“Para Dhemalā”: Response To ‘Confronting Charlie Ponnadurai’
Charles Sarvan
At the outset, allow me to clarify that well over forty years ago I legally changed not my name but their order, and since then have been Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan.
I have distaste for confrontation (see title above) but must explain that the brief note on ‘Para Dhemmala’ arose because two friends, one in Australia and the other in Canada, wrote independently of each other to say that “Para” did not mean “foreign”. Discussing the matter with them, I said: It was readingMichael Roberts several years ago that brought me to another, and far more significant, meaning of ‘para’, namely ‘foreign’”. I added, again quoting Roberts, that it is not the only meaning of “para” but one of several, depending on usage-context. My comment that even those who have expressed disappointment with Roberts should admit his extensive reading on Sri Lankan history and anthropology was not intended as a “swipe” at him but as a reminder to them that, in all fairness, his specialised knowledge should be acknowledged.
Roberts is inclined to place me as someone (a) “far from moderate”, (b) a “Tamil nationalist” who (c) hinders “reconciliation”. What follows are some of my thoughts on these three, rather than a reply to Roberts.
I wonder if in certain contexts the concept of moderation is applicable. For example, if a country oppresses and suppresses females, even to the extent of attacking with acid little girls who have the temerity to try to go to school, can there be a “moderate” position? One may be supportive or oppositional; fearful, silent and inactive or indifferent, but can one be “moderate” vis-à-vis an unjust reality? Would moderation then be ethical, laudable? How would such “moderation” manifest or express itself? Since some readers are quick to misunderstand; to take offense and become abusive, let me emphasise that the question is theoretical. I am not drawing a parallel with Sri Lanka but merely “thinking aloud” about the concept of moderation. Is “moderation” always advisable and admirable? What, I ask myself, does it exactly mean to be a moderate in a situation of injustice and discrimination? Remember the witticism: “I can tolerate everything, except intolerance”?
Long War, Cold Peace: Revaluation Of The Past And Reconciliation
By Godfrey Gunatilleke -August 22, 2013 |
Dr Godfrey Gunatilleke
“Sri Lanka faces a crisis of transition and transformation… Sri Lanka has been unable to make the transition from war to sustainable peace; from what I believe was fundamentally a just war to a just peace.
The crisis is at least in part a crisis of the post war discourse. … The discourse has not been of a character which can facilitate the transition from just war to just peace… Those who maintain it was a just war fail to call for a just peace a peace with justice for the Tamil community. The Tamils for their part have failed to make a clean break from their recent past of sympathy for secessionism and terrorism. There is no post war discourse which combines a strong position in defense of the war with a strong drive for a sustainable peace on a new basis of a fairly re-drawn ethnic compact.” (‘Long War, Cold Peace’ Vijitha Yapa, 2013, P 34)
The two sessions of the Marga Institute’s Panel Discussion on Dr Dayan Jayatilleka’s book “Long War Cold Peace” have been organized under the titles “Was it a just war?” and “Can we have a just peace?”. Those who have read the book will appreciate the appropriateness of these titles for the two main parts of Dr Jayatilleka’s book – first , his analysis of the ethnic conflict as it escalated to the war with the LTTE – the Thirty Year War as he calls it– and second, his perspective on the complex issues of post war politics and reconciliation. The excerpt from his book reproduced above will help us to focus on some of the key issues raised by him in his book – issues which are fundamental to the processes that must shape the future of post war Sri Lanka.
