A Historian In Focus: The Dark Side Of S Pathmanathan
By Darshanie Ratnawalli -September 8, 2013 |
Darshanie Ratnawalli
Cognitive problems and knowledge deficiencies of S. Pathmanathan, Professor Emeritus of History? Yes. First, a caveat. Although there is a school of thought that Sri Lanka shows a lack of discernment in the making of her professors emeritus (“X was made a professor emeritus after just one publication” remarked a senior academic grimly), they clearly do not mean S. Pathmanathan. In his chosen area (the middle or the medieval period of SL history), Professor Pathmanathan has enough publications (most of themdownloadable here) and his peers mention him respectfully enough. “I stress that Pathmanathan, in his Kingdom Of Jaffna, does not indulge in such outrageous statements. In fact, note the paraphrase of his carefully circumscribed statements in fn.59 above”- (Michael Roberts: 2004).
There is an Other Side though. I first learnt of it from K.S. Sivakumaran in “History of Lankan Thamilians revisited”. It contains a translation of statements from a Tamil newspaper article by Pathmanathan on Brahmi lithic inscriptions of Sri Lanka. Although the translator’s language does not inspire confidence, I will assume that it’s a faithful translation because the statements are bald, simple, without nuance and the least likely to have suffered in translation unless the translator made them up from scratch (unlikely).
“In Lanka the Brahmi inscriptions are written in Prakrit language…Paranavitana tried to convince that these inscriptions were written in Sinhala language…In Lankan Brahmi inscriptions Thamil Brahmi letters are found in many places. Arya Abeysingha and Saddamangala Karunaratne have explained this feature showing examples. But Paranavithana hides these findings. He has completely ignored the Thamil Brahmi letters. Three letters were differently written in Thamil Brahmi and Ashoka Brahmi. These two kinds were in existence in Lanka until the demise of Brahmi script.
The formation of letters of two different languages –Thamil and Prakrit- were found in the inscriptions from the beginning and its end. This shows that the inscriptions were written in both languages.”
The formation of letters of two different languages –Thamil and Prakrit- were found in the inscriptions from the beginning and its end. This shows that the inscriptions were written in both languages.”
The ignorance in this is so mindboggling that at first I did not know how to tackle it. Then I knew. Contrast. Place an educated statement (R. Champakalakshmi in “A magnum opus on Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions”) next to it.
Causes Of “Boat Migration” To Australia From Sri Lanka: A Rejoinder To Emily Howie
Dr. Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
The “Special Article” on illicit migration to Australia by boats from Sri Lanka by Emily Howie (2013) in the Economic and Political Weekly (August 31) appears to be based largely on lot of conjectures. An article written by an Australian refugee advocate based on 20-30 personal interviews throughout Sri Lanka and citations from Australian (and limited Sri Lankan) newspaper articles is hardly convincing or credible.
The article appears to be based on subjective and partisan views expressed by a limited and selective number of interviewees. While the non-disclosure of the names of the interviewees is understandable, the non-explanation of the process of selection of the interviewees is inexcusable. What is the background of people in Australia and Sri Lanka (not the names) who introduced the interviewees to Emily Howie?
Emily Howie’s article lacks objectivity on several counts: as a refugee advocate in Melbourne there is vested interest of the author to arrive at the conclusion that “Stories from boat migrants depict complex political and economic motivations for their journeys, contrary to the statements by both governments that the boats are filled solely, or primarily, with “economic migrants”.” Secondly, in my opinion Australian media lacks professional and ethical rigour in comparison to British or American media and therefore cannot be a source of credible information, which is underscored by the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns most of the Australian media.
