Who is afraid of the Mahawamsa?

A few weeks ago UNESCO inscribed the Mahavamsa onto its ‘Memory of the World (MoW) International Register for 2023. It was not exactly a declaration of the extensive chronicle as a ‘world heritage,’ although some history buffs and, let’s say, Mahavama-fixated social media enthusiasts announced it as such. 

Responsible students of history, who were aware of the relevant distinctions and took the trouble to examine the UNESCO announcement corrected this misconception. At the same time, it was quite noticeable in certain social media platforms that certain commentators using this erroneous representation not only rubbished the error-makers but the Mahavamsa itself. They were rushing to downplay the inscription; ’just an entry in a memory-register, not really a world heritage.’

A symptomatic reading of both tendencies is possible. On the one hand you have those who possibly suffer an angst about history and heritage they can claim to own or at least belong to being deliberately and systematically disavowed, rubbished and even painted as fiction. As such, they may have been thrilled by the inscription, especially since it comes from UNESCO and not some, say, ‘Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinist.’ It’s not that they tried to make a mountain of a molehill, though. UNESCO, in its announcement, did not relegate the chronicle to the status of an ‘epic legend’ like for example the Ramayana or Mahabharata. The Mahavamsa is a mountain, this much has been recognised by UNESCO. It does not require frilling with fairy lights and such.

On the other hand, there are those who just cannot stand the Mahavamsa perhaps because a) their preferred version of event and personality are at odds with the Mahavamsa chronicle, b) their preferred version would wish away the Sinhalese and Buddhists altogether and have instead a story about a multi-ethnic and multi-religious polity from the beginning of time that just cannot be substantiated, and c) they don’t have a story at all to write home about.

Now the Mahavamsa provides a detailed account of the island’s history from the 6th Century BCE to 1815 CE. It is one of the longest continuous historical records in the world. Historians the world over recognise in the text a mature historiographic tradition. They note, moreover, that information contained in the text have been verified through numerous archaeological studies in Sri Lanka and India. In fact, the Mahavamsa has been used to obtain a better fix on chronologies related to events and personalities in the larger South Asian region.

It can certainly be ridiculed (like all historical accounts can be, including those alternative and considerably ‘holed’ versions preferred by those who revile the Mahavamsa and/or those who obtain ammunition for debates on history and heritage) for ‘preposterous’ content, for example the narrative about Vijaya, a brigand who was the son of a patricidal king who also indulged in incest and whole mother practiced bestiality. That’s myth, clearly, but if indeed the chroniclers were intent on constructing some kind of ‘pure race’ narrative it’s something they could have left out.

No history is error-free. Neither are chronicles free of ideology. Neither of these two are acknowledged, however, by those who offer ‘alternatives’ about the alternatives they offer. Such caveats we do not see. Regardless of outcome preferences and the fairytale histories/versions that are thought to be useful in obtaining those outcomes, academics, especially historians, just cannot ignore the Mahavamsa. They can engage with the text, dispute assertion and offer tangible material of one kind or another to buttress the position they’ve taken.

One of the best examples of such scholarly engagement I’ve come across is Ishanka Malsiri’s response to Gananath Obeysekera’s essay on Dutugemunu’s conscience. Gananath’s piece is framed by a political (not academic) framework: he is convinced that at some level Sinhala Buddhist nationalism/chauvinism is the ‘architect’ of all of Sri Lanka’s ills, especially those related to ‘ethnic conflict.’ He picks a narrative drawn from archeology to prove his theory. Ishanka examine’s Gananath’s thesis, examining each and every source cited, separating truth from fiction, and finds it to be untenable.

Interestingly, the Colombo University history professor, Nirmal Ranjit Devasiri, expressed an intention to review Malsiri’s book and I hope he does. According to some of his students, he has made Gananath’s essay ‘required reading.’ Perhaps he has since taken it out of the syllabus but perhaps he has done what a serious scholar ought to do — include Malsiri’s work in the reading list.

The world is not made of historians and typically, many non-historian political activists and ideology-paddlers are averse to any serious study of the past. They cherry-pick from history, treat conjecture as truth, legend and myth as fact, quote one another and ridicule others, just to elevate a preferred narrative.

The year 1956 is a case in point. For some, it all began in that year and the language policy of the then government, which by the way was preceded by a policy on the language of instruction that privileged the vernacular. They would have it that Sri Lanka was always ‘multi-ethnic’ and ‘multi-religious’ (which country is not?) but would delve into deep navel-meditation if questioned about numbers and percentages.

Interestingly, though, whenever something bad and obnoxious happens in this country, be it sexual harassment, murder, brigandry or even losing a cricket match, there pops out the down-the-nose comment, ‘see, that’s what happens in this Sinhala Buddhist country!’ It’s a tacit and unwitting acknowledgement of a history which is at other times disavowed.

On the other hand, anything that can be labeled good or great is attributed to all; all ethnic groups, all The independence struggle for example. Names are trotted out to support the claim. It was a bloodless struggle, we are told. And if you point out all the battles waged against the invader from 1815 onwards, they would want everyone to believe the fairytale that for every Sinhala person who got killed, there was also a Tamil, a Muslim and a Burgher who also fell; that for every Sinhala village destroyed so too was a Tamil, a Muslim and a Burgher village that burned. Of course it didn’t happen that way, but to explain it all some careless ‘chronicler’ might pip, ‘there were more Sinhala Buddhists ne machang,’ only even if you played that numbers game the blood outweighed the expected weight of proportion.

