      |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘98 State literary festival under fire
As this column takes over from Jayadeva a regular commentary on Arts and Letters, let me at the very outset declare its manifesto - that it will treat writing as a sacred and patriotic duty, and its motto as Edmund Burke had it, that "Evil triumphs in the silence of good men". Our main concern, in this space will be to bring to the people upstairs what is happening downstairs, in other words, we shall keep informed the readers in English of the going on in the world of Sinhala, and as far as possible Tamil, aesthetic life, putting in our two cents worth of comment as occasion demands.
And now for a self-introduction —Bherunda is a mythical bird in oriental fable with one of its two heads turned to the East and the other to the West, or if you like it that way, one to the Past and the other to the Future. That should give you an idea of the bird who is writing for you. The Pancatantra tells us that once one of the heads fell out with the other and to punish the latter it took poison, just in the manner our ethnic groups are doing today. Bherunda will thus represent symbolically our contemporary national ethos as well.
Having said that preamble, let me get on to the topic of the day, namely the Festival of Letters which the Sinhala Sahitya Mandalaya (The Sinhala Literary Panel) of the Arts Council of Sri Lanka, in collaboration with the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, organises annually with the purpose of setting standards and of encouraging writers, and which this year, as usual, took place last September, the so-called Sahitya month.
What goes as the Festival is a string of routine events leading on to the ceremonial award of prizes for the best books, novels, short stories, poems, plays and non-fiction which were published during the previous year. The regular pattern of the Agenda over the years has been the lighting of the traditional oil-lamp by the Minister and the Deputy Minister or Departmental officials. This is followed by a welcome speech by the Chairman of the Sahitya Panel or sometimes by the Director of Cultural Affairs who it is said, I believe mischievously, is paid subsistence for doing so!
Follows a lecture by a literary personality (this year its was a retired Professor of History, Dr. Mendis Rohanadheera). Then a cultural show-off, Sarasvati Puja and what - not is followed by a speech each by both the Minister and his Deputy who tell the audience what the government in power is doing, has done and will do for literature. As a climax comes the presentation of the Awards which begins with the announcing of the name of the VIP who will give away the Award. An official accompanies him or her to the stage and he or she stands attention. A citation is then read out by the announcer, usually too fast for any one to follow and then, with a solemn pause, the awardees name is announced. Drums beat and trumpets blow and the awardee marches up to the stage. To the accompaniment of thunderous applause, he receives his prize. This ritual goes on until the last awardee descends the stage after which, of course, is the boresome Vote of Thanks done gain by an official of the Cultural Ministry who, I presume, is not paid subsistence for his services.
This year too the pattern was not different except that the usual cock-of-the walk who is the Chairman of the Sinhala Literary Panel had seceded his right to make the welcome address to the President of the Arts Council and rightly so because the three literary panels, the Sinhala, Tamil and English had decided this year, for the first time in their history, to hold their normally separate festivals as a single one. It was unfair for any one of the Panel Chairman to take precedence over the rest, so the only fair thing to do was to ask the President ! It would have been a rare delight for the native literary to sit side by side with the Anglo Sri Lankan literary fraternity. Thanks be to DCRA !
This year there was no difference too in what took place after the awards ceremony. The local press was agog with the news of who won what award. They carried the usual photographs and bio-data of the winners, lists of whose names ran into several columns or several pages of the tabloids. Then as usual, in October, the Debate began. A healthy public Debate, one would think, probably subjecting the citations to criticism or to analysis and evaluation of the prize winning works. Such a debate would indeed show how enthusiastic the community was about literature. But No ! The citations were anyway read out too fast and thereafter never appeared anywhere in print or the electronic media for anyone to peruse them. Nor did the debate discuss the style or content of Nandana Weerasinghes’ poems, the authenticity of K. Karunatilleke’s or Ariyavansa Ranaveera’s translations, for all these won awards at the Festival, No critic deliberated on the trends and tendencies exhibited by these literary works.
No; the Debate did not deviate from the annual pattern. There were, it seemed to be, other more worthy matters to discuss than the niceties of the written word, gross as they may be. The English Literary Panel had awarded a prize to the Chairman of the Sinhala Literary Panel. In its turn, the Sinhala Literary Panel had awarded two prizes to officials of the Cultural Ministry under whom the Arts Council functions. Many books published during the year had not even been scrutinized.
