by Rajan Philips
“The two WCs!” That was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike poking fun years ago at the political abbreviations of the plantations-S. Thondaman’s CWC add the rival DWC of Abdul Aziz. Last week, it was ‘one double U-turn’ for the grand old party that Bandaranaike reluctantly co-founded and rapidly left in desperation. Whether it was intentional reversal by the UNP or inadvertent misinformation by the media, the UNP’s repositioning and re-repositioning on devolution caught everyone off guard. It brought the Party some headlines that it has been struggling to have for some time. And it certainly gave a new zest to the devolution debate that was going tedious and fruitless.
The first alleged announcement from the UNP was that the Party was ditching the ‘Federal’ label from its proposals for solving the national problem. Depending on who was writing, the UNP move was either credited as Machiavellian or dumped as Kotelawallian-after former Prime Minister Sir John Kotelawalla’s 1955 flip-flop on the language question. Anandasangaree, who normally needs a pickaxe to open his mouth to say a word against the Rajapakse government, was quick on the oral draw against Ranil Wickremasinghe. Even Mangala Smaraweera was reported to have been on the telephone trying to persuade the UNP leader not to give up on devolution.
On the other side, UNP-friendly editorialists were pleased with the levelling of the ethnic playing field in the South and were starting to advise the Tamil leadership (such as who?) to get used to making moderate claims now that the UNP and the Rajapakse-SLFP have found common ground on devolution. While N. Sathiya Moorthy from Chennai also chimed in with the same advice, there was speculation in Colombo about a national government comprising the two main parties with Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister.
The reactions, it turned out, were too quick to be good. Before the week was over, the UNP delivered a “Special Statement” that appeared to be a sober second thought. The statement is a pithily written political circular that lays out what every Sri Lankan who is honest and intelligent at the same time about the burning ethnic question would like to hear from a political organization. Curiously, the mainstream media appears to have all but ignored it. May be they did not like what they saw in the Special Statement.
New UNP: Devolve power, ditch labels
Entitled, “UNP for a Credible Power Sharing Arrangement without Federal or Unitary Labels”, the Special Statement sets out what are unexceptionable premises for a Southern political party with national claims: opposition to separation, military response to terrorism, and a political solution to the causes of separation and terrorism. The political solution must be based on cessation of violence, observance of human rights, and acceptance of democracy. It must address the grievances of the Tamils, the Muslim fears in the North-East, and the concerns among “some sections of the Sinhalese” that a political solution based on devolution will lead to separation.
Significantly, while the media reports on the first U-turn indicated that the UNP had reverted back to the 13th Amendment position from the Oslo declaration to explore a federal solution, the Special Statement gives the lie to this interpretation. The statement indicates a position of flexibility about the units of devolution implying both Provincial and larger Regional Councils. The power sharing will involve the national government, Provincial/Regional Councils and Local Authorities. What is more, there is a specific reference to the need for a system to safeguard devolved powers. Except for their inclusion by way of rejection in the title, the unitary and federal labels find no place in the statement.
In the immediate term, the statement calls for a cessation of hostilities arranged by India and the Co-chairs under a revised Ceasefire Agreement, and for the inclusion of a Muslim delegation and other parties and groups in the peace talks with the LTTE. In the end, a negotiated political settlement ratified by the people of all communities in a referendum will be the basis for a constitutional amendment that will be passed by parliament and again submitted to the people for final approval.
Easier said than done, but better than saying and doing the same old, same old, that has taken us nowhere. The fact that the UNP has made the statement does not mean the UNP and its leader are capable of delivering on its promises. It may be that President Rajapakse is the only leader capable of leading a successful referendum campaign for a political solution and constitutional change at the present time. But the question is: what is the political solution that President Rajapakse will put to the test in a referendum?
A few weeks ago, President Rajapakse was hailed as the lone defender of the unitary state in Sri Lanka and, in the good old English imperial way, was compared to Horatius Cocles, the legendary defender of ancient Rome’s gateway at the Tiber bridge. If the UNP had stuck with its first U-turn, there would have been two defenders of the unitary state-Rajapakse and Wickremasinghe-and ‘two captains of the gate!’ instead of one, to modify Lord Macaulay’s English imperial rendering of the Roman Legend. But the UNP’s second U-turn has left Mahinda Rajapakse alone at the bridge.
