Sensational developments at the Royal Asiatic Society

by Gaston Perera

The members of the Royal Asiatic Society who evicted Dr. K. D. Paranavitana from the office of President at a properly constituted meeting by passing a resolution of no-confidence against him are now confronted with an unprecedented act of unbridled defiance.

In a display of dictatorial behaviour and thuggery that has shocked the membership he has refused to vacate office.

Shortly after the meeting that threw him out the Council of the Society met to elect a new President and Treasurer. Dr Paranavitana barged into that meeting and declared "You may have had your meeting but I am still the President," and forcibly occupied the Chair. Despite the vigorous protests of the majority of the Council he refused to vacate the Chair and leave the meeting.

The argument he and his supporters continually urged was that the meeting that removed him from office was unconstitutional. According to this argument there should have been an inquiry held first by the Administration Committee of the Council as provided for in the Constitution of the Society.

The utter iniquity in this approach will be appreciated when it is realised that the President of such a committee of inquiry would in terms of the Constitution be none other than Dr. Paranavitana himself. In other words what he demands is that an inquiry against him should be held by a committee which he himself chairs. It is not necessary to explain what a farce and a mockery of justice such an inquiry would be.

Besides this demand for an inquiry is completely baseless for another reason. Such an inquiry was in fact held and that inquiry was before the tribunal of the membership of the Society who are the final arbiters.

The meeting at which he was thrown out was in fact that inquiry. Dr. Paranavitana and his supporters were given a complete hearing. They were given every opportunity to lay out their case without any obstacle or interruption.

In fact so lengthy were their presentations that it almost became a filibuster and dragged on till late compelling members to leave who otherwise would have added their votes also for the motion. Dr. Paranavitana did not avoid the meeting but participated freely in it. He spoke in his own defence.

Inquiry

In fact the Chair gave Dr. Paranavitana extra time, far more time than the other speakers, so that he could present his case in the fullest manner possible. And it has to be recorded that Dr. Paranavitana openly stated at this meeting that he would gladly accept the verdict of the members. It is after all this that he now claims he did not have an inquiry and that he must be heard.

The main charge against Dr. Paranavitana and the one that outraged the membership was his reprehensible conduct over the project to study the Portuguese Encounter. That project had as its central underpinning the intention of studying the Portuguese encounter from the perspective of a colonized people - the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims who were the victims of Portuguese oppression and atrocity.

Council's decision

As President of the Society Dr. Paranavitarana was mandatorily bound to conform to the Council's decision and participate fully in this project. What Dr. Paranavitana actually did was to abandon these responsibilities, completely flout the Council's decisions, disappear to Paris and take part in a completely different conference on the same Portuguese encounter.

This conference was organised by the Portuguese themselves, funded by the Gulbenkian Foundation and was a study of the Portuguese encounter entirely from the perspective of the Portuguese. In other words the object of that conference was a cover-up job to white wash the Portuguese and avoided any discussion of the real issues that were central to the concerns of the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims of this country.

To evade this charge he has sought, in characteristic style, to wrap it up in a web of - let us be polite - 'terminological inexactitudes'. It is interesting to look at each one of these.

One of these is that he was sent to Paris by the Rajarata University. In an interview with the Sunday Island he has stated "I visited France on behalf of the Rajarata University." What does he mean by this vague, ambivalent assertion?

In the same interview he comes out with another barefaced 'terminological inexactitude'. He says "There was no conflict" between the local and the Paris conference "because the Paris confabulation was on Dutch cartography - a subject totally irrelevant to the Portuguese Encounter." The entire volume of documentation and literature relating to the Paris conference gives the lie to this outrageous falsehood. They are available in the Society's library.

As the brochure sent by the Gulbenkian Foundation says the purpose of the Conference is to study the Portuguese experience in Ceylon. The papers submitted at that Conference are for example, "The Conversion of Rulers in Portuguese Era - Sri Lanka" by Prof. Alan Strathern; "Sri Lanka and Portugal:Trends in Recent Historiography" by Prof. C. R. de Silva and so on. To call the conference one on Dutch cartography is therefore nothing but an unmitigated lie.

In a communication to the Daily News of 19th September he comes out with further distortions. He admits the "issue in question is on (!) the Portuguese encounter -." But he charges that Dr. Susantha Goonatilake "hijacked it" and that this was "without obtaining the approval of the Council." Now this is passing strange indeed.

The very resolution of the Council that sponsored the Portuguese project - Resolution No. 159/10/ 06 (1) of 26th January 2004 - also resolved, quite clearly and unambiguously, that Dr. Susantha Goonatilakeshould be the Convener of the project. What then is meant by "hijacked"? Why does not Dr Paranavitana also say that what really happened was that he hounded the project out of the Society in his standard underhand style?

Conclusion

Finally Dr. Paranavitana also charges brazenly that the project was transformed into "a private project of the Convener financed through his personal funds." It was certainly not funded by the Gulbenkian Foundation or by Lisbon as in the case of the Paris conference surreptitiously attended by Dr. Paranavitana.. But what is the charge here?

If Dr. Susantha Goonatilake was forced to spend his own funds on the International Conference which was the triumphal conclusion of this project - a Conference that was a resounding success and what is more gave expression to national sentiments and aspirations and fulfilled a national and historical need - if, therefore, he had to spend his own funds, let it be realised it was because there were anti-national elements who tried their hardest to sabotage it.

****

Clarification : 'Clean Up'...

Attention is drawn to the article appearing in the Sunday Observer of 17.09.2006, page 9 under the heading "Clean up' at the Royal Asiatic Society" by Gaston Perera.

This article reflects a bias and one sided view of the writer. It is certainly misleading the readers. Since my name is highlighted therein it is my duty to send you this correction which I hope will receive similar publicity in the Sunday Observer.

It is a pity to say that entire article is out of context to the Constitution of the Royal Asiatic Society (RASSL).

The writer displays his ignorance of the contents of the RASSL constitution as he has joined the council a little over three and a half years ago.

What he writes in his article bears no relevance to the objectives of the RASSL. There was a so-called special general meeting held on September 3, which was an unconstitutional meeting and therefore whatever resolutions passed at that meeting were out of order and ultra vires the constitution.

When this matter was taken up at the Council meeting held on September 11, it was deemed that the meeting was ultra vires and the members cannot rid of rules of the RASSL leave alone its Council Members including its President and the Treasurer prior to an inquiry, as it is mandatory. This matter is being contested at the District Court of Colombo.

Dr. K. D. Paranavitana.