Malinda Words

This refers to Dayan Jayatilleka’s response (Anti-BBS Vigil: A critique of the critique) to something I wrote on the subject of a candle light vigil organized by a group that named the event ‘Buddhists Question Bodu Bala Sena’. I called my comment ‘The “Vigil” I saw’. Colombo Telegraph re-posted with what I consider to be a mischievous re-titling, “The BBS ‘Buddhists’, ‘Nightclub Buddhists’ and The ‘Vigil’ that I saw”. Dayan, sadly, seems to have let that title guide his rant and has missed out all the caveats inserted. That’s an old trick. You deliberately take a black-white picture and then rant and rave. That’s something I would expect from a high school debater, not from a man who has a doctorate, and one in political science to boot!

Dayan, true to form, throws his CV at the readers. That’s fine if only he was not so selective. His description of MIRJE is eye-wash, but that again is Dayan. I will let that pass and get to his ‘critique’.

Dayan wants to know ‘how on earth’ I determined the following: ‘But there were non-Buddhists in proportions that were a fair distance away from national ratios’.

Dayan, by his own admission is not one to attend such vigils. He will only stand with ‘The Left’ (he thinks the JVP and FSP are ‘Left’, but that’s another story for another laugh). In my case, I have made it a point to keep myself informed about who does what and why, especially I/NGO operatives and their cheering squad, in the media, at Lipton’s Circus, I/NGO forums and the workshop rounds. That’s how I know. The only people not speaking in English were those who were talking with the Police. This was no cross-section, as I pointed out. Not that it had to be, but I was only making an observation.

What I found most hilarious about this man who charges me of jumping to conclusions about composition, is that he sees fit to indulge in caricature of a magnitude that would make my error seem utterly trivial. He calls the BBS Bay-Badu Bala Sena, picking on a drunk-drive-without-license transgression of its main political figure 13 years ago. So based on that incident each and everyone in the BBS is a drunkard. Wonderful logic! Dayan asks me how I made a call on ‘cross-section’. I live in this country. I move around. I keep my eyes and ears open. Can tell. Dayan can’t, but that’s his problem. I challenge anyone who took part in the vigil to say that the group was a cross-section of Buddhists in this country.

No, demonstrations need not necessarily ‘accord with national, ethnic and religious ratios’, but it is strange to me that one which claimed it was a by-Buddhists event ended up having such a non-Buddhist preponderance. Add the other rider, there being a significant number of people with definite political agenda, and the picture is not as rosy as Dayan might think it is. The implication is that it was either not organized by ‘innocents’ or else some with suspect agenda had hijacked it or else were piggybacking on the innocents. Dismissing issues of class and category in politics by alluding to the Dhamma, as Dayan has done, is once again silly. One cannot be innocent in politics and Dayan certainly has not been. He has not subjected himself to the rigor he seems to demand from others.

Typical of Dayan, he took my ‘facebooking’ comment out of context. It is linked to my observation regarding composition. Dayan, true to form, deliberately misses the point and goes off at a tangent about who is on facebook and what being-on-facebook means and does not mean.

He does the same with the word ‘violent’. It’s easy. Pick a word and spit at it. Maybe it gives a thrill, but that’s not intelligent, engaging debate, but sophomoric word-play. I don’t have to answer for those Sinhalese and Buddhists who have been violent in one way or another against Tamils, Muslims or anyone else. Never been part of any of that. But Dayan does have a violent past and I find it strange that he didn’t pick some stuff from his own story to buttress his argument.

At no point have I condoned the Bodu Bala Sena. This does not mean that I have to agree with everything that those opposed to the Bodu Bala Sena say and do. Only someone who cannot extricate himself from flawed Cartesian logic would expect me to do so. In this instance, I went to oppose the BBS. In retrospect, I found that I was ill-informed. But I informed myself quickly enough. I did not stand with the BBS but I went to stand with people opposed to the BBS and the way I do politics, criticism and self-criticism are part of the story.

I said the policeman cannot be faulted for wondering how a ‘Buddhists against BBS event’ could have so many non-Buddhists. It’s enough for Dayan to go off at another tangent. If you mark an event as organized by X, Y or Z and realize that there’s more of P, Q and R in it, you can’t blame anyone for wondering what is what! That comes from bad organizing or too many people being taken for a ride.

This is what I wrote: ‘The Police Officer can’t be faulted if he wondered how a ‘Buddhists against BBS’ event had so many non-Buddhists. It was a sweeping generalization nevertheless and the ethno-religious composition is anyway not relevant to the matter of peaceful, democratic action, even if there was nothing innocent in intent and design.’ Dayan has either not read the second sentence or has deliberately kept it out of his rant. That’s cheap. Sophomoric. Typical.

Dayan ends his piece with a confession: ‘This hardly seems a fair or rational critique’. I agree, wholeheartedly; he has neither been fair or rational. Why he pressed ‘send’ after writing it for the Colombo Telegraph, I really cannot fathom.

NOTE 1: Dayan’s article in Colombo Telegraph has prompted a lot of comments. Many have saluted Dayan and showered me with invective. There is very little reason and very little sobriety in these comments. If they were at the vigil or supported the vigil then I can safely say that they are totally unsuited to question the BBS from a Buddhist perspective.

NOTE 2: I learned that spokespersons for the BBS have quoted my article. They, like my detractors, have misquoted me, leaving out important caveats. In my next article I will explain why I am opposed to the BBS.

NOTE 3: Most of those who cheered Dayan and most of those whove cheered the BBS, I noticed, did so during the nonagathaya and on Aluth Avurudda (April 14th) and into the festivities. Made me smile.

Way back in the year 2004, when the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) was formed to contest the April elections, I objected on grounds that the political/historical role of the Bikkhuwas advisory. The mayor, I wrote to the Sunday Island (February 15, 2004) has to get the drains cleaned, but is not required to cover himself in muck. For all this, the key figures of the JHU conducted themselves with decorum; they made their points lucidly and treated critic with respect, opting to deploy word to counter word. That the JHU became something else later on is a different matter. The point here is that the JHU of April 2004 is a stark contrast to the BBS of April 2013.

Let’s consider the BBS. Their statements, at media conferences and public gatherings, as well as their actions describe them well. It is apparent in tone and facial expression, in word and deed. It is also apparent in the organization’s silence on or responses to actions done in its name. If there is one thing absent in all of this it is equanimity. Emotion has ruled reason. Attachment overrides all else. There is clear inciting to violence. There is fear-mongering and playing to the baser instincts of a community, a tickling of human frailty.

‘Buddhist’ is an identity tag as much as it denotes preference for a particular teaching. But if teaching is important (and it certainly is), then any organization containing the word or a derivative must be guided by that doctrine, in both word and deed. The BBS is at odds with the fundamental tenets of the Dhamma.

The most recent example is how BBS representatives behaved in Thunmulla when confronting a set of individuals who had organized an event tagged ‘Buddhists Question Bodu Bala Sena’. That particular event was either organized or hijacked by people whose political agendas are anything but innocent. On the other hand, they were not violent. They came to light a candle, recite some lines in Pali (printed for the benefit of those unfamiliar, Buddhists and non-Buddhists) and take a stand. The BBS representatives present were abusive. In word, gesture and tone, they were in clear violation of ways of conduct prescribed by the Buddha. They could have, for example, spoken to those present cordially, even while recognizing pernicious intent and mischief-maker, and invited them to chant the thun-sutra together.

That particular incident was rather mild, compared to the foul and violence-inciting language and rhetoric indulged in by the BBS leadership. The BBS can claim they had no hand in the attack on Fashion Bug, for example, but they are certainly guilty of whipping anti-Muslim sentiment and ‘Muslimphobia’ among Buddhists. The stone-thrower is guilty, so too are those who planted ‘stone-throwing’ in his mind, directly or otherwise. The BBS has deliberately distorted statistics gathered by the Department of Census and Statistics to buttress arguments about ‘Muslim Expansion’. If, as the BBS claims, Muslims are in ‘expansion-mode’ and if whatever they find objectionable is illegal, then the BBS must take to the courts.

If there’s nothing illegal but it still offends, hurts and threatens, then the BBS (or anyone else) must seek answers in the Dhamma, which prescribes as fundamental engagement factors, pragna (wisdom) and maithree (compassion). There’s a palpable absence of intelligence and absolutely no compassion in the way the BBS has conducted itself. They could find answers in the Kalama Sutra (the Buddhist Charter on Free Inquiry), use the Sapta Aparihani Dharma (Seven principles of indestructability) etc. They could find in the notion of sanvaraya (decorum) associated with the figure of the bikkhu a useful ally in conduct. They have not.

Buddhists are not Arahatsand there is political dishonesty in demanding that kind of enlightenment from Buddhists in the face of aggression (real or perceived), but an organization that purports to uphold Buddhist doctrine, culture and values must consciously and actively strive to adhere to basic doctrinal tenets. The BBS is so far away from that point to justify using ‘Bodu’ in its name. If Buddhists find the BBS to be a slur on their identity and belief system, then they too should respond with the compassion, wisdom, moderation and other concepts that guide action embedded in the Buddha Vacana. This would include circumspect in who to stand with of course.

What non-BBS Buddhists and other non-Buddhists of whatever political persuasion do is their business. The BBS cannot play mirror-politics if they hope to achieve anything close to moral high ground. As of now (and perhaps for all time, given the arrogance and invective that they’ve adorned themselves with), ‘Buddhist’ is not a tag they can wear without insulting all Buddhists and Buddhism.

Canada, it is reported, has joined the United States in calling for the removal of Richard Falk, a UN human rights rapporteur who opined that American policies were the impetus of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird officially called on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to remove Falk from his position, arguing ‘Falk’s consistently mean-spirited comments cast a dark shadow over the United Nations and what it can accomplish. Comments like these do a great disservice to the fundamental values of the United Nations and to all freedom-loving people.’

A few days later, grudgingly giving three UN rapporteurs permission to probe Canada’s record on human rights, treatment of aboriginals and discrimination against women, Canada complained, ‘Some countries, like Iran, reviewing Canada have abhorrent human rights records. Canada stated that Iran ‘hangs guys and stones women.’

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Government have objected to Falk because he has been mean-spirited. Now is Richard Falk the first UN official to utter mean-spirited opinion? Have they not heard of the boss-lady of UNHRC, Navineethan Pillay? When she was mouthing the mean on Sri Lanka (while being ‘tokenist’ on the USA and EU), wasn’t Canada listening? What then of the much vaunted ‘fundamental values’ of the UN? What then of service and disservice, did Baird and Harper ask themselves? Or is it all about ‘You can be mean to anyone but not to my friends and certainly not to me’?