New SLFP: United Lanka
But Mahinda Rajapakse has the option of leaving the broken bridge at the chauvinistic extreme and building a new bridge between Lanka’s different communities by moving to the political centre and a position of moderation. He will not be accused of plagiarizing if he takes over the contents of the UNP’s Special Statement and makes them his own. In fact, there is not too much distance between the UNP’s Special Statement and his own statements. At the UN, for example, he acknowledged the reality of Tamil grievances and aspirations, giving the lie to some of his cheerleaders back home who with adversarial intoxication speak about ‘perceived Tamil grievances, and undefined aspirations’. President Rajapakse is no doubt aware that the substance of the UNP’s Special Statement is already well entrenched among many Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, even among the members of his own Party.
In a revealing but so far unappreciated media interview, Dilan Perera, one of the new generation of SLFP leaders, rejected the view that all SLFPers are in the communal cauldron with the JVP and the JHU, swearing by the unitary mantra. Describing his personal position in the SLFP, he said that he belongs “to the camp that supports the ‘united’ character. The word unitary is creating dissension. But it should not be so because until 1972, we never had the word unitary in our constitution. Despite the word unitary lacking constitutional recognition prior to 1972, Sri Lanka never got divided. History bears testimony to the sharing of power in an undivided Sri Lanka centuries ago. We were one country and the absence of one word did not divide us. I stand for a united Lank. I think that’s the camp the majority of the SLFPers belong to.” Mr. Perera had the courage of his conviction to admit that he is “a firm supporter of a federal form of government and not scared to use the word ‘federal’ but saw the need to “move beyond words”.
There have been other new sources of encouragement for devolution, notably Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, who almost on the eve of the UNP’s first U-turn, weighed in with the call for the implementation of a meaningful devolution package to facilitate a negotiated settlement to the national problem. “End bloodshed, empower provinces-CJ”, was how an English daily entitled its news story. According to the story, the CJ “urged the government not to hold on to power but devolve powers without hesitation, without obstructing the State or the people of Sri Lanka.”
The UNP’s Special Statement and President Rajapakse’s promises at the UN throw a new spotlight on the deliberations and the potential outcome of the APRC. If both Mahinda Rajapakse and Ranil Wickremasinghe mean what they say and say what they mean, they are in honour bound to jointly encourage the APRC to conclude its work and produce its recommendations. The two men should then jointly ensure that the recommendations are implemented within a specified timeframe.
October 6th, 2007
By: Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Ramayana is an epic that pre-dates the Mahabharatha. The Ramayana, though originally composed by Valmiki Rishi in Sanskrit, has been reproduced in many languages through the centuries. The Tamil version composed by Kamban, reflects the best in Tamil poetry, values and culture, although following the line of the story in Valmiki’s original. The Ramayana has also influenced the cultures as far flung as Thailand, Indonesia, Timor, Philippines and Cambodia. Lanka plays an important role in the Ramayana, as the plot unfolds in its manifold facets representing all aspects of human life, behaviour, thought and values, set against the background of what are eternal truths, un-impeachable ethics and divine values. The lessons to be gleaned from the Ramayana, will remain valid and valuable to humankind, as long as we aspire towards higher humanistic goals and cease our head long descent into soulless consumerism and the accompanying barbarism. It is an epic made for eternity. It is a story holding a meaning to males and females of all ages, pursuits and stations in life. It is a priceless jewel in humankind’s crown!
[King Ravana, at Thirukoneswaram Temple, Trincomalee - Pic:HA]
Ramayana is a complex story, involving the life and times of King Dasaratha of Ayodhya, his wives-Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumithra, his four sons-Rama, Laxshmana, Bharatha and Sathrukna, Rama’s consort- Sitha; King Ravana of Lanka and his brothers-Kumbakarna and Vibhishana, his sister-Soorpanaka, his wife-Mandothari, his uncle-Maarisan, his children-principally Indrajit; the Vanaras led by Vaali, Sukreevan, Hanuman, Angathan and Jambavaan; and the big bird-Jadaayu. Rama is a Vishnu Avatar- a re-incarnation of Lord Vishnu (The ‘Protector’ in the Hindu Trinity) and Ravana, a Rakshasha /Asura, who is a great devotee of Lord Siva (the ‘Destroyer’ in the Hindu Trinity) and a great exponent of carnatic (South Indian Classical) music. Hanuman is ‘Vaayu Puthalvan’ (son of the ‘God of winds’). Many perceive Rama as the hero (representing ‘Good’) and Ravana as the villain (representing ‘Evil’) in this epic. However, as the story unfolds in all its complexity, this simple classification does not hold water on many occasions. Both Rama and Ravana come out as great men, who are fallible at times. They are better than most of us at their best-characters to be emulated, and fallible as all of us are at their worst- providing lessons on what to avoid. The essence of Ramayana transcends its principal characters and reaches out to humankind with eternal values worthy of emulation.
