      |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Turning a blind eye to Jaffna
H.L.D. Mahindapala reviews a review written by Prof. Alfred Jeyaratnam WilsonProf. Alfred Jeyaratnam Wilson’s review of "Culture and Politics of Identity in Sri Lanka', (The Sunday Island of November 8, 1998), edited by Mithran Tiruchelvam and C. S.Dattathreya (Colombo, International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES),1998) deserve some attention because it contains summaries of the orthodox political ideologies currently peddled by intellectuals, academics, NGOs and some sections of the Churches and the media. A close scrutiny of Prof. Wilson's review will also demonstrate the methodologies of this lobby whose primary aim has been to confine the national debate within the parameters that serve their partisan politics.
Prof. Wilson is a lucid, and sometimes even a passionate, expositor of the themes that run through the publications he reviews. Besides, with an intimate knowledge of his father-in-law's "separatist mind' and his academic background, he has shown a remarkable ability to extract the guts of each publication and tie them round his particular political theme which is not hard to guess. Another review of the same ICES publication by R. L. Stirrat in the "Lanka Guardian' (October 1998, Vol 21 No.6) is less tendentious and closer to the point. He presents an objective view of the subject matter. The contrast in the two reviewers is most noticeable in the way they handle Jayadeva Uyangoda. Prof. Wilson is almost adulatory but Stirrat casts doubts about Jayadeva Uyangoda's thesis which claims that state violence could become a thing of the past if "the prison house of nations' is dismantled.
More of this will be dealt later. In the meantime, I have to rely on Prof. Wilson to get some insight into the basic positions of the various authors he reviews. Because it takes time for the book to reach Melbourne, I rely essentially on the outline presented by him for my review of his review. As they say in Tamil, if you see the mother in the market place you don't have to see the daughter at home. But this no excuse for not reading the original. It must also be pointed out that this review based on Prof. Wilson' review cannot pretend to be anything more than an attempt to get behind the politics of a reviewer like Prof. Wilson and contributors like Jayadeva Uyangoda of the Colombo University.
This publication of the ICES is also an index to the minds of the ICES and its editors. Even a brief glance at the chapters of the latest ICES publication on "The Culture and Politics of Identity', not to mention the bulk of the ICES publications, will indicate that by ethnic studies ICES means probing only one community ' the Sinhala-Buddhists of the south. The weightage given to the south exposes the chronic bias in their research work. Along with other NGOs – particularly MARGA, MIRJE, Sarvodaya and Colombo University ' the ICES (Kynsey Road) has adopted a conscious strategy through research to repetitively stereotype the south as the only source responsible for the current crisis. The implication of this one-sided view leads to ignore the multi-dimensional factors that impacted on contemporary history.
This lopsided view promotes the notion that contemporary history flowed only from the south and that the other sources and actors, particularly those in the north, played no part, or, if at all, only a passive role, in the deteriorating ethnic relations. Without dabbling in historiography or political theory, it is necessary to stress, even at the expense of stating the obvious, that every story has two or more sides. The argument here is just not to indulge in the "Rashomon' rationale where what happened in history is perceived through the eye of the beholder. Such perceptions invariably end in subjective interpretations. My argument goes beyond that to emphasise that history cannot be understood in all its multi-faceted dimensions if it is viewed like the blind men who came to their own absurd conclusions by touching only one part of the elephant. This is precisely what has happened to the mono-causal interpretations of contemporary history undertaken by a whole generation of intellectuals who have fallen for the mistaken notions derived from touching only one part and not the whole. In other words, history has been a one-way street to them where the traffic flowed north from the south.
But before I go into those aspects let me also (like Prof. Wilson) offer my thanks to Mr. P. Thambirajah. It has been my policy from my youth to cultivate two particular groups: waiters and librarians. Both provide food – one for the body and the other for the mind. "Thambi', as he is known to his friends, is one of the librarians who has opened the doors of his Caxtonian restaurant filled with heady wines and gourmet dishes that delighted the minds of many devoted bibliophiles. I remember him from the days I used to haunt the air-conditioned haven of the USIS when it was managed by Mrs. Margaret Gooneratne. He never failed to give me that extra extension for the books that I didn't return in time. He has also helped me at the ICES. The fact that he and I have different points of view on politics has not kept us apart. That is good and that is how it should be. In this sense he belongs to a rare breed.
On this personal note, I wish also to mention a reference made to me, in a previous article in the "Sunday Island' by Prof. Wilson In it, he said that he knew me from his days at Lake House when I was a photographer. Obviously, he has mistaken me for Hector Sumathipala, the witty, intrepid, legendary news photographer at Lake House. This mix-up of the two "palas' (this may titillate Prof. Carlo Fonseka no end!) is understandable. The fact is, I joined Lake House after Prof. Wilson had left for the groves of academia. But I did meet him, once, at the General Hospital when both of us were warded in adjacent rooms for a brief time.
Having got that off the chest, let's get back to Prof. Wilson's review. It is a clear example of how the intellectuals, academics, the themes they pick, the NGOs that finance the research and publications and the editorial thrust of ICES (Kynsey Road) publications are all geared to the single pursuit of denigrating the Sinhala-Buddhist society. For instance, in "The Culture and Politics of Identity' there isn't a single topic on the culture and the politics of Jaffna or its identity. This is not an accidental omission. It has been the regular pattern of NGOs and, in particular, ICES (Kynsey Road) publications.
