Dayan Jayatilleka: From Geneva to Sri Lanka
Running time approx. 50 mins. Download high-quality version for Apple iPod Touch, iPhone and PC here.
Recorded on 31st July 2009, this was the first interview on video given by Dayan Jayatilleka after he was asked to quit his position as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva a few weeks ago. Going into the reasons behind his sudden sacking, the interview interrogates his most contentious submissions regarding the 13th Amendment, his take on the current Presidency and future prospects for peace in Sri Lanka, key memories of his sojourn in Geneva including the epic Human Rights Council sessions and other issues related to politics and democracy. I also ventured to ask some impertinent questions about his love life, given that for the duration of the interview, he was flanked by his wife Sanja.
Dayan’s been a regular voice on Groundviews. In addition to contributing over 30 articles to Groundviews, Dayan has penned hundreds of detailed comments and generated tens of thousands of pageviews.
When the former President of Sri Lanka Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge wrote to Groundviews in response to Lasantha Wickremetunge’s murder, it was Dayan to whom she addressed her comment to. Dayan’s response triggered off a critical debate with one of Sri Lanka’s leading bloggers on the freedom of access to communities displaced by war, which at the time was on-going and increasing in its ferocity. More recently, in Taking a page from Chechnya: Sri Lanka’s insincere constitutional reform and its apologists, Dayan engaged with another well known online identity in Sri Lanka, Aacharya. Two recent articles that generated a lot of debate that also featured Dayan’s input were,
Out in the Wilderness — Dayan Jayatilleka on 13th Amendment and getting sacked by Boggles
Sending Dayan home: the triumph of folly in Sri Lankan politics?
With Dayan’s departure from Geneva, Groundviews loses a unique perspective into the workings of an opaque regime. Nevertheless, the content generated by him or on account of him on Groundviews is an unparalled public record of historic interventions in Geneva, as well as insights into the policies and practices of the Rajapakse regime domestically. Going back to his first submission in July 2008, one can guess why the Rajapakse regime finds men like Dayan, once useful, now terribly inconvenient.
Don’t Lose the Peace
Xenophobia, cultural or otherwise, is profoundly counter-productive for winning the war as well as the peace. Scholarly and scientific research has shown that creativity and innovation in all fields takes place not so much from within the bowels of homogeneous and unchanging cultures but precisely where cultures interface, interact, exchange and cross-fertilize. Sir Arthur C Clarke correctly observed that Sri Lanka contains the greatest cultural diversity in the most compressed space, which is a source of conflict but potentially also of great creativity. Unless we embrace pluralism, learn to celebrate the treasure that is our own diversity, and tap into it as an energy source for advance, we shall certainly be unable compete regionally or globally. Worst of all we shall not be using all our cultural capacities, making the best of our endowments, making the best of ourselves.The best performing of our youngsters, the brightest minds coming out of our universities with First classes, are migrating. Unless we can retain them by creating an environment in which the intelligent discerning internationally aware individual can flourish, we may win the war but lose the capacity to re-build, regenerate. Post war Sri Lanka must not be like pre-war Sri Lanka, because that order was so flawed as to contain the seeds of war. As we reconstruct we must restructure, transform, learning from past mistakes.
Similarly, post war Sri Lanka must be unlike wartime Sri Lanka. If ideologies of resentment and closure prevail over those of conciliation and openness, we shall be unable to manage the problem of the hemorrhage of quality human resources, which in turn will decide whether we shall develop or decline as a country.
It will serve little purpose if we win the war and lose the peace.
111 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
I just finished watching this interview and I must say that my impression of Dayan Jayatilleka has risen several notches. I want to thank Dayan for all he has done for Sri Lanka, while in Geneva, and I hope that he continues to express his views and communicate with the rest of us who are of a like mind on SL issues. I wish him and his lovely wife the very best as they return to SL later this month. Dayan, if the situation ever got too risky for your personal safety in SL, just remember that many top university political science departments would love the opportunity to have as faculty, someone with a very keen intellect like you. My thanks also go to Sanjana for the great interview and all his good work through Groundviews in general.
Sanjana you did very well with this interview. The breath and depth of coverage was excellent and I was impressed at the rapport you established with Dayan. To lose Dayan to the international community would be a pity. Sri Lanka needs minds of this calibre and I hope the GoSL usefully employs him for his synthesis of concepts is commendable.
Good stuff. I like him better when he’s sacked.
Its really a shock to see him being sacked. But Dayan being the person he is, its not such a surprise. I thank him for standing up for what he believes in, and not being a hypocrite.
It was indeed an Epic and historic time period for Sri Lanka, the time that he spent in Geneva.I wish him success, and hope he would continue to contribute to the intellectual dialog unfolding on GroundViews…
A man of conscience never survived in the land of hypocrites. Irony as it may, Allah certainly has better plans for him. Felt sad when he said “I wouldn’t be out of job if i was a hypocrite” No human should be pushed to that level. Watch his wife’s body language throughout, Dayan has nothing to worry when he has a wife like that. Am an ordinary layman with no voice let alone clout, but Dayan we salute you. We sincerely pray for you. I hope sanity will prevail at temple trees.
Brilliant work – interesting that the discussed alternative to a secular government was a government like in the “premadasa time”.
Sorry to hear the guy lost his job under any circumstances, but the reality still holds true:
1. Dayan is so scared of speaking up against the govt. Speaking the truth. Both journo and Dayan push words under the carpet to fear of repurcussions by the brothers. What a way to live life.
2. Dayan says there needs to be more a ‘bridge’ like Chinese/Indians where the educated are bringing back to the country. Isnt this why the Tamils were discriminated against? The fact that they were educated, started moving up, hence the jealousy and backward attitudes decided to create a sense of anger amongst the average Sinhalese against the Tamils? Isn’t it Sinhala insecurity that created Tamil ‘terrorism’?
3. The Tamils and Sinhalese do have a chance to live in Peace. However, not as long as the Sinhala people get easily sucked into a sense of hatred and jealousy against the average Tamil by the words of mad politicians who prey on creating a sense of insecurity amongst Sinhalese that Tamils mean the death of Sinhala. Not sure why that is but one should know the answer within.
4. Its sad to see some great Sinhala pioneers who faught for equality of Tamils not get credited by any community, including the journos. Alternatively, the Tamils who built bridges to the Sinahala community get recognized by the Govt. Hypocritic govts at it’s best. Hats off to the great Sinhalese who are unrecognized.
5. The IDPs are not settled yet because there is mass amounts of Sinhalization and ethnic clensing projects going on in Tamil areas right now as we listen to this interview.
6. Dayan says that 1000′s of people being killed by the govt forces does not have proof. However there is tons of evidence in the Tamil community of Sinhala Army bulldozing 1000′s of injured Tamil civilians and burying them alive in Mullaiteevu. If you had a conscience why not speak up? Why not question? Why not question why no journos weren’t allowed into these areas?
7. The biggest question. Is Tamil militancy dead? …… All claim of a victory. As long as there is prejudice in any community, a rebellion will be borne. Its a fact of life. Militancy may or may not. But clearly, any Sinhalese person with a ‘Search Engine’ as Dayan would say would have seen Prabakarans dead body on TV and understand that the neck of a dead person never moves. In the two different govt releases of photos, one has VP with eyes open and a clean moustasche appearing like he is 35, while the other is a pointed nose person who has had his head blown off and has no double chin like VP. Surely who is kidding who and who is being fooled here?
I will look forward to him writing in the near future about the state of his prescription – that of Tamils being able to get what they wanted through an ‘undistorted’ representation in the Parliament. Good luck Dayan. I hope you do return to the University of Colombo and engage with the university community, with GV and the public at large.
It was interesting and educative to listen to Dayan speaking to Groundviews following his ceasing to be Sri Lanka’s Representative at the UN. His words that he stood by the government during a just war and was hoping to stand by it during its effort for a just peace are worth taking note of. Now that he is not going to be there to help the government from the UN in its latter effort, lets hope he will not give up his efforts from any future positions he may hold.
He was in the audience at the side event organised by Amnesty International last June on ‘ Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka – Twenty Years of Make Believe’. He responded to the various allegations of impunity raised by the panelists at this meeting by saying that many of the things concerned had occurred when Sri Lanka was in a war situation and assured that now that the war is over, we could look forward to the human rights situation improving. Apparently, a move in that direction is yet to be seen.
Let us hope Dayan will use his skill in the use of words and the pen, in whatever position he may hold in the future, to push those concerned to move swiftly to restore the law and order situation in Sri Lanka, which is a crying need today.
Dayan got what he deserved. Mr Pallihakara, is the right man for the UN job. He took the middle path advised by Lord Buddha at the UN. However, Dayan went over the top and took the extreme view of the Tamil insurgency which actually rose out of the denial of the rights of the Tamils by successive Sinhala governments including that of DS Senanayake that was supposed to be the most lenient of all governments but most deadly in its actions eg colonization of Tamil areas.
Good item, and forgive me for being picky, but not nice for the lady to have to sit through the whole interview, almost just as an object — nice tie, smart jacket, pretty lady — and the interview conducted in a “his thoughts and her looks” mode. There must be material for a social science PhD here, any takers?
The really interesting thing is not in what he is saying, but in what she might be thinking. That would be closer approximation to a groundview.
I have to thank GV for giving access to Dayan’s thoughts in a personal way after the dismissal. Interesting…
Siva you are being picky. So do you have an objection when the first lady stands by Obama not uttering a word when he’s engaging the media sometimes?
She was included there to show support and solidarity. C’mon the man just lost his appointment.
Siva,
I wondered too about the wife’s presence. What was she there for since she didn’t have anything to say? It seemed quite excruciating for her too–she kept flicking her hair in unease. Sanjana did try to draw her in but she wouldn’t bite. A pity cos, like you, I too found it more interesting to speculate what she was thinking.
Observer–it’s not like Obama and wife. The first couple is usually at an event and the media accosts them, so Michelle O just stands aside and lets her husband take the interview. The camera focuses on him. But here, they had come together specifically for the interview, (they were even dressed in co-ordinated outfits), so both should have talked. The camera was on both throughout. It was a patriarchal representation of blind, dutiful, silent female support for husband. I would have preferred to see an active intelligent support. And that comment DJ made about having made a better choice with each marriage: that helped to further render her as an object.
Fantastic interview. Didn’t always agree with his views, but I was very thankful that he expressed them so readily (and so well) over the years. He made us think. Good luck to him.
Thanks for the good inteerview. when Dayan started work in Geneva I wished him saying “you have a great jon defending the SL govt. during the worst crisis”. Though differing in opinions, we were friends. I am sorry to miss him in Geneva.
I did not agree with his policies and views of Dayan Jayatilake. I thought he was a sinhala racist. After watching this interview, I think this soul have some character.
I enjoyed the interview. Thanks Ground View for bringing this interview!!
To Sanjana and Rose:
Sanjana,
First and foremost, I want to thank you for the interview. It was nice of you to include Sanja on the video. Many of us were happy to see two people – so well matched and harmonious together.
Now to Rose,
What do you mean by “active intelligent support”? True, the woman was silent. However, my impression of her differs vastly from you and the rest of you gloomy gusses. If you did not let your biases towards Dayan get in the way, you would’ve been able to receive Sanja without such a clouded judgment. For me, her verbal silence did not come off as a sign of subservience; it was more a reflection of someone who has the capacity to deal with the world in a reflective and understated manner.
As the interview focused specifically on Dayan’s political views, his dismissal from his recent post and his relationship to the participants on Groundsview, I think it is fitting that Dayan answered these questions without expecting his wife to take the heat.
Kadavule! Bhagavan! A woman is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
Aro Hara ! Aro Hara !
You reap what you sow…
The people of North East have been having a freedom struggle from 1976, to gain independence. It was a passive non violent democratic political struggle, within the rule of law, as done by Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
From 1948, the Sinhalese “lost their head” and started to treat Tamils as lifeless stones, instead of treating them as human beings with feelings and aspirations.
According to Somawana’s logic JVP can aspire to establish “equality” but not TNA, to aspire for the independence of Tamil Eelam(TE), although Tamils unitedly aspire to be liberated.
The insurrection by JVP, solely by the Sinhalese youth, was the reason for the unilateral declaration of Sri Lanka(SL) as a fully independent republic in 1972. The constitution of SL was made pro Sinhala and anti- Tamil, to please the JVP and Buddhist monks.
Tamils expressed by democratic protest by abstaining from the drafting of the 1972 constitution. Yet, the Sinhalese bulldozed it without considering at all the feelings and aspirations of Tamils.
Tamils therefore corporately realised their mistake of being in one country and sought independence for their homeland in 1976. It was a one hundred percent correct political move. If it materialised then, today our island would have excelled in all spheres.
Unfortunately, during the past 37 years, the corporate Sinhala arrogant attitude escalated against the Tamils. It has degenerated into brutalised anti Tamilism and genocide. It has become irreversible.
Rightly therefore, the political struggle for independence of Tamil Eelam(TE) should continue. Any person who is patriotic and loves all the people in the island will think of that reality and refrain from misleading the Sinhalese.
JVP was the reason for the rebel constitution, the wrong attitude and Tamil genocide. The onus remains with JVP to put it right.
The peaceful co-existence of SL and TE in the island only, and nothing else, can satisfy the aspiration of “equality” in the island.
Rose,
Dayan and Sanja were just after a farewell lunch hosted by the Japanese Ambassador. They kindly picked me up and we went to a park where this interview was conducted. They did not come specifically for the interview and I respected *both* their wishes to be in the video. Sanja is an intelligent, self-assured, observant and beautiful woman. She is not, by far, a “blind, dutiful, silent female supporter” of Dayan.
You must never generalise based on personal experience.
Atheist,
Seems like your approval of DJ led you to see Sanja in a positive manner. I wonder how you came to the conclusion that she deals with the world in a “reflective and understated” manner without even talking to her or hearing her say a single word! Perhaps you’re drawing on some romantic notions about women?
I am not saying that Sanja does not in fact give “active intelligent support” to DJ. She may well do so. For all I know, she could be a rocket scientist. Rather, I was talking about the way she was “represented” (depicted) and the way she was used in conveying a certain “representation” or image of DJ.
Yes, the interview focused entirely on DJ, his politics, his views. It was about a political event–the inexplicable recall of an ambassador who had done his job with quite exceptional success. So why was she there? She is not a part of SL politics, is she? She belongs to his private life.
Maybe Sanjana wanted to focus on the “man” behind the ambassador. As a viewer, I wanted to hear the ambassador talk, not the “man” DJ. I am not interested in his masculinity, his sexual/romantic life, etc. Isn’t it a rule of video interviews that there should be visual focus on the subject at hand? I am afraid this interview wound up representing politics/foreign service as a masculine arena, with his wife juxtaposed against him to bring his masculinity into focus.
