Midweek Review

Sirisena Cooray: The manager of victory

Published

3 years ago

2021/12/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

Premadasa with Cooray

By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

My mother told me, decades later, that she was sure Sirisena Cooray knew I was under 18 when he let me slip into the cinema in my long-trousers for the 9:30pm show for movies that were ‘adults only’, having conspired with my father. She remembered Mr. Cooray laconically saying “wait till the lights go off”. What surprised me was that my mother, too, had spotted our scam. Sirisena Cooray was the manager at Ceylon Theaters, which was the role in which Killi Rajamahendran became his lifelong friend. The two friends died in the same year. Cooray had tossed Killi and his brother out of the cinema for some infringement.

That was his day job, or rather, his on-the-books job. Off the books he had already started on his vocation. That was as the righthand man of Ranasinghe Premadasa. Cooray’s elder brother Nandisena was Deputy Mayor of Colombo. Premadasa used to visit Cooray’s father. As a young man heading the Sucharitha Movement, which he had founded, while a student of St Joseph’s College (Godfrey Gunatilleke once told me that Premadasa had been his classmate, except he had been Premadasa Ranasinghe at the time, not Ranasinghe Premadasa), Premadasa had already cut a figure in the ’hood.

Sirisena Cooray’s father told him, “If you are interested in politics, don’t hang out with your older brother, he won’t amount to much. Follow that young man, Premadasa, he will lead the country someday”. Young Sirisena took the advice.

Premadasa’s Kid Brother

Sirisena Cooray became, in effect, Premadasa’s younger brother, though he always referred to him in conversation with others as “Mr. Premadasa” and with the man himself as “Sir”. He was a younger brother who played the same role that Raul Castro did to Fidel. Raul was the man who made Fidel’s dreams comes true; who gave organisational shape and material form to Fidel’s soaring vision. Fidel strategised and led the victories; Raul organised them. That is also what Sirisena Cooray did for Ranasinghe Premadasa.

It was Premadasa who started Cooray off in politics. When Nandisena Cooray died, Premadasa wanted Sirisena to run in his place, for a city ward. The United Front coalition government had a two-thirds majority in Parliament, the UNP had lost badly and was internally divided, the powerful Left controlled the city’s politics, and an emergency had been declared because the rise of the JVP had been detected. Cooray won. The shock waves hit. The Sirimavo Bandaranaike government reacted by suspending all local authorities’ elections and appointing a special commissioner, Mr. Fowzie, to run Colombo.

In time, and with Premadasa’s support, Sirisena Cooray was elected the Mayor of Colombo, the first executive mayor the city and the country had. In July 1983 Premadasa and Cooray cautioned President Jayewardene not to permit the bodies of the 13 soldiers to be brought to Colombo for cremation, but he didn’t heed their counsel and caved in to the defence establishment. The nation paid the price.

In 1988,Premadasa, was determined to run for the Presidency, with or without the UNP. That single-minded determination actually helped the UNP because he had instructed Cooray to plan a campaign and set up the organisational apparatus for an independent candidacy. The UNP conceded the candidacy to Premadasa after Ranjan Wijeratne concluded his nationwide survey informing President Jayewardene that neither Gamini Dissanayake nor Lalith Athulathmudali had a chance of winning; only Premadasa did. But the UNP could not mount a campaign. The JVP had paralysed it by killing every UNP organizer and activist it could.

When Ranasinghe Premadasa got the candidacy, in October 1988, the parallel apparatus and campaign organised by Sirisena Cooray for an independent Premadasa candidacy was clicked into place. Against all odds, Ranasinghe Premadasa won, addressing even empty public squares, knowing that poor people were listening behind closed doors (in terror of the JVP). Sirisena Cooray was the manager of that victory.

Lefthand Man

Premadasa had opposed JR’s ban on the JVP. He had over a thousand JVP detainees released, declared a ceasefire and offered the party three portfolios in a coalition government. It refused and returned to war. The Jayewardene administration had fought the JVP from 1986 with limited success. Premadasa took oaths as President in January 1989. In November, Wijeweera and Gamanayaka were dead. A key element in the victory was the Ops Combine, associated in the public eye with Ranjan Wijeratne as Deputy Minister of Defence. However, as Prof Rohan Gunaratne, always close to military intelligence, wrote in his book on the JVP’s second uprising, in reality, the Ops Combine – and Ranjan Wijeratne– reported to Sirisena Cooray.

