Who killed Sinhala literature and language?

Views and opinions of Prof. Sucharitha Gamlath:

Interviewed by Ranga CHANDRARATHNE

In one chilly morning whilst watching "Mulpituwa" presented on Swarnavahini by senior media guru Bandula Padmakumara, a thought provoking comments were made on Prof. Sucharitha Gamlath's views on literary awards carried out in Sinhala newspapers. It was questioned why English newspapers should not carry his views since they are also relevant to literary awards for writings in English. Prof. Sucharitha Gamlath is an academic of rare distinction. He recently compiled a comprehensive Sinhala-English dictionary. His doctoral thesis on “A philosophical investigation into the nature and role of emotion in Art with special reference to Indian Aethetics” is to be published soon. Excerpts of an interview with Prof. Sucharitha Gamlath on contemporary Sinhala literary landscape.

Q: How do you analyse the contemporary literary scene in Sri Lanka?

A: In my opinion contemporary literary scene in Sri Lanka is deplorable. This is primarly due to the general degeneration in the contemporary literary output. There are two aspects of this degeneration. First, I think, is the misunderstanding of the concept of novel. Most of the contemporary writers seem to entertain the notion that novel is a new story, somehow concocted and there is nothing beyond that. However, the novel is a serious art form which explores the reality of human life. The other factor is the language used by contemporary Sinhala literati which is devoid of classical Sinhala idiom, and therefore, insipid and dry.

When you read the literary works of Prof. Sarachchandra, Martin Wickremasinghe and Gunadasa Amerasekara, you find the kind of language they use is a direct evolution of the ancient or medieval Sinhala literature which is a very rich language. The new generation of writers has not studied or even read ancient Sinhalese literary classics such as 'Amawathura', 'Saddharma Ratnavaliya', 'Jathaka Potha' and 'Sandesha Kavyas'. Therefore, the language used by most of the contemporary Sinhalese writers is the spoken Sinhala language which is crude and not refined and not good enough as a medium of communication.

Q: Compared with the Cultural and Literary Renaissance in the 1950s and the 1960s, how do you perceive the steady decline in both quality and content of the literary products?

A: I think in the 1950s and 1960s, the writers were highly educated personnel. They had attended English schools and learnt English equally well. At the same time, they had also learnt Sinhala well. For example, writers such as Sarachchandra, Martin Wickremasinghe and Gunadasa Amerasekara are bilinguals. Since they knew both Sinhala and English well, they read both Western and Sinhala literature. Amerasekara used to recite classical Sinhala poems and used to quote long passages from 'Amavathura' and 'Buthsarana'. Sarachchandra also had the same ability.

The present generation, unfortunately, has lost these two sources of inspiration. They don't know the classical Sinhala idiom and they have not read Western novels either. They may have read some translations of Western novels. Some of these contemporary translations are hopeless. These are mechanical translations. Other than that, they have not read English literature, Russian and French literature in their originals and they have not read our classical writers such as Gurulu Gomi, Vidya Chakravarthi and Bhikkhu Dharmasena. There is a general decline in the contemporary production of literature. Contemporary literary production has also declined in terms of language. There is also the misconception that the novel is only a new story. They don't know that the novel is a serious art form which analyses and reveals social reality as done by great writers such as Tolstoy.

Q: What should be the criteria for judging literary products for national literary awards?

A: Generally, a work of fiction should reveal the reality of a given society. It should be written in an appropriate language with good grammar, syntax and choice of appropriate words. The writer must get moved by something that has happened to the mankind and he/she must find why it happened. As Trotsky said in his 'Literature and Revolution', the writer should find out who the enemies of the people are.

Who are the enemies that prevent people from leading a higher quality life? Then we should decide whether those enemies can be defeated right now or later. Why cannot people live happily and harmoniously? Literary artists should examine these issues. Present Sinhala novelists don't seem to think that it is their duty.

Q: What are your views on contemporary Sri Lankan literature and its place in a globalised context?

A: I have already told you my views on contemporary literature. Contemporary Sinhala literature has no place in the context of global literature. I heard that Prof. Sunanda Mahendra had said that to 'Bora Thel' (Crude oil) is a novel which should be translated into English. I challenge, translate "Bora Thel" into English and see the response beyond our shores. One may utter anything but when you analyse the work, you realise the ridiculous nature of the statements.

