The Great History Cook-Fest By R. A. L. H Gunawardana And The SSA
By Darshanie Ratnawalli -March 23, 2014
Darshanie Ratnawalli
Its fans as well as critics agree that the Social Scientists’ Association (SSA) of Sri Lanka was on a mission. According to Michael Roberts (2004[i], p7), this mission was born out of the carnage of 1983 July, which apparently “came as a rude shock to local Leftists and liberals. As the ethnic conflict took a turn for the worse, a number of liberals and Marxist radicals linked hands to develop arguments against the ideological constructs that were part of the heightened conflict”. As part of this enterprise, which according to Roberts was “as brave as necessary” Leslie Gunawardana’s 1979 essay “People of the Lion[ii]” was midwifed (it originated as a paper read at an SSA seminar[iii]) and reprinted (1984) by the SSA who also turned publisher to its sequel, his 1995 “Historiography in a time of Ethnic Conflict[iv]”.
Perhaps the best articulation of this “brave and necessary” enterprise was by S.J Tambiah (1992[v]) who called for a “new breed of imaginative, and liberated non-sectarian historians who will deconstruct the histories which legitimate the present conflict”. Despite the noble language, it was an exhortation to a certain ideological movement (classified as “good”) to hijack the history writing in Sri Lanka. This was already being done albeit inexpertly (see here) and dishonestly (see here) by Leslie Gunawardana, perhaps the best known ancient period historian at that time.
In my view, the most incisive comment to be directed against Gunawardana came from Michael Roberts[vi](full text). Even though K.N.O Dharmadasa’s place as the most systematic critic of Gunawardana is unassailable, and Roberts’ comment was merely an aside by a non-specialist informed by K.N.O, it had nevertheless the refreshing ring of a child asking why the emperor was naked. Roberts stated that Gunawardana’s argument “does not address the issue how it was that a mass of people who employed a common language in literary and oral discourse, a language which was identified as Sinhala, and who lived in a land called Sinhala, were not seen as Sinhala; and did not see themselves as Sinhala.” This comment refers to 5th century AD as Roberts had made clear 3 paragraphs earlier. “The Pali commentaries written by the Indian scholar-visitor, Buddhagosa, in the early fifth century A.D., not only refer to Sihaladvipa, but also speak of the Buddhist doctrines being kept in the Sihala bhasa (Sinhala language) for “the benefit of the inhabitants of the island” (Dharmadasa 1991).” Read More