How many times have you seen Dennis Thatcher look into the distance silently while his wife talked politics? Generally, the media doesn’t given attention to the spouses of leading female politicians/diplomats because it’s important that their femininity must not be highlighted as an aspect of their success. Not so for male politicians/diplomats–here their gender and male sexuality must be underlined as part of the job!
I don’t think men would allow themselves to just act as dumb props in a picture, would they? So why do they expect it from women? And even romanticise it like you do?
Sanjana,
I just saw your response after I posted mine. Firstly, everyone generalises based on personal experience–that’s a bulk of the ground of people’s knowledge. So don’t deny me that. But also, as I say above, I wasn’t saying anything about Sanja’s personality or character. I was commenting on how she appeared in the context of the interview. My interest here is in how representations work and gendered representations fascinate me.
There was nothing wrong with both of them being in the interview. But both should have talked. Otherwise, why just sit there taking attention away from the subject of the interview? If they were both subjects, then the interview didn’t work–or at least it conveyed messages nobody wanted to put out!
Mr Jayatillke in the course of interview said that was no evidence that innocent civilians were killed in the final stages of the war.Is he not aware that UNSAT had taken photos which proved beyond any doubt that there was a wholesale massacre of the Tamisl in an area some say the size of central park in New York?.I hope that someday these will be produced when an international inquiry into violations of human rights violations takes place.Fonseka openly admitted that the Tiger leaders when they came with white flags were shot and killed.This as we all know is a war crime.If the Govt had allowed reporters and journalists to go to the war zone, there would be no need to speculate.
Though the interview was interesting and we were able to get Mr J’s views on various issues, I found the constant interuptions by the interviewer most annoying.
Dayan very recently wrote ”The Tamils must sell something that the sinhalese can buy…”
I ask what will he say now? how do we trade with such narrow nationalist ideology in the south, which is even unable to tolarate the sinhala hegemon free thinking of Sarath Fonseka and Dayan?
Peace in SL will never return untill the sinhalase agree and accept the other nations within are equall. Now Dayan with the help of his new bride can write ”what went wrong…”
A thoughtful and interesting interview. Still, I can’t help thinking that some of the most poignant moments are when both Dayan and Sanjana express their sheer dismay and frustration at the lack of progress either in releasing the Tamils held prisoner in camps, or in the government’s peacebuilding efforts. As sincere as Dayan evidently is in his wish to see progress on both of these counts, we were all encouraged to believe that a victory over the LTTE would pave the way for a better life for the north/east Tamils. That now seems like monumental naivete. The LTTE’s argument was always that it was resisting brutal Sinhala racism, which if left unchecked would rain down on Tamils in buckets. And that without them, Tamils would quickly see that they would be subjected to even worse violence because the momentum of Sinhala racism, aimed ultimately at subjugating them, would continue in full thrust towards it logical conclusion. They argued that a vanquished Tamil people would therefore be offered nothing but humiliation and degrading treatment because – notwithstanding the likes of enlightened individuals such as Sanjana and Dayan – the historical yearning to eliminate Tamil militancy was driven ultimately not by a humanitarian impulse but by a racist one. They argued that the kinder and saner elements of Sinhala society (the Sanjanas and Dayans of this world) were an irrelevancy. The astuteness of that analysis is becoming plainer each passing day. The powers that be have pushed talk of political solutions firmly into the back seat, and even basic humanitarian concerns are scornfully dismissed. Sad to say, the question is not whether the Sanjanas and Dayans of this world are sane, decent people – I am certain that they are. It is whether they are little more than a side show to the real drama that is unfolding. That is why their obvious frustration and feeling of political impotence, while endearing, is far from surprising. As much as they genuinely feel for the Tamil people imprisoned in foreign-run camps with no end in sight to their dreadful plight, the tragic reality is that they really have nothing at all to deliver to them. And they know it.
It is sad that whilst each of us are entitled to an opinion, the vitriol of some comments above, are more an exposure of their own inability to comprehend real ground situations. Politicians are the doers given the right to lead by, and answerable to, the voters whereas envoys, scribes et al, serve at the pleasure of the politician, and will not last if they move away into realms of fantasy. Happens all the time! And that’s when there is a loss of confidence and parting of the ways. Quite rightly so. Thanks groundviews for a great interview
Dayan was careful and the interviewer too, not to say or ask anything to bring him the the notice of those guard the regime. He knows that if he was to teach in the university,he has first of all, to survive. He is aware of the White Vans & Motorcycle Squads which are the reality of those who express criticism or dissent.
He knows that all semantics asde, the regime wahts to survive at whatever cost. All other considerations – political or otherwise, are secondary.
Yet another victim of Mahinda’s Karapincha Chinthanaya. OR may be Mr.Boggles doesn’t believe in Succession Planning. I rule till my dying day no? May be he feared Dayan would be his successor in a diplomatic coup. May be Boggles didn’t want his “around the world in 365 days” fun trips compromised with another.
If I was Dayan, obvious choice for me would be to challange them in courts. Dayan being Dayan wouldn’t contemplate that i guess. Would you Dayan?
It is clear that serving the govt. of Sri Lanka one displays intelligience and the courage of one’s conviction at great peril to one’s career and perhaps …
Well done Dayan
we wait to hear from you in your new job, hopefully theorizing and defending the next (ill)liberal move by the GOSL
I feel very sorry for Dayan. I am not a person known to him. I wonder why he couldn’t foresee the nature of the present leaders in the country . However he may have fulfilled a duty as a common intellectual of Sri Lanka to the nation and the country.
A day when common Sri Lankan identify fully the,qualifications capacities knowledge and experience the people like Dayan have , definitely they will select them as real leaders who will heel all the diseases Sri Lanka suffers, and make the country like Singapore Japan and Malaysia in the Asia .
Sorry Dayan
A thoughtful and interesting interview. Still, I can’t help thinking that some of the most poignant moments are when both Dayan and Sanjana express their sheer dismay and frustration at the lack of progress either in releasing the Tamils held prisoner in camps, or in the government’s peacebuilding efforts. As sincere as Dayan evidently is in his wish to see progress on both of these counts, we were all encouraged to believe that a victory over the LTTE would pave the way for a better life for the north/east Tamils. That now seems like monumental naivete. The LTTE’s argument was always that it was resisting brutal Sinhala racism, which if left unchecked would rain down on Tamils in buckets. And that without them, Tamils would quickly see that they would be subjected to even worse violence because the momentum of Sinhala racism, aimed ultimately at subjugating them, would continue in full thrust towards it logical conclusion. They argued that a vanquished Tamil people would therefore be offered nothing but humiliation and degrading treatment because – notwithstanding the likes of enlightened individuals such as Sanjana and Dayan – the historical yearning to eliminate Tamil militancy was driven ultimately not by a humanitarian impulse but by a racist one. They argued that the kinder and saner elements of Sinhala society (the Sanjanas and Dayans of this world) were an irrelevancy. The astuteness of that analysis is becoming plainer each passing day. The powers that be have pushed talk of political solutions firmly into the back seat, and even basic humanitarian concerns are scornfully dismissed. Sad to say, the question is not whether the Sanjanas and Dayans of this world are sane, decent people – I am certain that they are. It is whether they are little more than a side show to the real drama that is unfolding. That is why their obvious frustration and feeling of political impotence, while endearing, is far from surprising. As much as they genuinely feel for the Tamil people imprisoned in foreign-run camps with no end in sight to their dreadful plight, the tragic reality is that they really have nothing at all to deliver to them. And they know it.
I think the interviewer is too full of himself and the questions too long winded.
In era which is being looked upon as a time of great opportunity to develop the country in a post war situation, how can we have confidence in the “management” ? The bottom line is that the Rajapakses’ are going to be elected into office for the next decade at least and if they make decisions based on nothing but removing those who have ceased to be useful and possibly pose a threat…..what future is there ?
Look closely at the Army Commander, Navy Commander and now Dayan. Also consider the likes of Mervyn SIlva continuing unchecked. How can we succeed or democracy prevail under these circumstances ?
Mawm said,
August 4, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I think one of the most pertinent observations Dayan made during the interview is the disconnect between a largely Colombo-based “cosmopolitan”, English speaking intelligentsia and the rest of the country. This geographical isolation, if one may identify it as such, is reflective of an even more intense and damaging cultural and psychological isolation which in turn leaves the patriotic moral high ground open to occupation by cultural essentialists and various other species of nativists whose national imaginaries are limited to reductive foreign/alien dichotomies and chimerical conceptions of pure (pre-colonial?) locality.
As Dayan observed this problem manifested clearly in the English speaking intelligentsia’s inability (and at times willful ignorance) of what was a national project — that of defeating LTTE terrorism. If the political and ideological contours of post-war Sri Lanka assume an exclusivist /majoritarian form the blame for this cannot be conveniently displaced on to Sinhala hardliners or the current regime only. It marks a collective failure of the Sri Lankan polity and in particular the failure of an English speaking intelligentsia which has never really assumed a post-colonial character. A liberal-inspired all pervasive antagonism towards any form of nationalism seems to be a part of this dilemma. But as Dayan has shown it is possible to assume strategic support to a nationalist cause but retain one’s intellectual and ethical integrity and independence (some might challenge this assessment of Dayan but as Edward Said’s support for the Palestinian cause showed it both possible and an ethical imperative for the engaged public intellectual)
The lack of multilingualism within this community, its ignorance of the sentiments and trends within the Sinhala cultural/ideological sphere (I am not sure if the same applies to the Tamil community) are factors that have made it easy for Sinhala cultural exclusivists to deligitimate the English speaking intelligentsia as a quasi-comprador class that has now assumed a neo-imperialist character. If the failure of the Sinhala speaking intelligentisa has been the inability to be worldly and cosmopolitan in their cultural and ideological outlook, the same can be said of the English speaking intelligentsia who are/were content to align their cultural and ideological compasses with the metropolitan West but remain/remained woefully unaware of their own society.
Dr Liyanage Amarakeerthi’s contribution to the Island newspaper and Dayan’s endorsement of that article highlighted this basic issue. A larger discussion and debate needs to emerge. One which also needs to be multilingual as far as possible. While the English speaking community needs to become far more self reflective and critical about its place and role in Sri Lankan civil society, it needs to reach across the language (and cultural) divide. A similar process needs to occur from the Sinhala cultural and political sphere and the few bi-lingual and multi-lingual intellectuals in the country have to play a vital role in this process.
New media such as the blogosphere along with traditional media like newspapers have an obvious role in facilitating such a process. For instance something like the Dayan-Malinda debate on devolution needs to be translated into Sinhala and Tamil and similar debates from the Sinhala and Tamil media need to reach the English readership. The practicalities of such translation and publication might be significantly difficult but it is something that serious thought and effort needs to be given to.
Dayan joins the long line of capable, truly patriotic public officials and diplomats used and dumped by the Sri Lankan state, and especially by the very insecure MR regime. If he talks too much, upon his return, there will soon be a white van with his name written on it. Or, in his case, considering his services to the state, it might even be a white helicopter.
Servants should know when to fall in line and not speak too much, lest they earn the wrath of their masters.
Excellent interview Sanajana. Beautiful location, birds singing, colourful screen. Dr Dayan a great icon with down to earth personalty. Nice to hear Dr. Dayan says romance was always there… awesome to see wife Sandra, sitting beside him…
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka is an indispensable Firewall for Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is disappointing for moderate intelectuals like Dr. Dayan becos of political slavery and blunt politicos… He defended Sri Lanka against unintended Human Rights violations, anti-Sri Lanka propaganda in the international frontline. He lead and won UNHRC debate on war crime charges against Sri Lanka during last stage of war against LTTE terrorism, later he was sacked by the same government he defended. The war could continue untll end thanks to th work done by Dr. Dayan and team at UNHRC. There was enormous pressure to Sri Lanka at last stage of war. He blocked all threats and gave opportunity for our soldiers to totally wipe out LTTE leadership.
We need democracy and freedom in Sri Lanka. We dont need a Taliban Sri Lanka. What ever the mallum or karola they suggets Sri Lanka in my perspective, should peserve Sinhalese-buddhistness which is unique and found only in Sri Lanka. Tamil, muslim, christian every where in the world….
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka is a part of Sri Lankan victory against terrorism. What we now need is reorganize the corrupted (political) system. Thank you Dr. Dayan, and Prof. Rajiva for the tremendous job at UNHRC in Geneva!
(check my uploads on UNHRC debate at youtube/NoEalamInSL)
Remark: I felt sorry to hear word “Man” during the interview to address this huge Icon. Sanjana, a close friend of him forgot that he is our “ambassador”. I know it was an emotional interview. Great job.
NoEalamInSL (You Tube, Blogspot)
Mawm said:
“For instance something like the Dayan-Malinda debate on devolution needs to be translated into Sinhala and Tamil and similar debates from the Sinhala and Tamil media need to reach the English readership.”
Well, it’s good to aspire to such lofty heights, but I doubt if it will be a two-way street, ever again. I don’t know about Tamil speakers, but I know for a fact how 50 years of Swabhasha education has snuffed out any serious interest grasping or following in anything other than what appears in Sinhala. Being bilingual, I know how bad most English-to-Sinhala translations are. These dictionary-based translators will ruin a nuanced, textured discussion originally written in English. A bad/distorted translation is worse than no translation.
As for the elites tuning more into local language discussions, who among the English-only Colombo intelligentsia really cares what the hoi poloi think and say? I don’t. One Dayan or two do not make a difference.
The interviewer is not up to the right standard unfortunately. Dr D J I am glad we have people like you.
Hasithasub, what the devil is a “right standard of interviewing”? Who made this standard esp. for citizen journalism, when and where? This is precisely the pedestrian piffle that comes from people who have nothing meaningful to say, but insist of saying something anyway. In addition to comments above, feedback from other channels suggest DJ alone or DJ and I combined have riled, inter alia, the following groups:
1. Feminists annoyed by Sanja’s silence on screen.
2. Feminists angered by DJ.
3. Feminists generally angry anyway and have a video to channel it through for the moment, until the next Ellen DeGeneres Show.
4. Patriotic Sinhalese, particularly from diaspora, for pressing too hard on DJ and his yeoman service at the UN.
5. Rabid Tamils, particularly from diaspora, for being too favourable about DJ.
6. Juvenile frat boys in Australia who accuse DJ and I of a conspiracy to undermine Palitha Kohona’s good name, demonstrating in the process as little intelligence as the object of their adoration.
