Midweek Review

The rise of the Bonapartists: A political history of post-1977 Sri Lanka – II

Published

4 years ago

2020/12/9

By Uditha Devapriya

There were three Bonapartist revolutions in post-independence Sri Lanka. The first was Ranasinghe Premadasa’s election in 1989, the second Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election in 2005 and his re-election in 2010, and the third Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election in 2019. I consider Premadasa, Mahinda, and Gotabaya to be more Bonapartist than fascist, contrary to most accounts of them by the liberal intelligentsia. There is an important distinction to be made, as important as the distinction between the Old Right and the New Right.

A crucial difference between Bonapartism and fascism, with which Bonapartism is often conflated, is that the one responds to the public and the other regiments it. Bonapartism can deteriorate into fascism and it not infrequently does, yet its inherently populist-pluralist character deters it from doing so unless its co-option by a rightwing fringe group makes such a transformation inevitable. The latter point is important.

Here one must consider the first Bonapartist revolution, along with its impact on the Right. Mervyn de Silva called the 1988 election an event of sociological significance on account of who won it. Ranasinghe Premadasa has been called many things by many people. At the end of the day, regardless of whatever epithets or insults, he was, and remained until his passing away, a Bonapartist tied despite his populist trappings to the Right.

Yet, under Premadasa the J. R. model altered considerably. Development theorists of the Left, including Samir Amin, were by then propounding a paradigm of delinking in response to IMF enforced dependence on MNCs. This was the position taken up by the Left as well, and it was in keeping with the Soviet Union’s policy of disengagement. Regarding the latter, it must be mentioned that the intelligentsia of the Third World put forward a different strategy at the height of their influence: a bourgeois modernisation scheme, with emphasis on industrialisation. This is what Sirimavo Bandaranaike tried to adhere to.

As I have noted in my essays on the NAM to The Island, such an approach fell victim to its own contradictions, top among them the inability of bourgeois nationalist elites to take modernisation forward to its logical conclusion. Out of fashion then and out of fashion now, the bourgeoisie opted out of BOTH disengagement AND delinking.

In Premadasa they found the champion of their model: an open economy minus what the latter decried as “old style capitalism” vis-à-vis his predecessor. This, then, would be how the Bonapartist was to shed off the Old Right’s embracement of neoliberalism.

Foreign policy wise, Premadasa differed from Jayewardene’s pro-Western posturing. In 1977 Jayewardene stated that his policy of nonalignment would be “more genuine” that what it had been under his predecessor. Two years later, however, the New York Times reported his famous quote about nonalignment, the US, and the Soviet Union. With the establishment of the Greater Colombo Economic Commission (GCEC), the government tilted definitively to not just the US but also Britain and ASEAN: Motorola and Harris Corporation began building plants “with an initial employment capacity of 1,850 workers.”

Goh Chok Tong’s and Lee Kuan Yew’s visits to Sri Lanka reinforced the belief that Sri Lanka would regain its interrupted journey to becoming the Singapore of South Asia, a prospect promised by the Mahaweli Development Scheme.

This put the country at the backbenches of the pro-Western bloc in the Non-Aligned Movement: while Jayewardene courted Western European and American help, he was careful not to alienate the non-Western bloc. His warm rapport with Fidel Castro, for all the theatrics of Third World unity at the 1979 NAM Conference in Havana, belied his pro-US sympathies, as did his appointment of A. C. S. Hameed as Foreign Minister.

Less well apparent was his selection of Premadasa as an emissary of sorts to multilateral institutions. At the 1980 UN General Assembly, Premadasa called upon developed countries to shoulder their share of responsibility for underdeveloped countries. He was firm on this point: responding to a remark by Michael Littlejohns (of Reuters) that OPEC’s intransigence prevented the First World from aiding the Third, he politely but firmly contended, “You can keep on saying that, but it will do no one any good.”

It hardly need be added that after he became President, Premadasa took positions on foreign policy which contradicted some of Jayewardene’s, such as his expulsion of David Gladstone and his closure of the Israeli Special interests Section at the US Embassy; the latter act went as far as to provoke a confrontation with Stephen Solarz.

At a fundamental level, however, Premadasa’s vision remained bogged down in the IMF paradigm: Janasaviya, after all, was, despite its pro-poor leanings, funded by the World Bank. In other words, it continued to alienate the section of the middle-class – Sinhala Buddhist – which had evolved a cultural critique of neoliberalism.

In the absence of, on the one hand, a strong trade union driven Left movement, and on the other hand an equally strong radical youth movement – both decimated by Premadasa and Jayewardene – the Oppositional space gravitated to a nationalist-populist vacuum. What remained of the amorphous Mahajana Pakshaya (SLMP) gravitated either to the UNP (Ossie Abeygunasekera) or to the People’s Alliance (Chandrika Kumaratunga).

