Morning Spice by Ginger
Sports hooliganism

Soccer hooliganism in France and rugger hooliganism in Sri Lanka. Last Saturday’s outbreak of thuggery and rowdyism in Kandy when C. R. played Kandy was certainly more than a little disconcerting. Now the rugger crowds in Sri Lanka were in the old days a little more disciplined than the ones today. All the action if there was any was at the soccer games. Now the grime has got daubed over a gentlemans game. It seems a little strange that when our cricket fans who are drawn from all walks of life have an excellent record of sportsmanship internationally that the standard of spectator conduct at rugger has sunk to the very depths.

The general consensus is that much of the fury witnessed at rugby is because there is heavy betting and evidently. The story goes that Kandy fans place heavy bets on the local team. The fact that tear gas had to be used is an indication that things had got pretty bad. Very often the trouble starts in Kandy and there is nothing the police can do till it is a little too late. In the meantime the rugby association can make an appeal to the bookies in Kandy not to accept bets when there are matches in Kandy or in the alternative Kandy teams may have to play their matches at the nearest grounds away from Kandy.

When love ebbs
And look at what medical research has to offer married couples. If you are getting the seven year itch just ignore it. You may be falling deeply in love with each other years later. That is if you are strong charactered enough to stick to your spouse when the usual storms and rough times most couples experience threaten their married life.

Researches have found that love starts ebbing five years after you say "I do" the reasons they attribute for this is often the pressure of work and the responsibilities of parenthood that keep both parents on edge. However when your children grow up and you are stabilized in life the situation reverses itself and the glow comes back to your eyes.

Beijing’s eating-culture
If you went to Beijing in the old days all you were likely to get when eating out would have been Chinese fare. It is as good as any but the Chinese had few options. Foreign food was available in the more expensive hotels which catered to foreigners mainly a new eating culture appears to be surfacing in Beijing and the Chinese seem to be loving it.

You walk around Beijing today and you will see hundreds of ethnic restaurants and Jazz clubs all over. There are also bars and cafes dishing it out western style fare. Most of these places have both international entertainment and food. Chinese have evening outings and entertain friends and eat with fork and knife but of course big Mac paved the way for it all.

Nomenclatural error in postage stamps

I wish to point out a serious error that has been made in the nomenclature of the elephant in Sri Lanka in a recently issued set of postage stamps (photocopy enclosed herewith). The elephant is referred to as Elephas maximus ceylonensis (sic). This is not the correct scientific name of the elephant in Sri Lanka. The correct name should have been Elephas maximus maximus Linnaeus, 1758.

It was the Swedish Botanist, Carolus Linnaeus who in 1758 enunciated the principles for naming plants and animals. He invented the binomial system of paired Latin or Greek names for all animals and plants. Each species of animal received two names — a first name (written with a capital letter) indicating the genus or general group to which the animal belonged, and a second name (written without a capital), showing the species or exact kind of animal.

When a species has a wide geographic distribution, then populations of the species occurring in widely separated geographical regions may differ by minute but recognizable characters. When this happens a third name (a trinomial, or subspecies) is added to so indicate. Thus the subspecies of elephant that occurs in Sri Lanka Elephas maximus maximus is the forma typica. i.e. the form on which Linnaeus' original publication in 1758 was based.

The type that occurs on the Asian mainland is referred to as Elephas maximus indicus, while that found on the island of Sumatra in the Indonesian archipelago is known as Elephas maximus sumatranus. Dr. P. E. P. Deraniyagala named the supposedly massive, rare and tuskless 'swamp elephant' of the lower Mahaweli river basin as a separate subspecies, Elephas maximus vilaliya. But it is now regarded as synonymous with Linnaeus' Elephas maximus maximus. According to the late Professor Hilary Crusz, "The subspecies, or variety, can after all be an expression of an incipient species, which is what Darwinian evolution is basically about".

Unfortunately, the name given on all four postage stamps is even wrong as far as the subspecies (ceylonesis) is concerned. In 1797, the French biologist Cuvier described an elephant that was brought to Paris from Ceylon as Elephas indicus, which be Blainville later renamed as Elephas indicus ceylanicus (and not ceylonesis) in 1845. The Indian race was named Elephas indicus bengalensis. But according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), by the law of priority, the Ceylon elephant which Linnaeus named Elephas maximus maximus is the forma typica, and de Blainville's subspecies ceylanicus is therefore considered synonymous with definitive subspecies maximus.

Charles Santiapillai,
University of Peradeniya.