7. Those who accuse DJ and me of being too supine to the Rajapakse regime, for fear of white vans picking us up.
Clearly, there’s no pleasing everyone.
Tellingly, most of these interlocutors cannot construct a single sentence of grammatically correct, meaningful English, assuming instead that repetitive expletives hiding behind anonymous monickers is actually a form of constructive online engagement. To assume these sanctimonious humbugs understand the content on this website in general, and this video in particular, is a stretch.
In my perspective:
Standards:
Interviewer is competent in language and the suject, over confidence, emotional, too friendly, bit partial but content and quality wise at its best.
Silence, thoughts, moods ofthe lady:
1.The presence of Madam Sanja shows, Ambassador is not abondoned when he is emotionally down(?). It gives strength and confidence.
2.Amabassador is proud to show to people that he poses a charm, warm wife.
3.Couple is hurt & dissapointed, an ignored patriot who was not included in war victory celebrations nor a promotion or appreciation for the work done(?). We Sri Lankans need investigations to the matter, Sri Lanka is not a property of a group of people.
4.It is the ambassador who was interviewed not Madam Sanja and mind you, silence is gold.
5.I have a good feeling that the couple has a very strong bond and romance which might be the secret of success of ambassador.
6.She feels uncomfortable. sitting long (50 minutes) on a bench while Ambassador pushing her away when the conversation getting intensed.
7.It would have been nice if seating was bit angeled so she can see ambassadors face.
8.She is not a model to look at the camera all the time nor is she an expert on the subject to interact with two intelectuals who have mastered on the subject.
Ground views: Do you mind if I upload this video in my You Tube Channel for further discusion?
NoEalamInSL (You Tube, Blogspot)
Groundviews/Sanjana,
Totally agree with you on your last post – however, I am presuming you are the administrator of this website? As such, you should not take these personal comments to heart and disparage the posters (whatever the merits of their arguments) as you have done. After all, groundviews is all about frank discussion of personal opinions and although you have every right to defend yourself, you are better off deflecting these personal criticisms in the interests of the website.
On the interview, well done – it is great and rather relieving I must say to see proper intellectual analysis of the situation in our country. And the idea that the current system does not encourage informed public debate is certainly correct in my view. I had almost lost hope of finding moderate intellectuals who wished to actually discuss merits/demerits of significant issues in Sri Lanka. Funny thing is, once you watch DJ, one almost feels why the likes of Boggles felt quite insecure. People like DJ seem extremely out of place in the nationalist Mahinda-liban.
Yes, I am a feminist. Let me wear the label proudly and shake off the disdain with which you throw the word around. I am disappointed that you use it as a bad word here and that your comment directs viewers to stereotyped myths about feminists, i.e that they are always angry (“hysterical” is another stereotype often used) and that they are lesbians (reference to Ellen D’s show, which I find quite silly, by the way, and not particularly feminist).
Feminism is an intellectually rigorous school of critical thought (many schools of thought, actually), as valid intellectually as Marxism, post-Marxisms, Post-colonial Critique and whatever else you want to name, and taught at universities around the world–a fact that your comments try to hide. The feminists I know are not an angry bunch–our training has helped us establish distance from and equanimity towards the gender problem. But surely it is easy to understand that some women struggling against patriarchal culture may be always or generally angry simply because the patriarchy is everywhere, no? Just because the patriarchal nature of culture is invisible to you does not mean that it is not there. Some of us have been trained to look at its manifestations. At any rate, I was not angered by the interview, but rather amused by more game-playing by the boys.
You would like to represent my views as emotional, as coming from my personal animosity towards you and DJ. The truth is that I think you are a superb journalist and interviewer. You will find some comments from me in the past here in groundviews where I have said so. I look forward to your interviews, and especially like the ones with Bijayini Satpathy and Somawansa Amarsinghe. I like the depth and broad knowledge with which you probe your interviewees, as well as your style of presentation–the way you eschew the formality and stuffiness of the Western ‘bourgeois’ TV interview and bring some Sri Lankan style to it. But this particular interview was not great. If you go over your interview again you will probably realise that it lacks your usual distance from the subject, and that your voice does not come across with its usual stability and strength.
As for DJ, I agree with his position on the 13th Amendment. I would have prefered him to fail in his attempt to avert the war crimes inquiry because SL citizens do have the right to know the truth of that (whatever it may be) so they can make informed political decisions. But I can see he was only doing his job, and highly successfully at that. At the point that I watched the interview, I had suspended judgement of him, especially since he reads Slavoj Zizek, my favourite cultural commentator and philosopher. I had hoped your interview would make me fall on one side or the other, but it did not. So I’m afraid personal prejudice against DJ had nothing to do with my ‘feminist’ response to the interview.
NoEalamInSL, feel free to feature in your blog / YouTube channel. The Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License under which content here is published only requires you link back to the site. A Quicktime version of this interview can be download from the link at the start of the article. The only problem you will encounter is the length. YouTube does not allow videos over 10 minutes, so you’ll have to break this up into 5 parts.
ManthiW, GV is not a spittoon for the deranged. Those who confuse frankness and civility with pseudo-intellectual diatribes and churlish tirades have no place on this site, and occasionally need to be reminded that the web’s democratic nature means that they have plenty of other places to publish their mindless meanderings.
As of today, this video has been watched over 28,000 times on the web.
2,892 people have watched it on Vimeo, where it is hosted. 14,985 have watched it embedded on ilankainet.com. 8,044 have watched it embedded on lankanewsweb.com, though this site continues to be blocked in Sri Lanka.
5,168 have seen it through Groundviews, and 4,062 have read the complementary text framing the video published above.
Ground Views,
Awesome. Thank you for permission and tips. I uploaded the video in five parts to my channel NoEalamInSL on You Tube and linked back to this page (Ground Views).
Dr. Dayan’s termination is a huge mistake and an embarrasment to Sri Lanka. When right, keep it right. When wrong, make it right! Thats what we need to do in Sri Lanka.
No Eelam in Sri Lanka, No Talibans in Sri Lanka
Sanjana,
Thanks for bringing us this interview. From what I’ve seen so far, you’ve always tried to maintain a democratic space for the exchange of ideas on GV.
Unfortunately, some bigots are using this as an avenue to vent out their jealousies and petty animosities against others.
Anyway, keep up the good work !!!
Rose,
My positive comments about Sanja need absolutely no explanation.
However, when someone makes a negative assumption about a person – based on gender, appearance, mannerisms etc- the onus is on the person making these negative judgments to explain him or herself. A positive comment may lead to consensus or repudiation – that is not the point. The point is that baseless, negative comments should be taken to task because they could potentially damage the reputation of the person on the receiving end.
What were the true reasons behind your presumptions? Don’t use gender studies as a way of excusing yourself now at the eleventh hour. Besides, a keen student of gender studies would be the first to shun gender stereotyping and sexist presuppositions.
Kadavule!!! Murugan!!! for the umpteenth time, your sophomoric argument about gender representations do not hold any water in the casual, relaxed context in which the interview was conducted. Also, why do you have to bring up the Iron Lady’s husband? What is the relevance?
You said that you don’t care if Sanja is a rocket scientist. Likewise, I might add that I don’t care if you are a brain surgeon.
At this age, I don’t need any feminist theories to be my guiding light. Coming from a matriarchal society, the women around me have taught me much more than Simone du Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Judith Butler etc… can ever teach me. Being an iron lady is not a source of empowerment where I come from; but, being an individual is.
Good luck stereotyping me !
Sanjana, the person posting under the name of Ravana above is not the author of http://ravana.wordpress.com.
I just heard about this from a family member. Sorry, if there was confusion.
When talking about gender, cant avoid po*n. Series of bans by MR GOVT. Po*n ban, alcohol ban, smoke ban, mobile phone ban. next? TV ban? inernet ban? common ppl. we are sri lankans. but not s*xless sri lankans. those issues need to be tackle in softer way. through awareness programes… We need controls not bans. Can artists above 60 yrs decide a po*n ban? can president control desires of citizens of a country? MR govt doing fine on overall performance but heading towards Taliban. No respect for critics. Dont let MR to abuse his popularity.
I invite you to my amateur nonprofit sites on Sri Lanka (Not advanced as Ground Views): youtubeNoEalamInSL, noealaminsl.blogspot
Atheist,
This is what I said: “It was a patriarchal representation of blind, dutiful, silent female support for husband. I would have preferred to see an active intelligent support. And that comment DJ made about having made a better choice with each marriage: that helped to further render her as an object.”
I was not talking about her as a person. How can I when I don’t know her, never met her. Unlike you, I did not venture any opinions about my “impressions” of her as a person. I spoke about the video as a representation. I’m not answerable to your inability to differentiate between the real world and real people and representations of them.
DO NOT falsely accuse me of having attacked someone’s character in order to extricate yourself from the silly claims you made that her silence shows that she “has the capacity to deal with the world in a reflective and understated manner.”
Some kind of intellect you people have, some kind of democracy you practice, where anyone who has an opposing view to yours can be branded a bigot, a liar, with dubious motives of envy, etc. Why don’t you answer this very simple question: why feature a person in an interview if they have already said at the outset that they will not speak?
No, I’m not a neurosurgeon. If I were, I would fit you out with a brain.
Sanja has become a hotspot here than the contents of the interview thanks to innovative journalism of Sanjana. I love watching the lady’s movements while listening to intellectual talk of two gents. Nice combination. But I have to keep repeating the video, I get lost here and there from her charm..
Any surgeon here who can fix my brain?
About 13th amendment:
Tamils dont like it, Sinhalese dont like. for whom is it then? see my videos on 13A
MR determined to follow JHU’s 3D strategy: De-militarization, Development, Democratization?
Rose,
You are absolutely right. Any woman that agrees to come on a video must talk; otherwise she will face the wrath of wise cracking pretend feminists who like to talk about “representation”.
How dare a woman choose to remain silent when the entire argument about women’s rights hinges on this video? How dare she subvert our assumptions? Who the hell is she to turn our worlds upside down with her silence?
Boy, I tell you, I like to talk even if I have nothing to say. You n’ me, we’ve got a lot in common Rose.
That’s why I say to you….rrrrrrock on Rose. If we were to have a band, I’d call us “All Talk and no Substance”. RRRR….
Rose,
First of all, if you are so interested in finding out why a person chooses to accompany someone to an interview instead of directly participating in it, you should really ask the person in question. Asking me is futile because I have nothing negative to say about Sanja.
I have no formal education in feminist theory, but as a kid, sitting in my grandmother’s courtyard over a half century ago, surrounded by women – just ordinary village women -their constant talk about equal rights got me thinking. Unlike middle class tea-party ladies, who had to learn the piano and put up a show for the guests, these intelligent village women, every single soul, earned their living to put bread on the table. At least where I come from, women did not have to learn about feminism from the West; they were already attuned to the injustices women generally faced in society.
It seems to me you are still stuck in second wave feminism when oldies like me have gone way beyond these theories. Yes, we’ve come a long way baby! Speaking of gender, feminism today has advanced beyond the theories of gender construction – sometimes rejecting the categorization of woman altogether- creating a space for the celebration of ‘being’. As the feminist Dennis Riley says: “There is, as we have repeatedly learned, no fluent trajectory from feminism to a truly sexually democratic humanity; there is no easy passage from ‘women to ‘humanity’”. This passage from women to humanity is what interests me.
The right to be in the world means that each of us can exercise speech or silence (or both) as a means of expression/non-expression.
If you were a neurosurgeon, before you fit me with a new brain, I will have to kindly ask you: “surgeon, heal thyself first”.
From a non-surgeon
why feature a person in an interview if they have already said at the outset that they will not speak?
From Sanjana above .. ….I respected *both* their wishes to be in the video
Ummm, could it be that she is an individual who made her own choice and that Sanjana made a reasonable attempt to avoid a difficult inter-personal situation. After all the informality, immediacy and the personal are just some of the challenges of citizen-journalism where the public and the private lives intersect in making realistic decisions/actions that suit the situation.
Having said that, given the nature of the interview and the circumstances under which the interview was conducted, one wonders if the video should have been presented as Sanjana’s own personal contribution rather than representing the CPA.
Respect my Authoritah for mine is your Chinthanaya
Respect IVAP, but where does this video say it is representing CPA?
at vimeo
IVAP, I ask again, where does it say it is representing CPA in the video? The Vimeo site is a container for long videos for technical reasons, and the video is embedded here without any reference to CPA either in it or in the story framing it, just as this site does not necessarily represent CPA’s opinions. Have you cared to read http://www.groundviews.org/about/? Surprising ignorance from you.
If this is the reason (i.e. technical) I will consider it as your personal contribution (ie. it’s not associated with CPA).
The GV disclaimer only applies to content on groundviews. Additionally it has statements regarding the use 3rd party infrastructure and content – Content will be produced by CSO / NGO / CBO networks and individual authors around the island on an on-going basis.
This video is embedded at GV and many other sites but it is hosted on the CPA channel @Vimeo which I visited to find out more about the video and concluded that it was associated with the CPA, particularly after reading the statement on content produced by CSO/NGO/CBO networks.
I’m sure we can argue about the finer points of online hosting vs embedding vs content vs financing vs ownership but If you can’t see how one can come to a similar conclusion then you are as daft in your reasoning as you accuse me of being ignorant.
Idolatry,
Oh dear. From the ignorant to the idiotic.
All the videos on GV have been hosted on the CPA channel, on YouTube or on 3rd party video hosting sites. So tell me, is Bijayini Satpathy’s opinion on Odissi dance that of CPA’s? Is it CPA’s opinions that are shared by Somawansa Amarasinghe? Is it ilankainet.com‘s opinion that Dayan promotes, given that his video is embedded there and watched over 16,000 times? Or is it the opinion of lankanewsweb.com that Dayan is really partial to, given that this same video has been viewed there over 8,000 times? Or perhaps you also associate NoEalamInSL’s YouTube channel, which features this video, with CPA?
Those who share a penchant for the fatuous may come to the same conclusion as you have. Well over 30,000, thankfully, chose instead to view and engage with Dayan’s substantive submissions in this video rather than delve on the finer points of where it is hosted on the web. You have my email if you want to discuss this any further, though my patience with fools is limited.
Atheist,
Your argument that women you know (I’m assuming they are South Asian) did not get their feminist knowledge from the West but from their own native contexts is truly pathetic. For someone who claims to have moved beyond second wave feminism, how come you do not know that South Asian feminist texts were produced as early as 600BC whereas Western women’s writing started only in the last millenium? So really, your talk of native traditions in local women’s feminism is redundant and so belated. I would suggest you stop worrying about your village women’s evolution and spend some time thinking about your own male society’s development through the ages. That’s not been so hunky-dory, has it, in Sri Lanka? Allow me to say that your men have not shown themselves to be too smart or evolved for the past 60 years.