Premadasa courted considerable support among sections of the middle-class as well as the petty bourgeoisie, including artists and the clergy (as seen in the latter’s act of siding with his government after Gamini and Lalith launched their campaign against him). Yet in one respect he remained a part Bonapartist and not a total one: his inability to respond to the cultural critique of his politico-economic paradigm.

This widened a vacuum, filled by the Jathika Chintanaya; the latter’s evolution from an intellectual to a political movement, from Nalin de Silva and Gunadasa Amarasekara to S. L. Gunasekara and Champika Ranawaka, has been charted many times before by several commentators. All that needs to be noted here is that in the absence of a political critique of neoliberalism, especially in the face of neoliberalism’s consolidation by the People’s Alliance under Chandrika Kumaratunga, the cultural critique gained ground.

What helped that critique gain even more ground was the capitulation of the Left to the neoliberal line of the SLFP, as well as the dismantling of the state by the first Kumaratunga government. The latter point is significant, for unlike J.R. and Premadasa Kumaratunga set about rolling back the state while opening up the economy.

As Dayan Jayatilleka has suggested, the cooption of the Kumaratunga regime by NGOs and the new “civil society” did much to provoke the Sinhala nationalist lobby. Incensed, the latter sought a third force. In the absence of a viable Left alternative – for Kumaratunga’s first term was marked by the deterioration of the Left within the People’s Alliance – the critique of neoliberalism soon became a monopoly of cultural revivalists.

It must be noted that the SLFP-PA’s rightward shift did not transpire in a vacuum. After a decade of Reaganomics and Thatcherism, the Democrats in the US and the Labourites in Britain embraced what they euphemistically called “Third Way Centrism”, discarding their Marxist roots while embracing a neoliberal line. In Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, the new SLFP thus had its Western archetypes to look up to, and to emulate.

Jayatilleka has argued that the SLFP-PA’s turn to the right was pragmatist. I disagree: it ended up decimating the Left, something not even three UNP administrations could do and something which paved the way for the nationalist lobby to gain in strength and numbers despite its convoluted, contradictory positions on the economy.

Indeed, the contents of the latter’s economic programme revealed its contradictions: the Sihala Urumaya Manifesto of 2000, to give a sampling, rejected a closed economy while rejecting neoliberalism, acknowledging that while “going back to a closed economy” was “unthinkable” it would, in stark contrast to its opposition to neoliberalism, avail itself “of the opportunities thrown up by globalisation.” Viewed this way, even Nalin de Silva’s campaign against Coca-Cola at the Kelaniya University in the 1990s seems to me more of a cultural rather than a political attack on globalisation; Sinhala nationalism of the petty bourgeois sort, after all, decries neoliberalism and, paradoxically, critiques Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s economic policies for having destroyed the “Sinhala businessman.”

In addition to strengthening the Sinhala nationalist lobby, by axing or relegating to the background the Left faction of the SLFP Kumaratunga not only moved her party to the neoliberal Right, she compelled the UNP to do the same as well.

Surprising as it may seem now, the UNP under Ranil Wickremesinghe originally opposed Kumaratunga over several sensitive issues, such as the proposed Federal Package. In the second CBK presidency, however, the UNP did a volte-face on those same issues. Ironically that time around it was left to Kumaratunga to rein in Wickremesinghe over his overtures to the peace lobby: at the very moment he landed in Washington after “brokering” a peace deal with the LTTE, she took over three Ministries and sacked him. That did not, however, incline her government automatically to oppose the peace lobby, as her experiment with P-TOMS (despite the opposition of the JVP) later showed.

The first Bonapartist revolt had taken place against the backdrop of an extreme Left uprising and widening discontent with an authoritarian rightwing presidency. A considerable section of the middle-class had voted for Premadasa despite their scepticism, but another section – Sinhala Buddhist nationalist – remained alienated from him.

The second Bonapartist revolt, on the other hand, took place against the backdrop of deepening neoliberalism, a rollback of the state unparalleled even by J. R. Jayewardene’s standards, and the internationalisation of a conflict the Sinhala Buddhist nationalist middle-class wanted a military, not a political, solution to. Since the Left could not, owing to the bottlenecks imposed on it, come up with a proper critique of these issues, it was left to the Jathika Chintanaya and its offshoots to so do from a cultural vantage point.

In 2000, Dinesh Gunawardena’s Mahajana Eksath Peramuna joined the People’s Alliance. At the 2000 parliamentary election Gunawardena contested and retained his seat; he would do the same at the 2001 parliamentary election, becoming Minister for Transport and rescuing the SLTB from the moribund state to which it had deteriorated by then.

Gunawardena’s ideology – an impeccable blend of socialism and popular nationalism, not unlike his father’s – provided an impetus to a revolt within the SLFP. That revolt culminated in 2004 when an overwhelming majority of the party stood behind Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid as party candidate for the presidential election. Mahinda revived Bonapartism in Sri Lankan politics thereafter, becoming an heir of sorts to Premadasa; not for no reason, after all, does Dayan Jayatilleka often compare the two with one another.