The debaters asked questions. How did these anomalies take place ? It is an accepted rule that even when a chocolate company conducts a public competition, the employees and their families are debarred from participation. What prevented the President of the Arts Council, the head of the three Literary Panels from briefing the Panel Chairman to observe this rule, who presumably met together to discuss the festival? Professor DCRA and Mr. GSB were surely on talking terms with the President, K. Jayatilleke? Who were the judges? Who scrutinized the books? Why are their names not being revealed to the Public in the manner the Sinhala Drama Panel has been doing over the years? Is the secrecy being maintained legitimate in a democratic society? Is everything being done to ensure that all books published during the year are subjected to scrutiny? Was it correct for the drama script prize to be given to a docu-drama when there was an equally good or even better drama proper published the same year?
This year the debaters ranged themselves on two sides. Some accused the Literary Panels for bungling the whole awards - system. Some even said there was no system at all and the criteria for selection was consanguinity or official power as political cliquism. The well-known Youth - Literature writer, Kulasena Fonseka wrote in the newspapers that he had once been a member of the Sinhala Literary Panel and he knew from experience that this Panel had only madness and no method for deciding the awards. After idling for months, it was usual for it to wake up to the fact that it was only two months to go for the Festival. Within these two months, books selected from a list brought from the Archives were rushed to scrutinizers whose names were held secret for some unknown reason, hence their credentials remained unknown. The two drama scripts, Fonseka said, had been sent to a person who knew no drama and had no taste ! Sarath Wijesooriya, a novelist, pointed out that the Panel was in the habit of selecting the scrutinizers in such a manner as to ensure the desired result. If the Panel wanted the award to be given to a particular author, the scrutinizer would be a friend of the author, if it did not want the award given the scrutinizer would be an enemy of the author. If the President of the Arts Council had acted wisely justice would have been not only done but would have appeared to be done. The Professor-writer-dramatist Dr. Sunanda Mahendra went to the right top as the source of error. "Mr. A. V. Suraweera", Mahendra told a newspaper "had from the beginning been critical of the manner in which Festivals were conducted but had, while being the Deputy Minister, allowed one of his works to be proposed for awards. This evil trend began there ! "
Those who stood in defence of the Panels were equally vociferous. Newton Gunasekara who is supposed to be the youngest member of the Sinhala Literary Panel, maintained that there was absolutely no defect in the festival but the shortcomings pointed out by the critics would be put right the next time. One of the two officials who received awards revealed, startingly, that he had not even known the names of the members of the Panels until the awards day. Gunasena Vithana, Chairman of the Book Development Board, took a PA stand and asked "Why were you who were so silent during the JR and Premadasa regimes, now asking questions? Did not JR ask at a Festival whether literature could be eaten and only I dared to challenge him, he said "This debate is a karachchalay ( a bother)".
Asked by an interviewer from a newspaper who the judges were, the President of the Arts Council replied " It is an experienced Board of Judges. Even I do not know who they are " Later, answering the criticism that one Panel had given awards to another Panel Chairman and that officials of the Culture Ministry had been recipients of the Festival largesse, the President said that he had held a meeting with the Chairmen of all Panels three weeks after this criticism had been made, and it was unanimously decided that since the Minister and the President had connections with the Arts Council their writings should not be considered for awards but since the 150 or more members of the Panels have no connection with each other’s Panels, they should not be deprived of the right to an award since they were also artists. For example, said the President, if Dr. Panibharatha who is the Chairman of the Dancing Panel, writes a book there should be no objection to the English or Sinhala Literary Panel from giving him an award. In fact it would be unjust to deprive him. Replying the President, a critic observed that it was a good thing that the Arts Council has locked the stable even after the horse has escaped but by the same logic of giving Panibharata a prize to do him justice, the Deputy Minister who is a talented writer should be entitled for one. It would be equally unjust to deny him what he deserves for his talent. Why exclude him?. Further, said the critic, it is false to say that the Chairman of the Panels have no connection. They meet at the same Council meetings and have mutual obligations. The Arts Councils decision in fact is a retrospective justification of their error.
Bherunda has many observations to make but he will only give some. Why has the debate come to be a karachchalay? Is it because it irritates the defenders of the status quo? Is there really nothing behind this annual bickering and bitterness? Has an attempt been made by the Panels to look in Caliban’s mirror? It is true that literature is a subjective area where a consensus is not possible and a debate is natural, but can the authorities dismiss the questions that have been asked as part of this subjectivity. In fact, as Bherunda sees it, none of the questions that have been asked have anything to do with literature but with the objective questions of what the modus operandi of the Arts Council is in selecting its awards. Let us hope that the Arts Council will have the courage to do a self-examination.