Once, in a rare moment, on his birthday while sharing a cognac with a few guests, including Ranjit Wijewardena, Killi Rajamahendran and Milinda Moragoda, Cooray rapped the surface of the finely worked round table we were seated at, and said “meke daala thamai JVP ekata gahauvve!” (It was here, at this table, on this surface—where the plans were rolled out—that the JVP was defeated).

When Cooray was called Premadasa’s right hand man, he would occasionally permit himself a half-smile and a twinkle, gently murmuring “some may say I was his left-hand man”. In another mood, when Cornel Perera rolled-in a white chocolate birthday cake with wishes in icing to “the Godfather”, Cooray demurred: “Now, I am only a grandfather”.

After Ranjan’s assassination and Gamini Jayawickrema Perera’s refusal to take the post, Cooray offered to take it and accomplish the task. I daresay he might have. Premadasa refused for two reasons, which he gave his friend, and shared with me when I asked him the obvious question: “Why don’t you give the job to Mr. Sirisena Cooray?” He didn’t want to put his friend in the firing line and risk losing him, and he didn’t want his friend to commit the deeds and accumulate the (karmic) demerit he would have to in order to win the war. If not for his fealty to his friend, Premadasa might have survived and gone on to win a second term.

Self-Effacing

Premadasa entrusted his Housing Ministry to Sirisena Cooray and Imtiaz Bakeer Markar. Cooray and Susil Sirivardhana handled Premadasa’s Gam Udawa programmes.

When President Premadasa wanted the Khettarama stadium built, Sirisena Cooray built that world-class stadium without a dollar in foreign funds; only with the funds of the Municipality which he collected in the requisite quantity by merely changing the periodicity of payment of Municipal rates. When the Free Mid-Day Meal programme for schoolchildren, was kicked off it was through the Colombo Municipality.

Cooray had a wry humour about Premadasa which disguised the love he felt. When asked whether he was the only one Premadasa trusted, Cooray quipped, “He didn’t trust anyone, not even himself. To the extent he did trust someone else, I suppose I was that person”.

During the years I worked with President Premadasa I never met Mr. Cooray. Later, he would joke to his crew, referring to me and a fellow director of the Premadasa Centre (now a respected, courageous political commentator): “ey kaaley api meyaala hambuvelavath naha; ey kaaley meyaala Janaadipathi-ge minissu ney!”. President Premadasa kept things compartmentalised, he and Cooray had their own crews, and in any case, Cooray was self-effacing.

I met him after the Premadasa assassination, at the Sucharitha. Pulsara Liyanage showed him to me saying, “There’s Sirisena Cooray, why don’t you speak to him?” He was seated silently in the row of the main mourners, a little forlorn.

Political Prophet

Sirisena Cooray was conscious of a single political distinction between himself and Ranasinghe Premadasa. Cooray was a UNPer, a party member at 16 and the first member of the UNP Youth League, he proudly claimed. When the UNP boss threatened to sack him, he snorted that he had a life-membership of the party. “Mr. Premadasa was different. He came from the Labour Party; he joined the UNP with Mr. A.E. Goonesinghe” he mused. Premadasa’s ideology was always different from that of the UNP establishment.

While Premadasa was ambivalent about 1956 and SWRD Bandaranaike in that he sympathised with the social overturning of the old elite, Cooray strongly felt that that ’56 was the Great Fall. He was firm in his conviction that without the UNP’s non-racialist/multiracial ideology, the country would fail and without Premadasa’s programmes and philosophy the UNP would fail. In a cover story of Business Today in early 2001, he predicted that the de-Premadasisation of the UNP under its then (and current) leadership would doom it to an average 25% vote. He never confused non-racialism in ideology with minoritarianism in political and electoral strategy: “winning the majority of the majority” was the cornerstone of electoral success, he would often say.