Yes, no doubt you’re interested in women’s passage toward humanity. Interested, that is, in doing whatever you can to stop them arriving there. Carry on trying to silence me, and let others see exactly how interested you are in letting women’s voices be heard. Seems like only women’s silence seems to have the capacity to inspire your imagination.
Yes, people have a right to be silent or to speak. But they don’t have the right to appear on an interview and waste everyone’s time if they are not going to talk.
Talking Head,
What can I say? A name like “All Talk and No Substance” ain’t going to draw crowds to your band. I’d drop the idea if I were you. The title alone is too long.
The issue was not that women should talk if they appear at an interview, but rather that ANYONE who wants to appear at an interview should have something to say, that being the purpose of interviews.
Siva, Rose, Atheist, Sanjana, Talking Head:
I agree with Atheist, Sanahana and disagree with Rose,Siva and Talking Head.
The debate on lady’s silence in the interview is interesting. I don’t know to which category I fall into but I do like the idea of lady’s presence in the interview, be she be silent or talking. It’s up to the couple and to the interviewer to make the choice how they want to have the video/interview.
There is nothing mysterious about her silence, she is there as the wife of the ambassador and she has a right for that. She is totally natural and free. She is a genuine Sri Lankan woman/wife/housewife. Implying western body language to Eastern body language is a mistake. Rose has forgotten about cultural differences and personal traits in her feminist approach. Don’t generalize western interviewing standards to East.
Being present in the picture and remain silence is a personal choice, unless interviewer directs a question to her. Dayan tried couple of times to divert questions to Sanja, Sanja in her way answered the question.
How dare Rose to say, “Yes, people have a right to be silent or to speak. But they don’t have the right to appear on an interview and waste everyone’s time if they are not going to talk.” Like I said, it’s up to three people who involved in the video, not the viewer to decide what to do during the interview.
No one can blame Sanja for getting distracted by her charm when watch it. It happend to me but I didn’t blame her. I kept repeating the video
.
Rose, follow me if you get distracted. Or get your brain fixed.
I 100% agree/enjoy her presence and silence in the video. I hope she does it willingly and was not ordered to stay like that. Interaction would have been nice but not a must.
correction:
I agree with Atheist, Sanahana(=Sanjana) and disagree with Rose,Siva and Talking Head.
I do dare, NoEalaminSL. The video was involved in an act of communication. It’s nothing without its viewers. It was made for viewers, and it is completed by people watching it.
I am a woman and heterosexual. So, no, I wasn’t distracted by her charm. Thanks for admitting you got distracted by her charm though. That’s what I’ve been saying–that her presence is a distraction from the subject of the interview. Also, in that regard, it was made for a male audience, to send out exactly all the messages that you guys have been getting–that DJ is married to a beautiful woman who is charming (obviously accruing from her silence and good looks, given that it wasn’t in anything she said). As I said, as a representation, her presence worked to focus DJ’s masculinity and to reinforce the conventional male ideal of female charm as equal to good looks and silence.
Let me end this by letting NoEalaminSL prove my point. Here’s a quote from him:
“I love watching the lady’s movements while listening to intellectual talk of two gents. Nice combination.”
Note the gendering here. Being “intellectual” and “talk[ing]” is masculine, done by “gents”. Femininity involves making physical “movements” to titillate and inspire the “love” of a male viewer.
So this is what turns NoEalaminsL and some of the other guys here on: men being intellectual while women move their bodies! Nice combination, as he says!
And I was expecting a serious political discussion, not soft porn.
Rose,
Yo, tell me it ain’t so. I am on your side, but you go off dissin me like you do everyone on Ground Views.
All these people claiming to know so much about feminist theory, shucks, it just goes over my head. That’s why I got a lot in common with you. We come from the same place…you n’me. It’s all about ‘respresenting’….like, you know what I mean? Representing…oh yeah…
Hey, I like to talk, but no one wants to interview me. Life ain’t fair, is it?
Now see, if you’n me put a garage band together we could call ourselves “White Noise”. I ain’t talking about no Don DeLillo here, get it? Just noise….
Before you go off dissing me like that just remember that, like you, I, too, can talk like I know what I’m sayin but don’t have no clue about what I’m sayin… Know what I’m saying? Good, I thought you would.
Hey…I’M REPRESENTING…
Rose,
You do dare to say if someone accompanies his/her partner to media interview, she/he is obliged to talk. That doesn’t mean everyone else has to accept your idea. The intention of presence of one’s partner is to introduce her/him to the viewers to let them know to whom is he/she is married to. That is a piece of information given in the video (also the right of the viewer to know), unfortunately extreme feminist like you cannot simply understand that. Believe me, I saw her for the first time. I have seen DJ thousand times (in media) but I saw Sanja for the first time.
Let me tell you why it is important and what impact it has in communication.
Firstly, after seeing his wife I respect him more (in your case decreased). When I saw him with his wife I was glad to see a bit of his personal life.
Secondly, it decreased my curiosity. My image of him was so high. The way he presented himself at UNHRC debate, I couldnt even imagine how would look like this person’s personal life? Who is this person? I was wondering what type of life he has? Now I know how humble, romantic, caring, loving husband he is.
Thirdly, He shared his glory with his wife. He is a champion and he is at his peak in his career, but after leaving Geneva in days he will be having a normal life. He may have used last opportunity as ambassador to appear with his wife in public and give personal thoughts on current issues and family life. Some people of that calibre (and people like you) hide their wives and husbands at home. Dayan, in my view came closer to people than he would have interviewed alone. May be DJ gave interviewer an opportunity to throw any questions to her. Sanja apparently refused to take part in the video.
Fourthly, People respect him for his principles and values. He showed how important is his family for him, the base of the society. Feminists like you destroy that basement. Feminists like you destroy the unity of the family. You fight for rights of women, another person fights for the rights of men. Homes become war zones because of feminist like you. You teach women to fight for the share of work, duties and roles, resulting constant conflicts between husband and wife. What you should do is to fight against violence against women and not for appearing women with their husbands in videos and remain silent. He did just what all husbands should do, treating wives with respect. You have got the point wrong.
Fifthly, you talked about verbal part of communication. Believe me; in communication more than 70% is non-verbal. So being silent doesn’t means that there was no communication with viewers. As I said, as a viewer, the video has been more effective than been interviewed DJ alone, but I do I agree if she had interacted there must have been bit more information to viewers but not necessarily. Silence is gold, especially for women like you.
About Distraction: Distraction can also an attraction. If she wasn’t there, there won’t be that many people to see the video (no evidence unless Sanjana come up with figures, basically men are interested in politics thus viewers are mostly men. Perhaps Sanjana knew target group). It doesn’t mean that Sanjana used Sanja as an object to attract men. That’s cheap prejudice. I am sure Sanjana meant for goodwill of DJ family. For Americans (perhaps your present home) always consider family first. For every victory and defeat, family get together. I think you try to hide that fact here.
About masculinity: It’s hilarious to see your comment:
“as a representation, her presence worked to focus DJ’s masculinity and to reinforce the conventional male ideal of female charm as equal to good looks and silence. ”
Why don’t you talk about males who like their male partners to be with them (gay)and women with their female partners(lesbians). Gender is not so important these days. How you know others sexual preferences or sexual identity? Are you biased?
Gendering: I don’t understand your point here. Are you against men talk about women? Then what they are for? Visa Vis. Are you trying to tell me women don’t have feelings? Or you want us to be priests? No I am not. I love to see the beauty of the world. Unfortunately, your hormones don’t support for that matter.
Finally, Presence of Sanja with or without silence in the video was more effective than DJ alone. I requote my statement :
“I love watching the lady’s movements while listening to intellectual talk of two gents. Nice combination.”
That means Sanjanas innovative communication must be used by other media, involving women in political interviews.
Rose,
Yes, the women I spoke of were all Lankan villagers. I’m stressing once again that those women earned their living out of necessity as well as the wish to be independent. These women were revolutionary in their own way: after a drink of toddy, they often made skits poking fun at their men and the city slickers.
As far as South Asian feminists’ texts dating back to 600BC are you also including the Therigathas? Your buzz words and accusatory tone only indicates to me that you are on shaky ground. None of your statements form a coherent argument that leads to a discussion on feminism. Who am I to silence anyone, let alone you? That’s not my style; I don’t fear opposition. Also, my reading is not limited to google and wikipedia, thank you.
While there are many strands of feminism, a post-colonial feminist, for example, would say that your comments smack of racism. In saying, “Allow me to say that your men have not shown themselves to be too smart or evolved for the past 60 years”, you have shown yourself to be the antithesis of feminism. Who on earth are “my men”? In the same way, if I asked you to keep your “under evolved” men in check, would any true feminist take me seriously? Looks like old age has not hindered my capacity to think!
It seems to me that you have a twisted imagination, pal. Trying to find hidden sexual codes, when there aren’t any, is just a waste of time. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Live with it!
Rose, Dont give up! Let me know if you are agree with me or not! You dont dare to say you agree, do you? Hope you have learned and corrected your mistakes and pls grow up! Life long learnig is well rewarded!
Atheis, I need to go to Oxford to understand some of your English, gent. A man like me who went to Royal College, Polonnaruwa is helpless even in a citizen journalist column, rather like in plain English.. but I do like the social concept in your days. I wish I was a kid that time. Now a days feminists are messing up families & socieities.
“as a kid, sitting in my grandmother’s courtyard… surrounded by women – just ordinary village women -their constant talk about equal rights got me thinking. Unlike middle class tea-party ladies, who had to learn the piano and put up a show for the guests, these intelligent village women, every single soul, earned their living to put bread on the table. At least where I come from, women did not have to learn about feminism from the West; they were already attuned to the injustices women generally faced in society.”
“those women earned their living out of necessity as well as the wish to be independent. These women were revolutionary in their own way: after a drink of toddy, they often made skits poking fun at their men and the city slickers. “
Dear NoElamInSL,
Please don’t be intimidated by English. After all, English is only one language out of many. The imperial status that was once associated with it is rapidly fading today. Even in England, there are many regional accents and diverse speech patterns among the British born. The language is constantly evolving – even adopting some of the words from various other languages spoken by ethnic minorities in England and in North America.
As far as feminists are concerned, not every “feminist’ is a man hater! Feminism has also brought emancipation to many men. For example, like women, men, too, felt the pressure to conform to a set gender stereotypes. Men were (and still are in some societies) expected to be macho, stoic and sport a masculine demeanour. Actually, feminism came along and freed men from these gender trappings.
However, to be fair to your argument, some people who call themselves “feminists” are simply venting hatred towards men in general. Such “feminists” also are in the habit of denigrating other women who do not fit into their version of a liberated woman.
Feminism is not about wrecking families; it is a myth. However, a vicious individual –regardless of gender- is quite capable of wrecking anyone and anything as we see in the world all too often.
By the way, I think you called me a “gent”. Let me be very honest with you, I am not a man. I am a wife and mother who has no hang ups about gender.
From the Gender Bender!
NoEalaminSL,
Haha, lots of backpedalling there, trying to muddy your earlier sexist response to the video with new high talk! But all you do is sink deeper and deeper into your sexism. Now this is a gem of sexism:
“You teach women to fight for the share of work, duties and roles, resulting constant conflicts between husband and wife.”
So feminists must not teach women to fight for equal rights because it would negatively impact on their marriage? Can marriage only continue to survive as a social institution if women are kept unequal to men? Can’t it be reformed to accommodate the equal rights of men and women? Or would that be too inconvenient for men like you? More convenient to brand feminism as anti-family, right?
Atheist,
You said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” that sometimes there is no sexual coding. Obviously, that doesn’t apply in this case. You just have to read NoEalaminSL’s comments and your own enthusiastic claims of Sanja being of the reflective type to see how much meaning can be made of a woman’s silence in the video. The overactive imagination, ‘pal’, is yours, not mine.
I don’t know why you keep harping on the strength and independence of Lankan village women. Is it just a red herring designed to throw people off the track that I have already proven what I claimed (please read my earlier post for that)? I have the highest respect for women from the villages—their feminism is not taken out of books but comes out of their heads, from their life experience. There’s nothing pseudo about their feminism. But how is it relevant to discussion here? Is Sanja a poor woman from a village? Village women have no problems talking when the camera is directed at them. They’re not shrinking violets—they can’t afford to be. Silence as female virtue is a middle-class phenomenon. I suggested that instead of going on about these village women (whose feminism I don’t question), you should address the dominant (male) culture of SL instead. Because that has caused so much destruction of people’s lives for the last 60 years. How can I be racist when I am 100% of SL origins? Can I be racist against myself? My view of the dominant SL culture is fair comment. You don’t think preferring war to negotiation, killing innocent civilians, caging them up in internment camps, shooting and torturing dissenters refer to the worst aspects of patriarchal culture? Or do you think that is stereotyping?
How is my advice to you to address SL dominant male culture antithetical to feminism? Feminists know that they cannot change women’s lives without also tackling and trying to change men’s value and belief systems because it is these systems that enjoy political power and oppress women.
Postcolonial feminists would not say I was racist because they know the importance of criticising their own ethnic patriarchal culture. That, by the way, is what it means to be a postcolonial feminist, not to romanticise and protect the patriarchal oppression caused by their own ethnic and national cultures. Postcolonial feminists know that the race card is often played by those from their own ethnic community, who try to preserve the patriarchal nature of their culture against any progressive developments for women by branding feminism as a “Western” import. Which is exactly what you did, turning my concern about sexism into my alleged racism.
So, according to you, I am both a man-hater and a woman-hater! What do you reckon? That I am attracted to animals? What is the difference between my alleged hatred towards some types of women and your hatred towards feminists of my ilk? At least, I am not a hypocrite who hides her capacity for hate by taking refuge in her identities as “wife” and “mother” and shamelessly exploiting these to represent herself as “maternal”, traditionally “feminine”, and “nurturing” by talking ever so sweetly and encouragingly and ‘benevolently’ to NoEelaminSL.
No, Atheist, anyone with half a brain in their head can see through that fake milk of human kindness, that you can be as vicious and as denigrating of others as you make me out to be.
You have a lot of labels for me. I have one for you too. You are a “patriarchal woman”, the kind of woman who keeps patriarchal culture ticking. That, by the way, is where I place Margaret Thatcher and other iron ladies who internalise and perpetuate patriarchal values. Yes, feminism has freed some men and some women from gender trappings. But certainly not you. You cling desperately to your gender roles for identity. You can’t even bring yourself to say you are a woman, but highlight the gendered roles. What happened to all that talk about women needing to reach towards humanity?