Kamalika Pieris replies Neville Ladduwahetty
Tamil separatism

I had mentioned Neville Ladduwahetty's writings in two articles written by me on the subject of Tamil separatism. The articles are: 'Tamil separatism and its propaganda' (Island. 27.5.98-28.5.98) and "Tamil separatism and the definition of nation" (Island 21.4.98). Ladduwahetty has replied in the Island of 17.6.98 p 13. He is perfectly entitled to do so. However he has charged that I have misquoted and misinterpreted his writings. Since this is reflection on my integrity and also on the care with which I make my criticisms, it is necessary that I reply.

Firstly the issue of 'misquoting'. I do not accept this. Due to space restrictions I am obliged to shorten quotations wherever possible. Ladduwa-hetty has selected the following example as indicative of distorted quotation. I shall indicate that there is no distortion. The statement made by Lad-duwahetty is" Other communities have cause to consider themselves excluded from the national identity as long as it is associated with religion and culture". The final section of this sentence given in bold letters. My quotation was prefaced by an additional sentence from Ladduwahetty. "Sri Lanka is identified as Sinhala and Buddhist. Other communities have cause to consider themselves excluded from the national identity." (Island 27.5.98). The final phrase was left out because it is implied.

Ladduwahetty, in his reply refutes the suggestion that his writings are supportive of Tamil separatism. He therefore argues, that I have misinterpreted his writings. I am unable to agree with the charge of 'misinterpretation.' When writers present their views vaguely, verbosely and ambiguously, as Ladduwa-hetty does. The right of interpretation rests with the reader. It is thereafter too late for the writer to do anything about the matter. If a writer wishes to avoid misinterpretation, he writes clearly and precisely so that the only interpretation possible is the one which the writer intended. This Ladduwa-hetty does not do.

Ladduwahetty has suggested in the concluding paragraph of his reply to me that it is more important to examine the content of his writings, than attach a label to it. Therefore let us look at the 'substance and content' of the views expressed in his reply.

Supportive
He objects to the suggestion that his writings are supportive of Tamil separatism. However, even in his reply to me, he has stressed four arguments which are exclusive to the Tamil separatist movement. They are: the lack of a national identity, the need for power sharing, the possibility of a new political compact and the notion of separate historical memory. Those who oppose Tamil separatism do not dwell on these issues at such length. They usually dismiss them bluntly and at great speed. (see paragraphs 4, 7, 1, and 3 of his reply).

In addition he argues that he does not agree with Eelam and that he opposes it and the Thimpu principles. However, he agrees that the Sri Lankan Tamils are not a part of the Sri Lanka "nation" since they did not forge the land, and Sri Lankan is not the repository of their historical memories. The 'historic land' of the Sri Lankan Tamils is, according to Ladduwahetty, South India. This may not sound lake Eelam, but the obervations are supportive of it. The argument for Eelam is that the Sri Lankan Tamils are distinct and separate, they have a separate history, and they come from south India. (Paragraph 3).

He makes unnecessary statements, thus making him liable to the charge of ambiguity. For example he says that he used the quotation from An-thony D Smith to indicate that Sri Lanka was indeed a nation. It is not neccessary to quote at length from writers far removed from Sri Lanka to confirm this simple fact. The fact that Sri Lanka is a nation is already well established. It is a member of the United Nations by virtue of this. (Paragraph 3)

Present situation
In his reply to me, he has made a number of statements as regards the situation in Sri Lanka, which I consider to be incorrect or inappropriate. Let us return to his statements regarding the Sri Lankan Tamils, which I have repeated in an earlier paragraph. Of course, the Sri Lankan Tamils were involved in the forging of the ancient state of Sri Lanka. This is precisely what R. A. L. H. Gunawardene has been pointing out in his article on the 'People of the Lion." The Tamils first came in as settlers, mercenaries in the kings' army and as traders. They were accepted in all three roles. Then again, according to Ladduwahetty, south India (sic) is the exclusive preserve of the Sri Lankan Tamils. Not at all. Tamilnadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, three of the four states of south India, (influenced the mediaeval and post-media val cultural development of Sri Lanka).

Concepts
His use of concepts could also be debated. He has used the word 'association' in an in appropriate context. This word, association, is not normally used with reference to sovereign states. Sovereign states are not 'associations.' They are territorially defined legal entities. Further he argues that associations are not based on the "principle of exclusivity." Yes they are. That is what differentiates an 'association' from a 'community.' (see paragraph 7 of his reply). Ladduwahetty should be more careful when he uses concepts developed by thinkers like Max Weber and Rousseu, because their ideas were not developed with Sri Lanka, Asia or the post colonial states in mind. They were analysing two developments in Europe. Firstly, the development of a secular democratic form of government and secondly, the emergent industrial society of Europe. Their writings are specialised discourses, and are best left to those with a training in western political philosophy, or sociology. (paragraphs 2 and 7).