The Ranasinghe Premadasa-Sirisena Cooray combination led the UNP to its highest achievements: victory in civil war, rapid growth with rapid equity, election victories at all three levels of the polity: presidential, parliamentary and local authorities. After Premadasa’s assassination by the LTTE, Sirisena Cooray’s removal as UNP Gen-Secretary and the party’s ideological de-Premadasisation and burial of the Premadasa programmes, the UNP was never to lead the nation again.

Sirisena Cooray proved prophetic. He died a year after the UNP did electorally. He had founded the Premadasa Centre which proved valuable (in keeping the flag flying) but transitional. The Premadasa statue at Hulftsdorp at which the annual Premadasa commemoration is held (I was present at the first, and several after) was commissioned and built by Sirisena Cooray. It has been the starting point of a new cycle of the Premadasa saga, with his only son leading a new party that within months of its break-away from the UNP became the country’s main Opposition. A Premadasa is now the leader of the Opposition, with the potential of rescuing and rebuilding the country as his father and Sirisena Cooray once did, three-and-half decades ago.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

With somewhat muddled foreign policy where are we heading?

Published

19 hours ago

2024/10/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

U.S. and Sri Lankan Marines conduct Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS) drills during Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise in 2023. CARAT Sri Lanka is the largest bilateral military exercise meant to enhance US-Sri Lanka relationship. (Pic courtesy US embassy, Colombo)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Sri Lanka Navy will take command of Combined Task Force (CTF) 154 from the Egyptian Navy soon. Since its establishment in May 2023, US (Capt. Oliver Herion), Jordan (Capt. Ayman Al Naimat) and Egypt (Commodore Haytham Elsayed Khalil), respectively, commanded the unit, one of the five Task Forces that operated under the purview of the US-led Combined Maritime Forces (CMF).

The whole operation is spearheaded by Bahrain headquartered US Fifth Fleet. SLN, under the previous regime led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, joined the CMF in 2023 as its 39th member. Meanwhile, strange bedfellow Argentina is the latest addition to it. To make matters worse for that country, Buenos Aires, under eccentric right wing President Javier Gerardo Milei, wants to make the US dollar its official currency..

SLN disclosed the CMF’s move in a press release dated Oct, 02 under the new JVP/NFF regime that dealt with CTF commander Commodore Haytham Elsayed Khalil of the Egyptian Navy meeting Sri Lanka Navy Commander Vice Admiral Priyantha Perera.

CTF 150 focuses on maritime security in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean, CTF 151 leads regional counter-piracy efforts, CTF 152 handles maritime security in the Arabian Gulf, CTF 153 is responsible for operations in the Red Sea, and CTF 154 is tasked with training, thereby improving operational capabilities to enhance maritime security in the Middle East.

The CMF’s overall strategy should be examined taking into consideration the widening of the Middle East conflict, with Israel simultaneously taking on Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) in Gaza, Hezbollah (Party of God) based in Lebanon and Iran widely accused of financing Hezbollah. In the wake of further destabilization of the region as a result of Israeli ground forces entering Lebanon and Iran firing missiles at the Jewish State in retaliation for terrorist acts committed against it, inside Iran, and elsewhere, the US and the UK bombed Yemen where Iran backed Houthis are trying to disrupt ship movements in the Red Sea. Since Israel launched a war against Hamas, in Gaza, and using that as an excuse, is committing acts of genocide against the Palestinians to create a homogeneous Jewis state, Houthis have meanwhile targeted nearly 90 merchant vessels in the Red Sea to force a halt to Israeli terror tactics to drive out or kill the Palestinians. Hezbollah and other resistance groups from Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, too, are stepping up attacks to turn the tide against the extremist Jewish state.

Sri Lanka is now ironically among the coalition backing Israel battling Iran and Tehran-backed groups on multiple fronts and thousands of our workers are now employed in the Jewish state because of the extreme poverty here. Did Israel, in spite of knowing the impending Oct. 07, 2023 Hamas raid, targeting Southern Israel, conveniently turn a blind eye to pave the way for a sustained offensive? In other words, did Iran backed groups walk into an Israeli trap. The Israeli onslaught appeared to have been a meticulously planned response. The triggering of explosions in pagers used by Hezbollah, or those in some way connected to it in Lebanon and Syria, in the third week of September, before the killing of Hezbollah Chief Hassan Nasrallah, in Beirut, and the Israeli ground invasion, suggested the Jewish State planned a knockout blow against the Iran-led coalition. What Netanyahu did not bargain for is that the present day resistance is made up of committed fighters unlike the Arab armies that met Jewish state’s terror tactics in earlier wars as in 1948 and 1967. Though the Western media tries to paint Iran as the villain over the whole issue, Iran, nor its proxies, have caused needless bloodletting among Israeli civilians. Two major missile attacks that Teheran has so far carried out against the Jewish state had taken extraordinary measures not to target civilian infrastructure thereby hardly harming any noncombatants there. This is unlike Israel that has caused unimaginable harm to Arab civilians.