History is not clean, never is. History is version, but this doesn’t mean that all versions have the same truth-value. The Ruwanweliseya is not a church just because some version has it that way. Substantiation is key.

History does not forbid either. Just because things were a particular way yesterday it doesn’t mean that tomorrow should be the same. However, to the extent that yesterday weighs upon today and today on tomorrow, it is folly to claim that yesterday never happened and does not count. That’s like disavowing not just parents but one’s very birth: ‘never was born and therefore I am not!’

You cannot talk of the history of this island without also taking into account the Mahavamsa. It is fine not to trust it, but it would be silly to refuse to engage with the text, not in bits-and-pieces but the entire narrative.

Read more

Yahapaalanaya as the new Aascharyaya

Old wine in new bottles or just empty vessels?

Spokesperson for the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA), staunch supporter of the Maithripala regime and shrill advocate of good governance Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri posed a question to certain individuals on Facebook.  He wants to know what they think are the political meanings of a political force Wimal Wererawansa, Dayan Jayatilleka and Vasudeva Nanayakkara are putting together with Mahinda Rajapaksa as leader (“විමල් වීරවංශ, දයාන් ජයතිලක සහ වාසුදේව නානායක්කාර යන අය එක්ව මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂගේ නායකත්වයෙන් ගොඩ නැගෙන කදවුරක දෙශපාලන අරුත් පිළිබද ඔබගේ අදහස් දැනගැනීමට කැමැත්තෙමි.”)

In the comment thread Nirmal says that others gathered around slogans such as democracy and good governance they could agree with and asks what kinds of ideas could unite the likes of Wimal, Dinesh (Gunawardena), Dayan and Vasudeva.   Today, the question can be posed, ‘of what worth are slogans (such as good governance and democracy) outside of mobilizing-utility?’ 

At the half-way mark of the much talked of ‘100 Days Program’ we find that the Good Governance Train has come to a grinding halt in the all-important matters of repealing the 18^th Amendment, scripting checks and balances into articles pertaining to the Executive Presidency, re-instituting the independent commissions and electoral reform.  While some of the action is certainly laudable (the decision on pictorial warnings on tobacco products) and while there’s encouraging news about others (the Right to Information Bill), the past 50 days have essentially been a media circus marked by vindictiveness, eyewash and disturbingly a focus on minnows while letting sharks get away. 

The brouhaha over Wimal Weerawansa’s wife’s date of birth is a case in point.  Wrong is wrong and wrongdoers must be brought to book.  No argument there.  Selective and overzealous pursuit of suspects is not the answer though.  Shenali Waduge makes some pertinent observations in this regard.

She surmises thus:

If under the MR Govt a wife of a UNPer had been arrested on similar charges as Wimal W's wife, the following would have happened: 1)  Non-stop flow of statements issued by envoys of missions in Sri Lanka, 2) Women's Rights Group holding successive press conferences condemning the arrest of a mother from hospital and taken to remand custody, 3) UN Secretary General releasing a statement on 'human rights violations', 4) UNHRC head releasing statement on the 'declining state of human rights' in Sri Lanka, 5) Threats by foreign nations to impose sanctions etc because of political victimization, and 6) Media - local and international - writing editorials and media releases on the arrest.  She concludes, ‘Now that their puppets are in power... its silence all round....not a sound from women's groups either.’

This is conjecture.  There is exaggeration.  There is truth too.  And there is a palpable inconsistency in the way ‘good people’ (self-styled) respond to things this Government does and the way they went hammer and tongs at the Rajapaksas.  Part of it can be attributed to ‘early days’.  The new government does deserve some ‘teething-slack’ even though the President the people elected and the Prime Minister he appointed are certainly no novices in the political game.   ‘Slack’ however is not a check people can cash any time they like.  It has an expiry date. 

It was the President who came up with this ‘100 Days Program’.  It is Ranil Wickremesinghe, Patali Champika Ranawaka and others like Dewasiri who made out that President Sirisena was serious about it.  It was they who sold the yahapaalana-prajaathanthravaada (good governance and democracy) idea to the voters.  If policy reform was so important the Government should focus on getting reforms done instead of indulging in circus-distraction.  As things stand we have to conclude that the spectacle of exacting revenge for wrongs done to various individuals (rather than righting wrongs against the people) is more important to the regime than instituting reforms that make it tough for wrongdoers.  What is evident is a fascination with the ‘Deterrent Principle’ rather than correcting systemic flaws that forbid wrongdoing. 

During President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second term there’s a word that came to be parodied by one and all: aascharyaya (‘miracle’, after the promise to turn Sri Lanka into the Miracle of Asia).  It became a joke simply because for all the ‘development’ there were so many other things that were wrong, disgusting and clearly turning Sri Lanka into anything but a miracle.  The same thing is happening to yahapaalanaya.  It is becoming a word used instead of ‘confusion’, ‘craziness’, ‘nonsense’ etc.  If it were only a jab by the opponents one could dismiss it as ‘sour grapes’ but disturbingly we hear it outside of the political commentariat.  It’s on the street.  In non-political context in social media.  All over the place. Just like ‘aascharya’.  

That can happen only when skepticism grows beyond a certain point.  Skepticism is being fed by this Government and that’s what is turning yahapaalanaya into another aascharyaya. It is fast become another one of those things that are too good to be true.  The speed at which we are getting there is perhaps another important reason why Mahinda Rajapaksa is increasingly looking like a victim of the voters’ haste and ingratitude.   An aascharyaya in fact.  Ironically. 

Read more