Ending the Violence And Silence

Photo courtesy of Ada Derana

Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

There has been a positive change in Sri Lanka in the past 5 to 10 years in the recognition of the rights of women and children. This is the result of the decade long efforts of grassroots activist groups who have founded and sustained organisations that provide assistance and support to the most vulnerable groups in our society.

An overview of the current situation suggests that a great deal of great work is being done by dedicated individuals and groups but that until now each has often worked separately. This year, there is an initiative to recognise and showcase co-existence, collaboration and co-operation, to co-ordinate a collective approach to raising awareness of the work that needs to be done to uplift the status of women and girls.

When we enter the terms Sri Lanka and Women in conjunction into an internet search engine, we are informed that in the Gender Inequality Index, Sri Lanka ranks 74th among 187 countries.

“While there is hope for a future of gender equality, women in Sri Lanka still lack representation in government and access to employment opportunities while suffering from cultural preconceptions of female roles,” according to writer Tatiana Nelson.

The current inequities in the status and dignity of women are retarding the progress of the country, not only in economic terms, but in terms of justice, consensus on ethics, morality and all the measures by which we call a country unified, prosperous and effective.

In this context the 16 Days Of Activism, which begins today in Colombo, is a project that highlights the stepping up and stepping forward of Sri Lanka to join a global initiative to raise awareness of the rights of women to live in a more equitable and safer world. The focus is on challenging the normalisation of violence against women – known as Gender Based Violence or GBV.

The community is being asked to see beyond the surface of our myths, assumptions and preferred beliefs. Violence is now not only seen as physical acts of assault and harm which damage a person but also verbal insults, inappropriate conduct in the workplace, online targeting, contempt, mockery and harassment. The psychological aspect of being subjected to continually degrading treatment is debilitating. Apprehension of harm and violence makes people fearful and passive in situations which impede their growth and this cumulatively affects society as a whole.

The cultural preconceptions that underly this inequitable treatment must be directly addressed and challenged, on a community level. Laws enacted at government level for the protection of vulnerable citizens fail if they are not enforced by individuals faced with situations in which women are being impacted by violence.

A central difficulty is the negative public perception of those impacted by gender based violence as victims. Technically many are victims of crimes. But a more positive framing of them is as survivors of those crimes. Those who have not suffered such assaults on their dignity and safety often struggle to empathize, and often judge the stories of such survivors, comparing their decisions unfavorably with what we would do in their position, and blaming them for “playing the victim” or “making bad choices”.

Intensifying this deficit in empathy is the social barriers of race, ethnicity and socio-economic class difference, which militate against the recognition of the validity of the suffering experienced by our fellow citizens. In a patriarchal society, the structures of governance are enacted and upheld largely by men who, through the filters of their gender privilege, fail to effectively see the need for change or treat it as a priority for the country.

This is true in many countries in the world, and it is notable that the countries we see as economically prosperous and politically powerful today, have far greater representation of women in decision making positions of political authority in both public and private sectors and in the corporate sphere.

Women have had a slow and difficult journey to be seen as capable and to be valued for their skills and efforts in South Asia. Their second class status as citizens is a projection of misogynistic cultural values embedded in outdated beliefs, fuelled by patriarchal myths and set into tradition and internalised by generations of both men and women into a distorted and damaging status quo.

Education of individuals is needed to heighten awareness of the context in which acts of injustice and violence occur; that although each sexual assault is one incident, it is not a one off but part of a pattern both in that relationship and in the society as a whole. Awareness is also being gained of the long term impact of violence on those who endure it. Those subjected to damage and disrespect are often permanently affected by their experience while the perpetrators continue to offend, often not being brought to justice.

Through the rise of the internet, collective awareness is being raised of the different reality in which women live. It is eye opening to see the way the younger generation of Sri Lankan people are using their platforms to speak out with articulacy and courage against the tirade of obscenity and objectification directed at women on FB and Twitter.

A young female lawyer recently said on her public social media platform: “I generally avoid FB like the plague but when I do venture there I find new ways that men in this country disappoint me. To be robbed of dignity as a woman, whether alive or dead, is the terrible reality we have to live with…Ironic that the running theme in this country has been system change, but the depravity of men still reigns supreme. Like there’s any room for system change without change from within.”

As we as individuals gain awareness of the existing injustices in our society and recognise with gratitude our own relative protections in relation to them, we can now work together more effectively to remedy these problems. Part of the recognition involves an active journey on our own parts, to see that we are all affected by the issues which exist in our society. No amount of privilege can protect us or immunise or indemnify us as the issues have a bearing on everyone. We may not be experiencing direct violence ourselves on an ongoing basis but the statistics are such that we are interacting with those who have been affected by it.

Just as we choose what we eat, and wear, we also choose what to believe and how we behave. What we say yes to and what we say no to.

For 10 days from December 1, a series of events and stalls in a collective showcasing of these issues, entitled Say No Together, will be held at Independence Arcade and open to the public. Advocacy and Communications Consultant Shanuki De Alwis is co-ordinating the 16 Days Of Activism this year to raise community awareness of women’s rights to safety against violence. There will be static exhibits, screenings, a market place, interactive forums, open mic nights, theatrical performances, workshops and panel discussions presented by 35 NGOs and organisations across 16 days from morning until night. The program has been made possible by GIZ and Strengthening Social Cohesion and Peace in Sri Lanka (SCOPE).

It seems from an overview of the content of the papers and television broadcasts that in Sri Lanka serious issues are often side lined by a focus on sensationalism or a selectively superficial approach. The recent furore about female teachers and controlling what they wear in the classroom is a perfect example of this. Public opinion often emotive, biased and provocative, floods any community discussion and in this context need for societal change is drowned out by noise and drama.

The violence of the recent war, terrorist attacks, the disruptions of the pandemic and the economic crises have resulted in economic damage to the most vulnerable in our society. Many people have become noticeably dissociated from and desensitised to others’ pain as a result of prolonged exposure to concurrent trauma. People expressing requests for financial help – in the context of what is described as a humanitarian crisis this country is currently experiencing – are now being mocked: “Oh God, not again, Single Mother with a Daughter, Husband a drug addict. Oh puuulllleeezzzzzzz can y’all at least change the template”.

The template definitely needs to change. And hopefully we can work towards a world where people are not in such distress, compounded of economic and social breakdown and such lack of empathy in our citizenry is not normalised.

Read about the events at https://www.facebook.com/SCOPESriLanka

The Never Ending Saree

Image Courtesy: From Elizabeth Seeger’s ‘Five Brothers’ - an English adaptation of stories from The Mahabharata.

A week ago, an attempt to prompt Sri Lanka forward into the 21st century was stymied. 

On 21st November, 2022, some female school teachers in Sri Lanka posted photographs of themselves on social media dressed in their interpretation of the ‘appropriate and modest attire’ in which they preferred to teach their classes. 

This apparently simple and straightforward action caused a great deal of controversy and comment which illuminated the attitudes of many sectors of society. It had been suggested as an alternative to the traditional dress of the saree worn by most female teachers in the country. This innovation was put forward in accordance with the suggestion that public servants should be able to dress in less cumbersome clothes in the workplace; but teachers were quite rapidly declared to be in a category to which this liberating principle did not apply. 

The saree has been called ‘a magical unstitched garment’ by Rta Kapur Chishti, and is a glorious piece of clothing with a rich history. It can be worn in a myriad modes and styles. There are a variety of different textiles from which it can be made: cotton and nylon and linen for everyday wear, plain or patterned, silk for special occasions, and also highly ornate, lavishly decorated versions, bejewelled and sumptuous, for those once-in-a-lifetime very very special occasions. 

Some sarees are worn to display the textiles themselves, some to display the beauty of the person wearing it: see through or cutaway material accompanied by tight fitting blouses are worn by some ladies with modern sleeveless and halter neck designs which expose their arms and entire upper backs. Some ladies in Colombo ‘high society’ do not seem to be wearing blouses with their sarees at all! 

Professionally trained school teachers of course do not generally wear such revealing garments to teach school classes. The focus of the school students should be on the content of the course materials, rather than the faces and figures, the cleavage, the hair and makeup, the accessories, and even the personalities of their instructors. Women are often accused in patriarchal societies of behaving like sirens, and shamed for provocative self-presentation. This sociocultural incident in which a wish to grant choice to working women in their everyday lives is sandbagged, is a good example of the way clothes and appearance are used to attempt to shame and silence women. 

That said, from an outsider’s viewpoint, it is a pleasure to see the beautifully dressed ladies in their vibrant and colorful flowing fabrics against a sombre and sober backdrop of men in dark suits and white shirts in corporate settings, group photographs, or in legal proceedings, in this country. The beauty and colour which the garments of professional women showcase seem to diminish the fact that there are so few of them in number, statistically, in comparison to men in the higher echelons of Sri Lankan professional spheres. 