Now Falk may have outdone himself in bypassing perpetrator and picking on Washington, but there’s no denying that incidents (even bomb explosions) and people (including marathon-bombers and drone-bombers) have histories. Weapons have manufacturers and require markets (to be created if necessary). And the world has known ‘our terrorists’ and ‘their terrorists’, the former being ‘ok’ and the other responded to with ‘license to kill’.

But what of the second gripe, that of moral authority? Canada objects to Iran. Canada does not object to the USA, though. Sure, the USA is not exactly investigating Canada, but the principle must be observed across the board or abandoned altogether, wouldn’t Canada agree?

The United States hangs people (and let’s not talk about the scandalously monumental profits that corporates obtain from the US prison-industrial complex). The USA is not known to stone women, but what they toss on innocent men, women and children are not exactly pebbles. We are talking about all the wars in the 20^th and 21^stCenturies. We are talking about Kissinger’s infamous defence of President Richard Nixon (‘He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn't want to hear anything about it. It's an order, to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves.) which in all fairness to the man is applicable to many who came before and everyone who came after Nixon, right up to Barak Obama, the drone attacks, rendering, sanctioned torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the arming of terrorists.

So when such a country brings a motion against Sri Lanka, what does Canada do? Canada cheers! So does Harper and his Government wonder why few are commiserating with Canada in her hour of anguish?

Canada has shown displeasure about the UN team. If the UNHRC wanted ‘untrammeled access’ (meaning hordes of investigators, rapporteurs and Channel-4 like spin-masters), would Canada say ‘ok’ in subdued tones? Probably not.

Sri Lanka has cooperated with the UNHRC within the norms of the UN Charter and global standard practices as exemplified by ‘developed’, rich, ‘respected’ Governments such as Canada.

So Canada is boycotting the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting (CHOGM). It’s about Sri Lanka’s position with respect to moves orchestrated by the USA in the United Nations. Is Canada confused or just self-absorbed? Has Harper not heard about sauces, about the goose and the gander? One wonders...

A leaked draft MoU between the governments of the USA and the Maldives indicates that plans are afoot to set up a US military base in the Indian Ocean. While the US Embassy in Colombo has pooh-poohed the said document as a ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ (SOFA) of the kind that exists with respect to some 100 other countries, and that there is no intention of ‘setting up a military base’, the wording is more than adequate to sanction such designs at any given moment. The document, if signed, would allow arms bearing troops and the bringing in unspecified amounts of unspecified material, in effect everything that makes a ‘military base’ apart from the name; another critical piece of Obama’s ‘Asian Pivot’ strategy.

Maldivians should do what is in their best interest of course and by the same token if this latest move in the USA’s pretty consistent and relentless strategy of garrisoning the planet is seen as a threat, then other countries (like Sri Lanka) must likewise decide what’s best in their national interest.

In any event, Sri Lanka can but object in word but that’s about it. Sri Lanka doesn’t have the guns or the bucks to do much more. India can, but probably won’t.

As of now, what is proposed is a ‘Llily pad’; small, secretive, inaccessible facilities with limited troop presence, Spartan amenities and prepositioned weaponry, one of over 50 set up by the USA since 2000, from Djibouti to Hondurus, Mauritania to the Cocos Islands. Lily pads are easily transformed into comprehensive and pivotal military bases, like the approximately 1000 such US facilities in 150 countries, complementing of course the 11 aircraft career task forces (floating bases).

It all sits well with the strategic shift from full-scale invasion to special operations, proxy armies, militarization of spying and intelligence, drones, cyber-attacks and ‘joint operations’. Add to this long-range air and naval power; humanitarian and disaster relief missions that serve military intelligence, patrolling and ‘hearts and minds’ operations, and we have a global thug whose declining economic power can be swiftly mitigated by outright theft by way of sanctified resource extraction and market-fixing. All in the name of democracy, civilization, human rights and good governance, of course and yes, the media does the consent-manufacturing exercise well.

For decades now, the USA has tried to get a foothold in the Indian Ocean that’s a bit larger than Diego Garcia. Sri Lanka has a love-hate relationship with the USA, with the ‘love’ part probably being insignificant to wrest from the political leadership a Sri Lankan version of the Maldivian SOFA comfortable enough for the US Marines to recline upon. Perhaps this explains the ‘hate’ part evidenced by US moves in the UNHRC against Sri Lanka.

On the other hand a US-Maldive SOFA can be a lily pad from which something more potent than frogs can jump out, if deemed necessary. India is a strategic partner and is too complex a political riddle to untangle, a necessary precondition for setting up military bases in that country. Given global political realities, there is no way that the US would move in on the Maldives without the blessings of Manmohan Singh.

The USA will do what’s in its best interest. If invasion is necessary, we can expect invasion. It is far more cost-effective to purchase submission, with bucks or threats. If these don’t work then come the guns, but even guns work better when there are ‘friendly forces’ within the country. This is why there is a thing called ‘espionage’. This is why the US Embassy’s politicking must be checked and all movements of Embassy and other staff be closely monitored. Spies can operate in I/NGOs, disguise themselves as journalists or students like the ‘BBC’ team that went to North Korea, and often come dressed in local skin with local name.

The Government cannot do it alone. The citizenry must be vigilant too. Only the Government can obtain the citizen’s support but only a government that has the trust of the citizen can do so. The trust-gap is widening. It amounts to a window-of-opportunity for intervention. Regime-haters might salivate, but they are part of the citizenry that will have to pay the heavy price of intervention and accompanying anarchy. It is subjugation and not the source or name or national identity of the subjugator that counts. Either way, there’s a nation that is under threat. In the end, palming necessary battles to outsiders never bring relief. We have to fight our battles by ourselves and part of that battle is to keep outsiders outside. Vigilance is called for.

The President of the Private Bus Owner’s Association, Gemunu Wijeratne, has demanded that the Ministry of Private Transport Services be taken off C.B. Ratnayake. He wants President Rajapaksa to handle it himself. Wijeratne, moreover, has opined that only the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and Urband Development, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has the backbone to resist political interference and vanquish what he calls ‘transport terrorism’ . He was prompted, he said, by the prevalence of corruption, mismanagement and numerous other problems that beset this sector.

With that request, Gemunu Wijeratne has offered a nutshell description of all things political in Sri Lanka. Let us elaborate.

First of all it indicates a notion of where power really resides. If, for example, all power is concentrated in a particular individual, position or administrative apparatus, and if those individuals or institutions so endowed are not in the practice of delegating authority, then it would be a rank waste of time to address grievance or proposal to lesser entities. One has to query only those who can or will answer, those who have decision and directive.

Thus, in this instance, Wijeratne’s is not just a no-confidence motion on the relevant subject minister, C.B. Ratnayake but a pragmatic recommendation consequent to an honest appraisal of prevailing political realities.

In an earlier instance, when several students of Jaffna University had been arrested on suspicion of trying to resurrect the LTTE, President Rajapaksa ordered them released, following an appeal by their parents and a verbal guarantee from them that their progeny would ‘behave’ thereafter. TNA MP M Sumanthiran welcomed the decision at the time, but made the pertinent observation that it should not have come to a point where the President had to issue a directive.

A few years before, a hitherto unknown individual, climbed atop a tall post in Vihara Maha Devi Park, demanding that the President intervene to resolve his various problems.

More recently, i.e. on Friday, the matter of the controversial arrest and detention of former Deputy Mayor of Colombo Azad Salley, was resolved in a similar manner, with Salley, in a sworn affidavit, explaining his position (including ignorance about the organization that had invited him to speak) and appealing for presidential intervention.

Wijeratne, thus, has condemned all politicians and public servants as being incompetent and/or corrupt. Only the President can sort things out, he concludes. The flip side of the ‘cannot’ and ‘will not’ of official and minister, then, is the ‘can’ and ‘will’ of the President and his brother.

Wijeratne’s statement raises certain questions. Is it a question of competence, sloth, fear or not having authority (which could have been wrested formally or informally)? Is this state of affairs a product of constitutional provision (or lack thereof) or politico-administrative culture/realities? Has the President (and his brother), in order to get things done or because he has the power and the will or because he wants to impose will on each and every matter, subverted institutional processes, rendering institution and official irrelevant? Is this the ‘full manifestation’ of the powers vested in the office of the President by the 1978 Constitution?

The truth is that when Gotabhaya Rajapaksa takes on a task (eliminating terrorism, cleaning up Colombo) he goes about it in a methodical and relentless manner. He will not let politicians re-draw game plans. Being the brother of the all-powerful executive president helps in a big way, no one will disagree, but that indicates feudalism if not anything else which perhaps what Sri Lanka has been post-Independence, the plus point being that Gotabhaya (as Wijeratne and many others believe) gets things done.

But can one man (or two) do everything? Is fear inhibiting officials? Does this indicate that our entire institutional arrangement is a non-performing behemoth? Are we individual-focused and system-dismissive? If so have we always been like that or is this a post-1978 issue? Or is it a ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa Regime’ peculiarity (both the dependence, structured or on account of charisma and assertion, as well as the ability to deliver)?

There’s obviously a lot of power and a corresponding magnitude of dependence. The only problem is that both the President and his brother are human. They can err and they too can get exhausted. What then? What ‘thereafter’? When systems are not used, they first become irrelevant and then they perish.

Wijeratne has not elaborated. He’s a here-and-now kind of operator. But he has said it ‘as it is’, at least the ‘what matters’ in the business of getting things done. But President Rajapaksa can only do so much and that holds for Gotabhaya Rajapaksa too. Some might cheer the fact, some might worry. Either way, the indictment on institutions and officials is cause for concern, not applause.

The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) is alleged to have warned that those who do not adhere to the BBS’s preference with respect to how Vesak should be commemorated will be caned. The BBS finds the festivities associated with Vesak, especially the frills, the color, the play of puppeteers and other kolam objectionable. Instead, the BBS advocates a deeper engagement with the dhamma and a temple-based commemoration.

Vesak commemorates the themagula, the three most significant life-moments of Siddhartha Gauthama, namely the birth, enlightenment and parinirvana or the ascendance to the supreme bliss of Nirvana. Thus, if Vesak is about the Buddha, then it makes sense to reflect on the life and teachings of the All-Knowing One. The dhamma, encapsulated in both the sutras as well as the commentaries, from the deeply philosophical Visuddimaggaof Ven. Buddhaghosa to the more lyrical reflection/advocacy of the Loveda Sangharava, is replete with recommendations for wholesome life-practice as well as enumeration of things that could distract and compromise the same.

The Buddhavacana or the Word of the Buddha (Dhamma), then, is hardly recognizable in Vesak, in the glitter that is its present day commercialized articulation, except as manifestation of its breach. This is of course not to say that all Buddhists have given up on the Dhamma. The hype is about that which has greater visibility, for example the pandols. The visible (and the visibly large) naturally attract and make for coverage and commentary. But just ask the BBS’s visibility and the coverage/commentary it attracts does not indicate that it represents all Buddhists in any way, the spectacle and spectator-appeal of certain elements of Vesak, does not mean that this is what all Buddhists do on Vesak.