This raises a fundamental question : why is it that the two editors of the ICES have chosen to launch another publication that goes down the same beaten track of exploring only the cultural identities of the Sinhala-Buddhists? Why is it that this and similar publications exclude the north and focus only on the south? Did the two editors think that the culture and the politics of the north are irrelevant to the current crisis or to get a comprehensive overview of Sri Lankan politics and culture? Do they deny that the inherent characteristics of the Jaffna Tamil culture and politics did not exacerbate inter-ethnic relations as they wound their way to a national blood bath? Why do the intellectuals turn a blind eye to the intrinsic characteristics of the Jaffna culture which have been, and continues to be, a determining factor in the worsening of inter-ethnic relations? In looking only at the south, are they not trapped in the illusion of listening to the sounds of history clapped with only one hand? Whose political objectives will this tendentious approach serve? And, finally, do they believe seriously that they can make a meaningful or a substantial contribution to the national debate – not to mention the process of peace and reconciliation – by delving only into the south?
A glance at the history of writings on inter-ethnic relations in Sri Lanka – from H.L. Seneviratne of Viriginia R.A.L.P. H. Gunawardena of the Peradeniya University, from Prof. S.J. Tambiah of Harvard to Prof. Wilson of Canada, from Kumari Jayawardena to E.A. V. Naganathan, from Mr. Godfrey Goonetilleke (ex-CCS) to Mr. Neville Jayaweera (ex-CCS) – will reveal an ingrained inclination to examine only the south. The north is either ignored or, if ever they look at it (e.g. Neville Jayaweera ' Sunday Island – October 25,1998), they would glorify it as their lost paradise. Ms. E. A. V. Naganathan was irate in a recent article in the "Daily News' that someone had ridiculed her "Tamil heroes'. They have no objection to the denigration of Sinhala heroes but if, by any chance, their Tamil heroes are touched they go bananas. This seems to be an obsession with them. They run around like one-eyed Jacks, sporting a black patch over their right eye (the pun is intended) that precludes them from seeing anything beyond Elephant Pass.
There could be several reasons for this peculiar intellectual twist. One is that they are bone lazy to sit down and do some solid research into the other side of history (i.e the northern side) which is absolutely essential for any honest and rational evaluation of the intertwining forces that led to the current crisis. Second, the intellectuals are too scared to step out of line with the conventional thinking, partly because they feel secure in following the herd, and, partly because, they fear to come out boldly with new perspectives, theories and findings that may jeopardise all chances of advancing their careers or their sinecures in NGOs. Which leads to the third point: there is no money or kudos in looking at the other side of history. Intellectual menageries like the ICES have a tendency to finance publications which would advance basically the political line of its head, Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam, who is also the brain behind the TULF. Considering the way pro-Tamil politics interlock with the so-called research work of the ICES intellectuals, it is fair to say that it has transformed itself into an Incestuous Cabaal for Eelamist Sycophants.
Furthermore, the tendency to put only the south under the microscope of social scientists has a deep political implication : it is the strategic political ploy to paint the north as the passive, or Gandhian, victims of the south. It is also a ploy to divert attention from the culture of the introverted, repressive, violent casteism of the north. But most of all, it is their ideological justification for blaming what Uyangoda calls "majoritarianism', "exceptionalism' and "totemism' of the south. From their point of view these are the factors that are blocking the next extremist demands of the north. But they dare not even peep into the north because it would expose the brutal oppression of the Tamils by the Tamils dating back to the 13th century – and even before.
The oppression of the Tamils by the Tamils under the inhuman caste system was legalised when the Dutch codified the pre-existing customs in 1708 and made it the law of the land, which in Tamil means "Tesawalamai'. That repressive phase of the Jaffna Tamil political culture is taboo to the NGO and academic research workers. The totem poles of Tamil casteism have never been examined by Tamil or pro-Tamil intellectuals to assess their impact on inter-ethnic relations. Placing such subjects on the intellectual agenda would certainly damage the political image, propaganda and the overall interests of the Tamils.
(Continued tomorrow)
Between the Lines
Protectors cannot be predators
By Kuldip NayarONE striking feature of elections, mini or major, is the increasing use of central police, the Border Security Force and the Central Reserve Police. The Election Commissions at New Delhi and state capitals have found the force from the two more independent and more dependable. It stands out in comparison because the local police have been reduced to an instrument, which the ruling party uses to harass or harm the opponents and critics.
Had the efforts made from time to time to reform the police been given a chance the nexus between politicians and the police _ the bane of Indian polity _ would have been diluted, if not de-linked. The National Police Commission (NPC) was one such attempt by the Janata government in 1977. It knew about the excesses the police had committed during the emergency (1975-77) and it wanted to know how to improve the police.
By the time the NPC submitted a three-volume report in 1980, Indira Gandhi had returned to power. She could not admit the brutal role of police at the behest of her son, Sanjay Gandhi, and his coterie. V. P. Singh retrieved the report in 1990 from the shelves of the Home Ministry but he was ousted before he could do anything. His successor, P. V. Narasimha Rao was the Congress Prime Minister. His helplessness was understandable.