In fact, the whole recent furore, which some call ‘Saree Gate’, and its rapid emergence and suppression, seems to have turned a serious social issue into an item of trivia, a form of hoopla which made the control and surveillance of the conduct of women via an enforced dress code seem like a minor distraction. 

The saree itself is six yards of cloth. That is a lot of material to wear in a humid, tropical climate; and the wearer is further encumbered by the need to wear a long petticoat or underskirt underneath the saree, and being in danger of tripping on its pleats. When running for a bus, trying to navigate sudden rainstorms or weather events, or move with any degree of ease and mobility up or down uneven sets of steps, sarees are a real hindrance to the wearer. 

It is impossible to walk in anything but a sedate way, or to run or jump in a saree - unless it is hitched up. On the plus side, because of their intricate drapery, and the relative immobility this necessitates, sarees confer elegance and dignity on the wearer. 

Sarees can also be useful and practical. They pack flat, and so are a godsend to the stressed luggage packer when travelling. One made to measure blouse can be matched with many different sarees. And they can make effective improvised curtains or temporary screens when needed. Repurposed, they can provide material for dresses, scarves, caftans, bags and cushions. Thus a beautiful piece of material can be appreciated over a lifetime. In fact, many young ladies are gifted sarees from their grandmothers and great grandmothers as heirloom pieces. 

It is a fact that, during periods of austerity, some Sri Lankan families used sarees as bed linen in lieu of sheets. And in 2022, during one of the most severe ongoing economic crises in this country, many female teachers now cannot afford to buy new sarees or pay tailors to make new saree blouses and petticoats. Skirts, blouses, trousers and shirts are less fragile and more durable. 

In an intensely poetic iteration, in the famous Indian epic, The Mahabharata, the Princess Draupadi is saved from public humiliation by the saree she is wearing. Dragged in front of a large assembly, and threatened with public disrobing, she prays for relief from Lord Darma, who sees her purity of heart and distress, and grants her wish; making the yards of cloth she is wearing seem endlessly self renewing: 

‘Then Draupadi, resplendent still in her beauty, covered her face, crying aloud, “O Darma, lord of justice, protector of the virtuous, save me, who am suffering here!’ And the illustrious Darma heard her and covered her with beautiful garments of many colours. As one garment was pulled from her body, another appeared, covering her, until many robes of different colours were heaped up in that assembly and her would-be humiliator, tired and ashamed, sat down.’ (From ‘The Five Brothers’, adapted in English by Elizabeth Seeger). 

We first heard this story as children. Of course we called it ‘The Never Ending Saree’. 

More close to home and in our own contemporary era, one of the lively protagonists in Nadishka Aloysius’s recent mystery novel ‘Body In A Paddy Field’ makes her attitude to the enforced wearing of saree for teachers in a school setting very clear: 

‘Being forced to encase yourself in six yards of cloth... I’d much rather be wrapped in a shroud!’ she tells her friend in a frank outburst. Her dislike of the garment is due to its excess yardage: ‘Someone who has never worn a saree may wonder where all the cloth goes. Well, much of it goes into the pleats... Yards and yards of pleats... We needed some large pins to keep the pleats in place... Who would have guessed that grown women would depend on nappy pins to keep their clothes up?’ 

There is no better portrait of how these clothing restrictions and constrictions operate to infantilise professional women. ‘Industrial strength nappy pins’ according to Aloysius’s protagonist, need to be attached to hold the saree in place; as the alternative, trusting to one’s posture, and shoulder blades, results in a lot of loose chiffon continually flying in the breeze. This looks good in a film, or in a photo shoot, but really gets in one’s way in daily life. 

Obviously, an unadorned, longish skirt or trousers, and a blouse or shirt with a coat for more formal events, would be preferable as a choice of working attire for many women who are seeking to actually be productive and efficient in the workplace, rather than feeling solely ornamental, and being objectified as being merely pleasing to the eye. 

The attitudes towards more simple and efficient workplace dress codes have been conflated with ‘Westernisation’ of cultural values; and this has been used by many traditionalists to prompt the airing of negative attitudes towards the liberation of women in general. Women - especially those teaching young people - should, according to Sri Lankan traditionalists, be exemplars of conservative social values: modest, soft spoken, gentle, restrained. 

Some people object to women wearing makeup to enhance their facial features; some object to them cutting their hair short, or coloring it; some to them having tattoos or facial jewellery; some to them wearing their hair loose. Clothing is a form of self expression and also a pleasure. People should have the right to choose appropriate attire in their professional life. To dictate and enforce what they can and cannot wear denies them the dignity of freedom of personal choice in their everyday life. 

Men’s conduct and appearance are not comparably policed. In fact, men in contrast are granted very noticeable freedoms in their dress and conduct. And the freedoms granted them are more often abused. Gender parity and a focus on professionalism and objectivity would enable everyone to focus on the work they are doing, and on the quantity and quality of the work, instead of half the population being subjected to the unnecessary intrusiveness and enforcement of double standards currently evident in this sphere. 

Dr. Tara De Mel makes the point in an interview in The Morning that she finds the furore unnecessary: “I really don’t know why there is an ‘uproar’ or why there should be a  ‘dress code’ for teachers or any public servant... Shouldn’t it be a personal choice of the wearer? As long as it is respectable and appropriate for the profession.”

It is a pity that this free falling garment, a beautiful emblem of national pride, the wearing of which is a rite of passage for many young girls, and fabulous in the right place and the right time, is being used in 2022 to fetter the freedoms of professional women and diminish their right to self regulation.

She Said/He Said

 

By Lilanka Botejue and Devika Brendon 

Much has been written and said in the last few days, since the news was released that a Sri Lankan cricketer has been charged with sexual assault by an Australian woman. 

Between the memes, lewd jokes and knowing digs, what is clear to many is that Sri Lankans have a very woolly idea when it comes to what entails consent in the area of sex. The immediate assumption is that if a woman invites a man to her home, she has given him consent to have sex. Starting from the fact that the accuser met the cricketer on a dating app, Tinder, this in itself has been touted as proof of her intention to have sex. 

Consent with regard to any kind of sexual activity involves the ability to withdraw consent at any point during the encounter, and this is clearly articulated in the current Australian law, in the jurisdiction of the State of NSW, where the alleged incident took place. Many Sri Lankans – women as much as men – are making remarks on social media along the lines of “it takes two to tango” and “she invited him to her house so she was asking for it”. This kind of response highlights the ignorance which is normalized in our culture about rights and responsibilities in the sexual realm. 

The idea of withdrawing consent even during an act of sex is alien to many Sri Lankans, as evidenced by the arguments presented on social media. The lines are blurring between morality and sexual deviancy in a very troubling manner, where it is apparently considered almost expected or acceptable for a woman to be raped if she invited a man to her home, and a cultural double standard portrays her as desperate or amoral for wanting to have sex with someone. 

A male friend recently described how there have been instances where he was invited to a woman’s home with the intention to have sex, but did not even receive a kiss, and they just spent the night together without any kind of sexual activity. And this is perfectly acceptable. Even if at some point the intent was to have sex, anyone is free to withdraw that consent, and is under no obligation to go through with an act with which they are not comfortable. This applies not just to women, but for any person concerned. 

Sri Lanka’s laws are quite clear on certain aspects of consent without which a sexual act would be considered rape. Consent obtained through threat of force, fear and intimidation is not considered consent for sexual intercourse. Furthermore, a person who is not sound of mind – including being unconscious, or intoxicated – cannot give consent for sexual intercourse as per the law. These guidelines are quite clear, although they do not explicitly articulate at which instance consent can be withdrawn. 

https://www.themorning.lk/sexual-offences-in-sri-lanka-the-professional-insight/ *

What is clear is that everyone exercising their right to free expression on social media is also exposing their own beliefs - about gender rights, sexual violence, the status of men and women in Australia and Sri Lanka respectively, differential sexual freedoms, and above all what constitutes sexual consent between adults. 

Australia has recently clarified its definitions of consent, as recently as July this year. Under these new laws, consent to sexual activity must be positive and explicit, not assumed in the absence of a ‘No’ or reluctance on the part of one of the parties. 

https://www.newswire.lk/2022/11/07/danushka-arrest-details-on-nsw-new-consent-laws-which-came-into-effect-in-juy/

The accused in this case is said to have had disciplinary inquiries in the past, with regard to his conduct in terms of training, team discipline and conducting himself in a manner suitable for a national cricketer. Of course, a person is innocent until proven guilty and one cannot arbitrarily use instances of the past to prove a present day situation. However, there are many accounts that speak of interference from management and figures of influence who have aided in his impunity all these years. 

