|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 1 September 2002 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Vijaya: interpreting our civilisation myth by Michael Roberts In two essays written in 2000 the pertinence of the Vijaya and Dutugemunu stories for the contemporary socio-cultural and political scene in Sri Lanka were brought under review. One was entitled "Lanka without Vijaya" and appeared in the Lanka Monthly Digest in January 2000. The other was called "History as Dynamite" and was printed in the Island Millennium issue, 1 Jan. 2000. In these articles I was deliberately tweaking the lion. At one level they were acts of consciousness-raising, that is, they sought to encourage introspective examinations of our traditions. At another level I wished to ascertain the reasoning that lay behind any challenges to the empirical position presented in my articles. That empirical position was deliberately overdone. The latter article drew a response in the Island (28 April et seq) from V. K. Wickramasinghe, one of Martin Wickramasinghe's children. Wickramasinghe argues that "the imperative of (Sri Lanka's) ancient history of a unitary state" supports the lessons of modern history. It seems that Vijaya is central to his belief that a unitary state existed in ancient times, though no empirical illustration is provided. In effect, his reaction and the references to '2500 years' of history by political activists in public forums today indicate that the figure of Vijaya is a significant strand of modern political thinking. I have responded to Wickramasinghe at length elsewhere (see forthcoming Marga pamphlet). However, let me stress here that I have always been alive to the symbolic significance of Vijaya. Indeed, I observed in my LMD piece that the Vijaya legend is a "genesis story," one that makes "didactic statements" about "original points of genesis-cum-culture." This line of thinking has been brilliantly elaborated by Godfrey Gunatilleke in a critical response (yet unpublished) to my original Island article that was one facet of an ongoing collaborative work on "A History of the Ethnic Conflict: Recollection, Reinterpretation and Reconciliation". It is informed by Gunatilleke's background in English literature and drama. In our verbal conversations he drew explicitly on Shakespeare as well as Sarachchandra's presentation of the Vijaya story in Sinhabahu to present an interpretation of its message in ways that are appreciative of its "religious and symbolic dimensions". These are surely significant inspirations and provide all the more reason to take his argument seriously. Gunatilleke interprets the Vijaya story not as empirical fact, but as a message about the genesis of a civilisation and its associated form of statehood. He says: To me the myth of Sinhabahu and Vijaya has a powerful and unique symbolism. It depicts the violent transition from a condition of brute nature to a primary human condition. This has to occur through a tragic act of parricide of the brute father. This is the primal Freudian drama set in a context of humanisation and liberation. As in a Greek tragedy the spiral of violence must continue through Vijaya whom the father has to exile for his criminality and who must create his new kingdom through treachery and the abandonment of his consort and his children. Thereafter Vijaya gives up "his evil ways" and reigns righteously. This is the pre-Buddhist state before the conversion, before the preaching of the Dhamma which begins with the sermon on "spiritual calm". Thus in Gunatilleke's reading the Vijaya tale is a story of brutality and wild disorder being converted to humanity and the political order of a state. This sets the scene for the subsequent consolidation of humane orderliness through the conversion of the people of the island to the Dhammic message of the Buddha, the All-compassionate One. Thus, the Vijaya legend cannot be understood in isolation. It is part of a developmental series and requires the conversion of Devanampiya Tissa to crystallise its implications to the full. Likewise, Gunatilleke observes that there are many Dutugemunus in the Maha Vamsa "the triumphant warrior; the victor stricken with Asokan grief over those slain in the war; the righteous king who ordained that no work be done for the Lohapasada without the work being appraised and wages being paid;' the monarch who had scruples about levying taxes to build the Great Stupa; the dying king who said that all his benevolence while he reigned did not gladden his heart, only the two gifts he gave without care for his life while he was in adversity...'gave him solace; who after death becomes the first disciple of the Maitreya Buddha". Such sensitive readings of ardent Sinhala recollections of the past mark the route that we, today, must take. The dismissive responses of secular, rationalist scholars only alienate and sponsor chauvinist fundamentalism in opposition to their own forms of extreme secularism. It is not necessary to expunge Vijaya in the manner implied in my essay on "History as Dynamite." Therefore, modifying the extreme position I took in my original interventions, the pathway lies in one of the qualifications inserted within my article in the LMD and, more fruitfully, through Gunatilleke's reading. Gunatilleke's route opens the possibility of both appreciating and limiting the myths of the past by recognising their relevance for many contemporary Sinhalese; by granting that they contribute to some cherished values and serve as an anchorage that stabilises the sense of collective Sinhala being; and yet noting their mythological moral-making character. He also attaches a caution: The historical fixations of a community are analogous to the psycho-pathological conditions in an individual's life. When the movement to the future is obstructed by inability to adjust and overcome present problems, there is a regression to the past which begins to overpower and hold the present captive to the emotional states and fears of the past. Therefore, such a line of interpretation must also make allowance for the considerable ingress into the island of peoples, commodities, supernatural icons and religious practices from the Indian subcontinent during the two millennium A. D., the long periods of peaceful coexistence between various communities in the island's past and the rich multiplicities and syncretisms that developed. It must also insist that the principles of political allegiance and lordship in the pre-British era were, for the most part, quite distinct from the present global order. This means that such concepts as "an unitary framework" and "separation of powers" make no sense for that context. In other words one must not extend modern concepts to the ancient and middle periods of Lankan history. The corollary is that those attached to Sinhala-ness via recollections of the past and its symbolic moments should recognise that their circumstances have altered radically and that a specific multi-ethnic society is firmly in place. Without jettisoning their cherished symbols they must move towards "a reasoned liberation from the past" (Gunatilleke's words). This bears repetition in capital letters: A REASONED LIBERATION FROM THE PAST. Such reinterpretations of their past, and a readiness among pro-Sinhala spokespersons to abandon claims to majoritarian supremacy based on supposed primordial originality, hopefully, will enable their equally ardent opponents, the non-Sinhalese scholar-patriots, to disengage themselves from combative historical warfare. It would then be easier for the latter, these non-Sinhalese, to accept the historical evidence that indicates (1) that the state civilisation in the first millennium A. D. was predominantly Sinhala in complexion and (2) that the religio-symbolic mythology of the vamsa chronicles is meaningful for the collective identity of the Sinhalese. The Sinhala spokespersons, hopefully, can respond in kind and take note of the ways in which Tamil, Hindu and Islamic peoples or streams of consciousness entered into the makings of Heladiv's, namely Lanka's, history over the last two millennia. Once the worth of their respective pasts is identified and recorded as meaningful, then - and perhaps only then - can the respective protagonists discard their battles over history and address their contemporary differences. Some considered bracketing and re-working of past symbolic moments appears to be a necessary foundation for a movement beyond the tragedies of the present to the future. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