In this self-examination, Bherunda thinks that it will be useful to define ones objectives in organizing this festival under the aegis of the State. If the purpose is to set standards and encourage artists as it is usually told, how well does the present arrangements serve these ends?. As for me, it seems that the present bickering and bitterness arises from the wrong focus. The focus of interest achieved by playing down the citations. They should be made available to the Press and go in print, and handouts should be made available to all who attend the festival.
Jaya Sikuru: Nava Gilunath Baan Chune
Parts of this article have been censored by the Competent Authority
By Our Defence CorrespondentA month has passed since the Sri Lanka Army declared that it had achieved a great victory by capturing the town of Mankulam.
(Censored)
Next week, Operation Jaya Sikuru marks its 18-month anniversary, and it is prudent to question where this massive effort has taken the war. Especially with tomorrow’s Budget presentation in parliament, where the government is asking for 47 billion rupees to spend on the war next year, on top of this year’s whopping 58 billion.
As the troops continued to ``consolidate their positions’’ at Mankulam, a flotilla of navy craft were fighting for their lives only a few miles away off Mullaittivu, in another aspect of the war which is only too deadly.
On Friday, in an all too familiar incident, several dozen LTTE boats attacked a convoy off Mullaittivu, and fought a battle with escorting navy craft.
When the battle was over, one navy Dvora fast attack craft had been sunk. Two others were badly damaged and had to be towed back to base.
A total of nineteen navy sailors were dead or missing. Another nine were wounded.
On the other side, an estimated four Sea Tiger craft were sunk, with up to twenty cadres killed. The LTTE admitted the loss of only two of their men, both Black Sea Tiger suicide cadres.
The defeat off Mullaittivu, and this is not the first time that it has happened, is a clear result of the failed policy of carving a road to Jaffna through the Wanni.
For as long as the road remains closed, it is the navy which must bear the brunt of sending supplies and people to and from the Jaffna Peninsula.
How many times during the past 18 months have we heard that the Sea Tigers have attacked a navy convoy off Mullaittivu, lost a few of their own boats, and sunk a Dvora or two? Frankly, we’ve lost count.
(Censored)
Consider these facts. The coastline of the northeast comprises about seventy-five percent of Sri Lanka’s coast. From Kalpitiya in the Puttalam district, past Mannar, round the Jaffna Peninsula, through the districts of Mullaittivu, Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Ampara, to the Hambantota area, the navy must guard it.
The navy never had the resources to do so. President Chandrika Kumaratunga herself bemoaned this fact a few months ago, when she said that if the navy had been given a more balanced fleet, the war would have been won long ago.
Thus, when Jaffna was captured in 1995, nearly three years ago, there was no question of the navy having to send supplies to the peninsula for years and years. That suggestion was so ludicrous that it was not even thought of. The navy didn’t have the resources to do so, on top of guarding the entire northeast coast.
This is why the government decided to launch Jaya Sikuru. It was planned that within a few months, the road link would be made, and sea convoys would become unnecessary.
(Censored)
Consider the case of the Mannar-Pooneryn-Jaffna road. Running along the northwestern coastline, this road is only about two-thirds of the length of the A-9. Yet, it too leads to Jaffna.
Not only that, but it would have been infinitely easier to capture, and to hold on to, than the A-9. It would also have achieved another objective of great importance: shutting off the northwest coast from the LTTE, drastically reducing the length of coastline the navy must patrol, and shutting off the Tigers’ supply link from India. (Censored)
The fact that taking the Mannar-Pooneryn road would have eased the burden on the navy and to a lesser extent on the air force, seems to be immaterial to the land generals. It was 18 months ago, and it continues to be so.
(Censored)
The only way there can be a victory is if there is a radical change in strategy. In other words (Censored) a totally different strategy must be embarked upon, if the war is to be won.
If not, the country is condemned to an endless war, at least until a new government comes to power and changes the way the war is being run. Until then, we’ll continue to be told that troops are consolidating at Mankulam, and Dvoras are being sunk off Mullaittivu.
Indian Winds of Change for LTTE?