I now come to his views on identity, language and self-determination. In paragraph 4 of his reply to me, Ladduwahetty discusses the question of 'identity.' He has been lavish in this respect and has placed before us four concepts relating to 'identity.' He talks of 'Sri Lankan identity', 'national identity' 'political identity' and 'cultural identity,' all in just one paragraph of his reply. The notion of a 'political identity' is significant for political parties, but not for citizens. His separation of 'cultural identity' from the other three is acceptable.

Identity
Ladduwahetty argues, I think, that a separate Sri Lankan identity, which presumably is identical to 'national identity' and 'political identity,' can only be developed by a commitment to 'common political instruments of governance.' (paragraph 4). This brings us to important aspect of Ladduwahetty's writing. His denial of the existence of Sri Lanka as a recognised, sovereign independant state, and the difficulty of reversing this position. He suggests that there is always the possibility of further manoeuvre. We find this elsewhere in his reply to me. In paragraph I he refers to the need to abandon the Thimpu principles 'for the sake of a single political pact.'

In paragraph 7 he suggests that there is at present no 'all inclusive Sri Lankan constituency. "These observations could be contested. There is little or no room for manouvre as regards' common instruments of governance' for the simple reason that Sri Lanka has long been accepted as a single political entity, with a common constitution, binding on all its citizens. It already has an 'identity', that of a secular, democratic, modern state. This 'identity' cannot be continually re-fashioned, as and when minority communities wish. It is precisely on this point that those who support Tamil separatism differ from those who oppose it.

Ladduwahetty also comments on language, because I have quoted him on this topic. He stated in one of his articles that Sri Lanka cannot afford the 'luxury' of having just one common langauge. However he sees no difficulty in the more expensive provision of three parallel national langauges. It could be argued that if one language is a 'luxury' that three langauges would be a triple luxury. In his reply to me, he amplifies his position, by pointing out that Sri Lanka cannot operate with only Sinhala or only English. (paragraph 5). There is no conflict as regards Sinhala or English. The official language of a country is directed at internal activities such as internal administration, and communication. The language of international communication is a different matter.

Countries are free to choose any one of the UN recognised languages for this purpose. Sri Lanka has selected English. Most countries have one national language, and another for international communication. Most countries use English for this, but see no problem in continuing with their indigenous languages within the country. Ladduwahetty accepts without question the notion of three parallel languages for Sri Lanka. In his reply to me he says "Multiple languages in country like Sri Lanka are an added challenge to political integration" (paragraph 5). This is the position taken by those who are at least partial to Tamil separatism. Those who oppose Tamil separatism take the blunt view that it is precisely three languages which will create a problem of national integration. You integrate through communication in the same language. Not by creating separate linguistic groups.

Self determination
I now come to Ladduwahetty's views on the right of self-determination. And now it is necessary to look also at a recent article by Ladduwa-hetty, titled "Territory should not be the focus of constitution-making". (Island. 14.6.98 p 11). In this article he develops more fully the reference to self-determination, made obliquely in paragraph 2 of his reply to me. In this article Ladduwahetty begins by stating that the Tamils are not entitled to self-determination. He lists several points in support of this. The first three points are the well known statements made by the UN declaring that minorities in independent states are not entitled to self-determination. Then comes the surprise. At item 4 and thereafter, Ladduwahetty refers to the the general election of Sri Lanka as a self-determination exercise of the peoples of the North and East. He declares that since only 475 voted in favour of the TULF, the Tamils in these areas are not entitled to exercise the right of self-determination.

He states in his article:

"The 52.75% majority of the' peoples' in the two provinces collectively decided to exercise their right of self-determination and voted to maintain the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The outcome of 1977 election was to deny right of self-determination of the Tamils in so far as the future of the two provinces are concerned." (see item 7). The section starting from item 4 to item 10 in this article is utter nonsense. Ladduwahetty concludes this article by suggesting that there should be two councils set up, one to determine our next constitution and the other to deterimine our 'language policy' after which which these ideas should go before a national referendum. He does not suggest anywhere that a constitutional assembly is the best method of developing a new constitution. Or that the simplest way of deciding on a language policy is by looking to see what the majority language is.

If Ladduwahetty does not wish to be linked, in the minds of his readers, with the Tamil separatist movement, then all he has to do is to voice his opposition to its modus operandi. On the other hand, he is perfectly entitled to support the movement. It would now be apparent that I am quite capable of dissecting Ladduwahetty's writings on the Tamil separatist issue, in great detail, and to the detriment of Ladduwahetty's image. I was aware of this when I wrote the article on Tamil separatism and its propaganda. I let him off very lightly, making minimal observations. However, I did call for a more detailed critique of his writings in view of the fact that his work had been brought together in a collection.

Amnesty for water pirates

The NWSDB has announced an amnesty till the end of June for any water pirates to obtain lawful water connections and regularise their supply. It won't be surprising if the amnesty is extended if desired results are not achieved by the end of June.