The temples are also full of those who observe sil. Many hang lanterns, but even they would not fail to light a clay lamp at home and offer flowers at the temple and before a Buddha statue or image at home. Not because the BBS says ‘this is the way!’ but just that they have a different understanding of doctrine and articulation of understanding.

What is objectionable in the BBS’s Vesak ‘manifesto’ is its quite un-Buddhist response to a vulgarized celebration (different from ‘commemoration’ of course) of Vesak. There is no ‘crime and punishment’ in Buddhism. There is no confession and expiation. The Buddha recommends a certain approach to life, elaborates on what is beneficial and wholesome and warns against acts that can be detrimental to the comprehension of truth, ultimate emancipation and even a peaceful journey through life. It is up to the individual to choose with cautionary caveats about consequences. No mention of canes and caning.

It is commendable that the BBS objects to the ‘glitter’ (from a Buddhist reading), which is but a mimicking of and even a we-can-do-better response to other ‘glittering’ of other faiths or rather the followers of other faiths (much of what is associated with Christmas is incongruent with the life and word of Jesus, for example). The BBS’s response, however, is not only inconsistent with Buddhism but amounts to a threat that infringes on freedoms enshrined in the constitution. The threat is in the public domain. What say the Police and the Attorney General?

The BBS has demonstrated that they have strayed a fair distance from the Sathara Brahma Viharana (metta, muditha, karuna and upekkha– compassion, rejoicing in others’ joys, kindness and equanimity); there’s none of these in the ‘caning threat’. This alone scripts ‘failure’ into its project(s), but the state and the law cannot wait on such eventualities.

As far Vesak, we can but hope that it inspires Buddhists to seek refuge and answer, modes of being and choices of engagement in all things in the Word of the Buddha, enshrined in the vast archive that is the Dhamma and obtainable in even a random line.

The Nation chose the following with metta:

Sabbe satta bhavantu sukhi-tatta, may all beings be happy.

Not all diseases are known. Not all known diseases have cures. Then there are ailments of the body and ailments of the mind, cures for the latter being more elusive than those for the former.

Both body and mind are vulnerable. The environment is full of disease causing matter, which become potent when the elements conspire to generate certain configurations. So we protect ourselves by staying out of the burning midday sun, sheltering from storms, drinking ‘safe’ water, eating healthy, keeping fit etc.

It’s not fool proof though. We still fall ill, sometimes because of hereditary causes and sometimes due to negligence or ignorance. For example, there are many food items in supermarkets that are really not good for our health, but we have no clue about these issues. We don’t read the warning labels and neither do we check the ingredient lists or the sources. We allow ourselves to be swayed by advertisements which tend to use as much misinformation and false claims as they employ the device called exaggeration. While there are things we have little control over (like genetic factors and germs), we still stuff our bodies with impurities and even poisons. So only those who are very alert, educated, intelligent and informed can claim to have insured themselves against these kinds of threats, and then too only to an extent for no one is ever fully alert and informed.

What of the mind? It is the least understood of the ‘all’ that makes up a human being and just like the body (which receives and in which is resident many disease-causing things and diseases themselves), the mind too is not impervious to illness-causing impurities. These ‘impurities’ are of many kinds and what is ‘bad’ for some may not cause any damage to others. Like bodies, some minds are resilient and some are not. And just like bodily diseases can be kept at bay with protection and diligence, the mind too can be insulated, to a point. It’s the same with cures. Some bodily diseases are curable and some are not, some can be contained and some will eventually prevail.

Among us, there are those who are quick to anger, easily disturbed and frequent victims of depression. The world, in its larger dimensions and the smaller universes relevant to individuals (home, family, workplace, career options etc.), is made of vicissitudes and marked by unpredictability. We are surprised and dismayed, thrown off balance and often helpless. We don’t know what to do or where to go.

We have heard people say, ‘I have tried to live a good life without harming anyone, not even in thought, so why is this happening to me?’ This same question was put to me on two occasions recently, one by a Christian and one by a Buddhist, the former a man the latter a woman, the first in tears and the other fighting them back. Only those well versed in these matters of body and mind, the cosmos and cosmologies, faith and healing are really equipped to respond, but I offered the following with relevant caveats regarding my limitations.

To the Christian: ‘The question ‘why?’ should not arise. Be strong in your faith. According to your belief system this is the will of God, so you can tell yourself that He is testing your faith; do the best you can do is to maintain fidelity, trust in Him, and abide by His dictates.’

To the Buddhist: ‘The karmicforces are not self-contained within lifetimes but play themselves out over lifetimes, across sansaara. So who can tell about the real source of these processes which have culminated in this moment of distress and despair? Abide by the dhamma. It tells you how to be and therein you get the answer to the question ‘what to do?’ It is all about treating with equanimity the vicissitudes of life, acknowledging the transient nature of all things, cultivating the sathara brahma viharana. I don’t know any other answer.’

Faith helps. In the very least, it takes emotion out of the equation, calms the mind and allows you to respond in a rational manner to whatever it is that causes distress. The Lord will help if in the Lord you place your trust. That’s quite an unburdening. In Buddhism, you are encouraged to reflect on realities and the virtues of a particular approach to things and processes. The mind itself is employed to cure those mind-elements that bother.

The right and wrong of these approaches, the existence or otherwise of God, the superiority of this faith over that and such are not important here. The mind is made for clutter and among the most mind-cluttering things are fear, ignorance, arrogance and greed. Faith helps subdue these ‘impurities’ that rebel against clarity and calmness and this helps recovery, whether the ailment is of the body or the mind.

SUBTERRANEAN TRANSCRIPTS

[This article was first published in the Daily Mirror, April 30, 2010]

Jehan Perera is not talking about the LTTE. He’s not even talking about the Tamil National Alliance. No, not even about Douglas Devananda. He’s talking about a man called Tissa Vitharana. That’s how much federal-hope has shrunk these days. It is even evident in Dayan Jayatilleka. His shrunken-hope rep is not Tissa. It’s Douglas Devananda. Dayan thinks Dougie delivered. Well, 28,585 votes (almost a quarter of this from EPDP stronghold, Kayts) was more than half polled by the party he contested under, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), but is still just 6.6% of the total number of electors.

Tissa’s situation is worse. He didn’t contest. He couldn’t. Even had he contested from districts that Jehan and Dayan might believe are partial to devolution, it is safe to say he would not get in. Not even if he contested under the ITAK/TNA.

These gentlemen are clutching at straws and if that would save them from a watery political death, I wish them all the best. They’ve missed the point in terms of what the electorate wants. The point was made in January and reiterated in April: DEVELOPMENT and not devolution. This does not of course mean that concerns of minorities should be summarily and unceremoniously dumped in the trashcan for things that ought to have been trashed the moment they reached expiry date. Concerns, of minorities or any other group, are always fresh. ‘Solutions’ based on myth, legends and fantasies can get stale. But that’s another debate. My concern is ‘development’.

If you want to reduce the manifesto put before the people by President Mahind Rajapaksa when he wanted to be re-elected to a single word/promise it is development. Not a word was changed when his party went before the people a few weeks ago seeking yet another term to govern this country. Sure there was the expected lip-service to democracy, good governance and resolution of conflict, but take all the frills away and development is what we’ve got in the sense it is what remains pledged.

Now Mahinda Rajapaksa has trotted out now and then all kinds of excuses for not delivering on certain of his promises such as much needed constitutional reform and the ensuring of good governance. He’s used the war-excuse. He’s used the lack-of-numbers excuse (i.e. in Parliament). These were legitimate excuses, but that time has passed and that’s largely thanks to his political will, leadership and unwavering faith in the ability of his key lieutenants to deliver and of course the people’s continued trust. He worked hard to eliminate these excuses. There’s no terrorist threat anymore. And he has the numbers. Well not quite, but still he is close enough to get the two-thirds and given his powers of persuasions it would be a piece of cake for Mahinda Rajapaksa to obtain the support of 6 more MPs.

On the other hand Mahinda Rajapaksa promised ‘development’ and to all intents and purposes only mumbled in footnote things like good governance, and setting up structures, mechanisms and processes that produce greater efficiencies and ensure accountability and transparency. Does this mean that we don’t have the right to keep demanding that he delivers on these things? We do. For two reasons.

First of all, structures that deliver better governance is a ‘solution’ to a real grievance and, unlike the whining associated with devolution, this has nothing to do with myths, legends and fantasies. Secondly, all these constitute pre-conditions for any meaningful development drive.

‘Development’ does not fall from the sky, although there are people who thought this actually happened, the World Bank and IMF and certain ‘experts’, especially from the USAID being seen as ‘the sky’ and their blueprints for resource extraction, exploitation of labour and mismanaging economies as ‘development’. Development that is sustainable and wholesome, in other words benefits the people across region, identity-group, class and gender and therefore ‘meaningful’, happens best when the relevant structures ensure that the most qualified get to occupy the most relevant positions and that the best ideas get currency and do not get covered in the cobwebs spun by incompetence, arrogance, inferiority complexes and red tape.

To put it bluntly, as of now, we have a system that generates just a handful of brilliant minds and even these are wasted due to mis-placement in the relevant institutions. The manifest absence of checks and balances and a political culture that promotes sloth, apathy, inefficiency and unprofessional approaches to work would take a lot of correcting, but getting our institutions right would take us a long way in this regard. This is why good governance is necessary in terms of the mandate given to the UPFA and President Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is not just about ‘democracy’. It is about ‘development’.

There is another massive roadblock that Mahinda Rajapaksa has to contend with. It is called ‘Human Resources’. Mahinda Rajapaksa doesn’t have to look far to get a sense of the human resources problem that his administration faces. He struggled to get the right people into the right portfolios. He’s got the numbers alright but he’s clearly not got the necessary competencies. That’s less an indictment on the voters than a clear assessment of the woeful state of our entire system of education.

‘Development from above’ is possible. History has shown that dictators and kings have achieved as much as have ‘democrats’ in delivering ‘development’. There’s one prerequisite: a population with a critical mass of thinkers, strategists, planners, builders, teachers, academics etc etc. Without skills and capacities development will be slow and could very well flounder. Without these things, we can get ‘development’ but not sustainability. We could get ‘development for some’ and the ‘underdevelopment of others’. We could get rising expectations along with unfulfilled aspirations leading to frustrations, a double-distilled mix that could bleed to revolt and destruction.

Human capital is the bedrock of any meaningful development. This is the bottom line. This fact is borne out by development’s post World War II success stories. What does this mean if not proper and adequate investment in the development of human and intellectual potential? Is this not the unconditional priority of social politics of countries such as ours?

