Last week I dwelt on the PA government's electoral prospects vis a vis their economic performance. My contention being that while the economy is under performing as always under an SLFP regime, this time the SLFP has kept clear of economic experimentation and thus the destruction is far less than was usually the case under previous SLFP led regimes, and that the PA's present economic performance resembles more a lacklustre year of the UNP than of the old SLFP. Thus, the economic situation works to the advantage of the PA because large sections of the population are not yet convincd? that there is an economic crisis in the country. In 1977, when the SLFP was voted out of office, there was no mistaking the mood of the country. Everybody knew that the SLFP had led the country into an enormous mess and there were hundreds of thousands of people waiting impatiently for election day.

In addition to the general economic collapse in the country in 1977, there was the reaction to political victimisation to reckon with. The SLFP had gone on an orgy of political victimisation after their unprecedented electoral victory in 1970. In addition to burning the houses and business establishments of political opponents and committing acts of assault and murder, the SLFP continued to victimise anybody who dared to speak out against them throughout their period in power between 1970-1977. The houses, land and business establishments of political opponents were acquired under the flimsy pretext of 'socialism'. Years of hard work and property acquired over generations was wiped out at the stroke of an MP's pen. People were deprived of life and limb and of their livelihoods as well. By 1977 this policy had generated its own nemesis. What this meant was that there were thousands of people all over the country who stood above the common mass and who were willing to go out of their way to throw the SLFP out. It was this combination of general unrest and upper class resentment which threw the SLFP out in the debacle of 1977.

Today however, SLFP persecution of political opponents is far milder than it was in the past. So far there has been no acquisition of property of political opponents. Post electoral violence was much less than at previous changes of government,... Of course all this is due to the fact that times have changed,... the grand old political tactics will no longer be tolerated by the international community, so the SLFP has learned to play by the rules of the new world order. This does not mean that there have been no instances of misdemeanours by the government. Indeed there were such instances some being even more spectacular than similar incidents of the SLFP past. Yet if one takes the country as a whole, that huge body of hatred and animosity which the SLFP had built up against itself when they were last in office is not to be seen today. To take another example, during the last days of Premadasa regime, the people of this country were prepared to thrash Cabinet Ministers with the Police and Army looking on. The PA has not yet fallen to that level. What I am trying to say is that the PA has not yet built up against itself, a body of people who would go to any length to see them out of power. The popularity ratings of the PA government is at a low ebb no doubt, but this has not got translated into positive hatred yet.

Of course, it is not necessary for a government to be hated to lose an election. In 1994, the Wijetunga regime was not hated, but it still lost the election. If a government falls without being hated, then it is due to a feeling on the part of the people that a 'change' is necessary. Today however, we are still too close to the 'change' of 1994 for the people to be wanting 'change' again. The fact that the PA resembles the UNP has furthermore created the impression that nothing will change even if the UNP comes back into power. So this 'change' factor will not work against the PA at an election in the near future.

Another advantage that the PA has is their attitude or state of mind. Even though the PA has now been in power for four years, they still talk of their 'new' government and the seventeen long years of UNP rule. In their own minds, they are still underdogs because they have been in power for 'only' four years. There are many wrongs that have to be corrected they say,.. the foremost of which is that they were kept in the opposition for seventeen long years... This mentality will work to the advantage of the PA at any future election because they will campaign not as top dogs but as underdogs. In 1994, the UNP campaign ran out of steam mainly because of the top dog attitude and feeling of guilt after wielding power for seventeen years. Those who had grown fat on power were beginning to feel embarrassed about their prosperity. They had lost that lean and hungry vulpine look and were fat and content, concerned above all with portraying themselves to the public as saints. On nomination day for Parliamentary elections in 1994, the UNP candidates were attacked and stoned and assaulted at Kachcheris all over the country. When UNP candidates were greeted with jeers and stones and challenges like 'Ado mineemaruwa! Ado hora! Puluwan nam wedi tiyapan do!' They lost their nerve and decided to run for their lives. The cries of Ado hora! etc., brought up their feelings of guilt bubbling to the surface and weakened their will when they needed it most.