Where Rajapaksa differed from Premadasa was the acceptance he won among the Jathika Chintanaya ideologues and the Hela Urumaya MPs, as well as the Left (the Old Trotskyite-Communist and the JVP). Not that their tactics and objectives converged totally; the Hela Urumaya for instance sought a wider post-war political agenda than the Jathika Chintanaya. Champika Ranawaka thus campaigned for Rajapaksa in 2005 and 2010 on the understanding that once they achieved their primary aim, the ending of the war, they would enact reforms that would free the public sector from the inefficiencies and the culture of corruption which two and a half decades of untrammelled privatisation had pushed it to.

When he and Rajapaksa disagreed over the direction the latter took towards the end of his second presidency, Ranawaka not only had to leave the government, he had to leave it while being forced to shed his nationalist credentials. In a big way, that says a lot about how Rajapaksa stole the nationalist light from its original torchbearers.

Today, Ranawaka is caught adrift: on the one hand the Sinhala nationalist crowd attacks him as a renegade, while on the other ethnic minorities distrust him over his past. This was summed up at the recent parliamentary polls: despite being given the No 1 preferential vote for the Samagi Jana Balavegaya in Colombo, Ranawaka came second from last to Mano Ganesan; the Sinhala middle-class vote which he coveted went to the Pohottuwa, while the SJB vote trifurcated between the Premadasa Central Colombo bloc, Harsha de Silva’s suburban middle-class bloc, and the Rahuman-Ganesan minority bloc.

In other words, Rajapaksa has become not just a Bonapartist but a total Bonapartist, unlike his predecessor from the UNP. He remained so long after the JVP and the Hela Urumaya left his coalition, and one can argue he remains so even now. As for Gotabaya Rajapaksa and whether he has become a more right-leaning Bonapartist than his brother: well, it’s been a year, and a lot can happen in four years. No assessment of the Gotabaya presidency can be undertaken until it reaches its end. On the face of it, it hasn’t even begun to climb up to its peak. On the legacy it leaves behind will historians be able to record what is, to me at least, the third Bonapartist revolution in Sri Lanka. Until then, we will have to wait.

(The writer can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com)

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Bronze statue for P’karan, NPP defeat in the North and 16th anniversary of triumph over terrorism

Published

22 hours ago

2025/05/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

Canada unveiled the Tamil Genocide Monument in Chinguacousy Park, Brampton, on May 10. The organisers declared the monument honoured the memory of Tamil victims, between 1983 and 2009. The National Council of Canadians Tamils (NCCT), in partnership with the Brampton Tamil Association, the City of Brampton and many other Tamil community organisations, contributed to the project. The 4.8 metre tall stainless steel monument features an outline of Tamil Eelam. The surrounding pillars feature details about the decades of war and genocide, according to the organisers. The memorial is estimated to have cost $150,000.

As Sri Lanka marks the 26th anniversary of its dream-like triumph over terrorism, some of those who spearheaded the successful war effort remain categorised as war criminals without any hearings into such wild allegations before a PROPERLY CONSTITUTED COURT, while those in the West, who brazenly carry out genocides and other war crimes, go scot free.

Successive governments failed to counter wild war crimes allegations showing fealty to criminal white masters not having the backbone to rise above colonial subject mentality and simply be servile to suit their agenda. They intensified pressure on Sri Lanka over the years to appease the Tamil Diaspora who now exercised their rights as citizens of various foreign countries. Canada is a glaring example of Diaspora politics. Two Canadians of Sri Lankan origin were recently elected to the Canadian parliament. Veteran politician V. Anandasangaree’s son, Garry was among the two.

Sri Lanka brought the Eelam War to a successful conclusion in the third week of May 2009. Having crushed the Tigers in the battlefield and restored government control over the entire Northern and Eastern provinces, the armed forces declared the end of the war on May 18, 2009. Within 24 hours of that declaration LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon in a one-time LTTE stronghold in the Mullaitivu district.

The Army cremated Prabhakaran’s body, along with that of others killed in May 18/ 19 confrontations. The then Army Chief General Fonseka is on record as having said that his Army cremated Prabhakaran’s body in the same area and threw the ashes into the Indian Ocean.

The Northern branch of the ruling National People’s Power (NPP), in the run-up to Local Government polls, tried to ‘resurrect’ Prabhakaran in a desperate and shameful bid to win the Northern electorate. The NPP handsomely won the entire Northern region, comprising Jaffna and Vanni electorates, at the parliamentary election and was determined to consolidate its power.

During the LG polls campaign, the NPP declared its intention to build a memorial hall in memory of Prabhakaran and a bronze statue of the terrorist leader, ignoring all the grave crimes he and his terrorist band committed to dismember this country in the name of an Eelam they vowed to achieve. The ruling party obviously disregarded possible consequences as it sought to lure the electorate with catchy slogans that depicted the slain terrorist as their national leader.