Mahinda Rajapaksa has spoken about a ‘Semata Sarasaviya’programme, or a system where everyone gets a university education. In his swearing-in speech he said he would not hesitate to do all he can to build a knowledgeable, skilled, strong and healthy citizenry.

Today he needs to stop and take stock. We are a country that had universal free education. We didn’t really progress and yes ‘free education’ cannot be faulted for all our ills. The fault, rather, lies in a manifest reluctance to see education as part of development and lack of political will to operationalize those mechanisms demanded to correct the current mismatch between education and the overall human resource needs of the economy. This is an old debate and one doesn’t need to go over it again and again.

We don’t have a proper classification of jobs in the first place. We don’t even have the mechanism to generate such a classification. We don’t have a needs-assessment exercise or the thinking that demands such an exercise to be done on an ongoing basis. We don’t have enough English teachers. We don’t have enough teachers for science subjects. We lack the laboratories and other equipment. There’s overcrowding in the Arts stream because there are more teachers in these fields and you need just a piece of chalk and a blackboard (the ‘logic’ that persuaded Peradeniya University to break up the Arts Faculty and locate part of it in Polgolla to satisfy the whim of a local politician, apparently, and not the Medical or Engineering Faculties).

We need economists, geographers, historians, sociologies etc., and need those who are fluent in literature, philosophy and religion, just as we need doctors, engineers and dental surgeons. On the other hand, shouldn’t there be logic and reason applied in the structuring of the university system, resource allocation and intake for particular fields of study? Shouldn’t there be a system where those who don’t make the cut have alternative technical and other fields to engage in and acquire marketable skills? We need, for example, doctors. We need nurses too. There is clearly a ‘right mix’ in terms of numbers. There is also, sadly, a clear lacuna in people thinking on these lines and a clear absence of interest in the politicians to deliver on the recommendation of those who have done the relevant research.

Mahinda Rajapaksa and indeed Basil Rajapaksa, the new Minister of Economic Development must take into account that a study has shown that 90% of teaches in the Central Province are unqualified and that the number for Sabaragamuwa, Southern, Uva, North Central, North Western and Western Provinces are 87%, 85%, 84%, 81% and 67% respectively. With this lot teaching it is a miracle that more than 200,000 students at least make it to the A levels. Both the President and his Minister of Economic Development seem to have the intention but they will not be able to deliver without the requisite human capital.

Only 3% of our children have the opportunity for higher education. Of the 100,000 who join the labour market every year, only 30,000 are fully employed. The rest are either unemployed or underemployed or worse, mis-employed. We won’t get the kind of progress we desire or have to potential to achieve unless this situation is addressed.

There is no doubt that there are areas that need to be picked up, especially the sciences. There is no doubt that full access to university education must be obtained and that since the state cannot deliver 100% on this, it should rope in the private sector in a regulated manner so that standards are met and children not hoodwinked.

Mahinda Rajapaksa wants to deliver development. He can. He has to first take a hard look at who is going to do the nuts-and-bolts thing. There aren’t many, Mr. President. You have to do something about the woeful lack of human capital.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at msenevira@gmail.com

On May 22, 2013, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered between the Public Affairs Section of the Embassy of the United States of America (USA) and the Trincomalee Urban Council (UC) at the Public Library of Trincomalee for the use of the UC premises for a period of five years. The facility, named ‘American Corner’ is purportedly for public information activity.

The US Embassy has already set up 2 such facilities, one in Kandy and another in Jaffna. The Ministry of External Affairs is yet to comment on the legality of these operations. If they have been sanctioned, then the public needs to know whether clearance has been obtained from the national security establishment given sensitivity and the track record of the USA in setting up of such ‘non-military’ bases and using them for espionage purposes.

First and foremost the use of ‘American’ is a misnomer and one which indicates the ‘empiric’ aspirations of the USA, for ‘America’ refers to two continents, from the southern tip of South America to the northernmost point of North America. That’s a ‘cornering’ of a different kind which too is not ideologically innocent.

Secondly, if this is ‘ok’, it means that the USA can enter into Memoranda of Understanding with each of the 335 local authorities in the country. It means that all other countries which have diplomatic missions in Sri Lanka can follow suit. We will have a Saudi Arabia Corner in Kattankudy, a Russian Corner in Kolonnawa, a Cuban Corner in Boralesgamuwa and of course similar corners of these countries and others in all parts of the country. It will be practically impossible for the Government to check what they are up to.

What is pernicious about this move is that the US Embassy has seen fit to bypass the Ministry of External Affairs. This is the ‘we do as we want’ face of the Ugly American. This is exactly what made people express horror about 9/11 but add, ‘you asked for it’.

Thirdly, if a relatively minor local authority like an Urban Council can ‘pact’ with a foreign government, what wouldn’t a larger entity such as a Provincial Council do? Trincomalee is a sensitive district security-wise. Any foreign government doing any business (forget setting up a ‘base’ which can be used for electronic warfare, surveillance and such) is a threat to national security. The USA, moreover, is not exactly Sri Lanka’s ‘best friend’ in the international community. This move is as much a security threat as that of giving Sampur over to India.

In other words, if the 13^thAmendment is not repealed and a different arrangement instituted to ensure a louder voice for the citizen in regional development, with sufficient protections against abuse by spoiler forces (like the TNA, which is calling for autonomy that includes financial deals with foreign governments), then we could very well have the USA (or anyone else) operating to destabilize the nation from within in ways that are more telling than the current method of surreptitiously conspiring with anti-Sri Lankan elements to affect regime-change.

Let there be no illusions. The USA is dead-set on interfering in the internal affairs of this country. The USA tried to corner Sri Lanka in Geneva. The USA is now taking the metaphor into literary territory. We could very well have the USA and its allies in the European Union (who voted en bloc against Sri Lanka in Geneva) setting up such ‘corners’ in all corners of the country. There won’t be a corner left that can be called ‘Sri Lanka’. Or else, the Government will have to beg these powers for a ‘corner’ for Sri Lanka.

The USA is clearly cutting corners here, banking on the general goodwill of the people and the inefficiencies and/or fears of relevant officials and politicians. These are civilian-looking ‘Lily Pods’ with multiple uses, both innocent and pernicious. The USA does not love Sri Lanka or Sri Lankans. That’s fine. The Government, however, cannot shun its responsibilities to the people.

These ‘corners’ must be kicked out. And fast.

We live in an era of ‘flexible capital’. Money moves, industries move, people move. Things are supposed to move around and fit together in locations that make for best returns. Theoretically. Typically of course capital moves to resource rich places where resource-extraction is cost-effective and where no-sweat of less-sweat extraction of labor power is possible.

Companies are like that. They are made of hire-and-fire. They are made of people who have left poorer contracts and are looking out for better ones. Newspaper offices are no different. There was a time when people stayed, grew into and with editorial offices. That was way back when.

Then again there are those who for many reasons are not favorably ‘optioned’. ‘The Nation’ will celebrate seven years a few days from now. ‘The Nation’ has changed hands, changed direction and focus, thanks to those who were or are part of it. Of those who joined at the start way back in 2006, only 5 remain. That’s how newspapers are. People come, people go. It is not a phenomenon peculiar to ‘The Nation’. Some arrivals help, some don’t. Some departures cost, some do not. Anyway, of these 5, only one, a photojournalist, belongs to the Editorial Staff. Among the other three is Sundara Arachchige Don Ananda Thushara, officially an ‘Office Assistant’.

The word ‘assistant’ does a lot of injustice to Thushara. Everyone ‘assists’ – that’s how any product comes out of a production process. ‘Assistant’ has connotations of ‘adjunct’, an add-on and even an entity that is not ‘central’ to the main functions of an office. That’s so wrong.

Thushara is a Jack-of-Many-Trades and Master-of-Several. He makes tea like no one does. There are people who do not drink tea on Thushara’s off-days. He cuts birthday cakes, farewell-cakes and first-salary-cakes perfectly, i.e. so everyone present gets an equal share.

He is a self-taught type-setter. He is a self-taught archivist. He alone knows where to find what in issues from several years ago. He is that meticulous. He has a sense for space, furniture and anthropometrics and that’s part of the reason why the contraction of editorial space hasn’t cramped anyone.

He alone knows about the ins and out of the entire staff, keeping track of who has taken how much leave. Indeed, the leave-takers themselves would not know where they stand in relation to that point beyond which the HR Department raps them on their knuckles. Ask him about freelance payments and he will tell you who gets paid how much and what the relevant costs were for each section of The Nation in the month of April. Come March-April when people apply for Journalism Awards, it is Thushara who will have the glue and the scissors, find the relevant articles from the archives, photocopy the same and put it all together neatly in presentable form.

You can trust Thushara to collect anything from and deliver anything to any destination, any office or any individual. Thushara knows things. A lot of things.

Come Christmas time, and the entire place is full of decorations. Happens overnight. Where the material was obtained from, whether there were costs involved and if so who paid the bills – no one knows. Is it because he’s a Catholic? No. It’s not a has-to-be-done thing but it’s something that’s nice. The Nation has its share of Christians. They did not think of decorating the place and neither did they ask Thushara to do it. It’s not part of his JD, anyway (like most things he does).

Thushara is an expert at getting such things done. So this is Vesak. Nothing to do with his faith and not his festival. The Buddhists in ‘The Nation’ didn’t think of decorating the office. No one told Thushara to make Vesak Koodu. Not part of his JD. But he does such things. Makes things look nice. Adds color. Makes people smile. Perhaps that’s the expression of ‘Christian Charity’ that he has internalized. Perhaps it’s just him. A nice man. A make-everyone-happy man, an always-with-a-smile man. Or perhaps he owns ‘The Nation’ and because he belongs to ‘The Nation’ in ways that no one else does.

The University of Sri Jayawardenapura has decided to terminate the services of Anuruddha Pradeep Karnasooriya , Lecturer (Probationary). This decision was taken, based on a stipulation that a probationary lecturer should obtain a Masters degree within 8 years after joining the particular university. The D-Day for Karnasooriya was March 9, 2013.

A media release on the issue by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) points out, ‘If the probationary period comes to an end while the thesis had been submitted but the result have not been released, it is customary to place the individual concerned within the ‘temporary’ position until such time that the results are released and once the results are released the appointment is backdated to the date of submission of the master thesis’. FUTA adds, ‘there are many in the system currently, including those at the top most rung of university administration who have benefited from this practice’.

Karnasooriya submitted his thesis on March 1, 2013. Thus, according to standard practice his status as ‘Lecturer (Probationary)’ should have been affirmed by the University Council and revisited for either permanency or termination upon the relevant authorities making a determination either way on his thesis.

What is pertinent here is that the Council has been misled into believing that the thesis was submitted on March 20, 2013 and not March 1, 2013. Whether this was deliberate or not, we do not know. What is known is that several members of the Council were pressured by the Minister of Higher Education, S.B. Dissanayake to terminate Karnasooriya’s services.