Detecting water piracy is no difficult task. Meter readers themselves can report to the Board the numbers of houses in their respective areas that are not in their lists and then authorised officers, the flying squad if there is one, can make surprise visits and catch the offenders red handed.

Unlike in the case of electricity water mains are underground and one wonders how anybody could tap them to have unauthorised connections without the connivance of Board employees.

The amnesty suggests that the Board is prepared to pardon the rogues who have defrauded the Board of thousands of rupees and also committed a punishable offence while squeezing every possible cent from the honest consumer. My guess is that the Board authorities are aware of the identity of a least some water pirates whom they do not want to catch red handed and cause embarrassment either because they are politically powerful or because the authorities do not want to get into their bad books and burn their fingers, and therefore give them the opportunity to regularise their supply and save their good name.

The amnesty also proves the inefficiency of the Board.

The poor people get their water from stand pipes and it is certain rich people who resort to such mean acts as was found in some electricity piracy cases.

Incidentally, water meters in this area have not been read since January and consumers receive only estimated bills. This creates wide disparities between their estimated bills and actual consumption.

S. Abeywickrama,
Negegoda.

Down to Earth
Since the first atom bomb
By Derrick Schokman

The recent nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan triggered a flashback to when the first atom bomb was conceived.

A German physicist, fleeing the Nazi regime just before the second world war brought the idea to his counterparts in the USA.

They were able to persuade Albert Einstein to bring this matter to the attention of the President.

Einstein in 1905 had proposed that energy was a concentration of matter, and this had opened the door to the phenomenon of nuclear energy.

Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939 that there was a possibility of creating a super bomb based on the fission of uranium. He recommended a cooperative effort between the government and scientists to secure a supply of uranium and promote research.

Manhattan project
This led to the initiation of the Manhattan project to make such a bomb under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

On July 16, 1945 after a two-billion dollar secret budget had been spent on this project, the first atomic explosion code-named "Trinity" took place in the New Mexico Desert. It was a plutonium fission device.

Three weeks later on August 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and a few days later a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

Peaceful
It was only 10 years later that nuclear energy was first put to peaceful practical use with the launching of Nautilus in 1954.

In 1956 the first atomic reactor for the production of electricity became operational at Calder Hall in England.

And one-year later the first atomic powered electric power station came into being in America, namely the Shipping Port Reactor.

When these reactors became operational in the 1950s, they were considered a miracle source of power producing a clean and cheap energy.

Accidents
The euphoria did not last long. Several accidents occurred that caused nuclear power to lose favour.

On March 28, 1979 the nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania failed, causing the temperature at the core to rise dangerously.

The accident was finally contained without injuries or major leakage at a cost of more than one billion dollars.

The most serious accident occurred at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union on April 26, 1986 when the roof of the building was blown off in a violent explosion and radioactive material escaped into the atmosphere.

Although only a few people were killed, thousands were hospitalised for severe radiation sickness. People were evacuated and certain areas sealed off indefinitely. Thousands are expected to develop radioactively induced cancer in the 20 years following the explosion.

Even in Aisan countries accidents have occurred. In 1995 one of China’s two nuclear reactors in Daya Bay near Hongkong had to be shut down temporarily when a control mechanism failed.

Japan’s US$6 billion prototype fast-breeder reactor, has lain idle since December 1995 when a leak was found in the cooling system.

Jitters are spreading across Asia. Popular opposition to a fourth reactor in Taiwan led the parliament to freeze the project budget in 1996.

And in the Japanese town of Maki, north of Tokyo, an unprecedented public referendum in 1996 went against the construction of a nuclear plant in the neighbourhood.

Radioactive waste
There is also the problem of nuclear waste. A typical nuclear plant produces a relatively small volume of spent fuel. But it contains very toxic elements like strontium, cesium and plutonium which remain deadly for thousands of years. Just one gram of plutonium inhaled can cause lung cancer.

No chemical process is yet known to render nuclear waste harmless. So it is presently submerged in specially designed water pools at the reactor site, the water serving both as a coolant and shield.

But these pools are now becoming overfilled, and there are no prospects yet of dumping elsewhere.

Nuclear fusion
While work is ongoing to correct the problems of nuclear fission, a new form of nuclear energy that is much less dangerous is receiving attention — namely nuclear fusion.

Unlike fission fuel, the nuclear fuel for fusion is cheap and found in abundance. It is also non-radioactive, made up of hydrogen isotopes of protium and deuterium, available ad lib from the oceans, and tritium which is found in ample deposits of lithium.

The waste products of nuclear fusion are only mildly radioactive and require storage for only 20 to 30 years.

The fusion process is still in its technological infancy with massive research obstacles yet to be tackled. But optimistically it should be commercially available by the middle of the 21st century.