It was Janata Dal Home Minister Inderjit Gupta, who revived the report and drew the attention of states to the problem of political interference. But his tenure was too short. Home Minister L. K. Advani had no choice. He had to get the report processed because the Supreme Court had directed government to do so following a writ petition by two retired police officials.
The committee, which Advani constituted under the chairmanship of J. F. Ribeiro, former Director General of Police of Maharashtra and Punjab, to examine the NPC recommendations, has submitted its findings. They have been lying with the Home Ministry for more than a month now. One only hopes that the findings will not accumulate dust as the original report did for 20 years.
The main thrust of the Ribeiro committee is on the strengthening of than (police station), the lower rung in the police set-up. It has strongly urged upon government to let the thana function independently. At present, it is buffeted by the winds of pressure from all sides and it can hardly do its primary task, either investigative or preventive.
State chief ministers, particularly those of UP, Bihar and Orissa, are known for their penchant to give orders directly to the thana, without even the knowledge of the state director general of police. They appoint their trusted men to such thanas as they are accustomed to use them for their personal and political ends.
The Ribiero committee has, however, conceded that it is not politically feasible to appoint the state security commission, which the NPC had recommended to entrust the control over the police cadre to a committee, consisting of the chief minister, the opposition leader and a few others.
But the committee has proposed the formation of a board to supervise transfers. Indeed, the transfer is one weapon, which comes in handy to chief ministers to punish independent hands in the force. In most states, the three-year tenure of the district superintendent of police does not go beyond one year because of political pressure or the chief minister's whims.
One has a nagging feeling that the Ribeiro committee's findings will go the NPC report way. Used to handling the police for political purposes, the states may not agree to give up the power they have usurped over the years. Even the proposed act to replace the existing police act of 1861 may not kind acceptance because it seeks to limit the scope of political interference and various nefarious activities. The centre will need all the persuasion _ and pressure _ to make the states change their attitude so as to make police accountable to the law of the land.
Even if this report were implemented, it would have left several fields uncovered. They are post-NPC developments. Militancy is one and communalisation of the force is another. Take militancy first. It has spread in one shape or the other all over the country. Whether the origin is politics or crime, the police have only one way to deal with it: suppression. This has naturally alienated people as it has happened in Kashmir and the Northeast. Maintaining law and order is of great importance but what about the excesses? There has to be a system, which can ensure that the police are accountable to the society and that their purpose is legal rather than political.
It does not mean that militants should not be dealt with firmly. When they take law and order into their own hands, they have to be punished. However loud they may be in their protest against violations of human rights, the murder of the innocent, who too enjoy human rights, cannot be condones in any situation. Militants tend to become vengeful.
The recent case is that of Tara Singh Hare, a newspaper editor, who has been murdered in Vancouver, Canada. He is a victim to militants' anger over his unrelenting fight against the pro-Khalistan elements. They attempted to kill him a few years ago. But he survived, although he remained confined to a wheel chair. How can this type of militancy be justified? A few days before his death, he told me on the phone (I was in Toronto) that he would win the Gurdwara elections in Canada and constitute an independent Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee so as to cut off its connection with the SGPC at Amritsar. It is not surprising that neither SGPC chairman Gurcharan Singh Tohra nor Akal Takht chief priest Ranjit Singh has condemned the dastardly killing. Many murders of this type were committed in Punjab during the days of militancy. The police were equally involved. One hopes that the unofficial People's Commission under Justice Twitia will bring out the truth.
No doubt, militants exploit human rights organisations because they point out the excesses. Still police cannot kill anyone without proving his crime in the court. False encounters by the dozen in UP are not defensible because the police have no powers to punish on its own. This has, in fact, brutalised the force. The police are important for the society but its capacity to do good is as much as its capacity to do harm.
Commnunalisation of police has deepened over the years because no action has been taken against those who have committed crime against the minorities. This happened in Delhi against the Sikhs and in Jamshedpur, Meerut, Bhagalpur and Mumbai against the Muslims. Neither the NPC nor the Ribiero committee has found an answer to this challenge. A mixed force may provide some remedy. But the force on the whole has to be above parochialism. How can protectors be predators?
One of the recent intelligence reports assesses the situation correctly: Tensions arising out of political extremism, communal and caste antagonism and religious, ethnic and linguistic factors add to the burden on the law and order machinery. The terrorist violence becomes more vicious as the militants increasingly take to targeted attacks on the security forces especially in J and K. In Andhra Pradesh, the Left wing extremists likewise have become more daring in resorting to landmine attacks and ambush against the armed police. Such assessments should convince the government more than before that the mere law and order approach will not do. Solutions to the problems are political. In any case, the police have to serve the law, not partisan or punitive politics.
National joint committee, anthropology and Tamil separatism
By Kamalika Pieris(Continued from yesterday)
The second group of studies deal with the Sinhalese. They are presented as excessively volatile and given to violence without any provocation, specially against the Tamils. The Sri Lankan Tamils are presented as innocent, persecuted group. There is no reference to the separatist and non-cooperative activities of the Tamil separaitst movement from 1920 on wards. The Tamils are presented as a suffering, persecuted peoples. The appeal of this for ignorant, well meaning foreign meddlers, is of course obvious.