Outgoing US President Joe Biden’s suggestion that Israel shouldn’t hit Iranian oil or nuclear sites in response to a massive missile strike but consider other alternatives underscored the gravity of the rapidly developing situation.

Whether the world likes it or not, the war in the Middle East, as well as Ukraine, where the US and its major allies (all part of CMF) are trying to wear down Russia, is being politicized. There cannot be a better example than Republican White House hopeful Donald Trump’s declaration that he believed Israel should strike Iranian nuclear facilities in response to the recent Iranian missile barrage.

Those who had compared the decimation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009 by the Sri Lanka military and the war between Hamas and Israel in the aftermath of the Oct. 07 raids, included New Delhi based Narayan Swamy, who served UNI and AFP during his decades long career. While acknowledging that no two situations were absolutely comparable, Swamy, who currently serves as the Executive Director of IANS (Indo-Asian News Service) declared: “Oct 7 could be a turning point for Hamas similar to what happened to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka in 2006. Let me explain. Similar to Hamas, the LTTE grew significantly over time eventually gaining control of a significant portion of Sri Lanka’s land and coast. The LTTE was even more formidable than Hamas. It had a strong army, growing air force and a deadly naval presence. Unlike Hamas the LTTE successfully assassinated high ranking political figures in Sri Lanka and India. Notably LTTE achieved this without direct support from any country??? Well Hamas received military and financial backing from Iran and some other states [emphasis is mine]. The LTTE became too sure of their victories overtime. They thought they could never be beaten and that starting a war would always make them stronger. But in 2006 when they began Eelam War 1V their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran couldn’t have foreseen that within three years he and his prominent group that the world was led to believe as being virtually invincible, especially by the Western media and so-called military experts, would be defeated. Prabhakaran believed gathering tens of thousands of Tamil civilians during the last stages of the war would protect them and Sri Lanka wouldn’t unleash missiles and rockets. Colombo proved him wrong. They were hit. By asking the people not to flee Gaza, despite Israeli warnings, Hamas is taking a similar line. Punishing all Palestinians for Hamas’ actions is unjust just like punishing all Tamils for LTTE’s actions was wrong. The LTTE claimed to fight for Tamils without consulting them and Hamas claimed to represent Palestinians without seeking the approval for the Oct.7 strike. Well two situations are not absolutely comparable. We can be clear that Hamas is facing a situation similar to what the LTTE faced shortly before its end. Will Hamas meet a similar fate as the LTTE? Only time will answer that question.”

In a way, the circumstances of the ongoing Middle East conflict and the emergence of Tamil terrorism here is so dissimilar, the situations cannot be compared at all.

GoSL stand on ME conflict

In the first week of January, this year, the then President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief, in addition to being the Defence Minister, Ranil Wickremeisnghe, declared his intention to deploy an SLN vessel in the Red Sea in support of the ongoing CMF operations. The specific US-led effort meant to overcome the Houthi challenge was called ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian.’ In spite of statements attributed to various spokespersons at that time, we are still in the dark as to the actual implementation of Wickremesinghe’s directive.

How could Sri Lanka undertake such a costly deployment in the absence of at least one properly equipped vessel to operate in missile and drone environments at a time the Wickremesinghe administration claimed it couldn’t hold Local Government polls for want of sufficient funds?

Why on earth Wickremeisnghe wanted a role for SLN in ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’, launched in Dec. 2023, when some of Washington’s allies were skeptical about the initiative?

With the further deterioration of the Middle East situation, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government should take stock of the situation. Jathika Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) leader AKD, in his capacity as the Commander-in Chief of armed forces and Defence Minister, should receive a comprehensive briefing regarding the current situation.

