas on one side and Australia on the other, gradually instituted a system of indentured white bondage.
It has been estimated that around 67% of all white immigrants to the new colonies arrived there as servants. These immigrants were bound to a contract that compelled them to work for an overseer, without pay, over a specified period of time. Most often such contracts were drawn for those who had a prior obligation to these overseers which they couldn’t meet, such as a debt. Since the government usually didn’t interfere with these contracts, extortion and kidnappings became common, as they would among Africans later on. The situation was such that even in as late as 1910 the US government was trying to put an end to white slavery: the White Slave Traffic Act (or the Mann Act) that year made it a felony to transport women across state borders for the purposes of “prostitution or debauchery.”
Debt bondage, however, applied in the early period only to white immigrants to the white colonies, and the Irish; the difference between their situation and that of African slaves was that the latter were never recruited to pay off an obligation; most of them ended up as lifelong labourers, unpaid and treated as chattel or property. As Liam Stack once observed, “[u]nlike slaves, servants were considered legally human.”
To put this in its proper perspective, the position of those shipped to the sugar plantations of the West Indies and the cotton mills of the southern United States fitted that of neither indentured servants nor wage labourers. The process of recruiting and transporting these Africans, in the long term, thus became, as Gordon K. Lewis put it, “quasi-militarised”, while once quartered in the plantations their owners did everything to isolate the unfortunate immigrants, prisoners really, from the world outside.
Revisionist historians, white and black, have tried to understate the full weight of black slavery, either by pointing at the involvement of African intermediaries in it or by showing that European Christians became as entangled in it as Africans.
Thus Robert Davis (Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters) argues that while the Atlantic slave trade was 12 times as large, more Christians than Africans were captured between 1500 and 1650, while Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (“How Many Slaves Landed in the US?”) contends that of the 10.7 million Africans who survived the passage to the West, “only about 388,000” were shipped to the United States. What these “findings” fail to show is that black slavery was not geographically limited to the US, or for that matter to Western Europe, and that from 1530 to 1780, when more than five million Africans found themselves dispatched to Portugal and Brazil, only about a million Christians were forced into servitude in North Africa, along the Barbary Coast and into the Ottoman Empire.
The Abolitionist movement, no doubt representative of a progressive, enlightened wing in the Evangelical Revival, agitated for African slavery’s end. It did this as much for moral reasons as for pragmatic ones; the rise in Britain of an industrial Whig bourgeoisie over a landed Tory gentry and the expansion of British interests in Asia and Africa had by then necessitated the rise of plantation colonialism. It is hence not a coincidence that African slaves in the British West Indies were emancipated by official proclamation in the same year (1833) that the most ambitious set of administrative proposals were tabled in Sri Lanka (Colebrooke-Cameron) to lay the foundation for the new colonial plantation economy.
Against this backdrop, black slavery soon receded to countries where a white settler class predominated, including Rhodesia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. S. B. D. de Silva in The Political Economy of Underdevelopment refers to these as “settler states”, a distinction I will return to later. In any case, what we have here is the first of many differences between the plight of African-Americans and that of Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims.
Plantation colonialism demolished and also made use of existing traditional political, cultural, social, and economic patterns in much of Asia and Africa. The most immediate result of that, of course, was the impoverishment of the peasantry; in Sri Lanka, as we know, the peasantry most directly affected by these policies remained the Kandyan Sinhalese.
Marx was largely correct in his comparison of British domination of India to that of Ireland. He was more prescient in the implication that the British brought with them to the colonies their experience in subjugating the Irish peasantry. Two policies make it clear to what extent they were following the Irish example in India and Sri Lanka: the expropriation of peasant land, and the pursuit of divide and rule. I shall turn to these next week, and with them, the growth and evolution of Indian migrant labour.
To be continued next week…
The writer can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Imagine yourself being fried and eaten bit by bit
I cannot make up my mind: Is the meat eater, who eats dead animals killed in slaughterhouses, worse than the meat eater who kills the animal himself while eating it?
There is a certain type of person who goes to a restaurant, chooses a live fish, octopus shrimp or snake in a transparent aquarium tank, has it taken out of the glass and killed and cooked in front of him. His only reason for this to himself is that the meat should be “fresh”. In actual fact some people truly enjoy suffering. That, for them, is as important as the taste.