The epic Ramayana re-tells a prevailing legend involving the lives and times of Rama and Ravana, thousand of years after the real events, in a poetical format and in a religious context. The characters represent personalities that are super-human in many dimensions and hence it should not surprise us that they are considered divine or blessed by the divine in this epic. There are temples dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi springing up in India today- a day and age in which we consider ourselves to have become ‘rational’ men and women! Astronomical calculations indicate that the Rama-Ravana war took place 880,148 years ago as of April 2006. Valmiki’s Ramayana (Travels of Rama) was probably written between 4th to 2nd centuries BC. The Kamba Ramayana popular among the Tamils was written in the 13th century A.D. Whether Valmiki poetized and recorded an oral history transmitted down the centuries, or based his work on written records lost to us now will be never known. However, the inherent complexity of the story, and its imaginative and instructive presentation in this epic, point to a golden period of human history we have lost, probably forever.
In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala nationalists, who had hitherto clung to the history as told in the Mahawamsa (6th century AD) as the rationale for their claims to exclusive ownership of the island, have increasingly in recent years delved much further back into the past, to claim exclusive lineage from Ravana and his people. In a publication titled ‘Sinhela (Hela) History’ (http:// www. Sinhalacentre.demon.co.uk/helahistory.htm), Sinhela (Hela) history is defined as the story of the indigenous inhabitants of Heladiva (’Sri Lanka’). It claims that the ‘Sinhela (Hela) Nation’ possesses an unwritten history of 30,000 years and written history of 2500 years. This publication also states that the ‘Unitary Heladiva’ – Hela meaning ‘Pristine’ and Diva meaning ‘Island’- (emphasis mine) is the land of the indigenous Sinhela (Hela) people whose culture and traditions are based on Theravada Buddhist teachings and practices. A ‘Hela’ is defined as anyone who identifies with the Hela culture; practices Hela traditions; and recognizes Heladiva as the motherland of the Hela nation.
It claims that the once united Hela nation (the indigenous people of Heladiva) at the time of Vijaya’s arrival, was divided into four tribes, which still spoke the one language – ‘Hela Basa’ and because there were four Hela tribes the island was known at that time as ‘Sivuhela’ (’Sivu’ meaning four) or by the shorter version of ‘Sihela’. The four Hela tribes were – Yakka, Nagha, Asura and Raksha. Significantly, this article also states that, “Today, the Sinhela’s (Hela) are a bewildered race facing a situation they have been unable to comprehend. Given the gross distortions peddled by the immigrant ethnic Tamils, as well as by the immigrant ethnic-Tamil-controlled-Government (emphasis mine) with its control of the news media, the real situation of the country has been concealed from the Sinhela (Hela) nation”.
It is also further stated that one of Heladiva’s celebrated Kings was Ravana who, according to Indian history, first invented the airplane, 5000years ago. It is claimed that the Indian festival of Divali commemorates the ultimate defeat of King Ravana by the overwhelming numbers of Indian troops of Rama and Hanuman. The ten heads attributed to Ravana is explained as a tribute to Ravana’s intellectual might, which gave birth to his (at least two-seater) aeroplane. Ravana’s ten- headedness is further explained as the colloquial way of saying that he had the brains, or intelligence, of ten men.
P.K.Balachandran in an article titled ‘ Ravana is hero for Sinhala nationalists’ (Hindustan Times of 4th Nov.2007) states, ” The Ramayana is not part of mainstream Sinhala religious tradition in Sri Lanka, because Buddhism has been the religion of the majority of Sinhalas for long. But ancient Sinhala works like Rajavaliya and Ravanavaliya identify Ravana as a Sinhala king and extol him as a great one. In modern Sri Lanka, there has been a movement to revive Ravana as a cult figure, who represents Sinhala or Sri Lankan nationalism because he was among the first in the island’s history to have resisted an alien/ Indian invader. Ravana’s ten heads represent the ten crowns he wore as a symbol of his being the sovereign of ten countries “. Balachandran also states that the book ‘Sakvithi Ravana’ published in 1988 by Ahubuddu claims that Ravana reigned over Sri Lanka from 2554 to 2517 BC. While Ravana’s ancestors ruled over what is now the Pollonaruwa district, Ravana himself is claimed to have ruled over the whole of Sri Lanka.