A third group of studies deals with the ancient history of Sri Lanka, particularly the universally admired hydraulic civilisation of the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa periods. This civilisation supports two matters which affect the Tamil separatist standpoint. The ancient civilisations support the position of the Sinhala majority community as a long standing one. Secondly it confirms that the major contribution made to world civilisation by Sri Lanka is found in the 'Sinhala-Buddhist' component of Sri Lanka's history. These two matters reduce the importance of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. Therefore it is neccessary to reduce the stature of this ancient civilisation. This is attempted in two ways.
The first and most obvious way is to declare that our ancient civilisation never existed. It was invented by the British in the 19th century!! Therefore it was also neccessary to ridicule the Mahavamsa, as a story of myths and legends'useless for historical analysis. The second method is to reduce the ancient civilisation by refusing to even give it a name. The late Newton Gunasinghe, speaking at a talk which I attended at the BMICH, referred to our early civilisation as a 'wewa-dagoba-kumbura' civilisation, saying that he did not know what else to call it. This is supported by S. J. Tambiah, who, it appears, in his 'Buddhism Betrayed' referred to ''a past utopian community founded in the integration of veva (tank) dagoba (temple) and yaya (paddy field)'' (Manogaran and Pfaffenberger. 'The Sri Lankan Tamil'' (p 23). There is no difficulty in this matter. This civilisation already has an accepted label. That of a hydraulic civilisation. Most early civilisation were agricultural ones. Even the early urbanised civilisations, would surely have had to be supported by a vast agricultural sector.
Abortive attempt
Following on this there has also been an abortive attempt to declare that our recollections actually stop at the Kandyan period of the 18th century. On 19th September, 1984, a group of mainly leftist Sinhala intellectuals of the Open Arts Circle and the Workers and Peasants Institute, held a seminar at the Colombo Public Library, titled ''Do the Sinhalese have a great culture''. At this seminar, Newton Gunasinghe had maintained that contrary to popular assumption, the roots of modern Sinhala culture did not stretch in an unbroken line to the Anuradhapura period of Sri Lanka history, (250 BC'to 1017 AD) but only to the Kandyan period of the 18th century. Furthermore, the Kandy period culture, and in extension, Modern Sinhala culture belonged to a Little Tradition. ''Cula Sampradaya''. (Serena Tennekoon. ''Newspaper Nationalism'' in Spencer's ''Sri Lanka, history and roots of conflict'' p 210)This talk was followed by another one by the late Charles Abeysekera. He argued that by the early twentieth century, Sinhala culture had fractured into several regional cultures whose common feature was a form of village Buddhism which was quite different from the 'original, textually preserved Buddhist doctrine'. Abeysekera had also contrasted this with the Buddhist cultural identity created in the twentieth century. Abeysekera concluded that ''What we recognise as Sinhala culture today is not something which is naturally linked to the unbroken 25 year old historical evolution of the Sinhala. Rather this culture has changed during the last 100 years in response to various economic and political needs. In the course of this development this new Sinhala culture has displaced village Buddhism to a secondary position.'' (Tennekoon p 211).
Selective account
Bearing in mind that the above is simply a selective account of what Abeysekera said, we could make a few observations in passing. Even a layman knows that there is a vast difference between the practice of a religion and its doctrine. This dichotomy operates everywhere, at all times. Otherwise nobody will ever steal or kill. Secondly, religion as an institution, definitely changes as society changes.The available historical records indicate that Buddhism was regularly undergoing changes even in our ancient period. One example is the Boddhistava cult. We fall to realise that Sri Lanka underwent a continous period of colonial rule, of 400 years. The full 400 years need to be taken into account, not merely the last 100 years as given in the above excerpt.
This group of writings also includes several attempts to recast history, to de-mystify it. History is defined as something philosophical, not chronological or practical. It is linked to another philosophical concept called ''Truth''. These are in turn gathered together in a discussion of ''knowledge''. There is plenty of ground for philosophy in all this, certainly. But the quest for Eelam is an utterly practical quest. It is not philosophical. It is related to the very mundane, very political very real demand for an exclusive Tamil territory in the north of Sri Lanka. The creation of a new state of Eelam leads us straight back to the hard political history of Sri Lanka, complete with agreements, archival data, and population distribution.
The fourth group of writings deal with 'Violence'. This group of writings concentrates on the violence in Sri Lanka as depicted in the anti-Tamil riots of 1958, 1956, 1977, 1983. An example is E. Valentine Daniel's book 'Chapters in an anthropography of violence' (Princeton University Press, 1996).
This work emphasises the separateness of Sinhalese and Tamils, the notion of violence against the Tamils, and the search for a Tamil nation. It is primarily a record of the violence against the Tamils in 1977 and 1983. There are 12 Index references to the 1983 riots. Daniel writes in a convoluted style, he goes to a wide variety of western philosphers and commentators for his ideas. However we also get a few platitudes. 'The point of this. Violence is an event in which there is a certain excess: an excess of passion, and excess of evil' (p 208)
Books such as these could also function as sound propaganda for the Tamil 'cause'. Daniel says: 'The Tamils were the enemy of the glorious past of the Sinhala people, and the Tamil is the enemy of the present as well. There is also an increasing number of of Sinhala language newspapers and Sinhala pamphlets that are intensely engaged in, if not obssessed with, issues pertaning to the history of the Sinhala-Buddhist people and nation. (p 26). However it could be argued as opposed to this, that it is impossible to study the Sri Lankan past and its development as a nation without studying the contribution of Sinhala and Buddhism.