By D. B . S. JeyarajThe past few days have seen a new breeze of hope refreshening the musty corridors of Tamil opinion both in Sri Lanka and abroad. Tamils in general and LTTE supporters in particular are undergoing a surge of optimism regarding the big neighbour India’s attitude towards the general situation concerning the ethnic crisis in the country. The expectation although quite premature at this stage is that India is likely to review and amend its position towards Sri Lanka in the near future. There is buoyancy in some expatriate Tamil circles that New Delhi may even revise its relationship with the LTTE very soon.
It is too early now to assess how realistic these expectations are. Only time can tell. Yet it is interesting however to examine the criteria on the basis of which these expectations and hopes are springing. The general context is that of the current politico- military impasse experienced by the country in terms of progress on the ethnic crisis front regardless of the growing promises made by leading lights of the government. Most people feel that there is absolutely no hope of forward movement unless and until some outside agency or third party engages itself constructively as a facilitator or possible mediator to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table.
In spite of the unsavoury past there is no denying the fact that to most Sri Lankan Tamils, India would be their first choice as the country that could play a third party role as mediator or facilitator. Whether India as a third party would be acceptable to hard-line Indian opinion or even the LTTE at this juncture is an uncomfortable question that they do not want to address now.
There is the recent history of the Indo-Lanka accord of July 29, 1987. Whatever the objections and misgivings about it at the time of introduction, the wisdom of hindsight gained over the past decade and one year have proved a point conclusively to the Sri Lankan Tamils. It was that agreement that provided the best possible political deal on paper for the Tamils. That all aspects of the accord have not been adhered to is accepted but still the little that is being implemented itself is a major improvement on the sorry past. Furthermore there is belated and grudging self-realisation that the primary contributor towards the defunctory aspects of the accord was the Tamil side in its multiple representative forms’
So to general Tamil opinion the intervention of India as a benevolent third party is a refreshingly welcome feature at this juncture. Strangely enough large sections of LTTE oriented Tamils too are likely to support this viewpoint. Although "Official" India has banned the LTTE and does not show any inclination to mend fences with the Tigers many die hard LTTE supporters would wish very much the opposite. The venom and anger of the IPKF period and aftermath is not visible now. There is recognition now that India was at that time only a "temporary tactical enemy" and not a "permanently strategic" one. Official literature put out by the LTTE in recent times has always been arguing for a reappraisal on the part of India. It has been "Mother India" that has been acting very much like "Mother Sonia" in ignoring Tamil pleas.
Even very recently during the SAARC summit we saw the Tamil parties vying with each other to project the Tamil point of view to visiting Indian premier Vajpayee and plead for some succour Vajpayee’s smiling silence on the other hand was interpreted by Sinhala nationalists as an indicator of India’s non-interest in the Tamils. The Tamil side tried to portray the very act of the Indian premier agreeing to meet them as a positive sign. This illustrates the importance of India’s role in Sri Lankan affairs although that country pretends to be oblivious to it.
The LTTE has always kept up its public posture of not being untowardly worried about India’s role. But many of their agents, representatives and soulbrothers in Tamil Nadu have been trying for quite some time in the past to, remedy the equation with India. This process has accelerated after the Bharatheeya Janatha Party came to power. Despite the changing nature of realpolitik one factor that is seemingly becoming a "constant" in Indian politics is that the Congress under Sonia Gandhi will continue to maintain a hostile attitude towards the LTTE: and by extension the Tamils because of the murder of Rajiv Gandhi. As such it was the new alternative BJP that was welcomed with fervour. The LTTE even soft pedalled its secular philosophy and actively promoted Hindu Tamil organizations to strike rapport with the Hindu nationalist BJP.
Furthermore the LTTE also counted on the fact that some of the Indian political parties supporting the BJP government were quite favourable to it. There was the Shiv Sena of Bal Thackeray, the Samatha Party of George Fernandez, the Pattaliga1 Makkal Katchi of Dr. Ramadoss and the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazagham of Vail Gopalaswamy who has legally amended his name to Vaiko. With all these parties bolstering the BJP, it stood to reason from the LTTE point of view that there was a possibility of overall Indian Policy towards Sri Lanka veering away from the "Gujral Doctrine". Also it wanted very much a lifting of the ban on it. But Velupillai Prabhakaran the LTTE supremo who knows that his campaign is a "marathon", and not a "sprint" was prepared to wait.