Gender-bender indeed! What’s so gender-transgressive about a woman who describes herself as wife and mother? Are you really so phenomenally self-deceived? But of course a patriarchal woman—a woman who identifies with patriarchal values—is a gender-bender of a sort, no?
Dear Atheist,
Thank you. Like Rose said, communication is completed once the viewer gets the message clear. We all have different levels of intelligence and a language barrier in between. But we can overcome the barriers and differences and discuss things if we can equal not only in gender but also in communication and Dayan Jayatilleka is an good example, master in literature but simple when talking to mass simple life, live the commons. I appreciate recognition of difficulty in English.
Forgive me calling you a “gent”, I didn’t figure you out in your posts. I am honored to hear from a person like you who is not bothered by gender bender! Your comment made a nice picture in my mind.
I have different opinion on feminism. Different cultures have different role for gender.
Western cultures have more or less equal status as a result of industrialization and emancipation of women where as some (African tribes) cultures, women are dominant and other cultures men are dominant. But feminist from industrialized countries contaminate cultures in developing countries, for example, Rose.
Naturally, men are hunters and women are nurturers, blessed with body structure, mind and hormones accordingly. That blessing is not a blessing any more after civilization and industrialization and thanks to feminists’ emancipation, fought for equal rights for women.
Hormones are freely available in the pharmacy and children are taken care of by day care centers thanks to feminists. Those days are gone when parent punished children, now children punish parents thanks to Feminists. Days are gone when one married once for life time, now men and women marry 5 or 6 times thanks to feminists.
I have never heard of emancipation for men brought by feminists. Most feminists are against men in order to win equal rights for women. That’s my opinion.
But if you say: “not every “feminist’ is a man hater! Feminism has also brought emancipation to many men….Actually, feminism came along and freed men from these gender trappings.” I shall believe you.
Feminists do destroy/wreck families. I am sorry to have this told you to a lady like you but without feminist we are better off. Feminists are fighting for equal rights for women. Forcing men to change their dominant attitudes to equal status as women is difficult for men and when women ask for equal rights from husbands at home conflicts erupt and end up in divorce, wrecking families. I can give you facts. Look at the divorce rate of dominant societies like Asia and equal status societies in Europe. Does that convince you to accept my argument feminists destroy families?
Or should I still believe you “Feminism is not about wrecking families; it is a myth”? but one good thing I like in feminists is stopping violence against women.
By the way: Let me be honest with you too, I am not a student of Royal College Polonnaruwa. It was a joke.
Feminism Definition (wiki): Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women.
To be fair to your argument, I do agree with you that there are pros and cons in feminism.
Dear Atheist,
Thank you. Like Rose said, communication is completed once the viewer gets the message clear. We all have different levels of intelligence and a language barrier in between. But we can overcome the barriers and differences and discuss things if we can equal not only in gender but also in communication and Dayan Jayatilleka is an good example, master in literature but simple when talking to mass simple life, live the commons. I appreciate recognition of difficulty in English.
Forgive me calling you a “gent”, I didn’t figure you out in your posts. I am honored to hear from a person like you who is not bothered by gender bender! Your comment made a nice picture in my mind.
I have different opinion on feminism. Different cultures have different role for gender.
Western cultures have more or less equal status as a result of industrialization and emancipation of women where as some (African tribes) cultures, women are dominant and other cultures men are dominant. But feminist from industrialized countries contaminate cultures in developing countries, for example, Rose.
Naturally, men are hunters and women are nurturers, blessed with body structure, mind and hormones accordingly. That blessing is not a blessing any more after civilization and industrialization and thanks to feminists’ emancipation, fought for equal rights for women.
Hormones are freely available in the pharmacy and children are taken care of by day care centers thanks to feminists. Those days are gone when parent punished children, now children punish parents thanks to Feminists. Days are gone when one married once for life time, now men and women marry 5 or 6 times thanks to feminists.
I have never heard of emancipation for men brought by feminists. Most feminists are against men in order to win equal rights for women. That’s my opinion.
But if you say: “not every “feminist’ is a man hater! Feminism has also brought emancipation to many men….Actually, feminism came along and freed men from these gender trappings.” I shall believe you.
Feminists do destroy/wreck families. I am sorry to have this told you to a lady like you but without feminist we are better off. Feminists are fighting for equal rights for women. Forcing men to change their dominant attitudes to equal status as women is difficult for men and when women ask for equal rights from husbands at home conflicts erupt and end up in divorce, wrecking families. I can give you facts. Look at the divorce rate of dominant societies like Asia and equal status societies in Europe. Does that convince you to accept my argument feminists destroy families?
Or should I still believe you “Feminism is not about wrecking families; it is a myth”? but one good thing I like in feminists is stopping violence against women.
Feminism Definition (wiki): Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women.
By the way: Let me be honest with you too, I am not a student of Royal College Polonnaruwa. It was a joke.
To be fair to your argument, I do agree with you that there are pros and cons in feminism.
Rose,
Hope you read the post I sent to Atheist, I posted just minutes after your post. I didn’t see yours. Those contents in that post are relevant to my reply, additionally this post.
You were eager to ridicule my comment on my respect and appreciation for women, perhaps not knowing what I meant, thus communication gap.
You picked up one statement and made an argument, I rather prefer if you answered to all points I made at least agree or not. In simple language you are telling us don’t appreciate women that is sexism, instead hate them, Right?
You not only hate men only but whole human kind, more or less acting like a frustrated or a desperate woman. Your arguments are baseless. You read and re-read what I have written in my post about saja and Dayan, perhaps not understood properly. Aprreciating a family,/woman is sexism for you. When I read your comments, I find them most disgraceful to humanity. Among many,
“You just have to read NoEalaminSL’s comments and your own enthusiastic claims of Sanja being of the reflective type to see how much meaning can be made of a woman’s silence in the video.”
”I am not a hypocrite who hides her capacity for hate by taking refuge in her identities as “wife” and “mother” and shamelessly exploiting these to represent herself as “maternal”, traditionally “feminine”, and “nurturing” by talking ever so sweetly and encouragingly and ‘benevolently’ to NoEelaminSL.”.
“Backpedalling” need when you need to stop (brake) the bike, or perhaps reversing or going backwards or stuck or repeating. Again, communication stuck in between us. If I have repeated, please delete them and read, or ignore it. I accept I am not a professional journalist. My interest was to share some thoughts with you.
Our argument wass: Whether Silence of Sanja acceptable or not acceptable in the interview? You said not acceptable. I said acceptable. That is our main point. Not about women’s rights. In that post I explained my reasons. For courtesy sake, it is your duty to say agree or not with me. Not try and make a jargon.
Rights of women always need to be protected if they are treated unfairly. That’s what exactly Dayan has done to Sanja, giving her the deserved place in the interview. But your replies showed, neither you a feminist nor a sexist.
Here is your Questions & My Answers:
Q: So feminists must not teach women to fight for equal rights because it would negatively impact on their marriage?
A: No. Feminist should not fight. Family is a team. Responsibilities are driven by natural instincts based on gender; everyone has a role within a family. Your family may have roles coached by a feminists, hope your institution still exist, if not don’t teach others. The more you teach women to fight for rights the more they take distant from natural roles, transforming from collective culture ( Sri Lanka) to individualistic culture(European), building boundaries around them. European cultures are also called feminine cultures. Men and women are equally strong. Asian cultures are masculine cultures. Males are more dominant. You are trying to change that. Those are values of a culture and longer time than you think. Changing values of a culture means changing the identity of a culture, just like you changed your identity, embracing a foreign culture. Now try to apply those to Sri Lankan culture. That need to be done carefully and not over night if necessary.
Sometimes people are reluctant to change because they enjoy it, both men and women. Sri Lankan women like dominant men, perhaps. You must be laughing. They like to be taken control by men(LAUGHTER?). That is a feature of a male dominant culture. Sri Lankan women who got married to Europeans lack something, they like to be possessed by someone. Perhaps you don’t understand what I meant. Do a research on that.
Q: Can marriage only continue to survive as a social institution if women are kept unequal to men?
A: You can’t equal a man to a woman, they are different. Needs are different, emotions are different. Sometimes manly emotions find in a woman’s body just like you. Visa Vis. When a man born in a woman’s body, they are dominant. What you need to is to understand each other.
Q: Can’t it be reformed to accommodate the equal rights of men and women?
A: No need. Let it be there. Those are values of (Eastern) cultures. Try and reform in West. What you meant by “rights”. Compared to Taliban women, European women, Sri Lankan women have nothing to complain about. You complain about Sanja appearing video, violating her right to be with her husband, silent or not.
Q: Or would that be too inconvenient for men like you?
A: I am a Sri Lankan; I supposed to follow values of my culture, not foreign (imitated) cultural values. Though it is convenient or not, women should not treat unfairly. Equal pay, equal opportunities etc. In Sri Lanka, WOMEN have higher place than European women.
Q: More convenient to brand feminism as anti-family, right?
A: Feminists are doing their job they are paid for. They don’t consider the consequences of what they are doing. Refer divorce rates in so called emancipated societies, not surprising, 7out of 10 getting divorced. Isn’t it a result of your dreamed emancipation?
Stick to our main argument: about silence of Sanja..
Rose,
Your comments reveal you to be a very angry person. I have been closely following your thoughts on feminism, and what I deduce from this whole debate is that you are arguing for the sake of argument.
Perhaps you are insecure about your own femininity? Otherwise, why would the words “mother” and ” wife” make you go off the deep end like this? You should really refrain from stereotyping all mothers and wives as “maternal” and “feminine”. Seems like you have bought into the myth very comfortably.
After making racist comments you conveniently backpeddle by calling yourself a Sri-Lankan. I believe you told the Atheist : “Allow me to say that your men have not shown themselves to be too smart or evolved for the past 60 years”.
Why did you say “your men” instead of “our men”?
Indeed, post-colonial feminists know that imposing western notions of “liberation” on non-western people is another form of racism.
Forgive me for adding in my two cents at this late stage in this interesting debate, I almost feel like an intruder.
Firstly, superb interview Sanjana!
Atheist, I have read a number of your posts in this & other threads and find your perspectives are always fascinating and fair-minded, and very well-written with a dash of humour and interesting anecdotes. Keep ‘em coming!
I may be blind, but I completely fail to see that the presence of Dayan’s wife showed in any way that she was submissive, or that feminists should take up cudgels on her behalf. She appeared to be a self-possessed woman, who elected not to speak during this interview, presumably because the subject of the interview related to something which her husband, rather than herself, was an expert on. However, given the circumstances, i.e. since he had lost his job, her presence did have the effect of showing support and solidarity, which I think is rather nice, don’t you? On a personal level, I felt rather sorry for Dayan J, who rightly or wrongly, has been very supportive of this government and its actions, and perhaps shielded its more reprehensible actions from the world’s scrutiny thanks to his expertise as a diplomat – and was rewarded for it by being summarily dismissed. I thought the presence of his wife in the interview at what must be a difficult time for both of them, and their obvious affection for each other, was really nice to see. Also, this was a fairly informal interview, recorded (as Sanjana has explained) following a function at which both Mr and Mrs J were present at.
Rose, I understand the points you are trying to make, and you make them well. However, I think we may be reading too much into her silence! I am a young female doctor, educated and working in the UK (although with Sri Lankan roots) – I am not oppressed, nor would I stand for any attempts to oppress me! I have been born into a generation where we take equal rights for men and women as a given – I am well aware that in many places and cultures, this is not the case. This is clear from NoEalaminSL’s rather sexist comments, asserting that when we (women) ‘fight’ for equal rights, it leads to divorce. Needless to say, Rose, I don’t agree with that either!! In the general sense, your comments are pertinent, but in this particular case, as Atheist says, maybe it’s just a cigar! So let’s not get too upset about her silence as signifying the subjugation of the female species.
Also, with regard to gender roles, I don’t think that choosing to identify yourself by your role as a wife and a mother somehow undermines you in any way. Atheist, for example, is clearly an erudite and intelligent woman, and if I may be so bold as to make an assumption based on her posts here and elsewhere, I would say she is far from submissive and can probably hold her own on the home-front! I am a doctor, but I hope one day to become a wife (any takers?!!) and a mother, and I plan to cherish those roles. To me, my potential role as a wife and mother , once I assume that mantle, will be even more important than my career in Medicine – but that is just my personal choice.
The thing is, we must not allow feminism to take away our femininity. Yes, we are every bit as good as a man – often better! – in any sphere we decide to go into, and absolutely should be paid equally etc – the proverbial glass ceiling MUST be shattered. This is true not only in the workplace, but also at home. However, the things that make us women – our blend of softness and strength, our kindness and wisdom, our capacity to be the glue holding a family together and provide our children with the boundless love that can come only from a mother – these are things which make us unique. Being a ‘home-maker’ is an honour and a joy I look forward to (well, would YOU trust a man to colour-coordinate the bed-linen?! God help us all!
) Yes we can run businesses, we can carry out research, we can diagnose and treat illnesses just as well as any man. But I do confess that while I consider myself equal to any male doctor of the same level of seniority professionally, as an individual, I take pride in my femininity.
Divorce, by the way, is a result of unhappiness or incompatibility in a marriage which may stem from lots of things, not just feminism (if at all!), NoEalaminSL. You appear to imply that a woman who is unhappy in a marriage should just ‘put up and shut up’, and thereby prevent a divorce however unhappy she is. Should she just turn a blind eye to domestic violence, alcoholism, gambling or adultery on the part of her husband, for example? I am personally aware of women belonging to my mother’s generation who did, in fact, put up with this sort of thing for many years, to the irreparable detriment of not only themselves, but also the children they were trying to bring up. Having the strength to refuse to be treated badly, and walking out when things are beyond repair is perfectly reasonable, and the right thing to do for the betterment of the woman in question, and for her children. There are many unhappy marriages in Asia, however less people get divorced than in the West due to the stigma attached to divorce itself.
Rose,
First of all, you asked me if the women I spoke about were South Asian. I said, yes, they are Lankans. You also asked me if I knew of South Asian feminist texts dating back to 6oo BC. So, since you are the authority on feminist writing, I asked you about the Therigathas. I told you from the onset that I have no formal education on feminism; therefore, I expected you to provide me with the necessary information – books, scholarly articles etc…-pertaining to South Asian feminist texts circa 600 BC.