If this is the case, it furthers the ‘jock mentality’ of Sri Lankans, who feel that certain athletes should be excused for their bad behaviour because they possess a talent that is seen as a national asset. This recalls the Brock Turner judgment in the U.S., where a young man was given a light sentence by the judge so that he could further his swimming career, regardless of the fact that he raped a woman. Such instances really question the moral compass of a society that is willing to excuse a heinous crime like sexual assault, on the basis that the person possesses a talent that must be guarded. 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/t20-world-cup-danushka-gunathilaka-denied-bail-suspended-by-slc-from-all-forms-of-cricket-1343733

Having his past actions overlooked or excused may have emboldened the accused to behave in the same way he behaves in Sri Lanka, in a foreign country, not appreciating the differences in cultural norms and values, or believing he will not be impacted by them. 

What has not been highlighted in the media is the alleged perpetrator’s refusal to wear protection. There is a segment of Sri Lankan society that takes pride in not wearing condoms or using contraceptives, as they feel it adversely affects their sensory pleasure in the experience. This is very problematic, as contraceptives like condoms prevent STIs and pregnancy, and are a precautionary measure that should be taken seriously. A cavalier attitude to such things points to an undue reliance on patriarchal privilege, which Sri Lanka unfortunately seems to exalt.

Much of the commentary on the case has shown the interest taken by the Sri Lankan public in the processes by which the case will be investigated and assessed under Australian law, because the accused has been denied bail, and is in custody in Australia. 

In Sri Lanka, justice for victims of sexual assault, rape and abuse is a slow, tortuous and inequitable process, and many perpetrators are never held accountable for their actions. Women who accuse men in cases like this, in their subjugated and disempowered condition of implied inferiority, and second class citizenship status in Sri Lanka, are routinely mocked and disbelieved; and toxic masculinity and gross entitlement are evident in the assumptions made about who said and did what. 

The way Sri Lankan women as well as men have rushed to judgement and assumed that the accuser in this case is of low moral character because she met the accused on the Tinder dating App is very indicative of the misogynistic beliefs to which they have been subjected, and by which they now judge and assess others.  

In the middle of all the social media chaos, there are many men standing up for women in general by refusing to share the abhorrent memes that have been churned out ad nauseum, and who have publicly said they are ashamed at how many people are rape apologists,  openly siding with the accused, calling him ‘our boy’, diminishing his responsibility, and saying he needs to be defended against being victimized. He is not a boy, but a man in his early thirties. 

The racist and sexist stereotypes imposed by defensive citizens of Sri Lanka is also most repellantly and raucously manifest in the way some Sri Lankans on social media have described the accuser as ‘white trash’ and a ‘gold digger’. Australian women are often seen by Sri Lankan men as sexually liberated, and formed by a permissive culture, because they enjoy greater freedoms of all kinds - and exercise these with less shaming and hostility directed towards them - than women do, in comparatively repressed Sri Lanka. 

These hypocritical and classist projections fail to take into account the background of the accused. Because his status as a celebrity cricketer brings him admiration and respect in the performance of his sport, positive assumptions are made about him, in contrast to the woman who has accused him of disrespect, and violence towards her. 

In Sri Lanka, a charge of sexual assault made against a prominent man would most probably not even reach the courts. What would such a claim achieve, in terms of justice, in a jurisdiction like Australia, where women’s rights are not routinely dismissed? It is a 2 billion LKR question. 

The correlation between macho sports and toxic misogyny is well established. Celebrity golfers, tennis players, athletes, cricketers and rugby football players are often in the news headlines,  charged with sexual offenses. 

The expatriate Sri Lankan community in Australia, in a spirit of hospitality, has been organizing night parties for the cricket team since they landed, according to media reports. The team has gone to clubs and casinos, and accepted invitations to house parties. Some had even shared their rooms, with women sharing their living spaces. Members of the team attended booze parties till the early hours of the morning on days when they were representing their country in international matches. Athletes cannot perform well on the field while representing their country with a lifestyle like this. The codes of conduct which appear to have become normalized as shown by this incident are below the standard required of international cricketers. It is not only the ‘irresponsible individual’ who needs to re-evaluate his behaviour, but the administration and management who  have enabled it. 

There are hugely normalized beliefs in sports-loving societies that boys will be boys, and that those superstars who play hard on the field should play equally hard off it, and in fact should play the field hard, as a socially acceptable badge of male prowess and virility. But Australia in recent years, with the progress of its Me Too Movement, has successfully shown that such narcissistic affirmations disempower half the citizenry, and should therefore be challenged, re-evaluated and changed. 

There are many who see this as a landmark case, because both societies are at a tipping point. As one elder statesman recently said: 

“Social media commentary shows up Lankan attitudes in general, and especially the nationalistic miasma that lurks among chauvinists.  The complainant is ‘deadmeat’ in the minds of Lankan confreres.” But she is not in Sri Lanka, and her right to privacy is respected in Australia. 

The ‘dude bros’ of all genders on both sides of the Indian Ocean are - of course - busy belittling, objectifying and slut-shaming the ‘girl’ (who is 29), https://mawratanews.lk/news/we-do-not-confess-guilt-dhanushka-is-not-guilty-video/

saying ‘it is a common occurrence in all big time sport. To the victorious hero or sportsman goes the spoils.’ Women draped around prizewinning athletes like trophies, publicly showing their adoration, their respect, their attention and their admiration, are seen as part of the rightful gains of a winner in toxic masculinist culture. 

The accused’s legal team and supporters will say he is being scapegoated. People in damage control mode trying to rectify Sri Lanka’s public image will say this is a one off incident: https://www.newswire.lk/2022/11/09/irresponsible-act-sl-sports-minister-apologizes-to-australia/ ,

and try to make the case that although the accused represents Sri Lanka in international cricket, he does not represent the attitudes of the culture which formed him.

The ‘gold digger’ or ‘extortion’ claim made by the Court of Public Opinion against the accuser seems baseless, in the current economic situation, where the disparities between Australia and Sri Lanka are highlighted. The accuser’s legal team has apparently demanded 100,000 AUD from the accused as settlement. 

100,000 AUD would purchase about ten days of legal representation by a barrister, at 10,000 AUD per full day in Court in Sydney. This does not seem like ‘gold digging’ in Australian terms. Australia is - and has been for many years - one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in. But in Sri Lankan currency, currently devalued due to the ongoing economic crisis, this amount is currently over 2 billion LKR. 

It will not be fair or just to scapegoat one man. However, if this incident is treated as a one-off national embarrassment, and hastily buried and glossed over, it will conceal the fact that under the myths and golden legends we prefer to believe about our society, is a veritable hotbed of pending issues. There are many other cases of violations of decent and ethical conduct, locally and internationally, that are occurring regularly, but which do not emerge into public knowledge, because the nation as a whole would prefer to feel pride rather than shame. 

However, the more such coverups go on, the less genuine self respect and more shame and embarrassment the citizens of the country will feel. 

If we look at Australia as a ‘civilized country’ today, this is because its citizens have increasingly chosen laws which uphold the rights of its citizens, and clearly define what is and is not a crime and an offence. This positive trajectory has happened slowly, over many years, and with a lot of activism and protest, which gradually made the majority of its citizens aware of issues about which they had formerly been ignorant. 

The entrenched misogyny directed at Australia’s first female PM, Julia Gillard, has been constructively challenged instead of laughed off and normalized. 

'Our next female prime minister will be treated differently' — 10 years on from the misogyny speech — ABC News

https://apple.news/AX8qEiWcyQ7ubCY3BadYphQ

Anti-discrimination law has been clarified and tightened. 

Australians two decades ago bravely investigated child sex abuse charges even against public figures, against strong opposition by people who felt that it was wrong to question the conduct of such people. The rights of the vulnerable have been far more greatly recognised in recent decades in Australia as a result of these public debates. This has resulted in a more decent and respectful, civilized society. But it is the product of collective effort. 

Australia is not perfect. However, in this area, in its willingness to choose to do better, to create greater justice and equity for its citizens, it could be seen as exemplary. But only if - in the areas of greater respect for the status and dignity of women and clarification of consent - its example is followed. This case could be a wake up call for the citizens of Sri Lanka. This outcome has a better chance of occurring through the matter being judged in the legal system of Australia. That in itself is a truth worth facing. 

The question that we need to ask in Sri Lanka is: What do we do about educating people on consent? Education on ethical and moral values needs to start at home, at schools, among families and youth groups. This is why Sex Education with an understanding of present day requirements is important. Many Sri Lankan people think Sex Education means teaching children how to have sex and equating it to porn.  Religious authorities, politicians and various elements have interfered in the education of youth in this area, which has resulted in the younger generation not knowing where to make and respect boundaries, or draw the lines with regard to sexual conduct – and not knowing how to manage natural feelings of desire and dealing with issues of self worth, self awareness and consent, in a society where their sexual desires are stigmatized and they are often silenced, shamed and forcefully suppressed. 