What is also known is that Karnasooriya has been one of the most vocal critics of the Government’s education policy, especially with respect to private universities. His notes in the ‘Ravaya’ (as gleaned from a debate with a colleague of the same university, Navaratne Banda) clearly establishes Karnasooriya as the most informed and most articulate advocate of ‘free education’. His book, Pudgalika Vishvavidyala Vilaasithava Saha Yathaarthaya (The fashion and reality of private universities) remains the most comprehensive analysis of policy prerogatives given social, economic and political realities.

Is all this irrelevant? Yes and no. Yes, because the decision is preceded by a history where Karnasooriya has exchanged words with the Minister. The Minister has referred to the fact that Karnasooriya is still on ‘probation’. The Minister, as FUTA points out, has clearly been irked by Karnasooriya’s ‘often piercing criticism on how universities are managed, how funding for education has been systematically reduced and the loss of academic freedom’. Silencing Karnasooriya by way of taking him out of the ‘irritancy’ that is FUTA would certainly relieve S.B. Dissanayake. The majority of the Council members, as FUTA points out, are appointed by the Minister. We cannot underestimate the minister’s voice and hand in the decision. He was ‘present’ and therefore his interests have to be factored in, both in decision and in reading of decision. Revenge-intent has to be suspected. Vindictiveness is indicated.

But whether or not S.B. Dissanayake is pleased or displease is beside the point. What is pertinent is that the Council moved on the basis of an error, deliberate or otherwise. Karnasooriya has been done in by the Council in an unprecedented move. It can, should and will be read as yet another example of the Government’s policy of politicizing further the university system and reining in dissent from academic.

For the record, Karnasooriya has never given a blank cheque to the Opposition or the Government. He has not opposed the Government on each and every issue. He has defended what he believed ought to be defended and by the same token has objected to the objectionable. He is no yes-man and neither is he a no-man as such one finds in the academic hell bent on regime-change on account of party preference. He has always chosen reason and substantiation over emotion and rhetoric. He is one of the most informed and sharp-minded academics in the university system, a fact that even those who disagree with him on certain issues, would readily acknowledge.

This decision is so wrong. It shames the council. It shames the university. It shames the minister. It shames the Government. There is only one course of action that can correct this injustice: acknowledgment of error on the part of the Vice Chancellor’s office leading to the Council decision. It has to be done. Right now.

As a Buddhist growing up in Sri Lanka in a household where there was a time and place for religious activity (limited to Poya Day visits to the temple and nocturnal recitation of gathas), the story of Prince Siddhartha was obtained mostly from the Sadaham Maga, the school text book on Buddhism. That made for early and even definitive etching. Invariably, subsequent versions get measured against the early script.

This was so when I watched Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1993 film ‘The Little Buddha’, which traced the ‘Siddhartha Story’ for the benefit of a little child believed to be a reincarnation of the deceased Lama Dorje. It was as though the Sadaham Maga version had been turned into a film. It has been over 15 years since I saw ‘The Little Buddha’ and many decades have passed since I touched the Sadaham Maga, but the images conjured by both remained reference points when I watched ‘Sri Siddhartha Gauthama’, produced by the Light of Asia Foundation.

An overture at the beginning of the film gave a nutshell ‘postscript’ of sorts to the main story, which focused on the life of Prince Siddhartha up to the abhinishkramanaya, i.e. the leaving of the palace, household, wife and child. The overture was a set-up then, taking the audience from the point of abhinishkramanayato the point of Enlightenment. It did not contain the Sathara Pera Nimithi, or the four encounters that are said to have precipitated the abhinishkramanaya. My 9 year old daughter asked me whether or not these would be shown. I told her I did not know. Early versions, I concluded, leave strong impressions.

My ‘Grade 1-4’ memories were not wounded by this version and even if they were, there’s no one to blame. What was different here was the treatment of the abhinishkramanaya moment. Whereas the Sadaham Maga version had us believe that the disenchanted prince left the palace in secret, at night, with no word of parting or inclination of the fact, to Princess Yashodara, his wife. A seven year old child might not see that as ‘odd’, particularly since the character of the prince, the ascetic and the Buddha in that evolutionary order are of stature that makes this ‘oddity’ marginal. Nevertheless, it is story-quirk that perturbs for it is incongruent with the wisdom, compassion and even diplomacy associated with the principal character through all these incarnations.

‘Siddhartha’ irons it out or rather seeks to do so by dismissing the notion that the prince who enjoyed all material comforts suddenly became disenchanted by accident. The main character, then, is shown as not just wise and skilled (as in the school text book version) but consistent in being deeply reflective. It downplays the sathara pera nimithi and frames them in more believable dimensions, i.e. of precipitation.

On the other hand, the sathara pera nimithi, marginal though they are to the story in this version are portrayed in less telling terms than in the Bertolucci version, whose focus of course was different, where these factors were treated as ‘key’. This film is less ‘grand’ and perhaps deliberately so, given preoccupation with a reflective lead-up to the abhinishkramanaya. That preoccupation, paradoxically, given the Buddha’s thesis on upaadaana(attachment), detracts in perhaps unintended ways.

None of the characters, apart from the arrogant, jealous and short-tempered Devadatta, are developed to levels where they cease to appear as add-ons, not even Siddhartha. Yashodhara is nothing like the ‘ideal’ that Siddhartha conjures to put off his father’s fascination with succession. She is ‘beautiful’ but the wisdom and understanding she is supposed to be endowed with doesn’t come through in script, acting or voice. There is however a single redeeming moment; when Siddhartha takes leave silently and the princess, although appearing to be asleep, sheds a tear. She is not unprepared. She is not abandoned callously. In this version, Siddhartha ‘provides’ for the eventuality of solitude in the form of Rahula, his son.

Ranjan Ramanayake’s rendition of King Suddhodhana is a stand-out performance. Prince Nanda has been accorded a greater presence than in the Sadaham Maga version where he is mostly remembered for the encounter on day of the themagulaand subsequent entering of the Order. This version is far more believable and amounts to the correction of a historical injustice, for he was after all Siddhartha’s half-brother. Channa, the friend, consequently suffers in portrayal but that could be a quirk of childhood perception.

Much effort has been expended on the set and the frills. Nothing seems ‘out of place’. The palace scenes could have been edited better. The cinematography of the ‘overture’ served, unfortunately, to diminish that of what followed.

The lead-up holds, but barely. We are constantly told of the prince’s disenchantment, his need to ‘find the truth’ etc. There seems to be too much burden imposed on dialogue to drive the point home. There is an obvious conflict between responsibility to family, especially father and wife but not discounting to subjects, and the meaninglessness of it all, but word is not complemented by overall setting. It therefore emerges as being contrived. Labored. Still, there is more justice done to this conflict in this version than in ‘The Little Buddha’ which looks all-too-simple in comparison.

Overall, the narrative adds a believable dimension to the commonly held story. And yet, having ventured to unearth context that has been neglected by narratives such as ‘The Little Buddha’, I felt not enough was brought out, or rather that it is an incomplete archaeological exercise. Ven Mudalankuliya Rathanajothi Thero’s ‘Sabae Siddhartha’ (The Real Siddhartha), based on extensive doctoral research, for example gathers the entire social, political and economic universe of that time, especially the Sakya-Koliya tensions. That narrative gives better and more believable context to the abhinishkramanaya. Nothing secretive in it but everything is in the public domain and set out in far more believable terms.

The purpose of this film of course is different and its reading does make a good story. It is a delving that ought to inspire further excavation. It is a tough ask to reincarnate a character such as Prince Siddhartha. It could never be perfect or conclusive. ‘Siddhartha’ the film pleases, in parts, but importantly it did not scar the versions etched in mind from so many decades ago. For a prthagjana, that is important.

Before July 1987, few Sri Lankans had heard the term bhoo-deshapaalana yathaarthaya(geo-political reality). It was tossed around liberally by those who sought to give legitimacy to the infamous Indo-Lanka Accord and the 13^th Amendment of the Constitution consequent to it. Strangely (and tellingly), the term is not used to describe post-LTTE Sri Lanka and the equally ‘legitimate’ argument for the abolishing of the 13^thAmendment.

Part of that exercise was to point to India’s geographical proximity, size and military capabilities. Those who are hell bent on letting India make Sri Lanka inhabit India’s version of Sri Lanka’s reality have not given up on this. They forget that the United States of America, by and large, virtually wrote Sri Lanka’s agricultural policy in the eighties and nineties, and this at a time when India was closer to the USSR than the USA. Distance counts, sure, but only so much.

The above is preamble to Sino-Lanka relations of 2013. It is about friendship and it is about options. In a climate where India and the USA are both openly hostile to Sri Lanka, the island nation has few options. If an analogy were needed, we can go to 1988-89 or the 3 decades long war. In both instances, poor youth opted to stand with the JVP and the LTTE respectively since there was no compelling reason to stand with the state.

The Government, similarly, cornered as it is internationally by India and the USA, both countries doing their utmost to destabilize the government and the nation, within and without, can’t be faulted for looking for help elsewhere. The logical choice is China.

China has its own interests of course. We do not live in an ideal world where there’s giving and no talk of taking, directly or indirectly. It is business as usual, and as usual as it has always been when it comes to bilateral relations.

What is different about China (for now) is that China has always had a policy of keeping out of local politics, working strictly with the Government in power and not tying ‘constitutional tinkering’ to offers of help. Given all the headaches that the Government suffers at the moment, China seems to be a relatively good headache to have.

All things considered, China has more Mr Asia credentials than India does. India needs the USA prop. India is plagued by internal problems that are threatening the future of the union. The Chinese footprint is slowly but surely obliterating the invasive, jump-on-your-face hoof-print of the USA. If it comes down to picking a thug to protect you, then it makes sense to pick China.

The questions, though, is whether we must always pick one thug or another. Is it a given for all time on account of size, current state of fire power and such? The answer is ‘no’. Britain was not all that big. Rome was just a city. It is about being smart, getting the pieces of the ‘independence puzzle’ and putting them in their correct places.

Whether we agree with the why and how of these things, both the USA and China (like the USSR over much of the 20^th Century) have solid systems in place to ensure political stability over a long period of time and through regime-change and efficiency on all counts.

Positive though the picture painted by the Central Bank looks, impressive though the infrastructure development in post-conflict Sri Lanka, ‘systems’ continue to be terribly flawed with each (inevitable) rupture tided over by presidential intervention, promises, sweeteners and threat or execution of force. The question ‘development for whom?’ is not just left unanswered but is not even considered relevant. So too the question ‘development for how long?’