According the astronomical calculations cited earlier, Ravana’s people could have been in the island (Lanka) longer than a million years back. Would this in anyway prove that these people were the exclusive ancestors of the present Sinhala – speaking people in Sri Lanka? What proof is there that Ravana did not speak Tamil or a proto-Tamil language, as Ramayana confirms that he was a Lord Siva worshipper (Saivite) and an un-surpassed exponent of classical (carnatic) music, who swayed Lord Siva himself with his rendering in the ‘Naattai’ ragam. Saivaism constitutes the major religion of the Tamils to this day and four of the five major Siva temples (Pancha-Easwarams) are located in Sri Lanka. Rameswaram- the Siva temple in which Rama himself worshipped according to legend is the only one among the Pancha-Easwarams located in India. The Tamil language has a literary tradition of over 2100 years, while Sinhala as a language developed only after the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, with its beginning as proto-Sinhala between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD. The indigenous people of ancient Lanka could very well have been Proto-Tamil-Saivites, a substantial number of whom subsequently adopted Buddhism and the Sinhala language. What evidence is there to prove the contrary? What makes ‘Helamites’ think that the Yakkhas, Nagas, Asuras and Rakshas were not the progenitors of the Tamils? To the Tamils of India, Lanka was known as Ealam/ Illankai throughout history. In the Kamba Ramayana, Ravana is referred to as the Illankai Venthan- King of Illankai. Lanka is the Sanskritized name for Illankai. Poets from Ealam are recorded to have participated in the ‘Thamil Sangams’ held in Madurai early in the Sangam period (100 BC to300 AD).
Tamil and Malayalam were dialects of one language called ‘Tamil’ by speakers of both until the 9th century AD. The manner in which Tamils is spoken and several words used by Jaffna Tamils point to this old affinity between Tamil and Malayalam. Further, there is much in common between the food habits and art forms of the Tamils and Sinhalese of Sri Lanka and the people of Kerala-Iddiappam/Iddiarppa, Pittu, Appam/Arppa and Kandyan dancing. The separation between Tamil and Malayalam as distinct languages was not completed until some time in the 13th or 14th centuries. Why could a similar phenomenon not have unfolded in Sri Lanka? It is not possible for Sri Lanka to have had a history uninfluenced by South India from times immemorial. To assume that the thirty miles that separated our island from mainland India would have been a barrier for the Tamils in India is the height of stupidity. Jawaharlal Nehru in his ‘Glimpses of World History’, states,
“A considerable trade flourished between South India and Europe. Pearls, ivory, gold, rice, pepper, peacocks and even monkeys were sent to Babylon and Egypt and Greece and later to Rome. Teakwood from the Malabar Coast went even earlier to Chaldea and Babylonia. And all this trade, or most of it, was carried in Indian ships, manned by Dravidians. This will enable one to realize what an advanced position South India occupied in the ancient world”.
Would such a people have ignored verdant Sri Lanka within their easy reach? It will be also futile to ignore the likelihood that Sri Lanka was linked to the Indian subcontinent at one time. The legend of vast extents of land in the Australasian region being lost to a massive deluge (an ancient tsunami) cannot be ignored. Sinhala legend alludes to vast areas of the ancient Kingdom of Kalyani being deluged. Kaviripoompattinam- a centre of Tamil-Buddhism was also similarly deluged. The recent tsunami and the associated retreat of the seas along the South Indian coast revealed several structures that had been under water for centuries.
Let us learn to face facts as they are now and find solutions to our problems, instead of clutching selected strands of history to prove the un-provable. Sri Lanka today consists of people who have descended from the original inhabitants- living before even Ravana, people who have migrated and settled over several centuries since and those who are the result of the intermingling of these two strands. There is nothing called a pure Sri Lankan or ‘Hela Divan’ as some irrational elements would like to proclaim. Modern day DNA studies also confirm that we have very much in common genetically. To call all Tamils, ‘Immigrants’, is an unpardonable travesty of truth and to consider the Sinhala-speakers residing in Sri Lanka as the only legitimate heirs to the island is a despicable lie. Large segments of the Sinhala-speakers of today have proven Tamil ancestry. To twist history or legends to suit a criminal end game, is a blot on all Sinhala people.