The main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the United National Party (UNP) conveniently remained silent on the delicate issue. None of the political parties in the fray criticised the NPP’s declaration to erect a memorial hall and a bronze statue of Prabhakaran in his hometown of Valvettithurai. The SJB obviously felt that a hostile response to NPP’s offer may adversely affect the party at the LG polls. Therefore, the SJB refrained from questioning the NPP’s despicable move.

The NPP seemed to have believed Prabhakaran can be appropriately used in its own campaign. But the Northern and Eastern electorates obviously believed that separatist agenda cannot be advanced by marketing Prabhakaran. Instead, Jaffna voters once again threw their weight behind the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) that once declared the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people.

What really surprised the NPP was why particularly the Jaffna electorate, having backed President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s party at the general election in Nov. 2024 again switched its allegiance to the ITAK.

Whatever the outcome of the LG polls, the NPP certainly owed an explanation to the country as to why its Northern branch promoted a separatist agenda at the expense of national security interests. In fact, the ITAK never ever promised to put up a memorial hall in Prabhakaran’s memory or build a statue of him. The NPP, in a cheap bid to capitalise on public sentiments, particularly ahead of the so-called Vellamullivaikkal commemoration, sought to exploit Prabhakaran’s death.

Former parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran declared the outcome of the Local Government polls in the Northern and Eastern regions as being significant and decisive. The President’s Counsel emphasised that the results proved the Tamil people’s unwavering commitment to their nationalist aspirations, Sumanthiran said so addressing the media at the Jaffna Press Club. The ITAK contested 58 local councils, across the North-East, and secured administrative control in 40 of them.

The NPP should be mindful of the developing scenario in the North, particularly Jaffna peninsula. Obviously, the outcome at the recently concluded polls would boost the ITAK’s chances at the now long overdue Provincial Council elections expected to be held before the end of this year. Ironically, it was with the ITAK support that Ranil Wickremesinghe put off the PC polls last time.

Against the backdrop of severe setbacks suffered by the NPP in the Northern and Eastern regions, the significant drop in countrywide vote, compared to what the party polled at the parliamentary election, must have compelled the top leadership to discuss ways and means of addressing the developing situation.

NPP presidential candidate Anura Kumara Dissanayake polled 5.7 mn votes (this includes 105,264 preferences) in Sept. 2024, the NPP secured 6.8 mn votes at the parliamentary election and now the support recorded a significant drop with the NPP managing just 4.5 mn votes at the recently concluded LG polls. The situation can deteriorate further at the forthcoming Provincial Council polls.

The failure to retain the support of the predominantly Tamil-speaking areas must be a matter of serious concern for the ruling party. Having boasted of uniting the country by bringing both the North and the South under one political banner by winning all electorates, except Batticaloa, at the last general election, the NPP justly suffered a devastating and unexpected setback at the LG polls with its readiness to betray the South.

N&E outcome

President Dissanayake spearheaded the LG polls campaign. Premier Dr. Harini Amarasuriya threw her full weight behind the campaign. President Dissanayake focused on the Northern and Eastern regions as the ruling party quite clearly understood the pivotal importance in consolidating its hold in the former LTTE strongholds. The NPP’s offer to honour Prabhakaran, who fell with his die-hard inner circle in the last encounter with the security forces, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, must have surprised even the ITAK as such a sentimental election promise tend to influence the electorate in a big way. But, the electorate ignored that NPP’s offer and reiterated its commitment to the ITAK.

The ITAK obtained 13 seats to secure victory at the Jaffna Municipal Council. The All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) took the second position with 12 seats whereas the NPP ended up in third place with 10 seats.

The All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) won the Valvettithurai Urban Council while the ITAK took the second place. The NPP was pushed to a distant third place though Valvettithurai was the centre of the NPP campaign, literally backing Prabhakaran’s macabre feats. The NPP ended up with just three seats. Jaffna MC, VVT UC and all other Local Government bodies at Point Pedro (UC), Chavakachcheri (UC), Karainagar, Kayts, Delft, Velanai, Walikamam west, Walikamam north, Walikamam south-west, Walikamam south, Walikamam east, Vadamarachchy south-west, Point Pedro (Pradeshiya Sabha), Chavakachcheri (PS) and Nallur were all won by Tamil nationalist parties.

The outcome at the Vavuniya MC was really interesting. The Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA), Sri Lanka Labour Party and the NPP won four seats each in the 21-member council. However, the NPP won Vavuniya south (Tamil) PS and Vavuniya north PS by winning six seats each and Vavuniya south (Sinhala) PS though it couldn’t secure a majority.

Troops carry Velupillai Prabharakan’s body following his death in a chance confrontation with the Army the day after the government declared victory over the LTTE
(pic Army)

The bottom line is that the NPP cannot be happy with its performance in the Northern and Eastern regions. The NPP must be really disappointed with the beating it received in the Jaffna peninsula where the ruling party released more land held by the military, lifted restrictions imposed within high security zones by opening a vital section of the Jaffna-Palaly road and generally eased military presence.