Propaganda function
These four groups of literature serve a propaganda function. They are readily available for the westerners interested in Sri Lanka. They are all written in English, and published by western publishing houses. A lot of them are written by non-Tamils, either Sinhalese or western academics. Thus giving the appearance of objectivity. The wesknesses of this type of writing have been discussed in greater detail in earlier essays. Let us look briefly at the modus operandi in them.The first trick is to keep repeating the same thing, through different authors and different topics. Thus whether it is violence, history, or culture, the theme is that the Sinhalese hate the Tamils, keep killing them, the Sinhala Buddhist past is a sham, the Tamils have a separate identity, a separate territoy and history in Sri Lanka. Since it is not easy to get historians and political scientists to announce such unacceptable statements, the services of a set of anthropologists has been obtained. They are writing and publishing all over the place, and have emerged as 'specialists' on the subject. Unshackled by the need to protect either their careers or their professional reputations, these anthropologists have happily engaged in various unorthodox approaches to their subjects. They use the word 'identity' very glibly without bothering to define it. However Daniel declares quite specifically that in Sri Lanka ethnic identitis are constructed. (p 14). 'History' on the other hand is turned inside out, and treated as a highly subjective issue, which can change colour and shape at will, sort of chameleon and amoeba combined. Some of these arguments are however interesting. Valentine Daniel says that there could be a distinction between 'history' and 'heritage'. History he says, constitutes a Sinhala disposition towards the past and 'heritage' a Tamil disposition towards the past. However the Sinhalese also could have a sense of heritage. The LTTE do not want Ealam because of a historic past. They are not bothered with Tamil history or the Kingdom of Jaffna. They say that these were resurrected artificially. They are interested in 'heritage'. (Daniel p 27, 29).
Two research methods
There are two research methods which are, erroneously, considered to be exclusively anthropological. They are the methods of participant-observation and the data gathering from oral histories. There is nothing wrong in gathering oral histories, but they are now going in the direction of 'interesting stories', rather than in the direction of intellectual inquiry. Participant observation is also inexpertly used. E. Valentine Daniel's informations were fellow pilgrims, tourists, tour guides, hoteliers, tour and and tourist car drivers. (p 56). This is fine for a study on tourism, but it is used for a study on Tamil-Sinhala ethnic conflict. He makes much of the simple, exaggerated patter of the tour guide. (p 25). In one essay Daniel tells us of the Polonnaruwa rest house keeper, who, on the first visit saw himself as an ordinary resident of Polonnaruwa, but on the second visit, had metamorphosed into a direct descendant of King Parakramabahu. (Spencer. 'History and roots of conflict')These anthropologists reduce events, over simplify them, take them out of context, label them and thereafter proceed to make all sorts of philosophical comments about them. Daniel has referred to 'constructivism' and 'Essentialism' among a lot of 'isms. (Daniel p 13). This abstract, conceptual approach is empty and escapist. It does nothing to increase our understanding of the social issues it addresses. These writers do not attempt to look all round a topic or event. They lack empathy, and on occasion, even commonsense. They have attempted to present their thinking as a sort of quantum leap in Sri Lanka studies.
Daniel says 'Unlike similar ritual processions found all over India, the Asela Perahera does not draw its spectators in to make them a port of the procession, except at the tail end almost as an after thought'. (p 61). Two comments are possible. A failure to note the difference between a Hindu festival procession and Sri Lanka's 'Buddhist' ones. Secondly, at the end of the Asela Perahera, a second perahera of the public develops simply because the public jump up and start following the perahera towards the bus stand. A line of police demarcate the two processions. If these anthropo ' logists cannot be right even on a small issue like this, how can they provide useful information on the 'ethnic issue'.
In several decades of reading social science research, I have yet to come across a more execrable literature than the collection spawned in support of the Tamil separatist movement. These writings are a disgarce to the social sciences, an abuse of the social sciences and also a cheery insult to the social sciences. It is now necessary to call for a formal examination and condemnation of these writings.
It is essential that the National Joint Committee of Sinhala Organisations step into the act. In association with the Federation of Buddhist Organisations, the National Joint Committee should now set up a Standing Committee to examine and report on the literature pertaining to Sri Lanka's ethnic issue, with particular reference to the image given to the Sinhala community and to the Buddhist religion in Sri Lanka. This Committee should consist of a specialist in Sinhala studies and one in Buddhist studies, and there should also be a couple of historians. One should have specialised in the ancient and mediaval period of Sri Lanka's history. The Standing Committee should first of all prepare a comprehensive list of all monographs, collections, conference papers, symposia dealing with the issue. This is very easy. All this material appears in the public domain. How else can they be used as propaganda.