What can I say about people who enjoy eating these foods?
The Chinese Ying Yang fish is fried but kept alive. You can see videos of diners prodding at the face and eyes with their chopsticks while the fish struggles to breathe with its mouth and gills. It is prepared extremely quickly, with care not to damage the internal organs, so that the fish can remain alive for 30 minutes. Fish are the most sensitive of all to pain. Imagine yourself being fried and then eaten bit by bit.
In Japan, Sashimi, which means pierced body, is a common Japanese dish consisting of fresh raw fish or meat sliced into thin pieces and eaten with soy sauce. One kind of Sashimi is Ikizukuri (“prepared alive”) made with live sea beings. Fish and octopus are common ingredients that move on the plate as you eat them. Sashimi could also include live frogs. The frog is stripped of its skin while alive and stabbed delicately with a fork and eaten. One restaurant in Shinjuku serves the frog’s fresh, still beating heart, as starters. Lobsters are not always boiled alive and dead by the time they reach your plate. Restaurants in New York serve lobsters while they’re still alive. They are upturned and diners pick out “belly sashimi” from the lobster which flails in pain for all the time you take to slash and take out his stomach meat. Another common dish in Japan is swallowing live baby eels dipped in vinegar and saké.
In South Korea, Sannakji is a dish that involves hacking the tentacles off a baby octopus and serving them still wriggling. Sannakji connoisseurs enjoy the sensation of the still-active suction cups on the octopus’ arms as they stick to the mouth.
The Chinese cannot be bested for their addiction to cruelty. Live shrimp are put into a liquor called Baijiu and diners bite their heads off while drinking it. This can give you lung fluke disease, but what is more important than proving your manhood by killing a shrimp. In China there is a dish called “Three squeaks” in which live baby mice are dunked in sauce and eaten alive. The reason why it is called “Three Squeaks” is due to the sounds the mice make when grabbed with chopsticks, dunked in the sauce and bitten through.
Raw live baby monkey brain is a very expensive dish eaten by rich people in China and Hong Kong. The chef puts a live monkey beneath a table with its head poking up through a hole. The chef slices the top of the head off and the customers eat its brains while it screams. Fresh baby donkey, or Huo Jiao Lu. The animal has its legs tied and its body held down, while the chef cuts its body and serves the meat immediately to customers.
Live baby duck embryos, just a day from being hatched, are a famous Chinese specialty which is now common in the Philippines as well. In the latter country it is called Balut. The Filipinos eat the egg boiled. The Chinese eat it raw to get the full taste of the egg white, the little yolk left, and the live squirming chick. No wonder the Chinese make such dangerous enemies. They love violence and gore.
Odori ebi or “dancing shrimp” is a Japanese sashimi in which the baby pink shrimp is still moving its legs and antennae while being eaten. The shrimp only dies when chewed. Odori Don is a live cuttlefish whose tentacles twitch as you pour the soy and chew it.
Consuming the beating heart and blood of live snakes is common in Vietnam. You choose the live snake at roadside stalls and they cut it and serve it within a minute. I have seen this in Hong Kong. In China people eat live baby snakes.
Sea urchins are the porcupines of the sea; globular animals with long spines to defend themselves. They live on the seabed. But their spines cannot protect them from human greed. They are caught and served live. Their testicles are a delicacy across the world, specially Europe. The live animal is cut on the plate with scissors and its salty gonads are taken out and eaten raw.
The most common animal to be eaten alive is the oyster which is served alive. Its spine is broken, and its insides are slurped up raw. This was originally a French dish but is now eaten all over.
A famous chain of restaurants in Copenhagen serves salads crawling with live ants supposedly to add a zesty taste. These move slowly because they have been kept in the fridge previously. Wichetty grubs are chewed live in parts of Australia. They are said to taste like nutty fried eggs.
Casu Marzu is a traditional Sardinian sheep milk cheese eaten in Italy. Its specialty is that it contains the live maggots of the cheese fly, which jump about in panic as you scrunch them. Casu Marzu has so much ammonia in it from its faeces that it scorches the tongue. Milk cheeses containing living insect larvae are produced in several Italian regions.