The NPP repeatedly pledged to release Tamil political prisoners though such a category didn’t exist. That promise was also made during presidential and parliamentary election campaigns last year. The truth is over 12,000 LTTE cadres, either surrendered or were apprehended during the final phase of the ground offensive in the Vanni east region, had been released over the years. The war-winning Mahinda Rajapaksa government as well as successive administrations didn’t resort to legal action against those who surrendered on the battle field.

Whatever the critics say, Sri Lanka has been credited with carrying out a successful rehabilitation programme that paved the way for former terrorists to reintegrate with the civilian population. The ITAK or other Tamil political parties refrained from backing the government effort. In fact, they did everything possible to undermine the rehabilitation programme. The successful rehabilitation project, spearheaded by the Army, exposed the lies propagated by various interested parties hell-bent on undermining the post-war reconciliation efforts.

Retired Supreme Court Justice C.V. Wigneswaran’s allegation had been at the forefront of these destabilisation efforts. During the Yahapalana administration, Wigneswaran caused a furore when he accused the Army in charge of the rehabilitation programme of poisoning 104 detained LTTEers. The declaration that had been made during the US Air Force exercise in the Jaffna peninsula, in August 2016, was meant to attract maximum public attention. Wigneswaran went to the extent of declaring that some of those who survived lethal injections would be examined by the US Air Force.

Having uttered such blatant lies against the war-winning military, in his capacity as the TNA Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council ,Wigneswaran successfully contested the 2020 general election from the newly registered party, the Tamil Makkal Thesiya Kootan (TMTK).

A forgotten war victory

Sri Lanka paid a huge price to bring the war to an end, avoiding civilian casualties as much as humanly possible. The result was that the security forces suffered more casualties. In the absence of a cohesive strategy to counter politically motivated unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, the war-winning Army ended-up mired in controversy. The Army, too, must take responsibility for its pathetic failure to address accountability issues over the years. Thr post-war Army never sought to press the government to adopt a holistic approach as the Geneva–based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the Western powers declared humiliating punitive measures against selected officers on hearsay allegations.

Canada went a step further. Ottawa not only categorised former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa as war criminals by blindly accusing them of gross and systematic violations of human rights, without a shred of evidence, and then, in a similar cavalier way, declared that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide. While blacklisting of six persons, including the two Presidents, took place in January 2023, the Canadian Parliament made the declaration, pertaining to genocide, in May 2022.

Unfortunately, the current government, too, is yet to take tangible measures in this regard as it struggles to cope up with political-economic-social developments as its chief Western benefactor itself is now mired in an economic catastrophe of its own making. The government seems simply disinterested in challenging the continuing western campaign against Sri Lanka.

The worrisome situation should be examined taking into consideration the treacherous Yahapalana administration co-sponsoring an accountability resolution against the war-winning armed forces. The despicable 2015 move shook the public conscience. President Maithripala Sirisena and Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe should be held responsible for the great betrayal. Subsequent action taken by the UNHRC, as well as other countries, cannot be discussed leaving out Sirisena-Wickremesinghe betrayal simply to be on the good books of the West.

No political party represented in Parliament, not even the UPFA/SLPP that gave political leadership during the war, bothered to take it up vigorously in Parliament. That is the ugly truth. Harsh reality is that none of the political parties really want to address this issue. Against the backdrop of the Pahalgam massacre in the Indian administered Kashmir, Sri Lanka should have discussed ways and means of reviewing the accountability issues. Instead, the ruling party ended up declaring its intention to honour Prabhakaran responsible for thousands of deaths, including many civilians, and ruining the lives of many more.

Perhaps the NPP should launch an internal inquiry on its northern branch for acting contrary to the policy of the party. However, if the top leadership had been aware of the move to glorify Prabhakaran in a bid to entice the electorate, the party should seriously rethink its treacherous new Northern strategy.

The final phase

In late March this year, the UK imposed sanctions on four persons, including Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda and General Shavendra Silva, wartime commander of celebrated 58 Division. They played an extraordinary role in Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE, often considered invincible on the battlefield, until the experts were proved wrong. The US, too, blacklisted both Karannagoda and Silva during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency. However, the decision on the part of the US and UK not to sanction tough talking Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka whose leadership ensured seemingly undefeatable LTTE collapsed on the northern theatre of operations is a mystery.

Having backed Fonseka’s presidential bid in 2010, the US may find it embarrassing to sanction the Sinha Regiment veteran. For the British, there cannot be any plausible reason whatsoever not to agree with the US in backing Fonseka’s candidature. Could there be anything as ridiculous as the TNA backing the US initiative, having accused Fonseka of putting Tamil civilians to the sword. Similarly, the TNA backing for Fonseka and the mysterious US and British decision to leave Fonseka out of the sanctioned lists has made the whole selective accountability exercise nothing but a farce.