A comprehensive report should be prepared and made public. If necessary the relevant funding organisations, universities and professional organisations involved should be contacted. Their role in the political destabilisation of Sri Lanka pointed out. In this connection there is an interesting point to be made. K. N. O. Dharmadasa states that when he submitted the manuscript of his book 'Language, religion and ethnic assertiveness: the growth of Sinhalese nationalism in Sri Lanka'. to the University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, USA, an editor there conveyed to him the views of a reader, to whom his manscript had been sent for assessment. This reader had argued that Dharmadasa had ignored or taken a totally different view of the origins of Sinhala ethnicity from R. A. L. H. Gunawardene's article. People of the Lion, which by this time had gained acceptance in some academic circles in the United States. Dharmadasa referred to this as the 'internationalisation of the 'People of the lion' (Ethnic Studies Reports. Vol 14(2) July 1996. p 137-138).
This indicates how successful these writers have been in gaining acceptance in the western countries as good research. One way this has been achieved is by a consistent pattern of circular citing. A cites B and C while B cites A and C and so in. The result is that apart from the Mahavamsa, and scattered references to Karl Marx, John Milton and so on, the works cited as primary references are really secondary works of doubtful reliability. No Sri Lankan historian who has specialised in the ancient period is cited except of course, R. A. L. H. Gunawardene. The rest are Kemper, Scott, Spencer, Nissan, Hellman Rajanayagam, Daniel etc. and a later group of Jeganathan, Ismail etc. Ismail, in an article in Pravda, actually referred to an 'anthropological phenomenon'. The phenomenon is social, it is the interpretation which is anthropological.
This Standing Committee could also look into certain other areas of writing. Womens studies, for instance. Selvy Thiruchandran's well written, informative, and otherwise excellent work 'The politics of gender and women's agency in post-colonial Sri Lanka' carries two quotations at the start of the text. The first quotation is by Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, the second is from the Manimekalai, a 2nd century, Buddhist epic in Tamil. (p1). Then there is 'Cat's Eye' in the Island newspaper. It was clear from early on that sooner or later 'Cat's Eye' would start to slip. In the column of 24.6.98, p 15, 'Cat's Eye' declared: 'In Sri Lanka, for two decades, our most distinguished historians and archaeologists have been subject to vicious attacks from the Sinhala 'Buddhatva' lobby'. Earlier on, in her column of 6.5.98 p 10 she referred to a story from Batticaloa where a Tamil mother and midwife were charged with poisioning a daughter made pregnant by a non-Tamil'. That particular column began:
'Borders and Boundaries: Women in India's Partition by Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin has just been published by Kali for Women, New Delhi. It is a timely book for all of South Asia and particularly Sri Lanka where a defacto partition between Sinhala and Tamil regions exists and its separate identities are under fierce context. For the chilling stories of violence perpetrated during the India/Pakistan partition by Hindu and Muslim communities on each other in the name of region, nation, property and territory, and how women, their lives and bodies became objects on which this violence and claiming were played out, has lessons for Sri Lanka negotiating its own future. It is also a unique feature of the book that it refuses to ignore the bloodshed and displacement that has gone on in Sri Lanka for the past 15 years. A recent issue of Index on Censorship on partition dealt with situations ranging from the Indian experience to Bosnia, Cyprus and Turkeys, completely ignoring the Sri Lankan one, although the tragic loss of life and displacement here has gone on for over a decade in India's own back yard as it were, not to mention the Indian government's involvement in the Sri Lankan conflict nd in turn, the conflict's impact on political wrangling in Tamil Nadu, culminating in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi'.
'Cat's Eye' we can conclude is concerned not only with gender, but also with Tamil separatism.
Arts
Next let us turn to the arts. Some of the recent approaches to indigenous culture is interesting. The Centre for Performing Arts, which is based, I believe, in Jaffna, has commenced a Cultural Interactive awareness programme called Kalai Palam 98 or Kala Palama 98. Highlights of the Colombo programme include a Sinhala ballet and a Tamil ballet. (Sunday Times Plus 26.7.98 P 11). Dance is considered to cross linguistic barriers. This is the first time I have heard of 'Sinhala' dance and 'Tamil' dance.We next look at cinema. Around the 4th February, 1998, we saw a television documentary on the development of Sinhala cinema, where the emphasis was on the Tamil influence on Sinhala cinema. This was presented in a very propagandist fashion, and was over emphasised. Reference was made to Tamil cameramen, and other technical directors who worked in early Sinhala cinema. They were also prominent in the Indian film world. It was not however emphasised that these people came here to work for a salary. They were hired. Similarly, the first local film producers were Tamil, such as S. N. Nayagam and Sir Chittampalam Gardiner. They were businessmen, entrepreneurs, who realised that if they were to make money in the local film business, they had to forget about Tamil films and make Sinhala films.
In India the films of the Lumiere Brothers was first shown in Bombay in 1886. Sawe Dada (Bhatwasekar) produced the first feature films and the first newsreels, around 1898. Thereafter Phalke, known as Dadasaheb produced silent films titled in English, Gujarati, Hindi and Urdu. Film making started in Calcutta and Madras, only after it had taken off in Bombay and its financial and creative potential was shown there.
Now we turn to a recent issue of 'Cinesith' edited by Ashley Ratnavibhushana and published by the Asian Film Centre. Issue No. 34/35 of 1997 celebrates 50 years of Sri Lankan cinema. The contents page lists 'Hindi cinema' (in India) and 'Tamil cinema' (in Sri Lanka). There is no reference to 'Sinhala cinema'. References to Sinhala cinema are subsumed under the broad term 'Lankan cinema'. In an issue which celebrates 50 years of Lankan cinema there is no account of the development of Sinhala cinema. All this could be described as the cultural arm of the Tamil separatist movement.