Deepavali (Festival of Lights) celebrates the victory of Lord Krishna over Nagasura (the evil ruler of Pradyoshapuram in India) and is not a celebration of the victory of Rama over Ravana as claimed by those who have chosen Ravana as their true ancestor, over the interloper Vijaya. It is a celebration of the victory of good over evil and light over darkness. The Krishna Avataram happened long after the Rama Avataram. Ravana is not demonized in the Ramayana, especially in the Kamba Ramayana, read with devotion by Tamils. There are regular debates in literary circles in Tamil Nadu, whether Rama or Ravana was the better character in the Ramayana. Such debates were also widely held in Tamil literary circles in Sri Lanka regularly until darkness descended on the Tamils here. The Saivite-Tamils of South India, revered all the people of Lanka, as the people from the great land of Ravana! Ravana is a revered figure among the Tamil-Saivites. Further, Buddhism historically was not the exclusive preserve of the Sinhalese in South Asia. Tamils, both in India and Lanka had adopted Buddhism in large numbers at one time, as it was a breeze of fresh air that swept away the cobwebs and dust in the form of rituals, foolishness and casteism that had buried the essence of Hinduism. Great Tamil epics such as Silapadikaram, Manimehalai and Kundalakesi germinated and blossomed in the hey day of Buddhism among the Tamils.
The Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists should remember that their nationalism based on their historical achievements as a people, their language and their religion-Buddhism, is not something any one, least of all the Tamils, object. What is objectionable and obnoxious is the attempt to denigrate and destroy the essence and foundations of other parallel nationalisms, that are the birth right of the other peoples living in Sri Lanka / Hela Diva. Ananada K. Kumaraswamy ( born to a Jaffna Tamil father and an English mother), the greatest intellectual Sri Lanka produced and who spent a major part of his life researching medieval Sinhala art has said,
” A nationalism which does not recognize the rights and duties of others but attempts to aggrandize itself at their expense, becomes no longer nationalism but a disease generally called Imperialism”.
While Ravana is emerging as the hero for the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Rama is under siege in Tamil Nadu, India. The Dravidian movement that found its feet in the prevalent anti-Brahmin sentiment, is largely agnostic and had cast the events in the Ramayana as a contest between Aryan forces represented by Rama and Dravidian forces led by Ravana.
This latter sentiment is not that of the vast majority of Tamil Hindus. Sri Raman / Sitha Raman/ Ramachandran/ Janaki Manaalan/ Ayodhya Raman/ Dasaratha Kumaran / Pattaabi Raman- are some among the many names by which Rama is adoringly called by his Tamil devotees. Rama worship is entrenched in Tamil culture and the Ramayana is entwined in their daily lives in many ways, including to being alluded in several popular proverbs. The Sethu Samudram dredging project, which would have led to the destruction of sections of the Ramar Bridge/ Monkey bridge/ Adam’s bridge is mired in much controversy. This sand dune cum coral formation that connects the southern tip of India with northern Sri Lanka, is identified in the Ramayana as a bridge Rama built with the Vanara forces led by Hanuman, to invade Lanka, where Ravana was holding Ram’s wife Sitha captive. This bridge is clearly visible in contemporary satellite photographs. This bridge is undoubtedly of religious significance to Hindus. What is important to note is not whether the bridge was built by Rama or not, but the fact of its existence was known toValmiki approximately 2500 years back! The existence of this bridge would have been known to the people of India much longer, as the story of Ramayana was known to them thousands and thousands of years before Valmiki. When we do not know details regarding our grand parents lives and do not know even the names of our great-grand parents, that the existence of this bridge was known, remembered and recorded over several millennia, is an astounding event.
To question the collective memory of a people as recorded in the Ramayana is foolishness indeed. The DMK under Muthuvel Karunanithi has barged into an area, where even angels will fear to tread, by questioning whether Rama had a degree in engineering to design and build this bridge. Did the builders of the Madurai Meenachiamman temple and the Tanjai Sivan temple-standing monuments to the building skills of our ancestors- have higher degrees in civil engineering? Karunanithi has also gone on to call Rama a drunkard. Karunanithi was insulting the very foundations of his people’s faith with an insensitivity born in arrogance, if not ignorence. It is this very same Dravidian movement that at one time disparagingly questioned where Saraswathy- the Hindu Goddess of learning- called ‘Naa Mahal’ ( resident Goddess of the tongue or human sound) would be performing her excretory functions!
The attempt to un-deify Rama by the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, is the continuation of the tendency of politicians- a breed of present day men who think they are wise, because they have unbridled power, the gift of the gab and a servile media that propagates their foolish words- to undermine transcendent legends unmindful of repercussions on human values. They forget facts such as the values Rama represents to a people and his positive impact on their thoughts and actions. Legends such as that of Rama are part of the cultural ethos of a people and their collective inheritance. Such legends should be protected from the depredations of foolish and power hungry politicians. It does not matter whether Rama ever existed or not, but the story of his life- whether factual or mythical- serves an important function in humanizing humankind.
October 6th, 2007