There is currently a huge problem in urban schools of nude photographs being shared on social media, as a form of blackmail and extortion. These are glossed over and denied because of Victorian era codes of morality and shame factors which only exacerbate the situation, and offer no relief or recourse for people. The more we pretend and hide behind these veneers of touted culture, the more these things fester and grow. And the results are what we are witnessing today. 

For many women who have been victims of rape or sexual assault, this incident is a reminder of how much further Sri Lanka has to progress, in this regard. With a rape conviction rate of less than 5%, the country’s track record for justice in these instances is shamefully inadequate. 

An acquaintance was relating her experience with rape in Sri Lanka, where she was told by the police that since she was sexually active it cannot be considered rape, as it is rape only if it is a virgin who has been violated. She was also told that since she is physically big, she should have fought him off. Arguments like this are symptomatic of the judgmental attitude many institutions in this country have with regard to victims of sexual assault. Who wants to come forward to seek justice, if this is the attitude and the response from the authorities concerned?

There is a fine line between wanting some semblance of puritan morality for oneself and then imposing that on others who do not follow a similar belief system; and imposing punishment on them for wanting to do so. The forbidden fruit – sex – has always been the measurement of a woman’s virtue and chastity in a very patriarchal sense, and this incident is highlighting to what extent it is still so.

Sri Lankans can grow from this incident, and see it as a challenge, or reveal our wish to shame and blame and evade cultural accountability. We can grow up, or stay morally immature as a culture. What is clear today is that remaining in stasis, legally, ethically and culturally, in a world which is progressing, developing and advancing, will result in our going backwards, rather than forwards as a nation. And the younger generation are watching to see what our celebrities, authority figures and decision makers are putting forward, and endorsing, as models of good behaviour. 

Long To Reign Over Us

Image credit: Fortnum & Mason

It’s been fascinating to observe the diverse responses to the passing of the longest reigning monarch in recent world history. Of these, the most interesting have been from citizens of the Commonwealth countries, regardless of whether they have ‘gained independence’ or not.

Twitter has been abuzz with rudeness and crudity from those who have the bad manners to hurl abuse or throw shade at a 96 year old matriarch whose image has adorned public walls and coins for decades. She is accused of having presided over the unwanted extended colonization of many countries, of facilitating and rubber stamping administrations whose political atrocities are public knowledge, and even of being an inadequate mother, given the conduct of her two elder sons, particularly the second one, whose titles and honours she has had to remove from him in the past year.

I feel that the way she has conducted herself publicly has imaginatively held an eroding British Empire together, in the most important arena in the modern era of media technology: that of public acknowledgment, and recognition. This lady clearly commands not political realms but personal respect.

Her reign has been beneficial for Britain, particularly since she started paying taxes after the ‘Annus Horribilis’ of 1992, the year when fire destroyed part of her stately home, and ordinary British taxpayers, in the wake of sex scandals presented by her children and their partners, refused to pay the enormous bill for repairs.

She is presented by the mainstream media as an image of elegance, style, warmth and wit: a person whose conduct is seen as exemplary, and fitting to the role which she agreed to take on, in 1952/3. Consistency has been her hallmark, and restraint her signature.

She has clearly been aghast, given her own personal choices, by the unrestrained antics of her daughters in law Diana and Sarah, and the recent announcements of her grandson Harry and his much reviled American wife.

Eclipsing all this has been the ugly legal cases involving her second son Andrew, whose association with the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell has damaged the reputations of his extended family. The fact that he recently settled the case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre and others with payment of a huge sum of money, and the excruciating revelations offered by himself in the interview he gave to the BBC in his mother’s own residence, must have appalled and grieved his elderly parents.

The legacy left by any individual is not just measured in monetary terms. The late monarch’s public image has been a masterpiece of curation over many decades: her clothes, her dazzling jewellery collection, her huge homes and beautiful gardens, her love of horses and dogs, her meal preferences, her love for her children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, her long lasting ‘power couple’ marriage to a man known for his often intemperate and openly racist statements, her insistence on privacy and her consistently low key and measured self presentation, have all created a rock solid impression of stability and resilience, continually enhanced and updated by ritualistic augmentation.

People who deny they are ‘Royalists’ are drinking cups of tea and watching videos on DIY full English breakfasts, to commemorate her passing in their homes. Unlike Diana, whose beauty and glamour was both intensified and damaged by her personal sorrows and revelations, this lady has done nothing for people to comment adversely about.

Twice in her long reign she was accused of failing to read the moods of the public: once in her youth when she was slow to respond empathically to a natural disaster in Wales, and most clearly after Diana’s sudden death in 1997, when she clearly showed that she did not want to countenance the life choices of her daughter in law, and grant her the dignity of a state funeral. After all, Diana had recently divorced Charles, and relinquished her title. But in the end, through the combined persuasions of the PM and her eldest son, she acquiesced.

We note that Sri Lanka, a country which gained Independence in 1948, and in which many people who regularly enjoy High Tea, modelled on garden parties at Buckingham Palace, fiercely rail against affiliations with Britain, is going to declare a national holiday and fly the national flag at half mast on that day, to respect the Queen of the country which - for far longer than the Portuguese and the Dutch - has colonized and exploited the resources of its people. These same individuals criticize the English accents of members of their own ruling elite, but seem to see no contradiction in their own words or actions.

Clearly, the long term effects of colonization are complex. Do we respect this lady personally, because of her great age? And if so, do we respect all people who reach such a great age? Do we respect her for her hard work, as if her work in attending public events and opening exhibitions and granting awards is somehow as difficult as coal mining, or street sweeping, in food and beverage service, or working long hours in public health care? Or do we respect her because she is somehow seen as separate from the institution she served so well - and from which she personally derived so much status and social power? Is it even possible to see her as separate from what interests us - her inherited privilege, wealth and position?

Her eldest son, whose adultery scandal has now been resolved via divorce, death and now marriage to his partner in adultery, is also now The Head of The Church of England. Perhaps his first act as sovereign might be to remove that title from himself? But of course that tradition itself derives from Henry VIII, who created the Church of England when his petition for divorce was not granted by the Catholic Church, to enable him to marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. So in a way, Charles III is following his own version of tradition.

The history of all this is as checquered as Battenberg Cake - one of the favourite afternoon tea treats enjoyed by the late monarch.

Elizabeth I was famous for her use of iconography to portray herself as a powerful sovereign. We see her in gorgeous, voluminous apparel, bedazzling in jewellery, standing dominant on the map of the known world, in many royal portraits. This second Elizabeth has proved to be as good - and better - at PR and self presentation. Her current team displays peak preparation.

It takes some skill to continue to command respect, and financial support, from people who are going to find it difficult to pay their own heating bills in Britain this coming winter. The costs of the upcoming funeral will be paid by her grieving public. In history and legend, English monarchs were believed to be annointed by God, and thus to have the ability to heal people from illness, and the magical power to remove swords from stones.

Her more mundane modern job was to keep the public image of Britain high, in the face of the inexorable rise of both democracy and post colonial feeling. In effect, to sustain the benefits of colonization for the ruling classes in the country, and for all those who have derived status and privilege by associating themselves with those benefits. To make the lives of those who profit from social inequity and hereditary wealth and privilege look desirable and justified.

She now emerges from two World Wars, global recessions and pandemics, terrorist attacks, and family disasters of epic scale, smelling entirely of roses. She has made doing one’s duty look like a blessing.

We are told that her mother, the late Queen Mother, used to order a hamper of English goodies from Fortnum and Masons every week. In that hamper was often a jar of rose petal jam (which they call jelly). Read the label which describes the ingredients and process by which this exquisite delicacy is made, and you will see how good at their game these citizens of their late sovereign truly are.

Paddington Bear can keep his marmalade sandwiches. I vote rose petal jam forever.

https://www.fortnumandmason.com/stories/rose-petal-jelly

Over My Dead Body

Image credit: Yale Medicine

It doesn’t seem fair that news of the latest sharp rise in Covid 19 cases is coming right at the most difficult time in the economic and fuel crisis in SL. Yet it also seems inevitable, given that we are still only about 2.5 years through what seems to be a 5 year pandemic. 

How can I cite such clearcut numbers? They are merely estimates, based on research done into the major pandemics that have afflicted the world over the past several centuries. SARS (2002-2004) was the most recent one. But there has also been Ebola. And HIV AIDS, which first emerged in the mid 1980s. 

The most severe global impact was felt by the pandemic a century ago, just after WW1, popularly called The Spanish Flu (1918 to 1920) which affected 500 million people (about 30% of the world’s population) and killed about 50 million people. And further back in time, when population size was far lower, in the years of the Bubonic plague aka ‘The Black Death’, (peaking between 1347 to 1351) and again emerging in the Elizabethan era (1589 - 1593) in England, virally transmitted disease decimated the population of Europe. So there are certainly enough of these traumatic mass events to study, and from which to draw certain conclusions. 