Successive governments, however, failed to utilise all available information, ranging from US dispatches from its missions in Colombo, as well as other parts of the world, British HC missives from Colombo and Norwegian documents, to build a iron clad defence of our valiant security forces. In fact, 17 years after the eradication of the LTTE, Sri Lanka is yet to reach consensus on countering unsubstantiated war crimes allegations. Sometimes we wonder whether we are represented by top diplomats or ‘diplomuts’ at such high cost to the taxpayer.

Both the US and British wartime defence advisors, serving here on the basis of information available to their respective missions, denied uncorroborated war crimes accusations. Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith of the US made his disclosure in support of Sri Lanka in late May 2011, whereas Lord Naseby on the basis of Lt. Colonel Anthony Gashes’s dispatches from Colombo (January to May 2009) countered the main UN accusation pertaining to the massacre of over 40,000 civilians. Lord Naseby made his declaration in mid-October 2017. But the duplicitous Yahapalana government, having betrayed the country at the UNHRC, totally ignored the disclosure made in the House of Lords.

The SLFP, too, fully cooperated with the disgraceful UNP strategy meant to advance the government’s political relationship with the TNA at the expense of the armed forces. When the writer raised the pathetic failure on the part of the government to utilise all available information, particularly Lord Naseby’s disclosure, the then Cabinet spokesman Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera accused The Island of causing unnecessary friction.

Parliament, as the highest institution in the country, never sought to examine the circumstances under which the Yahapalana government co-sponsored the contentious Geneva accountability resolution at the expense of war-winning armed forces. The writer on many occasions referred to the attacking speech made by Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage at the time of his retirement, but feel the need to mention it again. The Gajaba Regiment veteran, strategist Gallage questioned why he is having to retire as a war criminal after having faithfully and diligently served the country. Successive post-war governments should be ashamed for their failure to mount a proper defence of the armed forces whose sacrifices made Sri Lanka safe for all.

Eradication of the LTTE brought an end to the use of children as cannon fodder. The LTTE indiscriminately used child soldiers in the battlefield, with hundreds thrown into high intensity battles. The LTTE tried forced recruitment of children until the very end as the ground forces approached their remaining crumbling defences in the former Mullaitivu stronghold.

Sri Lanka could have avoided post-war turmoil if retired General Fonseka refrained from being part of the UNP’s 2010 political project. In hindsight, Fonseka’s abortive bid at the presidency caused a crisis and paved the way for western powers targeting Sri Lanka over war crimes accusations.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Storytelling, Fiction and Cinema

Published

22 hours ago

2025/05/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

A scene from the movie ‘Animal’ (2023)

Storytelling has been a medium of joy and entertainment since the inception of human history. The art of storytelling has evolved in the form of an expression of human experiences including the escapades they embarked on, the beliefs and the myths passed down through generations while commingling the imaginations of the human mind.

Since time immemorial, the art of storytelling has passed down through orature, encompassing unwritten, spoken form of stories. The subsequent systematised written form of storytelling is considered to be the cornerstone of a ‘great tradition of fictional masterpieces’.

World’s oldest known written fictional story is considered to be the ‘Epic of Gilgamesh’, written in the Akkadian language, which originated in ancient Mesopotamia four thousand years ago. The epic poem is based on five Sumerian poems written about Gilgamesh, the third king of the Uruk dynasty. The Ancient Greek epic poem ‘The Shield of Heracles’ or widely known as ‘Hercules’ written by an unknown Greek poet is another breakthrough in storytelling. Italian mythographer and historian Natale Conti, in a chapter of his book ‘Mythologiae’ (1567) extensively summarised a range of myths concerning the biography of the legend under his Roman name ‘Hercules’. Homer’s ‘Iliad’ and ‘Odyssey’ written in the 8^th century BC, Mahabharata (4-3 BC) which is traditionally attributed to Vyasa (Vedas), and the Bhagavad Gita (Songs of God) believed to be dated back to the 2nd or 1st century BC, Valmiki’s ‘Ramayana’, which dates back to 7to 3 BCE are referred to as milestones of a great literary tradition emerged in the world through many epics, myths, legends, historical fiction, as well as religious narratives.

Advancing another step forward, world’s first novel ‘The Tale of Genji’ written by Murasaki Shikibu in the eleventh century, was turning point in the conception of a wide array of fictional genres in subsequent times. The fictional literature has greatly influenced the fictional narrative of cinema. The cinema, as a medium of storytelling marked its inception in the nineteenth century. The first silent film with a narrative was “The Great Train Robbery,” a movie with a twelve minute runtime and directed by Edwin S. Porter in 1903. With the release of American musical film ‘The Jazz Singer’, the first talkie to synchronise sound with dialogues directed by Alan Crosland in 1927, marked the ascendency of a global tradition of great talkies, ending the silent film era.