In the absence of a properly constituted foreign policy, Sri Lanka found itself in a deepening quandary. The armed forces, as well as the JVP that had been at the receiving end, in 1971 and 1987-1990, of the counter-insurgency campaigns, need to work together in an environment caused by AKD’s unexpected triumph over the two-party system.

Let me examine the JVP/JJB stand on the SLN’s Read Sea deployment as desired by Wickremesinghe. It would be pertinent to mention that the SLN joined the CMF during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President.

On behalf of the JVP/JJB, Sunil Handunetti strongly condemned Wickremesinghe’s declaration on the Red Sea deployment. The former JVP parliamentarian questioned the rationality of Wickremesinghe move while warning of dire consequences. The one-time head of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE), a vital parliamentary watchdog committee, accused Wickremesinghe of joining a US-led effort supportive of Israel. Warning Sri Lanka could earn the wrath of certain countries by participating in such US-led endeavours, Handunetti asked whether President Wickremesinghe could decide on active participation in an international operation.

Against that background, President AKD and his Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath should make Sri Lanka’s position clear in respect of the Middle East conflict. Regardless of the country heading towards parliamentary elections in a couple of weeks, the President will have to keep an eye on developments as various interested parties pursue strategies which may not align with our own.

The developing situation in Lebanon, as well as Syria, compelled the Foreign Ministry to issue travel warnings in respect of both countries while keeping its options open on Israel. The second Iranian missile barrage carried out against Israel in October obviously didn’t influence Sri Lanka to issue a travel warning. Iran mounted its first bombardment in April also this year. Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic missions both in Tel Aviv and Beirut.

Developing dilemma

One can easily understand bankrupt Sri Lanka’s dilemma when India finds itself in an unenviable situation. In spite of denials at different levels, India made ammunition, explosives and other equipment that are used by Israel and Ukraine, with the latter using them against Russia, one-time major supplier of armaments to India. The late Indian Foreign Secretary J.N. Dixit, who at times behaved like a Viceroy when he was their High Commissioner in Colombo in the ’80s, in his memoirs ‘Foreign Policy Makers of India’ defended Indira Gandhi’s controversial decision not to condemn the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan due to their heavy dependence on the Soviet Union for defense needs.

New Delhi obviously cannot ignore Washington’s requirement to ensure a steady supply of ammunition to Israel and Ukraine alike.

Reuters declared on Sept. 19, 2024, following the publication of a New Delhi datelined exclusive headlined “Ammunition from India enters Ukraine, raising Russian ire,” India’s Foreign Ministry described the report as ‘speculative and misleading.’

The news agency quoted Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal as having said: “It implies violations by India where none exist and, hence, is inaccurate and mischievous.”

“India has been carrying out its defence exports taking into account its international obligations on non-proliferation and based on robust legal and regulatory framework, which includes a holistic assessment of relevant criteria, including end user obligations and certifications,” Jaiswal said.

The bottom line is that even strategic alliances are changing or done away with. India-Russia relationship, built largely on defence ties, can be cited as an example. Indian’s backing for Ukraine and Israel meant that the former’s role in the world stage has undergone a drastic change. That is the undeniable truth.

India skipped the U.N. General Assembly vote on February 23, 2023 on a resolution that underscored the need to reach as soon as possible a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace” in Ukraine in line with the principles of the U.N. Charter. India won’t condemn Russia over the war in Ukraine either. But, that wouldn’t prevent New Delhi from supplying Israel and Ukraine while Indians serving with the Russian Army battling Ukraine remains an issue. New Delhi, too, is obviously playing both sides like most of the Arab regimes when dealing with Israel and the issue of hapless Palestinians as we have explained earlier.

In the run-up to the presidential election here, the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government was accused of turning a blind eye to ex- and serving military personnel joining Russia. Although both Russia and Sri Lanka promised to address the concerns of men on the Ukrainian-Russia front, as well as their families, the current situation is not known.

The former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC, intervened in this matter and ex-Defence Secretary General (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne, especially, visited Moscow to explore ways and means of reaching consensus on the issue at hand. However, the AKD administration should examine the whole issue afresh as combat experienced Sri Lankans serving with foreign forces can be a social issue.