The PA politicians who have now been in power for four years have not yet developed debilitating guilt complexes. The UNP can now shout Ado hora! and Ado mineemaruwa! at least to some PA politicians, but still the PA is by and large unrepentant. There have been many cases of corruption brought to light by the militantly active press, but the PA just brushes it all off flippantly,.. The argument put forward being, 'What is this compared to what the UNP did?' The general feeling among PA politicians is that they are ENTITLED to rob because their predecessors did the same. And at the moment the PA is like a lion that had just started feeding. He will not stop until he is stated, come what may. 'We are hungry and we gotta eat... woe betide any bugger who dares try to take food from our mouths!' This is one of the main contributing factors to the PA's underdog attitude. It is a mixture of self pity and arrogance 'Oh we have gone hungry for sooo looong!...' When this feeling is translated into political terms what it means is that the PA will fight tooth and nail (literaly) to protect what they have gained.

Just supposing the UNP (at this point of time) tries that stunt of confronting the PA's candidates at the Kachcheri and taunts them with cries of 'Ado hora! Ado mineemaruwa! Puluwan nam wedi thiayapan' the PA candidates will oblige with alacrity and open fire with everything they have got. The PA has not yet reached that stage of political senility when their main concern would be to coast along with as little conflict as possible. They are at this moment more like hungry wolves whose appetites have been whetted by the taste of blood.

This underdog feeling is a potent force in politics. Nobody should underestimate its potential. After all the SLFP and the other parties which constitute the PA are mass parties with hundreds of thousands of voters. Of course all those who voted for the PA may not do so for a second time. Yet, even the cores of these parties are very large, encompassing a significant proportion of the population. So long as this core gathers strength from its perception of being the underdog, dislodging a pack of hungry wolves from the meat shop will be no picnic.

Three events linked to the charismatic leader of Myanmar (Burma) Aung San Suu Kyi have attracted our attention this week. The first is the resistance of Suu Kyi to the repressive military junta. A few weeks ago she left home to meet her supporters and her car was stopped on a bridge. After 6 days she was forcibly sent back. Now she has ventured out again and has again been prevented from proceeding. Second we hear of the courageous action of a group of 18 young persons of many countries (East & West), who were arrested, sentenced and deported after distributing handouts in the capital city calling for democracy in Myanmar. And third is the public support now given to Suu Kyi's struggle by a group of 26 Sri Lankans, which is also indicative of a growing concern in Sri Lanka over Suu Kyi. [A concern, we may add, which is long overdue].

Her story
The details of Suu Kyi's resistance to military rule are well-known. She is the daughter of Myanmar's freedom fighter and national hero Aung San, who was assassinated in 1947 on the eve of independence. Suu Kyi, born in 1945 and educated at Oxford, married to an Englishman and with two sons, was suddenly propelled to the forefront of politics when in 1988 she returned to Myanmar to see her ailing mother. That year when the army took power promising free elections, people rallied around Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD).

Suu Kyi campaigned all over the country for her party, but in July 1989, she was arrested. At the elections of May 1990, the NLD had a landslide victory with 392 out of 485 seats (80%). The military regime kept Suu Kyi under house arrest where she has remained, becoming a rallying point for democracy and an internationally acclaimed fighter for the rights of the people of Myanmar.

Her supporters have been imprisoned and tortured and all demonstrations in her support have been brutally crushed. In December 1990 there were student demonstrations in Myanmar demanding her release to which the junta responded by closing colleges and universities. In 1991 she won the Nobel Peace Prize, but was not allowed to receive it in Oslo. This year marks the 10th year of Suu Kyi's detention. Today she stands as fearlessly as ever against the military dictatorship Ð demonstrating to the world that courage is the key to her politics.

Abhaya
Suu Kyi has often re-iterated the need for 'Freedom from Fear'. She quotes Nehru that 'the greatest gift for an individual or a nation is..... abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but absence of fear from the mind'. As Suu Kyi herself writes:

'It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrups those who are subject to it. Most Burmese are familiar with the four gati, the four kinds of corruption. Chanda-gati, corruption induced by desire, is deviation from the right path in pursuit of bribes or for the sake of those one loves. Dosa-gati, is taking the wrong path to spite those against whom one bears ill will, and moga-gati is aberration due to ignorance. But perhaps the worst of the four is bhaya-gati, for not only does abhaya, fear stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong, it so often lies at the root of the other three kinds of corruption.'