Q: There is a tendency among Sinhala mono-lingual writers to apply literary criticism by Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida assuming their frameworks are of vital importance in changing the scope of Sri Lankan literature. What are your views on this tendency?

A: If a man is mono- lingual, he cannot be a writer. In the medieval age writers like Gurulu Gomi were not mono linguals; they were proficient in languages such as Pali, Sanskrit and Prakrit. Alagiyawana Mukaveti said that those who knew only Sinhala were fools. I cannot understand how a mono-lingual can be a good writer.

In the Polonnaruwa and Kotte periods, Sri Lankan writers knew several languages such as Pali, Sanskrit, Tamil, Malayalam, Urdu and Prakrit. Max Muller who translated 'Vinayapitakaya' and 'Thupavansaya' into English said he who knows one knows none. In the 1950s, Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra made a prophetic statement when there was a debate as to make Sinhala or Tamil state language or to make both Sinhala and Tamil state languages. He said he who knows only Sinhala does not know even Sinhala. To be a Sinhalese scholar, one has to read Geiger and other scholarly works which are in English. For instance, history of Sinhala language or even Sinhala Grammar cannot be studied in Sinhala as all the major contributions in these fields are in English.

Q: According to Literary theories, how do you look at the present state of literary criticism in Sri Lanka?

A: The purpose of literary criticism, in a way, is to explicate important literary works. A critic has to explicate the structure of work, language etc. The other purpose of literary criticism is to correct public taste. This was said by T. S. Eliot in one of his essays. In analysing a work of fiction, the critic should explain the characters and symbolism etc and these characters represent a social class and those social processes that are hidden. By explaining the work, the critic also makes a judgment stating the work is important for a number of reasons, thereby educating the readers.

Q: There is a wide-spread allegation that contemporary literary critics pay a little or no attention to the literary productions of generation of writers particularly after the era of Martin Wickramasinghe, Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra and Gunadasa Amerasekara etc. Is this true?

A: There is hardly any serious literary criticism in Sinhala. In literary criticism, critics mention about details of the writer which are not relevant to explaining the work or to improve the public taste. There is very little criticism published in the newspapers. Generally, what the editors of newspapers do is to interview the writer on job, his wife, whether the writer is married or divorced. Sarachchandra postulated a theory of literary criticism. He said if the work is trustworthy and if the story is believable, it is a good work of art which is wrong. I have exposed that. People of the Marxist tendency postulated the theory that exploring the truth represented that work. However, those two lines of inquiry have been rejected and people make nonsensical statements due to their ignorance.

Q: Language plays a critical role in determining the quality of fiction. How do you analyse the contemporary Sri Lankan novel in terms of enriching the contemporary usage and expanding the horizons of language?

A: To some extent, I have already answered the question. When you say language plays a critical role in literary creation what you meant is that a work of fiction is a 'Gadya Kavya' (Prose poetry). Prose work is said to be prose poetry. Although in prose, the literary creation should be poetic. For example, Sarachchandra's 'Malagiya Aththo' and 'Malaunge Avurududa' and 'Vilasiniyage Premaya', are written in poetic language. When you read 'Vilasiniyage Premaya', you find that language is poetic. They are beautiful in evoking feelings. But to know that poetic language, one must be well grounded in traditional Sinhala idiom. Unfortunately, the present generation of writers does not possess that skill. I have been advising the young and budding writers to read from 'Dampiya Atuwa Gatapadaya' to 'Yashodara Watha'. That is to cover the corpus of entire classical Sinhala literature. Unless one has a thorough grasp of classical Sinhala literature, one could not write in poetic language. It would not spring from a vacuum. It comes from one's reading. Siri Tilakasiri, a scholar in Sinhala language made a relevant point at the seminar on literary awards that the word Sirasa (Head) cannot be used on every instance. There one has to make a selection. One cannot say "Sirasa Palanawa" for "Oluva Palanawa" (break the head). Choice of words and their combinations should be done very carefully. Without a deep knowledge of Sinhala, one may not be able to achieve these things.