We know Sri Lanka paid a heavy price for failing to take remedial measures after Sri Lankans reached Syria during the Yahapalana administration (2015-2019). Had the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government acted on a warning issued by its own Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, as advised by the intelligence services, the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage may have been avoided.

At that time, some speculated that 45 persons of nine families joined ISIS – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Taking into consideration the arrest of four Sri Lankans by Gujarat police on terrorism charges during the general election in India, the new government should also pay attention to emerging threats. The arrests, last May, proved that security concerns remain. However, the All Ceylon Union of Muslim League Youth Fronts (ACUMLYF) repeatedly questioned the failure on the part of the previous administration to take up this issue with India.

In response to The Island queries, the grouping’s President Sham Nawaz said that though they had made representations in this regard to the then State Foreign Minister Tharaka Balasuriya in the first week of June, the Foreign Ministry at least didn’t bother to respond. In fact, there hadn’t been any response whatsoever until the change of the government in September. Perhaps, Nawaz should make representations to new Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath.

Another US ship

Sri Lanka will receive another mothballed US Coast Guard Cutter, gratis, courtesy the USA. Over the years, the US transferred three Coast Guard Cutters to Sri Lanka, also gratis. The transfer of the fourth US Coast Guard Cutter will take place during President Dissanayake’s tenure, perhaps mid next year and marks a significant development in bilateral relations. The US intention to transfer the vessel was announced in late February this year during Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma’s visit. Verma also visited the site of the West Container Terminal (WCT), a deep-water shipping container terminal in the Port of Colombo. The WCT, is being constructed by Colombo West International Terminal (CWIT) Private Limited with $553 mn in financing from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. But the real danger is we are being increasingly dragged into a quagmire of American making vis-à-vis the bloc led by Russia and China. As the old saying goes there is no such a thing as a free meal. Let us hope comrades who are leading us now realise it as well before it is too late.

The CWIT is a consortium consisting of India’s largest port operator, Adani Ports & SEZ Ltd., Sri Lanka’s major listed conglomerate, John Keells Holdings PLC, and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority. The consortium is set to develop the CWIT on a Build, Operate, and Transfer agreement, for a period of 35 years.

The US investment at the Colombo Port should be viewed against the backdrop of Chinese presence at the Colombo Port, in addition to China having Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease and other projects. India is keen to expand its influence here and, as a Quad member, seems to be working with others (the US, Australia and Japan) to bolster defence ties.

The expansion of China Bay, the Trinco-based No 03 maritime squadron, is a case in point. The squadron that had been moved to China Bay five years ago consists of Beech King Air B-200 and Dornier 228. A Beechcraft King Air 360ER equipped with cutting-edge technology is to be inducted to the squadron tomorrow (10) to further boost SLAF’s ability to patrol its waters and address maritime threats. The US is the donor of Beechcraft King Air 360ER.

Another maritime surveillance aircraft is expected to join the squadron before the end of this year. The donor is Australia that provided two patrol boats to SL years ago and paid for fuel for vessels engaged in anti-human smuggling operations. What we need to understand is the support received as part of the often repeated free and open Indi-Pacific strategy pursued by Quad. Valuable support received/offered for enhancement of Sri Lanka’s hydrographic capabilities from Australia and Japan should be considered accordingly.

Midweek Review

Ahambakaraka : A postscript

Published

19 hours ago

2024/10/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Ashanthi Ekanayake

Liyanage Amarakeerthi’s Ahambakaraka, received much attention when it was first published and then went on to win many accolades. The most recent among them was the Vidharshana Literary Prize for best translation in 2024. It is a novel with immense possibilities and offers multiple readings and interpretations. When it first came out, it received the attention of Captain Elmo Jayawardena, who is also a writer of some substance. He wrote a comprehensive review of the novel in The Daily News of 19 October 2016.

In his review Captain Jayawardene describes the protagonist of the novel, Bandula Balagalla, using a somewhat unfortunate turn of phrase, and twists the “born with a silver spoon in the mouth” into a different expression which will not be quoted here. It must be said that a reader’s take on what is read depends entirely on their world views, the theories of reading they encounter, and also mainly the experience they gain as readers.