Challenging Tyranny
The intervention in Myanmar politics of young persons from other countries deserves our strong praise. It is now recognized that where undemocratic dictatorships oppress their own citizens, the world community has an obligation to show concern. And where governments hesitate to criticize, groups of activists from around the world bring credit to the struggle for democracy by courageously taking up the issue. The Myanmar government should learn the lessons of history where peoples movement have successfully toppled long-standing dictators Ð Mobutu and Suharto being recent examples.

Sri Lankans join the struggle
It is heartening to note that Sri Lankan individuals from various walks of life have expressed their concern about Suu Kyi and the situation in Myanmar. A group of 26 Ð including Professor Gananath Obeysekere, Professor Carlo Fonseka and Professor Savitri Goonesekere; lawyers Dr. Deepika Udugama, Manouri Muttettuwegama, R. K. W. Goonesekere, Suriya Wickremasinghe and Javid Yusuf, poet Ann Ranasinghe, scientist Dr. Tissa Vitharana, actress Iragani Serasinghe, former government servants V. Kanapathipillai and C. T. Jansz, journalists Sunanda Deshapriya, Marwaan Macan-Markar and Lucien Rajakarunanayake; Heads of Institutes Sunethra Bandaranaike and Godfrey Gunatilleke; political scientists Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda, Dr. Kumari Jayawardena and Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, human rights workers Bernadeen Silva and Manel Fonseka; accountant J. Diandas and Sarvodaya leader A. T. Ariyaratne.

We hope that other organizations will follow and mount a peoples campaign in Sri Lanka for the restoration of democracy in Myanmar. We note with dismay and concern that many distinguished Sri Lankan Bhikkus were honoured by the present Myanmar government and express our hope that representatives of Buddhist organizations Ð including bhikkus and laypersons Ð will now speak out in support of Suu Kyi's struggle, and will cease to have dealings with the repressive Myanmar government.

Bouquets for Rupavahini
Cat's Eye has frequently called attention to the sexist and Sinhala chauvinist biasses of the mainstream media. It is thus a particular pleasure to throw a couple of bouquets their way today. Our congratulations are specially reserved for the state-owned Rupavahini Corporation for their improvements in news coverage and program content, under the present regime. It was a pleasant surprise to see Rupavahini reporting of the UNP meeting to protest the postponement of provincial council elections, in their Saturday evening news bulletin. We are hard pressed to recall similar reportage of opposition meetings during the UNP regime. For example, the SLFP-organised Mothers' Front rallies or Pada Yatras, during 1991 and 1992, never saw their way to the evening news let alone morning news!

Even more impressive was the Flames of Truth program that was aired on Rupavahini of Sunday afternoon. This was a very informative program on the issue of Disappearances and featured Ms Manouri Muttettuwegama (Chair, Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances in the Sabaragamuwa Province), and Mr. Iqbal (Chair, Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances in the Uva Province) as its panellists; it considered the work of the Commissions of Inquiry that heard evidence regarding such events of violence, discussed the improvements that had been made regarding more just methods of providing compensation and provided useful tips on how to report such a crime and gain redress for ignored complaints. What was particularly impressive about this program however, was its bi-linguality; questions posed answers given, in Sinhala, were immediately translated into Tamil and vice versa.

The Rupavahini Corporation's conscientious efforts at bilingually is also reflected in several teledramas that it has produced and telecast. The recently concluded teledrama Maha Villakkuva was one such example. While this drama was primarily a paean to the government's armed forces, it nevertheless sought to confront the civil war in the north head on, to differentiate between Tamil Tigers and Tamil civilians, and to portray Sinhala soldiers as political beings who are capable of independent thinking.

Even more progressive and thought-provoking was a single episode teledrama which we happened upon while surfing the channels last Wednesday night. This drama, which was set in the north of Sri Lanka once again, focused on the romance between a Sinhala soldier and a Tamil civilian woman (who had nursed the wounded soldier). Though it was rather poorly acted and relied on a particularly implausible plot-line, it nonetheless attempted to address the vexed issue of inter-racial marriages; after representing many of the stereotypical arguments that are produced in the event of such unions via a variety of minor characters, the drama finally presented a very progressive message through the soldier's commanding officer who first chastises the soldier with a stern admonishment that 'we have come here not to make love but war' but then does a sudden about face and proclaims that mixed marriages is a very viable solution for the eradication of misperception among Sinhalas and Tamils. After the damning message of the teledrama Sura Asura which only sought to perpetuate stereotypes about Sinhalas and Tamils and to prove beyond any doubt that unions between the two groups are impossible, this drama's stance was a welcome one and we hope Rupavahini will continue to produce more programs such as this and their content and quality will become more sophisticated and nuanced,in the future.