What is your beef with “mother” and “wife”? When I said I am not a man, but a mother and wife, it can mean many things. I can be a wife to another woman, to a gay man or to an asexual man. As far as a “mother” is concerned, I can be a mother to adopted children – even a guardian to an entire orphanage. The point is, “mother” is not always a biologically determined state. Even a man may display “motherly” instincts towards other living beings. At the same time, a biological woman may have absolutely no “motherly” instincts. If this happens to be the case, this, too, is fine. But, for you to label mothers and wives as strictly “maternal”, “nurturing” and “feminine” tells me that you are the one practicing patriarchy here. Actually, if you had, at least, an elementary understanding of gender construction –concepts of the “male” and the “female”- you would not have identified the above three traits as the strict domain of ‘woman’. Let me also say for the record that these traits are, indeed, very admirable whether they are possessed by a woman or man.
How does a feminist like you introduce your mother and father? Do you say: – “Please meet the womyn and man whose sexual relationship lead to my birth?
As for my not mentioning my biological sex, any fool will know that I am a woman simply based on my comment: “I am not a man”. By the way, you accuse me of name calling, but anyone who goes through my posts carefully will see that I have not lowered my side of the discussion with name calling. If I had done so, please have the courtesy to quote them. However, if you are so gung ho on embracing terms, like bigot, man hater, woman hater etc, please be my guest. If the hat fits, put it on! I am not interested in anyone’s masochistic fantasies.
As for the ‘gender bender’ thing, it must be a completely new concept to you. Now that I have deconstructed “mother” and “wife” to you, you can see how I may consider myself a gender bender after all. If I am to completely renounce the very concept of gender, I will have to be like Gautama Buddha. This means absolute ‘relinquishment,’ including gender. I don’t think I can ever arrive at that level of consciousness.
Forever gender bender!
Pandora,
I will respond only to you because we are on the same wavelength and I would like to clarify some misunderstandings of what I said.
I would have had no problem with the wife being in the interview if the interview aimed at looking at the personal aspects of DJ losing his appointment. But of course, if she was present, she had to talk. Otherwise it feeds into all sorts of negative stereotypes about women–and the fact that NoEalaminSL responded in the sexist way he did was exactly what I feared. However the interview focussed on his role as an ambassador. In that context, why was her presence required? People do not sit there without speaking at interviews. It was a distraction and an anomaly. All it did was highlight woman in the supporting role, the fact that she did not belong to that discussion (in that she had nothing to contribute to it) and it focussed viewers on conventionally gendered roles. If she had spoken, that would have been great in terms of representation of women, and she would have owned her role as partner of the ambassador, who probably has in real life contributed many ideas to him. You don’t think it is weird to have someone be silent throughout an interview? The purpose of interviews is to hear someone talk. Otherwise, they just look like props. Perhaps my very strong views on this comes from my having been a journalist.
I totally and absolutely agree with you that in trying to be equal, we must not lose sight of our feminininty, our softness. I think women should enjoy doing whatever they like, be it homemaking, raising children, or engineering, or whatever. That’s what liberation is about–it is not about being unwomanly. I especially agree that women’s softness should be promoted, not just for themselves, but that it should be allowed to permeate society at large—so that we can have less war, less conflict, less violence, and more nurturing of others. However, Atheist, in wanting to convey to NoEalaminSL that she was a woman carefully refrains from using that word. Instead she signals it as “wife” and “mother”. In doing so, she makes equations between being a woman and being a wife and mother. I don’t agree with that. I am neither, but I am a woman for all that.
But more than that, I felt that she gave these female roles a very bad name because all the while that she was putting on that fake nurturing, maternal tone in encouraging NoEalaminSL not to be apologetic about his English, she was attacking me, suggesting that I was a man-hater, that women like me go about wrecking people’s lives. On what basis did she claim that? She doesn’t know me. That’s why I called her a hypocrite. I had a lovely mother. Her mothering was not double-edged like Atheist’s, speaking nicely to one person while totally demolishing the reputation of others.
Maybe you find that intelligent. I don’t. I think Atheist is extremely limited in her outlook. I have raised a lot of important points, larger, crucial political issues concerning patriarchal behaviour in killing and incarcerating innocent civilians. But she doesn’t care to take them up. Instead, she is focussed on her own image, her own self-aggrandizement. Who cares if she is a wife and mother? If this is the reason she holds these views, then she should say so and make them relevant. Plus, she takes a certain pleasure in taking down other women. If you read back to her very first post in this thread, you’ll realise that she begins by suggesting that I have evil motives. My name very deliberately signals my sex, and it is obvious that she is suggesting that I may be jealous of Sanja’s beauty. That was really pathetic! In fact, I thought Atheist was a man because she was using men’s ploys at setting up women against each other.
Please note the difference between the rational, respectful way you have addressed me, woman to woman, despite disagreeing with me, versus her approach. I am sorry that you can’t see the viciousness in her discourse. I guess she is better at hiding than I am. But so be it. I am proud to be honest.
I hope you find a nice guy, by the way! You sound like a swell gal!
Pandora,
Rose finds Sanja’s silence on Video unacceptable, complaining for flicking her hair in unease and wondering what Sanja would she be thinking without knowing the couple’s personal situation, shamefully comparing Sanja to Michelle who had privilege of highest social class in America insulting Sanja’s intelligence and as Dayan’s marital partner as an object. She complained about Sanjana for focusing the camera for both Dayan & Sanja in the interview undermining innovative journalism who took no-traditional perspective.
She boasts about her own communicational skills and intelligence undermining non-verbal communication of Sanja and promoting someone else’s active- intelligence-support. She criticizes even the dress they were wearing; matching colours and representation Sanja’s image as wife of Ambassador DJ.
She apparently doesn’t understand why husbands & wives sit together. She thinks all the wives sit next to their husbands must be jabbering, no wife should be silent, take control of their husbands; even in the interview. She finds that’s the way how sexism should be handled. She suggests wives of Politicians must stay at home and they are not belonged on national platforms, according to her feminism.
She picked up even the friendly call of Sanjana “man” to assault him in sexism angel not in the angel of courtesy. She says, she is a woman but she is not interested in romance, sexuality or love, only what she wants is attacking masculinity.
She is proud to talk of women in the media who accompany quiet men like Dennis Thatcher and suggests every woman should be man-like-woman dominating men and every man should be like Dennis Thatcher.
Later, she denies she talked of Sanja’s personality or character but she says she meant how she behave/appeared in the interview suggesting how both should have talked; otherwise she should not be in the picture. She thinks Sanjana used Sanja as an object and not meant as a couple/family. According to her, if husband and wife walk on the street and husband meets a friend wife must jump and talk and other wise she must have not walked together with her husband on the street, should have stayed at home.
She barks for men who complement Sanja’s appearance call them as sexists and accused Sanjana for letting those men distracted by Sanja’s charm. She doesn’t realize the impact testosterone and oestrogen wants to invent a anti-testosterone vaccination without realizing imbalance of her own hormones. She doesn’t realize men like women and politics and find it as sexism. Not normal. Perhaps she represents Taliban.
She keeps boast of being a feminist and the saver of women from the hell of masculine world that oppressed and abused women (according to her) for the sake of entertainment men.
She accused Sri Lankan men for oppressing women for the last 60 years (perhaps she is a Tamil woman live in Toronto try to mud Sri Lanka and its war against Cannibal LTTE Terrorists. Sorry for my prejudice) she claimed she is a Sri Lankan but didn’t know lives of Buddhist women and surprised to hear feminism began last millennium. She discriminates both men and women in Sri Lanka, she is mad of Dayan Jayatilleka (and Sanja) because he defended Sri Lanka at UNHRC. That’s her frustration and perhaps she is victim of a male to hate so much men and nothing to with feminism/sexism.
Pandora, Thank you for your two cents but I prefer my one cent. I am not a dominant male who treats female unfairly. I support everyone’s existence. I am against activists who make us divided (on gender, race, and politics) for the pennies they get from so called civilized societies who sponsored LTTE terrorists and lead the global war against terrorists. Sri Lankan men treat their women the way they know. They are not perfect, things can be improved. I know there are lot of taboos. One taboo is sex. You called me a sexist because I was against fighting for rights. That doesn’t mean you are right. You don’t want cultural differences you generalize your current cultural values to rest of the world.
I tell you what I believe in. I believe people can have the lives the way they want as long as it doesn’t have a negative impact on others. Everywhere you find domestic violence, even in the civilized societies. But it’s true it has reduced since the evolution of civilization. Sri Lanka is a developing country. It has battered thirty years of Tamil aggression on Sinhalese. They fought for a separate state claiming oppression by Sinhalese. The Eelam war ended after the sacrifices of 100,000 people. Did they get what they wanted? They fought for rights too. When you fight for rights you demand thing forcefully, aggression. That is too expensive. What you should do is negotiations, discussions, persuasions, motivation that type of tools.
At family level you need the same, not fights for rights…..but negotiation and discussions.
In Sri Lankan culture, “Put-up & shut-up” works, because parents think of kids future and reluctant to divorce. Kids are more important than the lives of parents. Single parents are not encouraged and perhaps not accepted. As adults if you make a decision, you have to bare the consequences. That’s why Buddhists families compare horoscopes before marriages and not encourage love based marriages. See how different it can be? You may have roots to Sri Lanka but you couldn’t realize the “put up and shut up” concept. It doesn’t work in UK because society is infected with feminists. Perhaps their cultural values are more oppressing women. Buddhist families treat others the way they like to be treated. Everyone has own personality and every culture has own values. Do not assume when Tigers change their jungles, their stripes will also be changed.
I wish I am a single.. Perhaps couple months ago.. Yet, you will hate me….for being a dominant male, but I do treat women with respect…..bit possessive… love with passion … adore their beauty… more sexist comments for the next post : )
Atheist,
Great Job ! You’ve totally burned Rose with your rational and intelligent arguments on gender.
Rose says: ” I thought Atheist was a man because she was using men’s ploys at setting up women against each other”. This only proves that Rose harbours deep hatred towards men. What a pity…
Obviously Atheist has done no such thing because both Pandora and I – who happen to be women – agree with Atheist’s veiw points !
I don’t know why the words “mother” and “wife” seem to drive her insane, but I think it has to do with a deep seated insecurity about her own life.
Her claims are glaringly contradictory. On one had, she insists that women should maintain their “softness”, but on the other hand, she gets totally riled up with a woman who claims to be a “mother” and “wife”.
This is the problem when a person lets their personal baggage get in the way of a rational discussion.
Way to go Atheist !
To Rose and anyone else interested in this debate:
I am more than happy to have readers of GV check on my alleged name calling and comments such as “wrecking people’s lives”, “man hater” and “jealous of Sanja’s beauty” – supposedly directed at Rose – by going through my previous posts.
If Rose is to make such allegations, it is in her best interest to provide sufficient evidence by quoting some of my supposedly said comments. Without providing the necessary information such accusations will only be seen as outright lies.
Rose,
You mention to Pandora that you “…raised a lot of important points, larger, crucial political issues concerning patriarchal behaviour in killing and incarcerating innocent civilians”. When was that? Please point them out if they were, in fact, sent to me in your earlier posts.
You have also informed us that you are a journalist. If that is the case, I can see how the once ethical profession of journalism has sunk to such pitiful levels. I am not interested in reading ‘yellow journalism’, and, therefore, I cannot take your seriously.
Your comments to me on GV reveal a far more insidious side of journalism – propaganda. I am all too familiar with how propaganda works – Sri-Lankans have endured this for the past decade or so. But, propaganda can also backfire, can’t it? By twisting my comments, and using my own words to attack me, I am sure many of the participants on GV may see your groundless attacks as a microcosm of the dissemination of disinformation trying to come in the guise of legitimate journalism.
I have lived on this planet for exactly six decades. My upbringing did not in any way involve concepts such as ‘original sin’, ‘hell’, ‘damnation’ etc…My childhood/girlhood was not repressive – not even in terms of sexuality. I am neither Jung nor Freud, but it is common knowledge that extreme repression often leads to racism, sexism, homophobia and a whole lot of other phobias.
If you had a “lovely mother [whose] mothering was not double-edged like Atheist’s, speaking nicely to one person while totally demolishing the reputation of others”, this if fine and dandy with me. Since we all have different parenting skills, as for my part, I place value on accountability and truthfulness. This is what I expect from my children. Had they ever deliberately twisted information either for self-gain or as a means of tarnishing others, I would tell them loud and clear – for the entire neighbourhood to hear – to correct their behaviour immediately or “f@#$% off” !
You and another participant on GV keep repeating the “sixty year saga”. Please enlighten me on how fabulous things were for everyone before the “dark ages” hit Sri-Lanka.
Pet peeves: yellow journalism and fake feminists
Forever gender bender!
To Rose,
CORRECTION
You had, indeed, made the following statement in one of your posts to me. I apologize for the mixup.
“You don’t think preferring war to negotiation, killing innocent civilians, caging them up in internment camps, shooting and torturing dissenters refer to the worst aspects of patriarchal culture? Or do you think that is stereotyping”?
I will answer this in brief by saying that, yes, patriarchy was also involved in the forcible recruitment of women suicide bombers. Don’t you agree?
Still a gender bender!
It has been truly fascinating to observe the virulence of these attack on a person (Rose) who, initially at least, merely expressed a perfectly legitimate disappointment that we did not get to hear the wife of this notable diplomat (who chose to be depicted beside him in the interview) express herself verbally too. True, Sanja herself opted not to speak (indeed, I imagine she is now quite distraught at the amount of attention she is getting, including in this post – sorry Sanja!). Sanjana was of course right to respect her wish not to speak. I suspect she mostly wanted simply to demonstrate solidarity with her husband at a difficult time, which is a perfectly understandable desire, and for this she perhaps ought to be admired more than anything else (as it happens, as charming as husband and wife both clearly are, I find many of Dayan’s views utterly deplorable, but that is another matter).
But equally, Rose is perfectly right that there is something to be gained by reflecting on the representation of women on videos such as this, and the subtle messages that it might convey. While I do not necessarily agree with her analysis or conclusions, anyone with an ounce of sensitivity would appreciate that she is driven, primarily, by a concern for the perceived oppression of women in both eastern and western societies. Women and men who share that concern ought, I think, to treat such expressions as Rose’s with a great deal more respect, even appreciation – at least more than has been, somewhat disgracefully, meted out here. There is, after all, a legitimate debate to be had, and we are really all on the same side if our primary concern is oppression, and how to counter it. We differ only in whether we recognize the scenario under discussion as contributing to oppression or not.
So, when somebody comes along and suggests that a subtle form of oppression may be present in a situation, which we may have overlooked, our first thought, I dare say, should be to thank them for pointing it out, and then, if we feel they are mistaken, point out why no such oppression is actually present. Which begs the question: why the extreme hostility? My initial thought on reading some of the early responses is that there is more here than meets the eye. This was confirmed by the tenor of subsequent anti-Rose posts, which clearly intimated that there was an ‘anti-colonial’ dimension to the opposition to her ‘western feminism’ (at least before she clarified that her origins were 100% Sri Lankan).