Compared to literary fiction, the cinematic fiction, due to its profound capacity to influence the audience through emotionally impactful and visually rich storytelling and its immersive and captivating nature of moving images are the contributory factors for its enduring audience appeal. The main reason for this is that the artistic medium of cinema has audio, visual and three-dimensional characteristics. This is due to the fact that the text of cinema consists an array of technical and artistic components such as cinematography, editing, music, casting considering the literary ‘Text’.

Elaborating his ‘Dual-Coding Theory’, Allan Paivio, a former professor in Psychology at University of West Ontario, says human memory stores information in forms of ‘Image Codes’ and ‘Verbal Codes’. When an image code is stored in memory, the both image and the words associated with the image are transmitted and stored simultaneously. A verbal code is stored in the mind merely as a word. Based on the ‘Dual-Coding Theory Paivio establishes the theory of ‘Picture Superiority Effect’ which refers to the fact that images are memorable than words because they have more representation in the memory. Therefore people tend to remember information more effectively through pictorial contents than verbal contents in the process of communication. The popular saying “A picture paints a thousand words” reflects this phenomenon.

The cinematic narratives are unfolded by means of both fictions and non-fictions. There is no clear borderline which distinguishes fiction from non-fiction. The term ‘Fiction’ originates from the Latin word ‘Ficto’, means Making, Fashioning or Molding.

A scene from the movie
‘Get Out’ (2017)

In fictions ‘imagination’ of the author or screenwriter acts as a fundamental aspect of the creative process. Even though standard definitions on ‘What is a fiction’ suggest the fact that ‘ Fictions are not based on true events’, the one who fabricates the story, capitalizes on real events or characters to a greater or lesser extent in addition to ‘Imagination’. Human imagination is not a random or accidental occurrence. The Imagination is a byproduct of human memory.

Personal life experiences, societal movements, educational background, psychological characteristics, and the social and ideological formations upon which the creator is based fundamentally influence the generation of this imaginative power.

Accordingly, it can be said that the content created in fiction is not entirely fabricated. There may be some true facts and events embedded in it. There is no specific yardstick that can distinguish a fiction from a true story or a non-fiction story. A Fiction is often created by combining elements of both reality and imagination. The creative work based on empirical facts, real characters, or events is classified as a non-fiction. The both works of art can be categorised as creative narratives. Autobiographies, Memoirs, Travelogues belong to the category of non-fiction. The filmmakers have creatively adapted them in cinematic productions.

A cinematic narrative can either be realistic or unrealistic. Realistic cinematic portrayals explore stories and characters grounded in reality by means of creative re-production or re-enactment of true incidents taken place in the distant or recent past, or an existing social issue or transformation, as well as a character or group of people who are living or dead in society.

In realistic cinematic narratives much emphasis is given to creative re-production and re-enatment. In this creative endeavour the characters or chain of events are depicted with creative changes in time, space, and personal names, by harnessing the facts and fiction.

The realistic cinematic work are often fall under the tags such as ‘Based on true story’ and ‘Inspired by true events’.

The screenwriter is subjected to ethical considerations in realistic cinematic work when real names of individuals and locations are used for creative purposes. This paves the way for maintaining an accountability to avoid harmful interpretations of such characters and not to present false information about any person living or dead. That is the globally accepted method to present the story honestly, accurately, respectfully and truthfully avoiding sensationalism. This is where the importance of in-depth analytical and explorative research on characters and their mannerism, locations, historic incidents intended to portray, manifests.

Professor Stuart Fischoff, a former media psychologist in California State University, emphasising the responsibility of the filmmaker says “Generally the audience assumes the movie is correct. They get their lessons from films and don’t go back to check.so we are cultivating a nation of people who see history through the eyes of a Panaflex movie camera”.

‘Small Things Like These’ (2024), directed by Tim Meilants, based on the novel ‘Small Things Like These’ written by Claire Keegan in 2021 is a clear example for portraying a true historic atmosphere in a movie where its plot focusses on the infamous Magdalene Laundries operational in Ireland between 1922 and 1998. Anthony Maras’ film ‘Hotel Mumbai’ (2018), which revolves around the terrorist attack on Mumbai’s Taj Mahal Palace hotel in 2008 is based on a real-life atrocity inflicted upon hotel residents by terrorists killing approximately hundred and fifty unsuspecting people. Another example for real-time environment of social and economic downturn is ‘Nomadland’ (2020), directed by Chloe Sao, which centers around the lives of senior citizens who chose to live a nomad life by packing their possessions in campervans and set off on the road after becoming homeless during America’s Great Recession in 2008.The movie ‘Nomadland’ was based on the non-fiction book of the same name written by American journalist Jessica Bruder.

On the other hand ‘Unrealistic Cinematic Fiction’ is where the creation is solely based on the imagination and creative grammar of the screenwriter, frequently described as a creative narrative that is imaginatively constructed characters, spaces, events, and objects which are nonexistent in the empirical world. These narratives are based on imaginary spatial and temporal spheres, separated and disconnected from real-life situations. Genres such as science fiction, mystery and horror, animation, fantasy drama fall under this category.