I was waxing ' what a silly word that is ' on the aspects of the novel when there was this sudden bend in the river which, like Naipaul, I cheerfully steered for, and what happened? I was with all those hardy Sinhalese in Singapore and Malaya and was told, after my article appeared, that our Professor Gerald Cooray was a little boy in wartime Malaya too. Gerald called me and carolled, 'I say, Carl, the Francis Cooray you wrote of' (not me, actually, but Professor Arsecularatne) 'was my father. Yes, I was born there. Came back to Ceylon when still a boy.' Oho! There has to be a special story there and I mean to get it. Anyway, it's always good to be able to acknowledge all these nice people through the 'Island' even if I get rather long-winded. Also, it's time I take up from where I so unceremoniously leave off and stop giving me readers a hard time. I was, I believe, discussing pesudo-scholars, and today I'm saddling my favourite stallion for a fine and fiery romp through the thuttiri-laden meadows where the critics cavort. You see, the pseudo-scholars ' that 'homage paid by ignorance to learning' as E. M. Forster put it ' may be two-a-penny everywhere you turn (and I'm one of them too), but when such a person turns to criticism, he becomes most pernicious. He tries to tell his breathless readers and listeners that he applies to his work the methods of the true scholar and won't admit that he simply hasn't the equipment! How many of these people class books even before they have understood them of read them? That is unpardonable. I've seen these classifications by chronology. Books written before 1850; books written after that date; colonial and neo-colonial; post-colonial; the pre-novel; the novel in Elizabethan times; the novel of the future; modernism and post-modernism... or they wish to classify writers by subject matter; Literature of the Tom Jones type; literature of Feminism beginning with Shirley, or the desert island scenario beginning with Robinson Crusoe or the Blue Lagoon; then the literature of rogues and liars and the swashbuckling novel; the Gothic and the neo-Gothic; the literature of Sussex... and there will naturally be the improper books and novels relating to all sorts of human hiccups and swinging from chiropody to cannibalism; the gung-ho novel and the tear-jerker and those Memoirs, highly provocative, of diverse women of pleasure.

Let me now tell you of what Forster had to say about all this poppycock that the critics resort to, to give their views a measure of scientific flapdoodle:

The most amazing work on the novel that I have met for many years... It was a literary manual entitled 'Materials and Methods of Fiction'... he classified novels by their dates, their length, their locality, their sex, their point of view, till no more seemed possible. But he still had the weather up his sleeve and when he brought it out, it had nine heads!

Good Lord! Imagine what these poor, silly asses are doing! They are actually making a sort of weather report on what we write! But nine types of weather? Will we then say that the weather can be most 'decorative' when reading Pierre Lotti; or 'utilitarian' as in Mill on the Floss? That'll be essential considering the both-hands-on-the-table weather; No Floss, no mill ' no mill, no Tullivers... see what I mean? Fiona Mac-Leod may have the weather in her book 'pre-established' ' a sort of planned harmony. Or we could have some artful, 'illustrative' weather as in The Egoist. My God! George Meredith could devote an entire chapter on the young Sir Willoughby's leg! what a perfect weather report this would make.

And the ladies knew for a fact that Willoughby's leg was exquisite... Mrs. Mouststuart signified that the leg was to be seen because it was a burning leg. There it is, and it will shine through! He has the leg of Rochester, Buckingham, Dorset, Suckling; the leg that smiles, that winks, is Obsequious to you, yet perforce of beauty self-satisfied; tat twinkles to a tender midway between imperiousness and seductiveness,, audacity and discretion; between 'you shall worship me' and 'I am devoted to you', is your lord, your slave, alternately and in one. It is a leg of ebb and flow and high-tide ripples. Such a leg, when it has done pretending to retire, will walk straight into the hearts of women. Nothing so fatal to them... and on and on.

Meredith has this leg self-satisfied, vain, possessing a sheen, a poetic leg, a portent, a valiance. This leg, to Sir Willoughby is as a tongue to Cicero. It is a lute to scatter songs to his mistress;; a rapier is she obdurate. In smooth a leg with brains in it, soul! What wonderful leggy weather to be sure!