It is not in China’s or anyone else’s long term interests to get Sri Lanka to sort out these issues. The insistence on devolution by India and the USA comes with tokenism pertaining to overall better governance, but the adjustments demanded are calculated, one could argue, to create or exacerbate friction among communities. China’s ‘positive’ is that it doesn’t really care about such things as long as long-term strategic and economic interests are satisfied.

This alliance, though, is colored by political expedience that takes into account global and regional political realities as by weaknesses that have been allowed to get worse. Thus, although the strong relations with China that the President places emphasis on can be seen as judicious in the short term, it cannot be forgotten that the business of having to pick a ‘big brother’ shows how weak Sri Lanka is politically, economically, institutionally and even morally.

A different approach is warranted and it better draw from history and culture, philosophical bedrock of civilizational high points.

['The Nation' Editorial, June 2, 2013]

K.A. Dharmadasa the Vegetable Vendor

K.A. Dharmadasa the Model

It is my contention that a sizable proportion of the most creative writers (and artists of course) in the country are in the advertising industry. Makes sense. There’s more money in that business. This doesn’t mean however that writers in advertising have compromised their art. They do their own writing and the smarter ones squeeze their hearts into copy, getting past client servicing personnel and clients themselves. Their best work, however, tend to be discarded.

Some of them obtain relief from corporate briefs when they are tasked to develop public service campaigns or are engaged in one-off ‘feel good’ creative exercises. I like to think that this is when they are at their creative best.

One of the most innovative creative exercises I’ve seen recently is the Independence Day campaign dreamed up by Leo Burnett Solutions Inc for the Maubima newspaper. It was an easily executable idea developed around the preeminent symbol of ‘independence’, the national flag. The flag was printed on a page with the reverse page also carrying the flag (in reverse). Easy instructions on how to cut it, roll up the adjacent page and turn it into a flag you could stick somewhere or even wave around. Neat idea.

The excellent work was duly recognized internationally. This is how one newspaper reported:

‘Leo Burnett Solutions Inc. created history by being the first ever Sri Lankan agency to be recognised at the prestigious Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity by winning metal in the Best Consumer Engagement category for work done for the Mawbima newspaper, with the agency’s national flag concept. The Cannes Lions Festivity this year hosts over 11,000 delegates from over 90 countries from the creative community all gathered in one place to celebrate creativity. The national flag initiative was created by Leo Burnett Sri Lanka in partnership with Starcom to celebrate the national day by creating a nationalistic feeling amongst all Sri Lankans by turning a national newspaper into a national flag which engaged people like never before.’

A Sri Lankan creative team, using the national flag on Independence Day to ‘create nationalistic feeling’ and being rewarded internationally, MasterCard would say ‘Priceless’! A Cannes Lion is something to be proud of. A Cannes ‘first’ warrants greater pride. Doing it with the flag, with the nation and for the nation, tops everything.

I remember that ‘pride’, not on account of flag-waving and piggy-backing on Independence Day, the former just makes me weary and as for the latter, that part of advertising useful as it is never excites me; I remember the pride because it was a Sri Lankan effort that was acknowledged, especially by an international panel of judges in an international advertising festival. I am not the kind to dwell on such things. Sri Lanka fought a war that was supposed to be unwinnable and won; those who played their part got on with their lives. That’s it. Same with this ‘pride’.

Until one day a couple of weeks ago.

The place: the Jathika Pola in Narahenpita. The exact location, a keera outlet. The individual concerned: Kumarapperuma Arachchige Dharmadasa. Male. Probably 70 years old. This might sound like work-notes for a shoot, being quite the props-models-location mix. The fact is, it was. Not at that moment, but before.

Here’s the story. Leo Burnett Solutions Inc submitted this campaign to Cannes. The submission included, apparently, a 90 second video clip, offering background spiced with a nice ‘war-is-over-hope-is-here-again’ line, tasteful and non-intrusive music, and naturally a bit of wordplay with the name of the newspaper, which means ‘motherland’. It included, at the end, snapshots supporting the delivery claim: people from all walks of life carrying/waving the ‘Maubima Flag’. The clip is very well edited. Powerful. Crafted to move an outsider to the point of applause. I saw the clip, but in a hurry. Thought it was well made. That was it. Until I ran into Kumarapperuma Arachchige Dharmadasa at the Jathika Pola.

He was in that clip. He was one of the several individuals captured on camera holding a ‘Maubima Flag’. There were others too: a shop keeper, a vegetable vendor, a kid on a bike, a bus driver, a child inside a bus, a child waving a flag out of a bus-window and some kids at the beach planting a flag atop a sandcastle and a tailor.

I asked Dharmadasa about the flag. ‘Mama danne naha mahaththayo….mahaththuru vagayak avith kodiyak deela, kodiya alla ganna kiyala poto gaththa!’ [I do not know sir…some gentlemen came, gave me a flag, told me to hold it and took some pictures]. He was, then, not someone who had been swayed by a good advertising campaign to buy the ‘Maubima’ to make a flag to wave on Independence Day. He was a model dolled up for a scam exercise! And this in a ‘nationalistic’ campaign using the NATIONAL flag on INDEPENDENCE Day!

A closer look at the clip was warranted. I was shocked. It is abundantly clear that not just Dharmadasa but everyone in that clip are ‘models’, add-ons roped in to serve the greed of some people who clearly didn’t give a hoot about the true meaning of independence or the dignity of citizenship.

‘On Independence Day ‘Maubima’ sold out within hours of its release,’ Leo Burnett Solutions Inc softly bragged. We don’t know about that. What we know is that Sri Lankans don’t have to spend 50 bucks to buy a paper just to make a national flag. Flags of all sizes come up all over Sri Lanka during Independence Day celebrations. It is strange then that only this ‘Maubima Flag’ was visible. It would give the impression that the only flags out on this day were those printed in the newspaper.

This was an unadulterated scam, all the more deserving of censure because it was prostituting the idea of independence and the national flag.

It raises certain questions. If an agency has no qualms about hoodwinking a panel of judges, would they really give a hoot about hoodwinking potential customers targeted by a client? Can we expect them to be concerned about ‘ethics’ in advertising? And if they can cheat the Cannes judges would they even think twice about cheating their clients? If they can lie about what their ‘nationalistic’ campaign did would they not lie about what their other creative efforts could accomplish? Is this a story that is peculiar to Leo Burnett Solutions Inc or is it common to the rest of the industry? Are ‘scams’ par for the course when it comes to ad awards?

The truth is that Scam Ads (sometimes called ‘Scads’) have got agencies, CEOs and creative directors into hot water around the world. They are described as a chronic problem, a sort of dark underbelly of the industry where agencies and individuals trying to win awards submit work that's never been approved by a client or run more than a couple times. In this case, a submission of an idea that didn’t ‘run’ the way it is claimed to have. Last year Cannes stripped independent Brazilian shop Moma Propaganda of two Lions won at the Cannes awards for apparently fake ads for Kia Motors Brazil. Yes, clients are also taken for a ride.

Just last month Leo Burnett asked to withdraw two radio spots for Tata Salt Lite after they each snagged gold and silver awards in the radio and radio craft categories at the Goafest. Apparently there had been questions during the auditing process whether the spots had been commissioned, paid for by the client and broadcast commercially or if they were "proactive" work by Leo Burnett. Even cursory archival perusal of scam ads would show that a lot of big name agencies are as guilty.

We need to conclude here. Not all great creative ideas deliver. Not all great creative ideas are meant to deliver. Some great creative ideas are executed with the express purpose of submitting for prestigious awards. Some such campaigns are marketed with equal creativity, finesse and elegance and can sometimes hoodwink judges who might not necessarily be acquainted with the particular social and cultural terrain, in this case Sri Lanka, newspapers, Independence Day, the national flag and what people do or do not do with it on Independence Day.

The creative team at Leo Burnett Solutions came up with a novel idea. It probably didn’t deliver. That makes it into the nice-idea-but-won’t-work column. Those who did the clip were, on the other hand, spot on! They delivered.

I feel sorry for those Cannes judges. I feel sorry for the ‘Maubima’, the newspaper and the motherland. I feel sorry for the creative team. I might have felt sorry for Kumarapperuma Arachchige Dharmadasa but I think he wouldn’t have lost any sleep. Those who dreamed up this scam at Leo Burnett Solutions probably sleep well too. That’s the pity.

[Published in 'The Nation', June 2, 2013]

‘Metta’ or compassion is one of the four divine abodes (Sathara Brahma Viharana) recommended by the Buddha for the cultivation of harmony and meditative focus. It is also one of the ten perfections (Paramita) facilitating the attainment of enlightenment. The commentaries on the Sutta Nipata tell us that the Buddha expounded on this element (Metta) by way of a treatise (Karaniyametta Sutra). Each of the several stanzas make for reflection and I suppose contains enough wisdom-seed to propagate a meditative response that can expand the universe of knowing and hone the faculty of dissecting the nuanced. The following came to mind, when reflecting on the recent debate about cattle-slaughter, the call for a ban, the counter arguments objecting to selectivity and the right to consume that which is not forbidden by particular religious tenets.

Mata yatha niyam puttam

Ayusa eka-putta-manu rakkhe

Evampi sabba bhutesu

Manasam-bhavaye apari-manam

Even as a mother protects with her child as though it is her only child, so too with a boundless heart (is it recommended that you) cherish all living beings.

Is it hard to see another creature as one’s own child? In a sense, yes. A calf might contain some kiddish cuteness that one can also see in one’s child. People love kittens and puppies. It’s hard to see one’s child in an adult creature though. It is hard to look at an advancing angry wild elephant and say to oneself ‘How sweet! Just like my little 5 year old in one of those sugar-high moments!’ It is hard to look at a cobra or some other venomous reptile and murmur ‘what’s wrong, my child?’

Conversely we would all find it tough to look at our children and mentally clothe them in the coat of a porcupine or a kabaragoya. We might liken our children to butterflies, the most fragrant flower, a lullaby or a bird, but not to an irritating housefly or deadly mosquito.

So how can we be compassionate about ‘all creatures’?

In the Mahabharatha, a demon poses a question to the wise Yudistara, ‘What is the strangest thing?’ And Yudistara offers, ‘All creatures share the same fear of death and the same will to live; each moment millions of creatures perish but none of us believe that death will visit us today!’

How could we get inside the skin of another creature? How can we empathize with an animal that is being slaughtered not because abattoir and/or consumer is desperately hungry and does not have any other source of sustenance but just that he/she wants to sink teeth into a juicy piece of flesh, seasoned or otherwise, boiled, grilled, processed, fried or curried?

A few months ago, while driving a bikkhu from our village temple to my house for a bana commemorating my mother’s third death anniversary, I was asked about thenimiththa (reason) for the pinkama(act of merit). I mentioned my mother’s name, when she had passed away and other such relevant information. The learned bikkhu said something like this: ‘Throughout samsara how many mothers we all would have had! So when we recite the gatha invoking blessings on “mother” we should reflect on all those unknown mothers who nurtured us, fed and clothed us, showered us with love and protected us from the evils of this world.’