Television game shows that I have repeatedly complained about to the Ministry over the years is Fear Factor and Survivor where contestants eat live insects, spiders, cockroaches and worms. But by the time they take action, the series is already over. Then we start the cycle again with the next series. Man vs Wild is another show in which Bear Gryllis shows his manhood by eating live insects.
What is the word for people who demand food that is so full of pain? Monsters? Ugly terrifying evil beings that are probably a menace to human society as well.
(To join the animal
welfare movement contact email@example.com, www.
The elephant and alli mankada
By Ashley de Vos
In 1999, a proposal was made by the undersigned as President of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, to document from the existing information in the Department of Wildlife Conservation, held in the archives of Mr. Wilson, an erudite Officer, and draw a map showing the original Alli Mankada, as they existed prior to 1977. Many ‘Experts’ objected, that they had all changed. They had all changed, yes, but we were after the Ayurveda solution to the problem, instead of the ampicillin solution of the western educated experts.
As a quick fix an ampicillin solution in the form of an electric fence was promoted and installed at enormous cost. This we all know has failed. These elephants for centuries have travelled from A to B along the Alli Mankada. Today this highway or the Mankada they travelled along has been blocked, and a detour has been introduced. Let’s apply the very same scenario to us humans. We are merrily travelling along the highway with our family trying to get to B. Half way we are confronted with a road block, we are not told why, but forced to take a detour. We have now to travel along narrow roads, not properly sign posted, across unfamiliar territory, meet new people, some friendly, some not, they are agitated, because of the sudden increase in traffic encroaching into their privacy and disrupting their life styles as well. Some put up boards requesting that the traffic should move slowly and hope the detour would be closed down and the highway opened up as soon as possible.
The poor elephant faces the very same scenario. They have travelled the highway, the Alli Mankada for centuries. Suddenly without any warning, due to a politically influenced decision and without a bird brain of thought the elephant highway, the Alli Mankada is closed. The disruption could be a badly located chicken farm belonging to a friend of the politician, an ill designed housing scheme, or the indiscriminate distribution of land usually for political expediency. Remember the people have a vote, the elephants don’t. The elephant journey from A to B, now for no real researched reason has been diverted through new areas. Through villagers have never seen the movement of the elephant herds in their village before. Some of the coconut trees destroyed are close to 10 years of more. They had been safe till the indiscriminate blocking of the Alli Mankada that diverted the herds, via electric fences in a new direction.
It is certainly not the fault of the elephant, but they are forced to suffer, they are shot, they are electrocuted, fed the insane Hakka Pattas. Those who indulge in this method, should lose any good karma that they may have accrued in the past, and be relegated to spend the rest of their million lives in the darkest hell hole. One cannot induce arbitory changes to the Alli Mankada, the fact is that these highways are engraved in the genes, is why we still see elephants climbing Koslanda on their way up to the highest landscapes like Poonagala.
Any good research has to commence from the base not from a contorted half way, leaving elephants on both sides of the electric fence. The cause has to be understood first, to arrive at the real solution. If people have been wrongly settled, if industries have been wrongly placed, if national parks have been compromised, now is the time to change, to get back. To look for permanent solutions, even if it means alternate lands. This would then constitute a permanent solution. To open up the Alli Mankada. We will not need the electric fences or the Hakka Pattas anymore, much to the disappointment of the suppliers. The politicians responsible for creating the illegal encroachments should be taken to task. If the map of the original Alli Mankada could be produced and forwarded to all authorities at least the Officers will understand the possible repercussions of their folly. No one can fane ignorance and say, THEY DID NOT KNOW.
George Floyd, African-Americans, and Sri Lanka’s Estate Tamils (Part I)
Hemasiri begins to unload against Sirisena
- Features6 days ago
Bandu – tall, handsome, gentleman cricketer
- Features7 days ago
Rajeewa Jayaweera: beloved brother, friend, confidante, mentor, and comrade in arms
- Business7 days ago
Extraordinary impairment charges drive Ceylon Tea Brokers into the red
- news6 days ago
20 A: President ready to submit fresh draft
- Features7 days ago
Trapped between a rock and a hard place
- Features6 days ago
Legal implications on claiming damages by SL under international law
- Business4 days ago
Sri Lankan cuisine showcased at ‘Lulu Food Festival’, Bahrain
- Features7 days ago
WHY THE HURRY ABOUT 20A?