And therein lies the terrible irony that this wonderful website has, perhaps unwittingly, accentuated. Much of the really virulent anti-western sentiments expressed on Groundviews emanates from Sinhalese. Since the ‘final stages’ of the war, this trend of thought has been rising in frequency – at first telling meddling westerners not to interfere in the massacre of Tamils with their hypocritical humanitarianism, and then not to lecture Sri Lankans on their long-term incarceration.
Much of the criticism towards anyone speaking out about the visible, ongoing oppression of Tamils has been underpinned by the spirit of anti-westernism – depicting the ‘humble pie-eaters’ valiantly resisting the ideologies of their cheese-eating and wine-drinking, long-time colonial oppressors.
Of course, western colonialism was an unconscionable evil, for which its perpetrators and defenders ought to feel ashamed, just as Nazi sympathizers, backers and appeasers should. But it is really rich when the colonialists of today, holding an entire people behind barbed wire and debating what scraps of food – never mind humble pies or political solutions – they should ‘give’ them, scream ‘go to hell’ when someone they presume to be a westerner simply asks us to consider seriously whether a particular representation of a woman on a video might contribute to sexism or not. Perhaps it should no longer surprise an ancient fellow like me. Colonialism was probably always this hideous and depressing.
Atheist, Rose, Pandora, bell@rosa and anyone else interested:
Ladies,
Until I started posting on this thread, I never interested in “feminism” topic, I hardly knew about feminism, the western concept. I only knew about terrorists, but apparently it has a correlation of race and gender feminism.
It’s interesting to see how you ladies’ think of men. I never knew women are so deeply touched on “Boss”, “wife”, “mother” and “nurturing” issues. I thought they are natural instincts and the real issue is struggle for life in Sri Lanka, unlike West Europeans who consume social welfare facilities.
Allow me to thank Atheist for being a rational about this topic and also in other topics guiding the misguided which depicts a “motherly instinct”, hope she doesn’t mind me saying that. I am not able to tell my personal experience over the last 60 years of “Women oppression” in Sri Lanka, but Atheist is a living evidence for that false accusation and she denied that pathetic argument and very correctly said: “extreme repression often leads to racism, sexism, homophobia and a whole lot of other phobias.” In addition to that, Sri Lanka elected first lady prime minister in the world, which clearly shows no barriers oppression for women in Sri Lanka, later her daughter became first Lady Executive President.
In that case I wonder if there is any correlation between so called “Tamil Aspirations” and “feminism”. To support that argument, Rose said, “As for DJ, I agree with his position on the 13th Amendment. I would have preferred him to fail in his attempt to avert the war crimes inquiry because SL citizens do have the right to know the truth of that (whatever it may be) so they can make informed political decisions.”, “I have raised a lot of important points, larger, crucial political issues concerning patriarchal behaviour in killing and incarcerating innocent civilians.”, Neglecting massacres and suicide bombs done against Sinhalese.
I do agree about alcoholic fathers. Domestic violence has to be stopped. Addictions, abuses, intimidations have to be stopped, controlled through awareness programmes. If not, bans. “Women oppression” can’t be generalized to all Sri Lankans. Unlike Western mothers who are selfish; they think themselves only, violating child’s right for both parents seeking social welfares, some of you forgot to recognize almost all mothers in Sri Lanka are “motherly-mothers” who are not “fake nurturing” mothers because they think marriage is a social obligation. So when you fight for rights of yours, you violate rights of the kids. My mother used to tell “our time is gone, this is your time”. Not all families are violent, not all families are peaceful either, just “put up and shut up”
I see some of you have a masculine-feminine dignity issues. Some of you walk couple of feet above the ground; “I never lower my side/level”, rather walk on your bare feet on the ground. Give up gender, age, race, class, caste tags and live like human beings. Otherwise, fight for rights and live in the hell.
Feminism, I think it is rather a personal trait issue or a personal baggage issue than a gender issue to fight for rights, to criticise men so negatively. There are men who want wives to take the boss role. Women are aggressive when there is a leadership issue and fight for rights which lead to conflicts.
As Atheist said, sometimes instincts are in the wrong body or no instinct at all. Too much feminism makes people’s lives miserable, conflicts between people, gender identity. There is a saying that women always have something to complain about.
Rose, I know you hate males and Sri Lankans generally “the fact that NoEalaminSL responded in the sexist way he did was exactly what I feared” she was putting on that fake nurturing, maternal tone in encouraging NoEalaminSL not to be apologetic about his English”, “Atheist, in wanting to convey to NoEalaminSL that she was a woman carefully refrains from using that word.”
But don’t attack Sanja to throw all your frustrations for losing Eelam war. That pisses me off. I hate harassing people with false accusations, without reasonable reasons. Take my advice, don’t read too many anti-men feminist literature, but rather balance your literature on both sides. You see all men are against you. Or Sinhalese hate Tamils. That’s not true. In gender, Men-Women, men-men, women-women, men-women-women, women-men-men, attractions are natural, has nothing to with sexism. Sexism is a gender base discrimination; correct me if I am wrong. Like Gautama Buddha said, take middle path, you will never end in a trouble!
Martin White, Thank you for your just-in-time post. You confirmed my doubts were absolutely right. This is a race-gender based feminism rather than gender based feminism.
Mr. Martin White,
Yo, yo, Mr. White,now I’ve been supporting Rose all along. Can’t nobody see that?
I don’t undertand nothin ’bout no feminism but I got a right to have my say too, don’t I? Your comments made me so upset that I couldn’t even concentrate on the Archie Bunker re-runs, man.
How dare anyone be anti-western? Like, man, I totally support the west…them cowboys and Indians – whoa, what a concept y’all !
Now stop being so paranoid…(just kidding)…ahem…I bat for the right team. I’m with you, man! Chill!
Hope I didn’t offend you man…like my favourite band is the “Colonial Cousins”. So I’m as colonial as you can get,you see what I’m sayin?
God Bless !!!
Mr. White,
Is it fair to say: “Much of the really virulent anti-western sentiments expressed on Ground Views emanates from Sinhalese”?
I find your sweeping generalization an unfair attack on those who do not share your political views. A few months back, I was labeled a Sinhala racist by someone on Ground Views. Out of sheer frustration, I revealed my ethnic background to this commentator, only later to have my father and his side of the family called members of the “privileged class” who had nothing in common with the Vanni Tamils. Essentially, my Tamil half of the family was considered “traitors” for not identifying with this commentator’s vision of a Tamil homeland.
Are you sure that ALL “virulent, anti-western sentiments” are expressed by the Sinhalese ? Perhaps I am blind as I haven’t come across any anti-western statements as of yet. But I, like a number of other commentators on Grounds View, have been critical of imperialism. It is a shame that you have got the two confused.
More people have joined Grounds View, and it is evident that the increase in dissenting/diverse voices makes Ground Views more interesting with each passing day.
Can someone please point out the “oppression” in this video? I don’t see any.
I have a dream in Sri Lanka!
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Killinochchi, go back to Mulutivu, go back to Trincomalee, go back to Batticaloa, go back to Jafna, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Sri Lankan dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day Tamils of North of Sri Lanka and the Sinhalese of South will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, LTTE with its vicious racists, with its Tamil Diaspora having their lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Sri Lanka, little Tamil boys and Tamil girls will be able to join hands with little Sinhala/Muslim boys and Sinhala/Muslim girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the Sri Lanka with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”
And if Sri Lanka is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the Central hilltops of Sri Lanka. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of Dumbara. Let freedom ring from the Jungles of Mulativu!
Let freedom ring from the North of Sri Lanka!
Let freedom ring from the South of Sri Lanka!
But not only that; let freedom ring from East of Sri Lanka!
Let freedom ring from West of Sri Lanka!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Nuwara-Eliya. From every mountainside of Badulla, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, Tamil men and Sinhala men, Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
Mr.Dayan Jayatileke vehimently denies the fact that thousands of civilians were killed in the last stages of the war. He further argues that there is no proof to suggest thousands were killed and if so, conducted by the government. My question is, Is there any proof to suggest that there was minimal affect in terms of civilian life loss and they were not conducted by the government? UN officially reported scores of civilians killed (atleast 8000 till the month of May when the war reached its final stage) Times quoted atleast 20,000 were killed in the last days. Is the ambassador unaware of those reports? Or is he behaving in his reputed ‘diplomatic’ manner on core issues?
Okay lets speak in Kopi kade style. Are all the photos released on internet with rotting muscles and bones graphic? Let’s say Tigers were responsible for the disaster of the civilians. Isn’t the government responsible for its own civilians? Don’t they dare to accept these many civilians were caught on crossfire and lost their lives under unfortunate circumstances as a responsible nation?
Ambassador, leave the talks about resettling the IDPs and the landmine saga and even the screening of ‘hiding’ Tigers among civilians. Why isn’t the GoSL not allowing independent media to visit the liberated IDPs? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.
To be honest this the worst series of events which I had ever come across let it be fiction or reality, i.e. Knowing all what’s going on, the spectators of this story were + are being deaf and dumb to the lame excuses of the Government.
I am a spiritual believer and I believe all happened for good. A Tamil uttered once that even during his last sigh of defeat, the dream of victory will murmur in his ears and I still feel that’s true to these unfolding events. Truth will triumph at last. Alternative politics will save Tamils.
Let Lord Buddha, be with us!!!
To Martin White,
Bonjour Monsieur White,
It seems you still haven’t gotten over my caricature of backyard wine and cheese parties attended by ‘peace-warriors’ at Barefoot. You are wrong, Martin, I never considered you a member of the “oppressors”, but perceived you as an ordinary non-western, Lankan “activist” (like Rose), hanging around, waiting to be invited for the after show party. Since you like to portray yourself – shame on you – as “an ancient, colonialist, oppressor with ideologies”, I would like to see how far you get on in real wine and cheese parties attended by serious people of conviction whether in the East or West. The game of “master and servant” ended long ago. However, if the “servant”, buying into the servile mindset, is to become the master, quelle horreur!!! Oh, yes, master sir, in that case, we would all have to seek shelter from the storm.
I would like to let you know that people like me are not afraid of the West – this does not mean that we are anti-western, far from it – we just don’t seek approval from the West for our existence and right to be in the world. I’m not a so called intellectual, academic, activist etc. I’m an ordinary working woman, sixty years of age, still working part time, and keen on seeing that some of my hard earned money goes to the people at IDP camps. Unlike people belonging to powerful lobby groups and foundations, I cannot afford to give money in huge, lump sums to my favourite “cause”. Now, Martin, tell me how much you and Rose really care about the people in IDP camps. Please don’t use the suffering of the people in these camps to further your career; they are not your pawns.
It is a pity that in this day and age, you and Rose don’t know jack about western feminism. At the mere mention of Denise Riley, Rose did a 180 degree turn to South Asian feminist texts, dating back to 600 BC. Therefore, going back in time, I asked her about the Therigathas – one of the ancient women’s writings I am aware of – and I am still waiting for her to enlighten me on other feminist texts from this period.
If you want to fight the Sri-Lankan government, do it the right way. Mobilize with suffering people from all communities. Don’t create discord between minorities and the Sinhala people simply to maintain a job.
We ordinary folk are well aware of spin doctors. Since you, Rose and the gang are into spinning, I suggest that you people would be better off spinning cotton, as it is good for the environment as well as for the local, Lankan economy.
Perhaps you don’t like people like me writing to Ground Views, eh? Are you planning to send a white van to around where I live?
Pet Peeves: yellow journalism, fake feminists, peace brokers
Forever gender bender!!!
A bad interview as far as journalism is concerned. It is like a conversation between two friends, one tries to help other to polish his image. The interviewer assumes termination of Dyan Jayathilaka is a foolish act by the government and ask questions to justify that view.
i can se were you want to go with this articel, if you get there is a whole other story:)
Dayan needs to be credited for engaging you Sanjana with the same degree of frankness and sincerity that he has always exhibited in expressing his views in the media/internet blogs. Although this is my first posting on this site, I am not new to the opinions and postulates of our soon to be ex ambassador. I had the opportunity of crossing paths with Dayan just once about four years ago, when I was a fund manager at a leading Insurance Company in SL and he was our guest in a deliberation about the political landscape unfolding at the time and what that portended for those of us in financial markets. He may or may not recall the encounter. Three things come now come to mind about that meeting
(1)Dayan made a case for the Private Sector to “invest “in Karu Jayasuriya as the next UNP presidential Candidate citing Ranil W would be certain to be a failure against MR (not forgone conclusion in 2004 as is now the case)
(2)Rally around Mahinda Rajapakse else he will gravitate towards the likes of the JVP/JHU.
(3)Lauded the battlefront achievements of a less well known Major General at the time called Sarath Fonseka , and highlighted that he would be the one officer capable of defeating the LTTE in a return to war scenario which Dayan claimed was inevitable.
(4)Extolled the virtues of the 13 A as the only form of devolution that would be palatable to polity at large and the SL voter base.
Congratulations Dayan thats 3 out of 4, with the jury still not out on the 4th. We could certainly use somebody with your predictive abilities in the investment business! I have since followed with a keen Dayan’s writings in the media, although I am no longer now in SL having left to pursue further studies. I have generally admired the logic and consistency of his arguments. However I do feel that he will strike out with his forth prediction – But I hope that history will prove me wrong.
Dayans reference to Kennedy’s quote “never mind what he says look at his hands” is equally applicable in deciphering the intention of the current powers that be. Despite public pronouncements (By the president himself as recently as last week in an interview) about 13 A plus, the recent actions of the govt suggest that the secularization of the state is a more favored approach.
1.Making both Sinhala and Tamil official languages and requiring public servants to be have working knowledge of both.
2.Recent pronouncements by govt ministers about electoral parties not being permitted to be registered on ethnic or religious lines.
3.The recent comments of MR that this problem would have never arisen had both “Tamil and Sinhala both been national languages”, and some govt officials similarly claiming that had equal opportunity been given to all ethnicities” all these trouble” could have been averted.
4.The comfortable nesting position the likes of Weerawansa and other anti devolutionary proponents (who openly support the secularization of the state Vs power sharing ) have found under the loin cloth of the president and their growing influence in the corridors of power.
5.The firing of Dayan, himself a strong advocate of devolution via the 13A.
I agree that the government will never be able to attain an idealist’s standards of a secular state – Buddhism will still retain its pre-eminent position in the constitution, a new official “Secular constitution” will never be put before the people at a referendum. However the 13 A is itself not a prescription for a utopian devolved state. The govt appears to be make the state as secular as is politically palatable (as much as the 13 A is the most palatable devolutionary mechanism out there). Hence we will have free opportunity for all races in education, public sector jobs, economic development in the NE, a two language policy – and this will be showcased as an alternative to devolution.