Events of the past few weeks began indicating that as far as Sri Lanka was concerned the scenario was very bleak and that only some form of "manna from heaven’’ (remember the so called "Parippu" air drop of June 4th 87?) was required. To the Sri Lankan Tamils the past few years have been full of misery. Now even the mirage of the devolution package is no more. Thus to the beleaguered Tamils some form of external intervention preferably from India is most welcome. Even pro-LTTE sections are of that opinion. Die hard Tiger elements however yearn for a rapprochement between India and the LTTE. Whether these hopes are realistic against the backdrop of foreign Minister Kadirgamar’s vassal like pilgrimages to worship at the feet of the newly installed Indian government is a moot point. But the reality is that to the hard pressed Sri Lankan Tamil even a "dupe" is a "hope" akin to the drowning soul clutching at straws.
The Kilinochichi-Mankulam debacle has shown that either side is incapable of wresting an all comprehensive total victory. In that situation only a never ending war with all its attendant spill overs seems to be in sight. The political solution is nowhere in sight. The continuing war has resulted in trickles of refugees going over to Tamil Nadu thereby strengthening once again the "locus stand" for Indian intervention in Sri Lanka - the presence of refugees. Sri Lankan naval and airforce personnel continue to be a source of physical danger to Indian fishermen another by-product of the war. The pursuit of war is bringing Colombo closer to Washington and Islamabad. Moreover a new government with active pro-Tamil party support was now enthroned in New Delhi. All these made the average Sri Lankan Tamil yearn for a return to the past.
Counterviling factors were however the absence of the tumultuous political sympathy in Tamil Nadu for the Tamil cause here. There was also the once bitten twice shy attitude of Indian policy makers after the Sri Lankan fiasco. There was also the political fallout of the Rajiv Gandhi killing. Besides Indian foreign policy itself had shifted from its earlier near paranoid state during Indira Gandhi’s time. The world itself had become unipolar and concepts like "non alignment" "cold war" etc. were becoming anachronisms.
Under these circumstances Sri Lankan Tamils continued to wait and wait for the expected ‘’Godot". Nothing materialised. Yet Tamil opinion was generally optimistic that India would shift its stance and view the Tamil predicament sympathetically at some stage. The Indo-Lanka accord was still a valid legal instrument and India’s guarantee to the Tamils a permanent factor. It was only a matter of time before India would intervene. What the Tamils wanted was not military intervention as before. Instead the need was for an assertion of diplomatic muscle compelling this unwinable yet seemingly endless war to end. Even if the war could not be ended Indian pressure is necessary at least to ensure some civilised forms of warfare like not using food as a weapon of war or not mixing civilians with troops in planes and ships like "human shields". Thereafter Indian efforts were necessary to resurrect and execute effectively in stages the Indo-Lanka accord.
In spite of all Indian apathy towards the Sri Lankan Tamil cause in the past the Tamils nursed an incurable sense of optimism that India will at some stage revise its position and take up the Tamil cause again but diplomatically this time. There was also hope that its outlook on the LTTE too would change. There was both rational and emotive content in Sri Lankan Tamil expectations on this account. The accord was an Indian baby. Also the Tamils still had an umbilical relationship with India . In the words of the Tamil bard Subramanya Bharathiyar "Thaayunthan Kulandaiyai Thallidap Pomo?" (Can a mother forsake her child?)
It is in this context that the recent surge of optimism regarding India has to be viewed. Three developments have led to this. Firstly there is the visit of the new Indian Deputy High Commissioner to Colombo S. C. Thripathy’s visit to Batticaloa, Tripathy an alumni of India’s prestigious seat of learning St . Stephen’s College assumed office only a little while ago. Although the situation in "Powerless" Batticaloa is quite volatile the diplomat has ventured there. The Tamil media and Tamil Net website have given much publicity to this trip.
In Batticaloa Thripathy met TULF MP Joseph Pararajasingham Rev. Fr. Miller and Brigadier Zacky among others. The Tamil net notes that the Indian deputy envoy familiarised himself will all aspects of Tamil civilian misery in the area as a result of the war. Also Mr. Pararajasingham has supposedly apprised him of the situational reality saying that the LTTE controls 80% territory and that it is capable of running a parallel administration as well as undermining the legal civil administration. He has also asserted that unless the LTTE is brought in there can be no lasting solution. The most important feature of the Tamil Net report is what the Indian Deputy High Commissioner had allegedly stated there.