Then there has to be that weather that is in emotional contrast, blowing hot and cold. Surely we will find this in The Master of Ballantrae; and when Kipling told us of the poor sap who proposed to the wrong girl in a mud storm, is the weather 'determinative of action'? Do we see the weather as a controlling influence in Richard Feverel or having much of a heroic blast, much like Vesuvius in The Last Days of Pompei?

Oh, that's only eight heads, and Forster says this pseudo-scholar listed nine. 'Ninthly,' he says, 'the weather can be non-existent as in a fairy tale.' So no weather is also a classification of weather. So typical of these pseudo-scholars of all ages. Then a particular class of girl is a non-girl... a boy! Makes everything so scientific and trim, doesn't it? But will this give satisfaction? What does it do to a novelist that the critics have got him docketed in one of nine kinds of weather? Oh, my books are surely foul weather, and will I be told that it's rather Burghery weather too? And yet, the critic will also add that his earnest classifications can only be applied to novelists with some spark of genius, and to ascertain if this genius exists or not, he needs to further classify the novel by its tone! Is there a personal or impersonal tone? And again, neither tone will be of any use without genius. Oh, the critics love the word genius. I think the very sound of the word exempts them from discovering its meaning.

So what will our critic do? He will start a further classification on the premise that all literature is produced by geniuses and therefore novelists are geniuses. Classification is easy after that. He may come up with stricken genius and evil genius. Geniuses can be twisted and thwarted and some will be true and others screw-ball. He may fire a true shaft by pure accident but all the while he is moving around the book and not through it. Chances are he hasn't read it or cannot read it properly. After all books have to be read and that takes time but it is still the only way to know what they contain. Maybe in some savage swamp some tribe may eat books dipped in hickory sauce but as far as I know, reading is the only method of assimilation. The reader must sit down and struggle with the writer. The pseudo-scholar-critic will not do this. He wants to show, and quickly too, how smarty-pants he is. He wants to relate the book to the history of its time or to events in the author's life, or to some 'tendency'.

Ah! The magic word! No sooner he comes to 'tendency' he begins to drool. He may even address a crowd on the merits of a book because everyone takes him for the pseudo-scholar he is and when he comes to 'tendency' you can hear the scritch of pencils as people make notes as if 'tendency' is something portable!

Imagine what it would be like if we can stick Herman Melville, Samuel Richardson and Henry James in one room, each to write a novel. Now that is an image that would confound every critic ever since Cain sniffed superciliously at Abel's sacrifice. Well would Melville consider time out of Time and cry: 'Oh, what quenchless feud is this, that Time hath with the sons of Men!' And Richardson will confer with James and the two novelists will realise that its all much too much of a muchness!

Says James, the ardent psychologist: 'What I hate is myself ' when I think that one has to take so much, to be happy, out of the lives of others, and that one isn't happy even then. One does it to cheat one's self and to stop one's mouth ' but that is only, at the best, for a little. The wretched self is always there, always making us somehow a fresh anxiety. What it comes to is that it's not, that it's never, a happiness, any happiness at all to take. The only safe thing is to give. It's what plays you least false.'

And Richardson, divided from James by a century and a half, will still look at life from the same angle: 'I don't know what to do ' not I. God forgive me, but I am very impatient! I wish, but I don't know what to wish without a sin. Yet, I wish it would please God to take me to his mercy! ' I can meet with none here ' What a world this is! ' What is there in it desirable? The good we hope for so strangely mixed, that one knows not what to wish for! And one half of mankind tormenting the other and being tormented themselves in tormenting.'

But we see them sitting in harmony nevertheless; each falling short of the tragic; appreciative of self-sacrifice and they will write, even though James may object to being saddled with a shopkeeper, and Richardson will never cease to wonder if any writer outside England can be as chaste as he says he is. Oh, surface differences, but what say our pseudo-scholar critics? One strong hold has been cut away and the demon of chronology has been exorcised. See how they flounder.

This, let me say, is becoming most interesting ' to me, at least. I'd like to give you more next week because I have found that Time has scarce relevance and to try using a stopwatch on the centuries of literacy creativity is a dumb thing to do. I'll stick in more authors next week and let the band play on. And, for the first time in the history of this Lobby, I will add that Scheherazadian line: To be continued. That wily woman kept her head by telling her intolerant king that there was more to follow. I hope I can, with this up-in-the-air ending, keep mine!