That’s a Buddhist cosmological perspective. It is relevant to me, as a Buddhist. A monitor lizard, an irritating housefly, a cockroach, a marauding elephant, a threatening snake and any other creature visible to the eye or otherwise, could have been my mother, father or child, wife or lover, best friend or trusted co-worker. If I am a vegetarian (and I am) I can see ‘child’ in a cow and therefore child-piece of ‘prime cuts’, processed-child or processed-mother in ‘meatballs’ or ‘sausages’. I can see father in the man buying these meat cuts and friend in those who fight for the right to eat meat or object to the objection to cattle-slaughter.

In the end, according to Buddhism, it is a personal choice. Mine is simple: I would not kill or eat my children.

Ven. Bowatte Indrarathana Thero’s act of self-immolation has generated much debate. The act has been condemned as being ‘un-Buddhistic’. The bikkhu’s past was commented on. This included his political affiliations.

Theories about his ‘state of mind’ were floated on the internet. The stated precipitating factor, objection to cattle-slaughter, was taken up, taken apart. Some asked ‘Why only cattle?’ Some pointed out that such things cannot be legislated. Some pointed fingers at the bikkhu’s political associates and others who have shared similar objections. Some, who either objected to the political associates and/or Buddhists and Buddhism in general, were unabashedly salivating. ‘One down, more to go!’ some cheered on Facebook.

Then there is the issue of encouragement and apathy. There were those who prompted the act or created the ‘objective preconditions’ for self-immolation, those who were seen accompanying the bikkhu, and the journalist who was informed of the act ahead of time and who turned up not to stop it (not part of his duty of course) but to record it. He has been singled out for censure, but other onlookers, policemen included, have been ‘let off’. That too has been questioned.

The ‘before’ has been imposed on the ‘moment of immolation’ by referring to the Bodu Bala Sena, the Jathika Hela Urumaya, the furor over Halal labeling and related rhetoric and incidents. The ‘after’ has drawn from ‘moment’, which has fattened the ‘before’. The calls for banning cattle slaughter have got louder. Piggybacking on the incident, the call for legislation against unethical conversion has received new life.

So there’s before-politics and after-politics. Those who are invested in the political will not be apolitical, especially when political capital can be made one way or the other. Lost in all this is a human being who was but is no more, remembered in frames in flames, but reduced to a name to rally around or direct invective at.

The image of a bikkhuin flames disturbs me. The image of anyone in flames would disturb, but being a Buddhist I am that much more perturbed. Granted that what went before marks the moment and granted that moment feeds what follows, which in turn marks the moment, there’s still something tragic about missing the moment.

Let us forget for a moment the fact that Ven. Bowatte Indrarathana Thero was a member of the Maha Sangha, the Buddhist Order. Let us forget his political affiliations. Let us forget the drama that preceded the act of self-immolation. Let us forget all that followed the act. We see then a human being who emptied a can of petrol over himself, a human being whose garment caught fire, a human being who suffered terrible burn injuries before the fire was put out, a human being who was rushed to hospital and who was unburdened of burn and spectacle, politics and ideology, memory and wincing, concern for the living and dead, the survivals and slaughtering, pity and pathos, carrying (according to his beliefs – and mine) just the karmicaccumulations of this life and those that were lived before.

Ven. Bowatte Indrarathana Thero is no more. There is a before-death and an after-death in commenting preferences. No one can stop that and no one should. We nevertheless talk of respecting the dead. We observe silence for those who are no more. Buddhists offer pin to such people. There’s civility and culture, propriety and civilization, a time for word and comment, dissection and conclusion. There is a time for silence. It is made of respect. It obliterates identity markers.

Maybe it is a personal thing, i.e. an individual choice, but it disturbs somehow that there is a strange reluctance to be silent. All I see is a human being in flames, cheered by those who cry ‘one down!’ and glorified (in the same magnitude) by those who find fuel in flame for other kinds of torching.

Ven. Bowatte Indrarathana Thero is silent now. By himself.

The self-immolation of Ven Bowatte Indraratnana Thero raised many questions. Whatever the late Thero’s intentions may have been, it is unlikely that ‘media ethics’ or lack thereof was something that prompted the horrifying act. That, however, is what we are left with.

The action or rather inaction of those who may have been able to prevent the tragedy, especially the journalist who was ‘in the know’ has spurred much debate on what really constitutes ‘responsibility’ for people in the media industry.

At panel discussion on the subject organized by the Sri Lanka Press Institute, a young journalist Tharaka Basnayake, had asked the following question: ‘How does citizen journalism fits into codes of ethics since almost all the mainstream media outlets encourage citizens to capture whatever they desire and with regard to Indrarathana Thero's self-immolation, most of the ordinary citizens were busy capturing the action with their mobile phones (against their conscience)?’

The question is simple: ‘Is the journalist’s duty to capture spectacle or whatever is newsworthy as per the dictates of professionalism or react humanely to a situation where choice of action/inaction can make a different between life and death?’ Put another way, ‘Can there ever be guidelines to inform a professional when to drop professional garb and when to put on larger humane clothing?’

It is something we can talk about forever.

The Government has found it fit, under these circumstances, to come up with ‘ethical guidelines’ for journalists. The Government has been fittingly lampooned in the press for the presumptuousness of the exercise, given the fact that politicians and state media personal have hardly covered themselves in glory on account of ethical behavior.

The humor, however, should not stop with the Government or the State Media or even journalists in general. ‘Ethics’ is a rare commodity, so rare that rather than rarity resulting in high value it has reverted to the other extreme in valuation: nothing. Ethics is talked about. It is scripted into professional oaths. It is tossed into advertising copy. It is almost as though the word would make palatable any excrement as such is dished out by the corporate world or by professional entities. All it takes is to say, ‘we are ethical’. But are we?

This is the age of the spectacle. This is the era of instant gratification. By omission or commission this world has either embraced or resolved to submit to Mr. Spectacle. All that glitters may not be gold, but glitter fetches a better price than ethics in the market, let us acknowledge. Even crap that is glitter-clothed or worse, glitter-labeled, let us add!

Is he who demands honor, himself honorable? Is she who demands ethical behavior herself ethical in her behavior? Who are the saints here? The truth is that ‘ethics’ cannot be legislated. They cannot be advertised. In short there’s no market for ethics. That’s the brutal fact that is being ignored in the debate.

Today’s market is full of goods and services deliberately marked with planned obsolescence; things are made to break (sooner rather than later) with adequate caveats in the small print regarding warranties to insure the vendor. And what’s good for refrigerators, laptops, mobile phones and iPods is good for the media too. It works. Stories are re-invented. A women jumps into a well with a baby and the media shares the savory details in a way that prompts another depressed individual to execute a copy-cat jump that will continue to keep the media in business. One story is crafted in a way that a follow-up story will result. So what’s new? What’s ‘unethical’ about it? It’s just business as usual in the 21^stCentury, isn’t it?

The question can be asked, ‘isn’t this how it always was?’ Yes, there were always neethi (laws) and there were always reethi (customs). The difference is that in times gone by, the latter prevailed over the former. The latter drew from an ethical template.

The incident resulted in an interrogation of the media on the subject of ethics, interestingly by those who really don’t have the right to talk about ethics. There cannot be ethics in isolation. There cannot be ethics for some but not for others. But laws, we know, are selective and prejudiced in favor of the powerful, i.e. those who have money or power or both.

Still, that fact alone is not enough to settle for ‘business as usual’. Self-regulation begins with self, it goes without saying. We, the media, as a tribe, are but one part of society and can claim rightful share to its glories and resolve to own up to its shame. We could play safe and say ‘let’s see you go first!’ but that’s cop-out option.

We cannot get anyone to pay for even a tiny advertisement pleading ‘Let’s be ethical’. We can but be ethical, as per our sense of right and wrong, regardless of professional dictates (which too, let us not forget, are for the most part ‘owned’ by corporate prerogatives).

A form of drama that emphasizes the absurdity of human existence by employing disjointed, repetitious, and meaningless dialogue, purposeless and confusing situations, and plots that lack realistic or logical development. That’s the description of a particular form of drama called ‘Theater of the Absurd’. In the 21^st Century where confusion has been globalized courtesy finely orchestrated media campaigns whose sole objective is to justify crimes against humanity and manufacture public consent for the same, the description is valid for any number of things and processes. In Sri Lanka, perhaps there’s nothing more deserving of that description as the 13^thAmendment to the Constitution.

It was, to recap, thrust down Sri Lankan’s throat by Rajiv Gandhi determined to ‘Bhutanize’ the island, as a logical ‘next step’ to a process of destabilization started by his mother Indira Gandhi in 1982, when the first batch of Tamil militants were trained in India. It was illegal. Its legality was obtained by reiteration via elections. It was rejected quickly enough by the ‘sole representatives of the Tamils’ (self-appointed) and their one-time mouthpieces, the TNA which recovered voice and franchise, paradoxically, courtesy the Sri Lankan security forces in May 2009. Even today, the Tiger rump which clubs internationally rejects the 13^th Amendment. No one wants it. It has benefitted only politicians and only because it serves the political teething necessary to take bigger bites out of the body politic at the national level.

Those who reject the 13^thdo not subscribe to the same political ideology of course. For some, the 13^th is ‘too much’ while for others it is ‘not enough’. Either way, it is neither here nor there; not an ‘interim’ option, not a working document for a better text. It has only served political theatrics of the absurd kind.

Although the Supreme Court de-merged the North and East, the potential for re-merging remained intact. The clause for merging of provinces has no logic except to serve India’s purposes, i.e. destabilizing Sri Lanka in the event of a Government that is not as India-friendly as India would like comes to power. The 13^th is then essentially a Balkanization script awaiting enactment.

The drama over the ‘Divi Neguma’ Bill demonstrated how a spoiler can scuttle national development initiatives. It is in this context that a re-visit is called for. The Cabinet is currently deliberating on the matter. Those who have traditionally been ‘Pro-13^th’ have asked for time to offer views. Time has been given and that’s good. The issue of land and police powers has been raised and remains ‘up in the air’ with both the Opposition (touching but not touching the issue in its much trumpeted recommendations for constitutional reform) and the Government (we’ve only seen the smaller elements of the coalition coming up with strong views) being cagey about definitive statements.

Meanwhile, an ill-conceived and deformed political entity that has done nothing for the people continues to distract from the core issues of good governance and institutional reform which, rightfully, ought to take center stage in the matter of constitutional changes. It is for all intents and purposes a dead object whose stench is a nauseating political reality that unsettles post-conflict processes of reconciliation and development.