It says: "The Indian diplomat had indicated that misunderstandings that may have arisen in the past over certain matters need not continue to cause concern to the Tamils of Sri Lanka". It is not known as to how reliable the Tamil Net report is, But were the above statement true then it is certainly a cause for a sea change in the Tamil optimistic mood. The reality is that already the Tamil Net report and this particular sentence have caused great jubilation in Tamil circles abroad and in Sri Lanka.
The second development is a story buzzing on the Tamil journalistic grapevine in Colombo. The Indian spy agency RAW station chief in Colombo Mr. S has departed and another Mr. V has taken over. This person has apparently told a Tamil journalist that there seems to be an opinion in Colombo that India’s policy towards the LTTE would not change. But according to .’Mr. V ‘’ it was only Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and the Congress who were against the tigers. A new dispensation in New Delhi may revise its stance according to its perceived interests.
The third development is the challenging of the Indian ban on the LTTE in an Indian tribunal* According to Indian law the ban could have been challenged at the time of imposition or during subsequent stages of extension. The ban on the LTTE was imposed in 1992 for two years. It was further extended every two years in 1994, 1996 and l998. The LTTE that has mounted a strong challenge against the US ban did not challenge the Indian ban at all, Perhaps it thought it was useless then.
But now the LTTE has challenged the extension imposed on May 14th 1998. The LTTE in its application before the unlawful Activities Prevention Tribunal has asked for a review and revocation of the ban on the basis that sufficient grounds for extending it further do not exist. The presiding officer of the tribunal Justice S. K. Mahajan had a preliminary sitting in New Delhi and has commenced further sittings in the Tamil Nadu city of Trichy. Eminent Tamil lawyer Chandrasekheran is appearing on behalf of the LTTE. The crore rupee question is as to why the LTTE that did not bother to challenge the ban on three previous occasions chose to challenge and seek a revocation now? Does it feel that the Indian climate is conducive for a lifting of the ban now? If the Indian ban is lifted legally then a major impediment in the way of New Delhi in changing its approach towards the Tigers would be removed.
Against this backdrop is it any surprise that Tamil opinion is soaring into heights of hope about a change in Indian policy towards Sri Lanka? Whatever the optimism it is too early to say whether this new wind is really a harbinger of change or one more false alarm.
CAT’S EYE
Marginalised women and custodial violenceWe are glad to see that some attention is being focused on the appalling conditions in our hospitals for the mentally ill. One of the worst abuses suffered by women in South Asia is custodial violence in state institutions. CATSEYE has just received a report on Unit II in Mulleriyawa that if true would surely shock the conscience. A copy of the report has been sent to President Kumaratunga. Unit II is a long term facility for mentally ill female patients. On an average there are 900-1000 patients at any given moment but it was built for 500 and there are only 500 beds. Most of the women have had their heads shaved and wear hospital surplus clothes- a long shift made of thick striped material. The clothes are often dirty, and torn. Visitors have reported that the majority of women at this facility have sores, insect bites and skin infections all over their body. The conditions are said to violate basic human rights principles.
ABUSE OF PATIENTS
It is alleged that the women inmates in Unit II are sexually abused by certain members of the staff as well as outsiders. We want to know if this is true. Have women often become pregnant after entering the facility? If they are taken to the Castle Street maternity home to have the child thereafter, is the child taken away from them? Is it true that they do not see a gynaecologist for the full nine month period?We have heard that treatment meted out to women is also outdated. The methods of restraint are of great concern to those interested in human rights. Is it true that modern methods of restraint are not in evidence at Mulleriyawa and the punishment given to recalcitrant inmates borders on the use of torture? In addition though electric shock treatment is recognised treatment in Sri Lanka (unlike other jurisdictions), is it true that in Mulleriyawa Unit II the treatment is given in a random, arbitrary manner not under the supervision of a qualified psychiatrist or anaesthetist?
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding at Unit II is a major problem. It is claimed that the overcrowding leads to beatings, verbal threats and over medication. It also leads to water shortages, bad food and unhygienic conditions. It is also claimed that when women are admitted they are stripped of all their belongings and are kept naked for sometime. Is it true that they are not given the individualised treatment that is necessary for any type of recovery? Is this due to a shortage of psychiatrists?The nurses and attendants at Unit II are not given a great deal of support. The administration is in another unit and therefore if the staff want anything they have to walk a mile on a dirt road. There is a dearth of medical expertise available at Mulleriyawa. If inmates need any assistance from dental care to any other form of medical care, they have to be taken to the General Hospital in Colombo accompanied by nurses and attendants. Getting repairs done at the hospital are also not possible. Toilets, taps and other facilities are often broken for months at a time. The lack of resources and initiative are some of the main reasons for these failures. In addition visitors from the outside are discouraged and at least one NGO has been denied access to do programmes with these women. It is outside monitoring that keeps a measure of accountability. The attempt to resist outside monitoring must be questioned.