Now the global population level is higher than it has ever been, and international transport has improved in efficiency and rapidity, through industrialization. The population is far more mobile, and so the risks of transmission are greatly increased today. An epidemic breaches border boundaries very quickly, and becomes a pandemic. 

The noticeable trend is that people get tired of masking, social distancing, and having their social lives disrupted indefinitely. Quite apart from the concerns about infringements of personal liberties and freedoms, vaccine politics and the mass marketing of vaccines, there is a sense that if we are tired of being impacted by it, it should no longer be a threat. 

This is of course, although very understandable, toddler level thinking. If we close our eyes because it’s all too much, it won’t go away! 

In fact, we need to ensure that our masks are in good supply, social distancing protocols are once again in place, and that we are vaccinated appropriately, as there is now evidence that current vaccines largely prevent the severe outcomes that Covid imposes, providing a shield; and that even when people do test positive to the latest variant, they are able to avoid hospitalization. 

In Australia, cases of the Omicron variant B.A. 5 have been surging over the winter flu season and we are told are now peaking. Sri Lanka generally over the past 2.5 years has seen the commensurate rise about 3 months after Australia. 

Epidemiologists are requesting that members of the public take themselves to the nearest vaccination centre, and get their third or fourth booster shot ASAP. Every morning, between 9am and 1pm in Colombo, there are several medical teams administering the boosters, supervised by the armed forces. But very few people are so far getting these vaccines, despite the fact that they are very effective, and very accessible. 

Why is this reluctance occurring? Is it the difficulty of travelling to the sites due to fuel shortages? This is a matter of priority. And the QR system seems to be working efficiently now to even out fuel distribution. 

Some people believe the Pfizer vaccines are past their best date. I checked with doctors in Colombo, and was told this: 

 “The Pfizer vaccines expire at the end of July. For vaccines and many other drugs, "expiry" means the efficacy goes down. As a rule of thumb we say the efficacy diminishes at a rate of about 10% per month.

The manufacturer has announced that current tests indicate efficacy is maintained at 100% one month afterwards. (This is called the ‘extended expiry date’, and is determined by lab testing. We need to wait another month to determine efficacy at the end of 2 months).

It is important to recognize that vaccine cold chains are strictly maintained, with checks done at least 3 times a day including weekends.” 

So getting the booster vaccines sooner rather than later, while the supply is still plentiful, would be the best plan. 

The other concern that people have is whether they can take Pfizer after having initial shots of SinoPharm last year. Anecdotal reports support the doctors when they say yes, it should be fine. Also, keep in mind that most people were vaccinated initially almost a year ago now, and immunity diminishes over time. 

If you want your immunity to be robust in the months ahead, with the intensely transmissible Omicron variant now just starting its impact, act now. Our everyday food intake, vitamins and nutrition should be our basis of natural immunity; but the vaccination will ideally add the shield to this. It takes about two to three months for immunity to build after the vaccine is administered. 

It will be 2025 before this ordeal is truly over, based on pandemic patterns. It is far too early to give up on taking precautions and valuing our lives and our well being. 

At any one time, there are only 5 to 10 people observable  in the queues even at Viharamahadevi Park to obtain the vaccinations. While this is welcome in one sense, it is worrying if it shows that members of the public have become indifferent to the situation. 

Could it be that they haven’t read the data? Certainly the country as a whole has been preoccupied with other matters since Sinhala and Tamil New Year. But now is the time to start focusing on building ourselves up again. What use is economic improvement if we don’t live to enjoy its benefits? 

Have we forgotten the devastation caused by the Delta variant last year? And this year, due to the additional economic crisis and the resulting shortages in medical supplies, the health system will be even more challenged over the next few months.

I say 5 years from late December 2019, or January 2020 because of the increased numbers of people in the world today, and their greater congregation in cities due to mass urbanization. It is difficult to clearly look at and analyse the surges and declines in numbers, which occur in waves, because of the differences in testing protocols in different countries. 

It is best to pre-empt an impending wave like this. Please everyone -  consider your own situation and take action in the next few days, as a service to the community as well as your own family and yourself.

Body Politic

Many people in Sri Lanka today believe that the way we have been governed is no longer sustainable. When we as a country are through this dark tunnel, and looking back on the breakdown of the country over the last several years, we will see that there is a tangle of reasons for the bankrupted state of the nation. 

Many, many people have been having their say and offering their opinions on this: in newspaper columns, on digital platforms, on panel discussions and all kinds of groups and symposia. My own opinion is that we get the leaders we elect, and we bear the consequences of their choices: we, who choose those who lead us. 

If we have chosen our leaders on emotional grounds, rather than rational principles, and if we have elected ministers who are not qualified or even concerned to make effective choices for the benefit of the country, the dire consequences will teach us to choose differently in future. Not only to choose different people, but to choose leaders on more informed grounds, and with clearer awareness of the direct impact of bad choices, on we who choose. 

This is not easy to do, given the far from rigorous and transparent selection process by which people empowered to make decisions which affect the nation have been appointed. The quality of the ministerial candidates, their level of education, their life experience, their codes of conduct, their track record in work, their contribution to the country, their moral integrity - are all being considered now, after the fact, as if for the first time. Are those who represent us, truly representative of us? 

What many ministers have in common seems to be a heightened sense of their rights and entitlements, rather than awareness of their responsibilities to the country and their fellow citizens. We have seen on video the low level of personal conduct indulged in by many of them even in public: violence, both physical and verbal, sexism, loss of equanimity, arrogance and disrespect. This conduct is unbecoming: and I don’t just mean that it looks bad. Conduct like this in their position as representatives of the country will literally result in their own discredit, and the undermining of respect for the office they hold. 

What has been going on - in a drawn out and messy and colorful way - since the end of April this year has been a vocal demand for change - not only in terms of specific personnel but in the political processes and structures of governance by which they rule, and the extent of the damage they can cause in their term of leadership. 

The economic crisis which is bedevilling the citizenry in multiple ways is felt differentially, but it is felt by all. The rise in opportunistic crime, the reluctance of overseas investors to commit themselves in a situation where they don’t know if their investments will be misused, or misappropriated, the breakdown of public health services and the closing down of small and medium enterprise businesses are all symptoms of the underlying condition: system failure. 

Faced with total societal collapse, and with no power to change things and no rescue remedy in sight, many people resort to escapism of different kinds. 

An interesting case study of this occurred last week, when former MP Hirunika Premachandra led a protest outside the Prime Minister’s private residence. The media, instead of highlighting the reason for the protest itself, chose to publish photos of this lady which focused on her saree blouse and the parts of her body which it contained. The populace, their sexism and misogyny uppermost, were effectively distracted. 

Truly, the curse of superficiality is afflicting every aspect of this nation. 

Ms. Premachandra’s own fighting response, graphic in its detailed references to breastfeeding, was published on her social media platforms, and was much praised by some sections of the public: 

‘I am proud of my breasts! I breastfed three beautiful kids. I nurtured them, comforted them and dedicated my whole body for them. I am sure people who make fun of my exposed breasts (due to the clash with the police) also sucked their mothers’ nipples until (it’s) raw when they were infants. 

Anyway, when you are done talking, making memes and laughing about my breasts, there was ANOTHER civilian died in a queue... Just so you know!’ 

Her comment shows her awareness of the national tendency to resort to crude humor and trifling irrelevancy. The initial point of her protest was engulfed by misogynist mockery on social media, which led the PM, against whom she was protesting, to speak up to paradoxically protect her against their insults. 

The Daily Mirror quoted the PM as saying that ‘motherhood should not be insulted in a decent society’, and described him as making an ‘appeal to the social media activists and users not to publish photos of Hirunika Premachandra who is a mother of three, causing insult to her.’ 

Motherhood is indeed a sacred concept. It is also a central pillar of patriarchy, in which women’s worth and value are defined by (and limited to) their capacity to bear children. It is fused with nationalism in countries like Sri Lanka, which many proudly call their ‘Motherland’. Yet in this same country which apparently holds mothers in such respect, the violence against women and girls is one of the highest in the world. Would she be entitled to less respect if she had fewer children, or more respect if she had more children? 

Ms. Premachandra is also famous for hugging police personnel in the course of their duties. This may seem like a trivial point, until one notices that the former FLOTUS, Michelle Obama, was also noted for her warm (and inclusive) hugs during public engagements. She even describes herself as ‘Hugger In Chief’ on her public Twitter profile. In her husband’s term of office, Ms. Obama was described as ‘looking like a man’ and also criticised for working out at the gym and revealing her toned upper arms in sleeveless tops and dresses. Her husband, approving of his wife’s commitment to personal health and fitness, and clearly proud of her physique, commented she had the ‘right to bare arms’. A comment that, in the context of recent debate in that country regarding gun law reform, does not seem very humorous, today. 