Indeed, it robs devolution from whatever logical worth it may have. The 13^th, after all, is not coterminous with ‘devolution’. There can be other models. For example, if taken to its logical conclusion, we would have to leave provinces behind and go straight to the Village Councils. Alternately, the Eelam-map-fixing 13^th can be done away with to make way for a more logical and scientific re-drawing of provincial boundaries that make for a more equitable distribution of resources and more efficient planning. The 13^th stops all that.

If the Government feels charitable in letting the likes of DEW Gunasekera, Rauff Hakeem, Vasudeva Nanayakkara and others to offer views on proposed amendments to the 13^th, it can go the whole hog and put the question to the voting public. End of story.

The bottom line is, Sri Lanka’s unity and integrity are not negotiable. Want another ‘PS’? ‘We cannot import a solution, and it cannot be a Rajapaksa - Sampanthan agreement.’ It’s a people’s thing and that is exactly what the 13^th Amendment is not!

The 13^th is a political corpse that has being carted from forum to forum, election to election; it is a filthy rug that is posited as banner of conflict resolution. It was India’s baby. It is a cadaver that Sri Lanka is saddled with. It is customary, need we say, to bury the dead.

Collette is not a common name in Sri Lanka and it became even less common post 1956 for historical reasons many have written about. There’s one Collette who was so in-your-face that it is hard to forget, at least in the case of Sri Lankans interested in politics, journalism and art. Aubrey.

This is why there’s a ‘market’, still, for a story about that much respected cartoonist. This is why there was a sizable audience when Cresside Collette spoke about her father recently. Some individuals are like that. Their relevancy outlives them. There’s still a lot to learn from Collette’s cartoons and that’s not for cartoonists and art students alone but the general public.

Children carry parental genes and you see gene-trace in what they do. And yet, children are not all ‘parental product’ and nothing else; they evolve, learn different things, travel to places their parents have never heard of, make their own lives and craft their own philosophies. Cresside Collette is Aubrey’s daughter, yes, but she has her own story, father-wrought and father-free.

She grew up in an environment where drawing and painting were encouraged; her father after all had an in-house studio. She remembers Swarnee Jayawardena, her Art teacher at Bishop’s College, an artist in her own right, as a great nurturing and encouraging influence.

Cresside’s mother Joan Gratiaen was a journalist who later re-invented herself as a copywriter at Grant’s Advertising under Reggie Candappa. She was clearly a woman of great courage, for she left Sri Lanka in 1962 along with Cresside and her brother to settle down in Australia. She was determined to educate her children. In Australia Cresside was able to study Graphic Art, a field not unrelated to her passion, making wall hangings. In 1971 she held her first exhibition of wall hangings, in Melbourne. In 1976 the State Government of Victoria set up the Victoria Tapestry Workshop and Cresside was one of the founder weavers, one of five, chosen after 20 applicants were whittled down to 12. That Tapestry Workshop, according to Cresside is still a very important part of Victoria’s art heritage.

She worked there for around 15 years, off and on, but found time to complete a post graduate degree at the Edinburgh College of Art, which at the time was the only university that accommodated tapestry artists.

After she became a mother, Cresside had to fit work around her children, but still managed to do a Masters at Monash, again in a Tapestry Department. Throughout this time, she tutored at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, teaching drawing, life drawing and tapestry weaving. She was attached to RMIT until 2010.

As of now, Cresside has held over 25 solo exhibitions and some of her work is displayed in her website, www.cressidecollette.com.

Where did this passion for weaving come from? Cresside attributes it to watching her grandmother and grandaunts who were heavily into crotchet and embroidery. The visual, she admitted, meant a lot to her.

‘There’s a seductive quality to this exercise since one creates it from bottom up. I “draw” with wool and cotton and my work is “representation”. This medium helps add the extra dimension. You get depth of color and texture. There’s a certain richness that you can’t get with drawing or painting.’

Any art form fascinates those less acquainted with it. There is precision required in transferring mind-image on to canvass, but the discipline and tenderness of fingers is that much greater, clearly, in tapestry making. ‘Re-drawing’ on canvas what has been captured in photograph is clearly an art, but it is clearly harder to weave a photograph, so to speak. Cresside recreates landscapes, sometimes she works outside in the en pleinair or in the open air mode, much like 19^th Century painters. She ‘paints’ with thread the same kinds of landscapes of course, but her versatility becomes apparent when one peruses the range of subjects, natural and created. Technology allows 3-D representation but there’s added character or rather the emphasis of certain traits in a subject that an artist can derive. She does it with thread.

Cresside says she was lucky. She was lucky to get a break with the Victoria Tapestry Workshop. She was lucky, she says, to have had the opportunity to travel and study abroad. ‘Sri Lanka’, though, was an untouched subject for more than 40 years, perhaps due to work, studies and bringing up children. In 2006 she had to write about landscapes. That was a spark.

‘I surprised myself. Something innate came out. I found myself casting back to the expansive landscapes of Sri Lanka that I remembered.’

She returned in 2009 and ‘found intensely like-minded people’ which has since been the ‘draw card’. Now she visits every year, working round a schedule of teaching in France and running her own tapestry tours to the UK and France. She is currently trying to put together a textile tour of Sri Lanka for a travel agency in Canberra.

What of her father? That’s the inevitable question from a Sri Lankan.

‘I have strong impressions. Since 1956 I only saw him on Saturdays. I have pleasant memories. He had a very busy life, but he took me to the zoo, the museum, the beach and to art exhibitions. I felt I knew him. Gentle. Bit of a dreamer. He stared into space a lot. He would drop me at one place and go somewhere else to pick me up.’

She didn’t see him for 26 years.

‘When I re-met him, in 2006, he was familiar. I found by accident that I had a half-sister who worked in the same building. I didn’t know what to do, but my boss said I would be mad not to talk to her and to ask about my father. I feel that had I not taken the initiative we might have never met. He kept a lot to himself. But when we met, everything came together, all the threads, his and mine, our lives.’

Art critics will have a different story to tell about Cresside Collette. A more informed, detailed and nuanced narrative which includes her art journey with and without greats in her field and how, perhaps, she lays out warmth, softness and hard lifelines as she plays with texture and color. All we can tell when we zoom in on a photograph of something she’s done is that there’s a union between an amazing imagination, a powerful creative force and tenderness in work, a spirituality in fact that complements the eloquence. She is an accomplished universal who is Sri Lankan as much by birth as by ways of expression and being. Her father’s name is Aubrey Collette. Cresside Collette is not a cartoonist, though. She is not framed by her father or his work. She uses a different canvas, different instruments and medium. She is a different kind of artist.

The area around the Borella Kanatte turned into a battlefield one late afternoon in late April, 1993. Crowds attending the funeral of the assassinated Lalith Athulathmudali turned violent. The Police responded with tear gas. There was a pitched battle with enterprising individuals tossing half empty teargas canisters back at the Police. At one point an Army truck arrived. The crowds cheered the Army. There has been for a long time a negative view of the Police. In contrast the Army (as well as the other forces) has been viewed positively. Discipline and courtesy are not associated with the Police; the personnel of that department are treated with suspicion and even derision. They are seen as uncouth, bribe-taking, arrogant persons out to make things difficult for the general public. No organization is made of saints of course. Even the Army has had its share of bad eggs, bribe-takers, commission-hawks and even common thieves. And yet it is the Police that have built a reputation for being anti-people. The indiscretions of soldiers, sailors and airmen, going by incidence alone, seem almost random and negligible. DIG Vass Gunawardena’s arrest has raised some very pertinent questions regarding the state of the country’s Police Department as well as a culture of apathy where high-rankers have a free hand. The man is alleged to have put together a team of contract killers. As of now this team is suspected of being involved in at least 7 murders. These are early days of the investigation and it is speculated that many other cases may be re-visited in light of the evidence being unearthed. Vass Gunawardena has demonstrated his arrogance in no uncertain terms when he not only confessed to being a murderer but vowed to ‘take care’ of those who are investigating the murder that led to his arrest. He is in fact implying that he is confident that the courts would determine in his favor. Now this could also indicate that people above him are also complicit and therefore have a stake in treating the man with kids’ gloves. The confidence also casts suspicion on the integrity of the judicial process. If he was indeed involved in 7 other murders the question is begged as to why the law did not move to arrest the man a long time ago. It has been reported that his son was wont to throw his weight around, using his father’s position as insurance against complaint. It is baffling that those in positions of power did not take any action but instead turned a blind eye to the transgressions as well as the abuse of office. The question will be asked: ‘Who has been protecting him all this time and why?’ This is not a Vass Gunawardena story but a Police story or rather a police-culture story. The Police have a considerable reputation for beating up those in custody. There have been numerous incidents of ‘custody deaths’. Inquiries and the occasional meting out of punishment in the form of transfers have not stopped this trend. Bribery and the exacting of protection fees or ‘kappam’ are seen as part and parcel of police operations. It has not helped that the constitution as well as the institutional arrangement has conferred power to politicians in magnitudes that place them above the law or allow them to bend the law with impunity. The relationship between politician, police officer and criminality is well established. It has come to a point where an honest police officer sticks out like a sore thumb, ironically, with the best in the Department who do not wish to partake resolving to look the other way. This is not about Vass Gunawardena, let us reiterate. It is about the Police not being free of political interference. It is about the Police operating in an environment where standards don’t matter. In any system lacking adequate checks and balances it is natural for excesses to flourish and become norm. It is not about cleaning the stables. It is about re-constructing the building with adequate measures to ensure that the Police Department actually serves the public interest, maintains law and order without fear or favor and recovers even a semblance of the glory it often claims its history is made of. As of now, though, the Police appear like a hit team for hire. It will take a lot to recover image, respectability and operational relevance. A lot has to happen within the Department. A lot has to change in the political culture. A lot of repairs have to be done on the institutional arrangement. Indeed it may very well be that rebuilding from scratch is more cost-effective, considering the levels of dilapidation.

On Dayan’s ‘logic’, mildly

What is ‘Bodu (Buddhist)’ in the ‘Bodu Bala Sena’?

What’s sauce for Canada…

The garrisoning of the Indian Ocean

Gemunu Wijeratne’s ministerial recommendations

Vesak!

Faith and healing

Development without human capital will be stillborn or deformed

Cornering Sri Lanka, US-Style

Thushara’s Vesak

Anuruddha Pradeep Karnasooriya must be reinstated forthwith

FILM REVIEW: ‘Siddhartha’: an exploration of the abhinishkramanaya oddity

The China ‘choice’

How Leo Burnett Solutions skinned a Lankan lion to get a Cannes Lion

Cherishing all living beings

Ven. Bowatte Indrarathana Thero’s silence

Ethics is a traditional homeland without claimants

It is customary to bury the dead

Cresside Collette weaves a distinctive tapestry

A hit team for hire?