Violence against the ment ally ill
It is often said that civilisations should be judged on how they treat people at margins, especially prisoners and the mentally ill. Of all the vulnerable, marginalised groups in society, the mentally ill are often category that is most discriminated against. In a recent scandal in Pune, India it discovered that hysterectomies were done on all female inmates so that they would not be allowed to reproduce. In the first half of the twentieth century similar practices were adopted in western countries. The reproductive system of mentally ill women was removed, and they were subject to all sorts of experimental treatment. Recent research is exposing these scandals as many of these countries are trying to come to terms with their past callousness with regard to mentally ill patients.THE GREAT CONFINEMENT
The mentally ill were not always dealt with in this cruel and inhuman fashion. In the early centuries, unless they were particularly violent, mentally ill people lived with their families and in the community. Shakespeare’s fool is an endearing version of this type of approach to mentally ill individuals who were compassionately tolerated and dealt with by families and communities. Today, the system is very different. Michel Foucault a leading French historian who made it a point to study the history of madness claims that in the eighteenth century there came to be what is called "The Great Confinement". Mentally ill patients were taken away from the community and isolated in confined prison like structures. This lead to terrible conditions for the mentally ill and they became isolated at the mercy of state officials. With the growth of psychiatry as a profession, mental illness became medicalised and the patients were greatly dependent on the observations of the medical community.REASON vs. UNREASON
Why is it that all over the world, people who suffer from serious mental illness are so badly treated? Foucault argues that it has to do with stereotypes and the type of activity that has been privileged since the Enlightenment. The triumph and valorisation of "reason" meant that those who were seen as embodying "unreason" were less human and therefore dealt with like animals. This animality characterises a lot of the cruel treatment in asylums by staff. The inmates are denied their humanity. To lose reason was to lose the most important resource as a human being. In addition in western society, where work is seen as the main purpose of existence, those who could not work and be productive were isolated and dealt with severely. The triumph of the Protestant ethic meant that large segments of the population were confined to the rubbish bin of history.Women have always been at the receiving end of callous treatment for mental health problems. Admission to mental health hospitals is only on the basis of a letter from a psychiatrist. The movie "Francis" showed how a perfectly normal woman was put in a mental home so that her husband could marry another woman. The more she reacted against this type of treatment, the more she looked like she was mentally ill. In addition women have been classified as mentally ill when they acted in a manner that was considered "deviant". Masturbation, homosexuality were often defined as madness in Victorian times and women were more likely to be construed as "hysterical" or "depressed" than their male counterparts. There have been many books written that have shown a male bias in the practice of psychiatry. These scholars have argued that in many cases mental illness may be a social construct and that madness is what a society at a given period of history regards as unacceptable behaviour, deviant activity that challenges the fundamental norms of society. The Egyptian feminist Nawal Sadaawi (a doctor) who visited the Mulleriyawa Hospital for the mentally ill, commented that the women inmates (as in many countries) were often "disobedient" wives whose resistance to domestic oppression was defined as "madness".
A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Luckily things have begun to change. There are now many movements abroad and in Sri Lanka that aim at a more humane treatment for those who are mentally ill. There are new innovations such as community based mental health that attempt to prevent the isolation and marginalisation of mentally ill patients. However, our traditional mental health institutions seem immune from this process. The description of Unit II Mulleriyawa that has been sent to Cats Eye is absolutely shocking and barbaric. To probe these allegations Cats Eye demands that there be a Commission of Inquiry to look into the conditions in Unit II Mulleriyawa. Cats Eye urges the President and the Minister of Health to seriously consider this proposition. Violence against women is not only rape and domestic violence, it is also about violence in institutions where systems of impunity allow human rights abuses to flourish. We urge readers of his column to write to the Minister of Health urging him to inquire into these conditions, to allow outside groups to visit Mulleriyawa Unit II so that they can see the situation for themselves and to set up a Commission of Inquiry to see how the practices that continue there developed and what should be done to make Mulleriyawa Unit II a more humane place. In this context it is important to note that a few years ago a visiting psychiatrist from abroad said that our mental hospital was one of the worst he had ever seen. Surely it is time for change.