Cinema is a powerful artistic tool that touches the human soul and capable of etching life-long and indelible emotional imprint on human memory, shaping social perception by acting as a mirror reflecting human society. In cinematic creations, the writer’s personal interests, tendencies, and behaviours are transmitted in consciously or unconsciously to society through the characters depicted. Accordingly, various political, religious, and social beliefs, behaviours, ideologies, and trends, particularly those reflected in the personal dynamics and self-expression of the storyteller, can have both positive and negative impacts on society.

In fictional writings, pleasant as well as unpleasant life circumstances the storyteller has encountered are possibly be manifested in their artistic expressions in various ways. After all storytellers are human beings and they possess all the dynamics other humans possess as well. The perspectives and ideologies stemming from their personal beliefs, prejudices they were subjected to, traumatic experiences, marginalisation and alienation they endured, poverty or deprivation they went through, the negative situations such as physical punishment, sexual abuse are permeated in creative work in some way or the other.

A scene from the movie ‘Small Things like This’
(2024)

This is a physiological tendency called ‘Negativity Bias’ which referred to as a cognitive phenomenon where individuals pay more attention to negative information than positive information. The concept of ‘Negativity Bias’ suggests the emotional responses of humans towards negativities are proportionately high compared to positive circumstances of the same magnitude. This tendency is common in cinematic expressions equivalently where both filmmakers and audiences are probably proned to pay more attention to negative stimuli than positive stimuli.

The mystery film ‘Get Out’ (2017), written and directed by Jordan Peele, is a pragmatic example to prove the amplified unpleasant circumstances that individuals undergo have profound impact on the creative work they are engaged in. The plot revolves around an African-American young man who visits his white girlfriend’s family estate during a weekend where he experiences loneliness, isolation, alienation, entrapment and fear.

The director and screenwriter Peele presents the superficially visible ‘Liberal elite’ ideology which overtly states ‘we are not racist’ and covert and subtle conveyance of ‘color matters’ and stigma and body shaming Afro-Americans experience due to their dark skin complexion through creative storytelling.

Jorden Peele in an interview with The New York Times says “This movie is also about how we deal with race. As a black man, sometimes you can’t tell if what you’re seeing has underlying bigotry, or it’s a normal conversation and you’re being paranoid. That dynamic in itself is unsettling. I admit sometimes I see race and racism when it’s not there”.

The film industry is a global business with billions of dollars invested where the investors or producers decide on the creative content which should be transmitted to the audience, with the sole purpose of making money at the end of the day.

Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s 2023 film ‘Animal’ sparked a controversial debate in society due to its extremely violent behavior and harmful toxic masculinity. Javed Akhtar, a renowned Indian lyricist and screenwriter, once said that “commercially successful films with questionable scenes are a dangerous trend. For example, in a certain movie, a man tells a woman to lick his shoe to prove his love for her,” and he says,” if a film communicates the idea that it is okay to slap a woman, it is very dangerous, no matter how popular that film is”. Critics labeled the film ‘Animal’ as misogynistic and extremely violent. Despite severe criticism, the film was well-received by the audience becoming the third highest-grossing Indian film in 2023, grossing 950 million Indian rupees.

Considering the potential negative impact and perpetual harm on society inflicted by such controversial films, the importance of going along with ethical considerations emerges. Cinema ethics referred to moral guidelines and principles that influence the responsible and accountable creation, production, and dissemination of movies. This ensures the cinematic content is respectful of individuals or groups living in society. It helps elevate audience’s trust while refraining from promoting harmful content.

An artist converts a personal experience into universal or common experience in order to make it a shared experience. The artist must be capable of determining how beneficial or appropriate it is to turn that personal experience into common shared experience. On the other hand an artist is equipped with a creative privilege of shaping the society by means of their work of art. The artistic license they bear should be used in a responsible manner for the betterment of society by disseminating humanity, empathy, and compassion through their creations. American filmmaker Martin Scorsese giving much emphasis on the importance of portraying humanity in cinema states “Filmmaking is a journey through the soul of humanity, captured frame by frame”.

The term ‘fiction’ is a tool that provides novelists, screenwriters, and filmmakers with freedom for their creativity. But an artist is not licensed to stereotype, misinterpret or misrepresent the characters using freedom of creativity. The responsibility of an author to avoid such matters is brought to attention in the article ‘The Ethics of Writing Novels on True Events’ by American author Joyce Carol Oates. She articulates ‘fiction writer should be as transparent as a glass full of clean water.

When creating works of fiction or non-fiction based on real life stories and real names, the characters should not be harmed, distorted, misrepresented, or ridiculed. Artists must take upon themselves the responsibility of acting in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Ron Hansen, an American Novelist and Professor of Arts and Humanities in University of California, said this with the intention of keeping the criteria of novelists, screenwriters, and filmmakers close to humanity.

by Bhagya Rajapakse
bhagya8282@gmail.com