We can see how fertile women and virile men are made into icons in global popular culture. Anthropologists and sociologists and biologists all over the world can explain the reason why. But in the world of contemporary social media, these attributes are augmented on media platforms, and then decried and debased by an army of reliable professional detractors, fuelled by predictable and easily manipulated social bias, and a malicious desire for petty mischief. Would we prefer to be hugged - or hurt? Hit up or shut down? 

Years ago, I heard of an old Sinhalese village story in which an elderly mother rebuked her son, who had recently been given an important position in their region, as an overseer of food distribution during a time of famine. This lady, fainting with hunger, stood in a queue along with everyone else, and petitioned her son for food. He, acutely aware in a way no minister seems to be today, that he would be held accountable for any favouritism shown to his relatives, said she would be allocated exactly the same amount of measured rice as everyone else. The lady then shamed him by calling out in the public assembly, asking if she, his mother, had ever measured the life giving milk she had fed him from her breasts. 

Ms. Premachandra may - in her defence - be invoking her right to the only respect this society accords women: the rights of a mother, the giver of life. But women and girls are entitled to respect no matter what their marital status is, or whether they have children or not. 

In a more representative and modern political and governance process, where there would be far greater female participation and many more female ministers and leaders of corporations, winning public respect through their effective leadership, such situations would not occur - in which women are routinely trivialized and the valid concerns of the public requesting better leadership are continually diminished. 

As in any failing system, whether a human body, or a sociopolitical one, many negative factors have become normalized. We would need to intervene and rapidly normalize some positives if we want to see some change for the better.

Against Our Will

Image Credit: The Decider

Sometimes whole countries find ourselves, as Salman Rushdie once expressed it, in ‘Midnight’s Children’, “handcuffed to history”. Two events of differing magnitude have occurred in the past several days: an African American megastar, Will Smith, resigned from the institution which confers the Academy Awards, because of his own unmannerly conduct at the awards ceremony where he won his first Oscar. 

Smith is only the 5th African American man to win an Oscar. And in his acceptance speech, through tears of self pity and remorse, he said his conduct did not express the man he wanted to be, a man who - in his own words - was a ‘River to my people’. It sounded like a political speech. And it was - a direct quote from Anthony Quinn’s character in ‘Lawrence Of Arabia’. 

While this was going on in Hollywood, Sri Lanka’s citizenry were engaged in mass peaceful protest, across boundaries of race, religion, gender, age and even socio-economic class, calling for an end to power cuts and fuel shortages which have robbed some of quality of life, and many of essentials for survival. 

It may seem as if these two events have nothing in common. But let’s look again. These events, shocking and disruptive as they are, have never happened before. They indicate that society as a whole is experiencing a desire and a need for change. In Will Smith’s case, he was allowed to remain in the forum and accept his award despite flagrantly breaking the rules of acceptable conduct and protocol. But the public outcry against the ‘slap that was heard around the world’ has turned the tide against him, and against socially endorsed male violence in general. Will Smith’s son had Tweeted, presumably from the Smith family’s mega living room, shortly after the event: ‘And That’s How We Do It’. This was before his father’s public apology, which took place the next day. 

For the past 74 years, from the time of Independence to now, in Sri Lanka, such a unified movement as we are now seeing has not occurred in living memory. Successive governments have strategically played majoritarian politics, and minorities have been excluded, threatened and scapegoated. Women and girls and the issues they face have been relegated to minority status by a series of toxically masculinist regimes, while the areas of economic and fiscal management were supposedly handled by the men in charge. The focus was on economic growth, rather than education, awareness of civics, or peace and reconciliation. An area of Colombo specifically demarcated for the expression of protest was ominously set aside for the purpose, thus ironically reducing the public space in which protest could ‘officially’ take place. Anyone protesting there would be isolated and visible. Dissent was disincentivized. 

The military forces were hugely amplified, in numbers and scope of action, to ensure the security of the populace, but members of the police force have been seen on CCTV cameras via phone video assaulting unarmed citizens, immune to accountability under the expanded ‘state of emergency’ PTA act. 

The most striking aspect to me is that the protestors are predominantly young and female, some with toddlers held in their arms. This is not only for optics. Many young mothers cannot afford childcare. But it is also strategic. Military forces would be very unwise to publicly use force such as tear gas and rubber bullets against unarmed young women, with the cameras of the world watching. These young women are bravely stepping up in front at the protests, often against the express cautions and anxieties of their parents and grandparents, and the subduing dictates of their conservative culture. 

Hollywood has been examining its own underlying systemic structures and assumptions for some time now, in the wake of the ‘Me Too’ movement, and holding even its most successful and awarded actors, directors and producers accountable for their abuses of power. Will Smith and the way his conduct is being dealt with is informed by this growing awareness, even in the face of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the perception that ‘woke politics’ is giving minorities too much leeway.  Smith’s wealth, success, amiability, gender and race are not going to operate to modify the decision. 

In Sri Lanka, the frustration of the younger generation is fuelling the protests for better governance. The young people of this country are articulate, well informed, and technologically literate. They are also sceptical of political rhetoric, and contemptuous of nepotism and cronyism; and unlike the respectful generations of the past, who were brought up to be dutiful, passive and obedient, they do not automatically respect those in authority. For them, as for young people all over the world, respect must be earned. 

In the past, their sense of injustice and oppression has been cynically manipulated, to divide their generation, and many young people in Sri Lanka have disliked and distrusted the diaspora, and railed against the perceived privilege and elitism of the wealthy. This is the direct result of the systemic inequities and lack of opportunities in their society. In refreshing contrast to this cycle of negativity, the clear focus of the younger emerging leadership is on inclusion and acceptance of diversity. 

Lacking the financial resources to study overseas, the younger generation clearly feel they must co-operate and do their best to make this country a place in which they can live and work - and rightfully enjoy the fruits of their sustained efforts. 

And this is how they do it.

Wish You Were Here

A few days ago, there was a large peaceful protest held in Melbourne, Australia, at a very visible public meeting point. This was one of the many international protests held in countries with diaspora Sri Lankan communities. Sri Lankans are perceived to be generally conservative, respectable, model immigrants, who conduct themselves with decency in public.

Video footage of this protest showed some individuals handing out black and white leaflets to the protestors. The full content of those leaflets were not visible to the camera. But some of the content was vociferously objected to by a loud individual in a strikingly patterned shirt and vibrantly coloured sunglasses.

He was specifically incensed by the use of the term ‘genocide’, which was apparently being cited in the leaflet, and which was part of a request for respectful recognition of the suffering of the Tamil people in the North and East of Sri Lanka during the recent 27 year civil war. The loud man told the leaflet distributors that this was not the place for them to have their say. He told them to ‘remove themselves or that he and his group would remove them’. He followed through on this threat by physically moving to the front of the group of protestors and dramatically and insultingly tearing one of the leaflets into pieces.

The video has been widely commented about on Sri Lankan social media, with most commentators assuming that this mannerless individual is a representative of the majority of Sinhalese people. But about 3/4 of the way into the incident, at 1 minute 16 seconds in the video, if you view it, you can clearly see another protestor coming in and requesting the loud man to take a step back. He can be heard to say, ‘These people also have a right to say what they want to say. It’s not right to tell them to leave.’

The rest of the protestors in this video don’t appear to speak or say anything, displaying collective bystander syndrome. But the fact that the aggressive man attempting to silence and exclude those requesting respect for the day of remembrance on May 18th, was publicly persuaded to stand back, was significant. The predictable dynamics of sharp otherisation and reflex resentments that we are all too familiar with, have changed.

Some commentators on Twitter, showing their own assumptions, didn’t see or hear the man being told that the rights of the minorities should be upheld. They cited the rest of the footage as an example of how crude and toxic the notions of many immigrants from Sri Lanka are, and how - having themselves made a successful bid to escape to the relatively peaceful and prosperous vistas of Australia - they never evolve into a less hateful mindset, but keep their race-based hatreds alive and kicking. Literally.

I am sure that such crude simplifications cannot accurately portray the feelings of all expatriates. The reality of the immigrant diaspora experience is a complex and nuanced one. I asked some colleagues and friends in Australia and England whose families were economic immigrants, and refugees, what they think of what is currently going on in the country of their birth. Their responses were illuminating:

‘There is a side of me that I need to suppress that daily whispers to me that Sri Lankans have nobody to blame but themselves and that they can now shut the gate and lie down in the mess they have made. Endlessly complaining about how helpless they are. Complaining and opportunistic sniping have been the national pastimes, all these years, and everyone is sick of it.

Where were these people who are now in the streets, protesting, when the north and east were being bombed indiscriminately? Where was the demand for justice when aid workers were murdered? Children shot in parks? Young women and schoolgirls raped and murdered? Years of these very same shortages in the north and east of the country were met with silence in the south and west… So I think: reap now the whirlwind of your own sowing, you fools...