For instance, Sunethra Rajakarunanayake's 'Podu Purushaya' (Common Mate) and 'Bora Thel' (Crude Oil) are written in ordinary Sinhala language. Any Nattami or street urchin can write such novels. If Sunethra's work is a good novel, any of those people I mentioned can write such novels. A novelist must be a language specialist and an intellectual.

Q: Drawing a comparison, how do you analyse Kathleen Jayewardene's 'Satyakama' and Sunethra Rajakarunanayake's "Podu Purushaya" in terms of furthering the Sinhala idiom and their contribution towards the embellishment of the language and literature?

A: There is no comparison between two literary works. Kathleen Jayewardene uses classical Sinhalese idiom. I was wonder struck when I read her novel "Sathyakama". I was wondering how that lady could write in such a highly classical and extremely beautiful language. Sunethra's is an ordinary language that any street urchin could write. Kathleen's is a 'Gadya Kavya' (Prose poem) and Sunethra's language in "Podu Purushaya" is very dry, insipid and dull reading. Kathleen has done a contribution to the embellishment of the language and Sunethra has not. I explained this in a series of articles to Sinhala weekly "Irudina". Sunethra has not done any contribution to enrich contemporary Sinhala idiom. See the language in Malagiya Atto by Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra, which is extremely beautiful, poetic and evocative.

Q: If we don't arrest these negative trends in literary productions, what do you think the future of Sri Lankan literature in general and of the novel in particular?

A: There won't be any literature or particularly any fiction if we don't arrest this tendency of degeneration. This is a long process which can be done through the revival of the present system of education. The schools should provide a thorough knowledge of Sinhala and English. However, the issue is who are going to teach standard Sinhala and standard English. There are people who are ignorant of both Sinhala and English. The present generation of teachers of Sinhala and English do not know their Sinhala and English. I defend my position at any forum. Most of the teachers of English only possess Ordinary Level qualifications with a credit pass in English. They teach English. On the other hand, Sinhala is taught by graduate teachers. However, most of these teachers know neither Sinhala nor English and have no aptitude for teaching. I am very sorry about the plight of the present generation students.

Q: How do you compare and contrast 'Satyakama' and 'Podu Purushaya' where the literary theory contextual clarity is concerned?

A: Contextual clarity is an operative word which is lacking in 'Podu Purushaya'. Contextually, 'Sathyakama' is very clear. In 'Podu purushaya' action of the story runs up and down and it is very difficult to follow the series of incidents. The story begins in Kilinochchi and comes to another place and moves on to another. This is what I meant that 'Podu Purushaya' does not have contextual clarity (Shandarba Shruddiya). Internal coherence is also lacking in Podu Purushaya. Most of the readers said that they could not read it beyond a few pages. With the greatest difficulty, I read 64 pages and put it aside. But later, when I was pushed to read it by those who wanted to interview me on contemporary Sinhala literature; I read it with greatest difficulty and suffered a lot. That itself is a criticism of 'Podu Purushaya'. It's not internally coherent.

Q: Where do the two novels stand in terms of grammar and syntax?

A: Sathyakama's grammar and syntax are quite correct by all linguistic standards. Grammar in 'Podu Purushaya' is all wrong and Sunethra Rajakarunanayake writes in spoken language. But she has not followed the grammar in spoken language. If you break rules of grammar, you cannot understand the sentence. In many places in 'Podu Purushaya's' syntax is wrong. In my view, Sunethra has criminally violated the Sinhala language.

Q: One of the prominent features of a good fiction is that it generates gamut of zests which is brilliantly described in the ancient Rasa theory enunciated by Bharata Muni in his masterpiece Natyasastra. In your opinion what are the types of Rasas evokes these two novels?

A: when reading 'Sathyakama', it evokes feelings. For me 'Podu Purushaya' evokes no feelings. It is dull.

Q: Finally what would you like to say on the panel of judges who selected works of literature for awards and their level of literary appreciation?

A: I would like to use the word used by Gunadasa Amerasekara. He asked: Who are these 'cattle?' In ancient literature, people who don't know literature are reffered to as cattle. In this sense Gunadasa Amerasekara is right! I would like to state that these groups of persons don't know literature and cannot appreciate literature. They have not made any contribution to literature either.