(Concluded)
Environment
Man vs Nature the Biodiversity Crisis
by L. C. A. de S. Wijesinghe
Vice-President, National Academy of Sciences of Sri LankaMan is but one species among many millions that inhabit the Earth - all confined to that fragile part of the planet, the biosphere. In his book Our Country, The Planet, Sir Sridath Ramphal compressed the history of the Earth from billions of years to a more readily grasped span so as to comprehend more easily the time intervals between the various events that took place since the birth of the planet in the solar system. He took 50 million years as being equal to one year. On this scale, the Earth was born 92 years ago. In the first 32 of its 92 years the Earth remained a barren wasteland. Only then came the first stirrings of life when primitive cells began to replicate. It took another 50 years for the first animals and plants to emerge. The dinosaurs and the other great reptiles emerged only two years ago on this time scale, and another year and 11 months were to pass before our first recognizably human ancestor, Homo habilis, man-like apes, appeared. It was only eight hours ago that Homo sapiens spread over the planet reaching into Australasia and the Americas.
By the time we arrived, the Earth was a bounteous place and we the newcomers. During much of humankind's existence his actions were trivial - not different to any other species - when set against the dominant processes of nature. No longer is it so. We have developed agricultural skills that have greatly enhanced the land's capacity to sustain life. And referring to the special time scale for the last time here, we began in the last five minutes, our industrial revolution, a process of change that was at once to be wonderfully creative and incredibly destructive. The human species now influences the fundamental processes of nature and is the root cause of the crisis that faces the survival of biotic species.
Besides man's creative ability, his capacity for growth and survival is remarkable and sets him apart from other species. From small beginnings, the human population reached unprecedented levels in the last 500 years or so. The human species is growing explosively, and this trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. This will have serious impacts on the Earth's resources. One measure of the huge pressure we put on the environment is that we, a single species, use as much as 40 per cent of the total net photosynthetic productivity on land.
Peter Vitousek and others, writing on human domination of the Earth's ecosystems, have viewed human alterations to the Earth system as operating through a number of interactive processes. The loss of biodiversity is arguably the most crucial of humankind's impacts on the Earth system, and this includes the loss of genetically distinct populations of species, the extinction of species and the loss of ecological complexes or ecosystems of which plants, animals and microbial organisms are vital components. The tropical rainforests are said to house 50-90 per cent of the biotic species, and 17 million hectares of these ecosystems are being cleared annually. Worldwide, temperate forests have also suffered similar losses in the past and at present large areas of old growth forests are being cleared and replaced by plantations. Marine and freshwater systems also face serious loss and degradation.
Extinction of species is a natural process. But the current rate of loss of genetic variability of populations and of whole species is estimated to be far above background rates. At the same time the movement of species around the globe is tending to homogenize the Earth's biota, with alien invasives posing a threat to many indigenous species. One estimate of the rate of extinction of species in the different taxonomic groups puts it at 100 to 1000 times what it was prior to man's dominance of the Earth.
The threats of extinction are increasing. The latest IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals records that 1107 of bird species, comprising 11 per cent of the world's avifauna, are under threat. In the other vertebrate groups: 34 per cent of the fishes, 25 per cent of the amphibians, 20 per cent of the reptiles, and 25 per cent of the mammals are threatened. The IUCN Red List of Plants presents as gloomy a picture. Of the 270,000 known species of vascular plants, 33,978 spread across 200 countries, are under risk of extinction. Of these, 91 per cent are endemics i.e. they are found in only a single country. Among the species at risk are many of known medicinal value, whilst others may be potentially valuable. It must be noted that the IUCN figures must greatly understate the real situation since many species where data were not available had not been assessed.
Of the 270, 000 species of vascular plants, just three wheat, rice and corn supply more than half of all human energy requirement. With the drive to increase food production, we have a great deal of attention paid to these crops to the detriment of other species of food value. Traditional farms in many tropical countries, including our traditional home gardens, are fast disappearing. Even in the case of the few species that are cultivated extensively, selective breeding to increase productivity narrows down the genetic diversity throughout a large part of the population. This ultimately leads to loss of genetic diversity. That there is a serious crisis threatening the Earth's biodiversity is not seriously questioned by scientists and other informed persons today. Governments have also come to realize the gravity of the situation for over 175 countries have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). While arguing that there is a serious crisis facing the Ear's biota, I have already touched on some of the factors that brought about this situation. Let us examine more systematically the mechanisms that cause loss of biodiversity. They could be set out as follows.
Habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecosystems which have escaped human activity have shrunk drastically in the past few decades. This is most marked in the tropics and covers forests, mangroves, wetlands, and marine systems.
Introduced species. Alien, invasive species are responsible for many recorded species extinctions, especially on islands. Newly introduced species often reproduce rapidly and explosively crowding out indigenous species.
Over exploitation of plant and animal species. Biological resources primarily in forests and wild life reserves and in aquatic systems have been subject to heavy selective exploitation resulting in depletion of populations of many species of plants and animals. Threats to species' survival result from increased hunting for food, but the search for precious commodities have also resulted in a serious depletion of populations of some species.