I have no objection to ”leveling the playing field” in this manner. However, it is a harder sell to our allies in the International Community ( I mean India, China and our friendly Asian neighbours who have remained staunch supporters – not the hypocritical west) as well as to the vast number of moderate tamils in SL.
I also disagree with Dayan’s view that the Tamil polity’s representation in a post electoral parliament will be the deciding factor in the cause for devolution. Even if in agglomeration the TNA, TULF and EPDP gain a strong enough representation in Parliament to press the case for devolution (which is unlikely), they are miles apart in their stand on the degree of devolution as well as their political allegiances. Come on lets not kid ourselves, these three will never reach common ground (and the government’s backdoor manipulators will see to it that they don’t). Hence in the backdrop of a fractured tamil polity, with NO SINGLE party having sufficient political clout to press the case for devolution the ruling alliance can pretty much do as they please.
Having said all this, Dayan is more knowledgeable that I am on nuances and intricacies of thought processes of the current regime. As always his comments on these views would be much appreciated and taken in good spirit. I also apologize for the long post.
Many thanks for the accurate summary of my remarks. I recall the venue as CTC Eagle. This was while CFA was on and RW the PM, I think. The audience consisted of very bright young men and women including the daughter of the then Chairman of Hayleys. The guy who invited me and took me along there was Gihan Rajapkse.
Mr to be Cuban Ambassador.. did you hear a voice from Mulliyavaaikaal?
Mulli,
Please learn to distinguish between a Cuban Ambassador and an Ambassador to Cuba. A “Cuban ambassador” is …Cuban. An ambassador to Cuba is not. As for that story about me becoming ambassador to Cuba, it is a rumour without foundation, and I suspect, a planted story. While I do hear the cries from the IDP camps, nope, I don’t hear voices from Mullivaaikaal, but then again I don’t hear voices from Adolf Hitler’s bunker in Berlin either. If I smoked enough grass and listened hard enough I suppose I could hear voices of the ghosts of an arrogant warlord and his army, supported by many Tamils in the Diaspora, who thought they could kill Sri Lankan and Indian leaders, survive forever and go onto divide our little island. As Point 3 in Anthony Abeykoon’s post demonstrates, I didn’t think so way back in 2004 and and identified the man who would finally bury Prabhakaran and the fascist Tigers at Mullivaaikaal. For those who think I should not have fought hard against a UN war crimes probe ( and won), may I remind them that it was not a Sinhala xenophobic or protectionist reaction. Had it been so, the Brazilians, South Africans, Uruguayans and Indians would not have voted for our resolution… and I would not have pushed for the 13th amendment and would still have my job. I fought to defeat the attempt for the same reasons that one of the most ethical diplomats of our time, Padre Miguel DÉscoto, the President of the UN General Assembly, Maryknoll priest and former Foreign Minister of the Sandinista government after the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979, said a few weeks ago with gentle sarcasm that the doctrine of R2P, the so-called “Responsibility to Protect” (which by the way, animated the effort at a UN war crimes probe against Sri Lanka) should be re-titled R2I, namely, the Right to Intervene!
Yes Dayan you are quite correct with those details, although the Chairman of Hayleys daughter was not a member of our team. You have a remarkedly good memory. Glad you thought the we were “bright”……we certainly liked to think so at the time although it was not always reflected our investment performance !!!
Any thoughts/comments disagreements with the second part of my post.
Dear Anthony,
I agree with PLOT leader Siddharthan’s interview in the Daily Mirror a few days back. My own views are in this Sunday’s Lakbima, in an interview given to Thava Sajitharan, the relevant portion of which I quote below. I must say however, that speculation about our proximity to a secular state or movement in that direction must be tempered and tested by reading the famous Robert D Kaplan’s essay on Sri Lanka in the foreign affairs section of the currebt issue of The Atlantic ( online).
****
Election results clearly show … time running out for political solution
- Dayan
By Thava Sajitharan
Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, ex-ambassador of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva opines, “an ethnic zero-sum game will be the result” if “there continues to be a political vacuum” as far as finding a political solution to the national question is concerned.
When asked by this newspaper 2 1/2 months ago about Sri Lankan government’s efforts to implement a political solution, you said: Which government could be accused of non-implementation a mere 10 days after the end of a 30-year-war? What is your position now?
At the very outset let me say that the views I express here are strictly my personal opinion. The results of the recently concluded municipal election in Jaffna and urban council election in Vavuniya clearly show that now is the time for a political solution. If there continues to be a political vacuum, the Tamil progressive moderates such as the EPDP and PLOTE will be weakened and overtaken by the TNA by the time of the parliamentary election next year. If the TNA sweeps the parliamentary election while continuing to uphold its stance of rejecting the 13th amendment as insufficient and calling for “internal self determination”, the island will present a picture of clear ethnic division, polarization and deadlock. Colombo will not have a truly constructive Tamil negotiating partner that the Sinhala public and the armed forces can trust. It will be difficult to have Northern Provincial Council election and devolve power to an NPC dominated by a TNA which rejects the 13th amendment as too little. Conversely, it will be difficult to postpone such an election indefinitely, problematic to dissolve the Council after election is held, and unwise to abolish the NPC by scrapping the 13th amendment with no alternative acceptable to the Tamils. An ethnic zero-sum game will be the result. Negotiations will be sporadic and unsuccessful. There may be a political process but that will be open-ended, while the existential situation of the Tamil people deteriorates on the ground. This means that the Sri Lankan crisis needlessly becomes intractable once again. The only way to avoid such an impasse with its tragic consequences of a renewed cycle of conflict, this time non-military but worse, civic, is to reduce the alienation of the Tamil people of the North. This can be done by giving the people some degree of local autonomy and representation, while Colombo’s Tamil partners such as the EPDP still remain a viable political option. Now the time is running out and as the election results show, Tamil disaffection is growing rapidly.
Going by the views you expressed in the media, you expected people in Jaffna to endorse the present administration’s stance in the MC election…how do you read the outcomes of polls in Jaffna and Vavuniya?
I certainly did not expect the Jaffna people to endorse the present administration’s stance, and I have never written anything which could even remotely be interpreted to mean that. I did expect that Jaffna people would opt for Douglas Devananda, and this they did, which is quite significant, though they did not do so quite as clearly as I thought. That was not Douglas’ fault. If he had been allowed to contest under the Veena sign as he was when he was a minister of an earlier cabinet, he would have secured more votes. If he had caved into pressure and joined the SLFP, he may have lost.
mr ambassador, i m stunned that u are so sensitive to the little misnomers but refuse to answer the basic questions asked by myself, i.e. the ‘controversial’ civilian death toll and the fact why independent media are not allowed into the welfare camps? by the way, you say you might lose your job if you were a hypocrite, can we take that you lost your job because of that?
Mulli,
The “civilian death toll” is not “controversial” for the vast majority of the Sri Lankan people or of the world community including India (hence the near 2/3rds win in the UN HRC). It is “controversial” only for pro-Tiger propagandist elements like you, whom I do not as a principle, waste my time answering.
Mr ambassador, firstly i m not a pro-tiger propagandist or a tiger sympathiser. I vote for justice. Can a government behave in a terrorist manner? If the tigers are keeping tamils as human shields and shooting at them, does it deprive the GoSL of protecting its citizens? doesnt it have the responsibility to safeguard them?Till the humiliating mentality of people like you(who claim to be learned) of branding all tamil voice as tigers disappears, the terrorism in Sri Lanka cannot be wiped out. You people saved the civilians from one jail just to push them into another. About the death toll, there will be a state when India and other countries have to reconsider their geopolitical strategies, then they will accept the huge death toll. Please don’t give lame excuses and mind you this is not a live interview! you need not run away?
“…the terrorism in Sri Lanka cannot be wiped out.”
It has already been wiped out. At Mullivaiyaakal and in the battles before. That is precisely why there is no excuse for the policies towards the IDPs taken as a whole.
If it raises its head again, it will be once again crushed, this time much faster. The vast majority are agreed on one thing: on terrorism, “zero tolerance”.
Now here is absolutely my last word on this website, on the subject of civilian casualties and a UN war crimes probe:
As a rule, (with some exceptions that I have never defended, as I mentioned to Sanjana on this video) the Sri Lankan armed forces never violated international humanitarian law by the INTENTIONAL targeting of unarmed, non combatant civilians. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan armed forces pretty much desisted from using antipersonnel munitions in built up areas, unlike other armed forces which have used white phosporus in areas with civilian concentrations. Going still further, the Sri Lankan armed forces did not use all the firepower, including air power, at its command in order to minimize its own casualties, and indeed took far heavier casualties than it would have because of this policy of selectivity, because the Tigers were firing heavy artillery at the SLA while embedded among civilians.
However, unintended civilian casualties were doubtless caused at the hands of the Sri Lankan armed forces, tragically, owing to the LTTE’s deliberate policy of using human shields.
I fought against the UN mandate for a war crimes tribunal on this matter — which , some say would have clarified things — because
(a) the Tigers having been destroyed, only the Sri Lankan side would have been held up to scrutiny
(b) It would have been laceratingly socially divisive, because public opinion would have wanted the Anuradhapura massacre etc to be investigated
(c) the international institutions being dominated by the West and the West being influenced by Tamil Diaspora lobbying and electoral pressures to the point of attempting an “honourable exit” for the Tiger leadership, an international probe would not have been a level playing field, and would have been a hegemonistic intrusion into Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, punishing it for having eliminated a protected pet or proxy
(d) all this would have also strengthened the xenophobic forces within Sri Lanka, earning them great sympathy within the ranks of the armed forces, and triggering far reaching consequences for civil-military relations and the nature of the state.
Now, I simply have to “run away”, because I have to meet …the Cuban ambassador, as distinct from…the ambassador to Cuba!
PS: I not only buy and read Slavoj Zizek, the latest issue of the International Journal of Zizek Studies carries an essay by a British doctoral candidate in political philosophy, bracketing my work with that of Zizek and Alain Badiou (the only three to be so grouped in this study).
I have no regret that I am a great fan of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka. He convinced me once again. Be it Sinhala, Tamils or Muslims “Zero Tolerance” for terrorism.
“It has already been wiped out, If it raises its head again, it will be once again crushed, this time much faster. The vast majority are agreed on one thing: on terrorism, “zero tolerance”.” – Awesome!
Before you leave your office Your Excellency, please answer one question. Why IC Den Haag accepted apartheid saying it doesnt violate human rights or discriminate blacks?
“From what we have seen over the years and especially the weeping of the parents whose children were shot while trying to escape the clutches of Prabakaran I do not think that the International Community will get a chance to save him by getting him tried at the International Court of Justice at the Hague that has gone on record to have in effect declared that apartheid did not violate human rights.” http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/prabakaran-the-world%E2%80%99s-most-wanted-man/
Dayan …ha..ha…“zero tolerance”
…what about the “zero casualties” that Gotabaya spoke about? If power is not devolved ‘terrorism’ as you call it will definitly raise its head again…it might take some time…but it will start with a bomb here…a bomb there…everywhere a bomb! Remember Iraq? It took the Americans only a couple of weeks to capture Iraq…but we know what happened later!
President Bean,
Pose questions about what Secy Defense Gotabhaya said, to him, not me. You may do so courtesy of Ada Derana. If you do not know the difference between the invasion of a sovereign independent nation, Iraq, by a country across an ocean which Iraq had done no harm to (in what Obama critically calls “a war of choice”), and a “necessary war” (again, Obama, this time on Afghanistan) against a secessionist terrorist enemy which had murdered dozens of top leaders of the Sinhalese, Tamils and Indian, then I shouldn’t waste more time with you.
Am I off the topic to be ignored?
Before you wrap up to Castro Land, just utter some phrases on behalf of the tamils. Leave aside all those zero casualities, massacre death toll, UN count or the Times grave count. Personally how many tamil civilians lost their life you reckon (intentionally or unintentionally by our victorious army in 2009) Just to write down on my notepad how much did Dayan-the ambassador think happened? Please give the just the figures without lamenting how much you reckon? thats it lets leave that talk.
By the way still I didn’t get a reply why international media is not allowed to independently to gather news?
Jayatilleka:
:..with some exceptions that I have never defended…:”
And what exactly did you do about those ‘exceptions’ ? Did you press hard for a quick inquiry? Did you resign in protest when it became obvious that investigations and commissions were designed to exonerate criminals? Did you live in another planet to realize that there has been no serious prosecution because these atrocities were sanctiones by the regime at the top?
“the Sri Lankan armed forces never violated international humanitarian law by the INTENTIONAL targeting of unarmed, non combatant civilians.”
How do you know this? Your belief is based on some faith in your own “boys” just the same way many pro-LTTE Tamils remained in denial about LTTE atrocities. The evidence, as presented by unimpeachable sources such as the UTHR, presents a wholly different picture. I have no chocie but to conclude that here you are simply lying or letting your ethnic allegiance and ingrained racism mislead you.
To me, the question is simple. Why did the GoSL deny access to the media, NGOs, even the UN? When an armed force with a history of atrocities–some of which I had personally witnessed in Jaffna and in the South– does this, it is legitimate for any neutral and fairminded person to assume there were mass scale killings without witnesses. And the current plight of the IDPs caught in flooding and “swimming in excreta” with nary a concern by the GoSL, reinforces the belief that the SL armed forces needlessly murdered people in the thousands when the LTTE was already cornered and more efforts clearly could have been taken to save civilians.
Even people like Sangaree who supported the GoSL disagreed vigorously with the way the final stages of the war were conducted. Your defense of this mass-scale atrocity makes you an accessory to war crimes.
Mulli,
If I am allowed to speak obo Dayan I would say 600 civilians, 6000 tigers. If it rises upto 60,000 or 600,000 still worth wiping out LTTE from Buddha land.
[Edited out - Do not use comments on Groundviews to promote your site and videos.]
Nice interview. excelent.
Ane NoEelaminSL!
Moko dala oya ochara khendi arang katha keranne?
Y a Muslim can’t become Presidant in SL?
Y a Thamilan can’t be a Presidant in SL?
Y a Christian (Thamil or Sinhala) can’t become a Presidant in SL?
Only Sinhala Bhudist can become a Presidant in SL. That’s mean no equaltiy in SL.
If there no EQUAL rights in SL no PEACE in SL.
Dear Dayan,
If you read this, I hope you remember me. We talked for a while on one of your articles, a while ago. Please accept my sympathies. I hope things change.
Yours,
Mel