As the translator of the novel under discussion of which the English title reads as The Maker of Accidents, I must say that what motivated me to translate the novel was these very same possibilities for multiple readings. The novel offered among other things a reading which aligned closely with Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of habitus, capital and power. This brief attempt is simply an opening to the immense possibilities of the novel. I will unfortunately not be able to deal with the topic adequately and do it justice but I will try my best and leave a deeper exploration for another occasion.

In many of his works Bourdieu describes these notions as that which inscribe in us a certain social status. Amarakeerthi’s novel while dealing with the socio-political upheavals which span a wide period of time also brings out these aspects of society as presented by Bourdieu.

Bandula Balagalla is an affluent man and his conduct and his aspirations, or lack thereof, create in the mind of the reader the image of someone who has everything in life and can live without being burdened by new ambitions. He can simply live a contented, if self-centered life. The novelist creates some doubt in the reader’s mind by making the reader challenge the notion of BB as the protagonist because the narrative describes him as a smug, self-satisfied person in contrast to Vijaya Wickramasinghe who in addition to all other drawbacks has to also resort to being mute for simple survival and thus be denied language and the use of it to his advantage.

Language and the “symbolic power” languages have, as discussed by Bourdieu is a primary if mostly ignored theme in this novel. Balagalla strives to create a space for language in his township as does the novelist by giving prominence of place to the different languages the characters resort to. Radha is a teacher of language and performance. For her language is performance. Language is in the Marxist sense a commodity in the novel as described by the narrator. When engaging in the translation, too, I made a conscious effort to use language suited to the different characters. Some were anglophiles, and they might not code mix or code switch easily, and they would attempt to sound more “English.” Some were more at ease with the Sri Lankan English variety. Some would use “broken English.” As a teacher of language this was partly my fascination with the novel.

Translating some Sinhala turns of phrase turned out to be a gratifying exercise because of the novelist’s natural playfulness with Sinhala and language as a whole. Just as the protagonist made up the rules of his game similarly the novelist too played with language. Rather than being obstacles, the quaint expressions and the intricate plot made me realize how correct I was to see the immense potential it offered for a “Bourdieusian” reading.

To put it simply Bandula Balagalla through his upbringing and privileged position is always at ease in any situation. This is a clear manifestation of habitus as explained by Bourdieu. He has symbolic, cultural and linguistic capital. He in fact has everything Wije does not have. Radha, who is from a more middle class upbringing and background is also somewhat “vulgar” in her aspirations in comparison. A case in point is her venture “to make ladies” of the lady-doctors of Kurunegala. Balagalla has good taste in food, music, other matters of life-style and also literature. The first narrator attempts to compete with Balagalla’s taste in literature in this sense. The ironical choice of name for the bookstore i.e. Tower of Babel is a case in point of the sense of power Balagalla wields. He has cultural, and social capital. He is well connected and he is almost native like, not simply in his use of English but also by disposition. He has the right connections as the occasion calls for. In contrast Wije with his rags to riches back story has economic power but is lacking in all other aspects. This is what he pursues and hankers after. Although he is good at “hustling” he is lacking in other ways. Here the question of class and social prestige also come into question. The Balagalla Wallauwa provides Bandula Balagalla with social standing and the right type of connections and also an inbred (in the sense of innate), or even inculcated cultural awareness which helps him navigate society. Social, cultural and symbolic capital need to be accompanied by the “economic” to help a person gain distinction. The crowns and swords that Wije seeks are but symbols of prestige which he is continuously denied. He seeks social mobility and believes that he will gain it by being in possession of these symbols which are part of what the Balagalla estate entails.

This is in fact the most thrilling aspect of the novel. One does not have to be limited to Bourdieu’s theories. However, it cannot be denied that Ahambakaraka, which means the maker of accidents or alternately the planner of coincidences is a rich novel as it offers multiple readings.

There is an interesting plot, full of twists and turns which will be gratifying for any reader. However, if one seeks to read deeper and engage with theory it does not disappoint. The three women for whom the novel is initially written are also a fascinating aspect of the story. The characters are so intricately developed and thought out that a feminist reading of the female characters also proves to be a fruitful endeavor.

My ultimate aim was to highlight these very obvious aspects of the work which were not addressed in the earlier reviews.