Pollution of soil, water and the atmosphere. The discharge of pollutants into the environment in ever increasing quantities have caused damage to whole ecosystems and to countless species of the fauna. flora and microorganisms living within them.
Global climate change. This a threat that the world's biota will have to face in the coming decades. Man caused increases in green house gases are likely to result in a 1-3 ¡C rise in global temperature in the next century with an associated sea level rise of 1-2m. Each degree Celsius rise in temperature is expected to displace the limits of tolerance of land species some 125 km towards the poles or 150m vertically on the mountains. Many species may not be able to adapt to these changes. Sea level rise could result in many island ecosystems being totally wiped out.
Industrial agriculture and forestry. Traditionally farmers have selected and maintained a tremendous range of crop and livestock varieties. During the 1950s and 1960s the so-called green revolution took place through the development of new improved strains of wheat and rice, and this resulted in sharp increases of productivity. This went a long way in helping to feed the growing populations in India, China, Mexico, Latin America, etc. However, one of the disadvantages of the green revolution is that huge quantities of energy and chemicals are needed to sustain the high levels of productivity. Another is the threat posed to the genetic diversity of species as farmers concentrate on raising monocrops of selected high yielding varieties.
In forestry there is the drive to increase productivity through the raising of monocrop plantations of selected high quality and fast growing species, and this is done at the expense of natural forests which harbour high levels of species and genetic diversity.
For many years, and even decades, we have recognized the gravity of the problem facing the survival of the Earth's biota. But we have looked for solutions without giving sufficient thought to the underlying causes and tying to address them. Nationally, and Sri Lanka is no exception, the legislation for protecting forests and other wilderness areas consists of caveats telling the people what they should not do and the penalties for transgression. Politicians are often berated by scientists for taking a lax attitude in the matter of law enforcement in relation to encroachments, cattle grazing, illicit felling of timber for self- use, etc. But, here at least, the politicians have taught us a few lessons - that we need to understand and address the underlying causes which are social and macro-economic in nature. Foresters, for example, are beginning to realize this and attitudes to forest protection are changing dramatically the world over.
Internationally too the relevant conventions had focused on the immediate causes and prescribed solutions. The CBD shows a marked and welcome difference. It has recognised the underlying causes of the loss of biodiversity. And its prescriptions for action go well beyond addressing the immediate causes.
Let me try to enumerate some of the underlying causes: Recognizing the linkages between rural people and the conservation of biological diversity; The steadily narrowing spectrum of traded products in agriculture, fisheries and forestry; Failure to value biodiversity; Failure to establish equity in sharing the costs of conservation of biological diversity.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a unique international legal instrument. It addresses the issue of loss of biodiversity not by prescribing protection measures alone but also by focusing on the underlying causes. Nevertheless, it is only a framework for action, and it rests on the countries that have ratified it to introduce effective measures for its implementation. Some examples of the broad coverage of the CBD are: (a) the CBD, without having conservation of biological diversity as its sole objective, includes two other objectives which are given equal weightage: the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of biological diversity; (b) its promotion of environmentally sound development in areas adjacent to protected areas; (c) its direction to respect, preserve and maintain indigenous knowledge, innovations and practices; (d) its provision for protecting and encouraging the customary use of biological diversity; (e) its direction to developed countries to support research on biological diversity and its conservation and use in developing countries; and (f) developing countries to receive special benefits in return for providing access to their genetic resources.
The CBD requires all countries which have ratified it to (a) prepare a biodiversity action plan and (b) incorporate the proposed actions into the country's sectoral plans and programmes. We have achieved the first step by preparing a Biodiversity Conservation Plan (BCAP) for Sri Lanka. This is a country which is rich in biodiversity and is heavily dependent on its biological resources for food and trade. Sadly, in spite of the conservation efforts of several government institutions over the years, depletion biodiversity is continuing to gain momentum. The major natural ecosystems on land -the forests wetlands - are shrinking. Pollution is posing a threat to the biodiversity in the coastal and marine areas. Added to this there is over-exploitation of biological resources on land and in the coastal waters. All these activities have led to a sharp decline in species populations, and several species are now considered to be under threat.
The issues relating to the loss of biodiversity have been identified in the BCAP. The actions needed to be taken in the island's major ecosystems, the forests, agricultural systems, wetlands, and coastal and marine systems, have been identified. The institutions which will have to implement the proposed conservation measures have been identified. The action programme also covers several cross-sectorial areas such as policy and legal measures, biodiversity information, research, valuation of biodiversity, and education and awareness enhancement.
The Ministry of Forests and Environment, as the national focal point for the CBD, will have to play the role of coordinator in ensuring that the recommendations fur action are included in the programmes of the different ministries, departments and corporations. The BCAP has set out a scheme for making the Plan operational.
It must be emphasized that biodiversity conservation is not the function of the state alone. All segments of society must be involved. The private sector in particularly including commercial interests, have a distinct role to play in the national effort. I would like to end by reminding you that history has shown that wherever man has placed himself in conflict with nature, it is man that has ultimately succumbed. The biodiversity crisis' if not addressed, can have more devastating effects on humankind as a whole than any experienced in the past.