Then I shake my head and think of the actual people who are suffering. Young students with their bright minds and their progressive views, people like the staff of some of the media outlets, continuing to draw attention to the alienation of justice and dignity of minority groups, and hospital workers and Tuktuk drivers and delivery personnel and kadai keepers. People who had nothing to do with the outrages and the scars inflicted on my people.

I realise that my failure of compassion is part of the disease hurting Sri Lanka and that compassion is exactly the cure we need: globally, locally, familially.

And I am ashamed of myself.’

Listening to this, I think that, just as Galle Face Green has become a performative physical space for the expression of many diverse feelings and ideas, and for the airing, processing and quasi-exorcism of many long-held but suppressed sources of grief and anguish, so this period of time is a space of conceptual re-evaluation for all of us.

People seem to actually be listening to each other’s stories. There is space accorded for this, even amidst the cacophony and chaos of calls for change and the reflex suppressions they prompt. Many people are realizing for the first time how influenced they have been by the biased opinions written and presented on mainstream media public platforms.

They can see that their own fears and prejudices have been catered to, and weaponised. They are tired of being expected to unquestioningly digest and absorb negative rhetoric which otherises their fellow citizens and increases the tension and hostility of the context in which we all co-exist.
Another correspondent remarked that:

‘In Tamil it is said a village bird however high it flies it will never become an eagle. In each community, there are only a very few who have the intelligence, honesty and common sense to practice ethical conduct.’ He went on to say that non expert opinions are not worth the paper they are written on, and how disgusted and progressively disillusioned he is that modern journalism is so glib, superficial and infested with ignorance and blatant bias.

Ironically, at the same time that the diaspora communities are being jealously scrutinized by those who can’t get out of what some are calling a ‘failed state’, and being criticized as riddled with negative qualities; they are also being appealed to for financial aid. Their numbers are being counted, and it is calculated that if each immigrant sent back 100 dollars to the motherland, the nation’s debt burden would be significantly resolved.

An activist in Colombo recently observed :‘We are not just “one people” in the sense that we are a heterogenous group of people. And appreciating individual diversity is the best way to true unity.’ She pointed out that mindset reset is required: ‘Sri Lankans seem to build community by turning to homogenous mass mentalities.’

Progressing from the ‘this is not the place for you’ stance of the leaflet destroyer to inclusiveness and reconciliation involves empathy and recognition of the other person’s equivalent centre of self and value.

This is going to need not only public performance but private self-evaluation. On the part of all of us.

SWRD and The Poisoned Well Of Nationalism

Image credit: Nazly Ahmed

I was introduced to the existence of a publicly shared negative attitude towards SWRD Bandaranaike for the first time at a book launch held at Barefoot Cafe in Colombo, several years ago. The author had decided to sensitize  the assembled audience to the themes and style of her book through the dramatization of certain scenes from it. One of these scenes portrayed SWRD on his death bed, having just been shot on the verandah of his home, by a person dressed in the robes of a Buddhist monk. The actor playing this part in the dramatization used a rich, plummy British accent, which induced much merriment in the assembled self proclaimed lovers of the arts that evening. The presentation was a caricature: SWRD did not speak in such an exaggerated, upper class English accent so many years after returning from his studies in England. 

Mocking a man on his death bed could be seen as rather a crude and mannerless thing to do, and although it seemed surprisingly vulgar to me, it was in fact a good introduction to the highly personalized, irresponsible and careless way in which people’s characters are routinely assassinated in this country. 

Despite being immortalized in the form of statuary within the BMICH, and outside The Presidential Secretariat, and having the primary international airport named after him, here was a man being laughed at by a group of people decades after his death - in a way, at that time, I had not seen happening to the elected leader of any country. 

Since then, of course, we have seen the way that the 45th President of the United States was pursued by the media, who threw off any restraint or attempt to present a balanced and unbiased presentation of the surreal events in North America’s seat of power. Publications like The New Yorker became almost unreadable, because of the hatred and contempt visible in every article of its contents towards Donald Trump and his dynastic ambitions. 

But recently in Sri Lanka, on Galle Face Green, where peaceful protestors have occupied public space for the past weeks to call for the resignation of the current government, the personal disrespect shown to the current President has eclipsed anything I have ever seen or heard before. The statue of SWRD seemed to stand amazed amidst the performances of anger, revenge, accusation, contempt and grief for losses of loved ones which are taking place around his plinth. Even ritual public exorcisms are being performed to free the country of its karmic distress. 

Sri Lankan people tend to personalize their politics. And this is a national trait which I think should be re-evaluated. Why are the Bandaranaikes - and especially SWRD - blamed so much and so often for what the country has become? When it is clear by now that other leaders have acted in many ways - both overtly and covertly - that have greatly damaged and impoverished the country? 

The Sinhala Only Act of 1956 was a piece of legislation. Like any piece of legislation, it can be repealed or amended, to better reflect the wishes of the people. And it could have been repealed or amended at any time since 1956. 

For 74 years, it has not. Successive governments across the spectrum of politics have not succeeded in summoning the collective will to pass such amendments and make them law. 

At its core, the majoritarian bias of the Act, the way it excludes the Tamil language and subjugates those who speak it into secondary citizenship status, is fundamentally flawed. It has been seen as an expedient political choice, made with a short term perspective of its consequences. 

In 1959, the same year that SWRD was assassinated, parts of the ‘disastrous’ Act were reversed in a ‘Sinhala Only, Tamil Also’ attempt at amendment and greater ethnic parity, via the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act. Nearly 30 years later, in 1987, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution stated that ‘the official language of Sri Lanka is Sinhala’ while ‘Tamil shall also be an official language’ with English as a ‘link language’.

The fact that SWRD is seen as a key factor in the passing of the Act was symbolically shown in the public tying of a black blindfold around the face of the statue of him standing outside The Presidential Secretariat. Next to him, a large sign was erected, saying ‘Wake Up’, in all 3 languages: Sinhala, Tamil and English. This event occurred on April 29th, and photographs of it and comments have been circulated on social media. Social media figures have for the past several months been selectively citing only SWRD as the sole architect of the 'disastrous' Sinhala Only policy. Education is needed. 

Majoritarian politics has been played for 74 years, in bloody and terrible ways, by opportunistic people, many of whom have brazenly showed no sincere feeling for this country despite taking oaths to serve in its highest positions of responsibility. Can SWRD be solely blamed for all of this? It doesn’t really seem fair. 

It is as if we are all meeting someone in the present day, called Sri Lanka, who tells us that his or her life has been ruined forever by decisions made nearly 3/4 of a century ago, by an ancestor of theirs. They believe it when they say it to us, we can see that all the people citing the initials of the person whose government initially enacted that legislation genuinely feel injured, and there is certainly evidence that the original decision was flawed, but to allow this belief that what was done in the past has to be lived with forever and permitted to dictate the subsequent shape and direction of their life - in the present day - is a choice taken by themselves. Especially when the power now exists to reshape and redirect our lives, with greater self awareness and accountability. This of course requires effort and self reflection, taking responsibility as well as asserting our own rights. 

I would say that solely blaming actions taken in the past by other people for our own current condition is not only unjust, but disempowering and morally unintelligent. It inflicts a state of passivity and victimhood on us, and this powerlessness combined with self pity, frustration and hatred has led continually to violence in the country. Volatility is one thing, but a state of perpetual potential violence which underlies all our actions and reactions is toxic and dangerous. Scapegoating and blaming of others is avoidance of direct accountability. Suggesting lynching through visual symbolism links this peaceful protest with degraded politics the world over. 

SWRD is a name which is associated with ad hominem attacks. People foam at the mouth when his family name is mentioned, making assumptions often without investigating the facts of what has actually been said or done, and he himself is spoken of as if this one piece of legislation was the sum total of his life’s contribution. The focus is on the person, or what people think they know of the person, and not on the crucial systemic issues of governance. 

If we want better governance, in 2022, we should as a people educate ourselves to govern our own - often manipulated - impulses on the one hand to elevate and worship our leaders, and on the other to denigrate them and drag them in the dust. Why not wake from our extremist stupor and interrogate the myths with which we have comforted ourselves through the devastations inflicted by multiple colonization? Why not make the decision that it’s just not only ‘Sinhala Only’ any more? And make space for the co-existence of other citizens with equivalent centres of self?

This piece of legislation was fractured, and it has resulted in a skewed and deformed system which badly needs reform. It has not been changed until now because - clearly - many people have profited in the past from the way things were. 

High literacy rates are praised in Sri Lanka, but it is literacy in a language the majority of the world does not speak or understand. Keeping English only as a link language would have enabled what operated as walls to become bridges. But giving equal status to Tamil from the start would have really decolonized the country and given us a foundation on which to build a resplendent and vibrant nation. 

Our wells have been poisoned. We have been encouraged to personalize our politics, and to indulge in decrying each other too easily. Our tendency to stereotype each other out of ignorance and laziness has been used against us. Ad hominem arguments are fallacies, and they dominate in the world of social media because they are highly dramatic, and performative and crowd pleasing. When media figures do it: Eg ‘I got real questions’ - it gets high social media traction for little effort - the opposite of fearless journalism or objective commentary. We need to consciously dismantle these insidious dynamics that have set us against each other. To do so will be a true exorcism of what has bedevilled us for so long. 

In that context, it’s really important that the traditional Sinhala and Tamil New year rituals of boiling the milk and asking for blessing and prosperity were publicly performed in the protest space. Singing the national anthem in Sinhala was an important part of asserting the patriotism and national pride of the protestors, who from the start of the protests in March have refused to be portrayed as marginalized and lawless rebels. The Tamil version of the National anthem should also have been sung, and was - on the next day. 

The events of May 9th, when these peaceful protestors found their tents - including those housing Legal Aid, medical supplies and the GotagoGama Library - attacked and damaged by a group of violent thugs, have shown what an irritation their continued request for effective governance has been. 

It is not only external forces they have to contend with, but internal cultural conditioning, which has unfortunately promoted division and segregation, and the frustrations and distortions of mind and spirit which trying to survive and create a life in a broken societal structure brings with it. 

It is not too late. 75 years after the legislation was passed, it can be amended. In 26 years, in 2048, 100 years after Independence, if we act now we could see that the mechanism of an inadequate partial independence was eventually taken down because it simply wasn’t satisfactory. After all the pain and anguish caused by that wrong and long upheld decision has finally been openly expressed and acknowledged, it is a problem to solve: a simultaneous equation, with a simple and elegant solution. No hierarchies. No imagined or assumed superiority or inferiority. A rich and inclusive diversity, represented by Ministers of the State whose primary goal is actually to serve the citizens of the country - and not themselves and their families. 

Image credit: Nazly Ahmed

 

I am informed that 90% of the protestors are Sinhala language speakers, and from non-elite backgrounds. What has been happening organically in the people’s peaceful protests directly challenges the official narrative. That is why I would suggest that the focus of the movement should be on creation rather than destruction: the demand for just and effective structures and processes of governance, rather than overthrowing regimes or revenge and retribution against individuals. 

Allegations of corruption may be difficult to prove, and called ‘baseless’, as they will involve the uncovering of sophisticated instances of intimidation, bribery, threats and cronyism which will be in the interests of the perpetrators to diminish and deny. 

The additional challenge is the Sri Lankan appetite for spice - in their news, gossip and scandal as well as their food. They add curry to everything, even bolognaise sauce and roast chicken rub. For example, in a widely shared and approved Facebook post recently, I saw cited as fact an inaccurate anecdote about SWRD. 

On Sunday, April 17th, a month ago, it was stated: 

 ‘When SWRD declared “Sinhala Only” in 1956, he was asked “ What about the Burghers, how will they cope?” Banda famously replied “Well they can Burgher off”. And they did! They never stood up and protested, because NO ONE ELSE STOOD WITH THEM. They were on their own, and so they all left in droves, depriving this country of their awesome culture, music, education, traditions, food. What a loss for Sri Lanka!’

This callous jibe which operates to further denigrate the former PM reminds me of the quotation falsely ascribed to Marie Antoinette, that the starving poor of France could not afford bread, so ‘let them eat cake’. 

In fact, SWRD was quoting. 

The phrase ‘Burghering off to Australia’ is the last line of a play titled ‘Fifty-Fifty’, written by the Sri Lankan playwright H.C.N. de Lanerolle, and it is spoken by the character Dionysus  Sumanasekare, whose initials ‘D.S.’ have generally been read as an allusion to Mr. D.S. Senanayake, the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. 

This was noted in an article by Wilfred Jayasuriya titled ‘Merging Literature and History’ which was published in The Sunday Observer on 20th September, 2009. In the context of the ‘Fifty-Fifty’ political debate which was current in the buildup to the drafting of the legislation, the character Dionysus asserts that he is even willing to give 100 percent representation in the State Council to minorities. Sumanasekere was thus presenting the ongoing debate about minority representation in dramatic form. 

Anyone who used the term ‘Burghering Off’ after 1948 in Ceylon was re-phrasing in local and contemporary terms an expression that was habitually used by men in England and the Commonwealth countries of that era. 

To be unaware of this cultural context is to enable the scapegoating and disproportionate blaming of SWRD for legislation which he himself tried to amend in his lifetime. When the statue of SWRD was blindfolded a few weeks ago, comments were made on social media by a number of activists and media figures which singled him out as the sole cause of all Sri Lanka’s political troubles and ethnic tensions for the past 7 decades. 

A commentator on Twitter stated that The Sinhala Only Act was ‘the first step towards an inward looking nationalistic Sri Lanka that drove minorities away... Much of them were highly qualified public sector professionals who went on to build great lives in the West.’ 

Another activist posted photographs of a man in a sarong standing on the shoulders of the statue in the act of blindfolding it, and called SWRD ‘responsible for the disastrous Sinhala Only Act that set this + most of our recent history, in motion.’ 

Another activist, posting similar photographs of the same event, and calling SWRD  ‘Bloody Banda’ declared: ‘Perhaps a noose would have been more apt for a man whose racist actions paved the way to brutal Tamil pogroms and a 30 year war!’ 

In October 1957, after a month of self serving pro-nationalistic publicity, J.R. Jayewardene undertook a 72-mile march from Colombo to Kandy to publicly oppose the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact. Various dramatic performances were intended to be staged to invoke Buddhist blessings at the sacred Temple Of The Tooth and to invite divine retribution against those seeking to make provision for the minorities through that Pact. 

This was performative Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, designed to raise public opposition to the creation of regional councils, and brazenly playing the racist majoritarian nationalistic card for political gain. This card was not played by SWRD, but by Jayewardene and Senanayake, who headed the procession, and who later brought crowds of people to protest at Tintagel, SWRD’s private home in Colombo. 

In 2022, to accuse SWRD for ‘creating the strategy that every Sri Lankan government has since used to their benefit’ is to be either ignorant or careless of the other significant political agents who impacted the legislation. 

Before scapegoating one man - which is easy to do but unjust, and inaccurate - commentators should research the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact, and see what was actually included in that important agreement by SWRD, prior to the passing of the ‘disastrous Sinhala Only Act’. His own later attempts to pass legislation to bring into effect what had been lost by the deletion of the Pact were constantly opposed by nationalists who did not want concessions to minorities being made. 

At many stages along the journey towards full sovereignty and inclusive nationalism, mistakes and mis-steps were made, and could have been amended. At this juncture, while looking at how we have reached this point, it would be wise not to blindfold ourselves to the real complexities of the issues which have brought us here. Simplification is an easy way out; and short term, stop gap facile assumptions, and reflex biased stereotyping of others are not going to serve any of us well, today. 

Does racism symbolically reside in a piece of statuary? Or in a piece of legislation? Or is it enshrined in the human heart and mind, toxically attached to inherited and unquestioned notions of nationalism?

If we externalise and project it onto one person who is supposed to carry the sins of an entire race - does that free us or exonerate us collectively from our own failings? 

We don’t have to look far to access another way of viewing SWRD Bandaranaike. In the open access resource of Wikipedia, we are told that ‘Amid the growing opposition to the pact, Prime Minister Bandaranaike continued his efforts to convince the people of the country that it was the best solution to the communal problems of the country. He equated the pact to the Middle Way doctrine of Buddhism. However the (extremist nationalist) demonstrations continued, and came to a head on April 9, 1958, when approximately 100 Buddhist monks and 300 other people staged a protest on the lawn of Bandaranaike’s Rosemead Place residence.’ 

That lawn is paved over now, and the residence is a boutique hotel. Not even a placard commemorates the place where SWRD was assassinated. 

If we want to see the truth of our complex history, we need to not only to wake up but to open our own eyes and see things as they are, and not the way we have been told they are, or may prefer them to be. 

Applying logic and scepticism to an emotive issue is not easy, but it is necessary. SWRD died before The Sinhala Only Act could be amended and in his absence he is an easy target to hang it on. But plenty of people endorsed it, and profited from it. 

I believe a closer look at the prevailing context in which the Act was drafted and made into law will challenge the view of SWRD as the sole person responsible for all of Sri Lanka’s ethnic tensions, and the uncaring architect of all our suffering.  At this stage, we need to develop the capacity to form a more complex and composite view of life, including history - both political and personal. Black and white thinking, lifting up heroes one minute and destroying villains the next is childlike. Simplified versions of history and politics will not accurately represent or help us effectively navigate the reality we experience as we finally develop maturity and sovereignty as a nation.

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandaranaike%E2%80%93Chelvanayakam_Pact