Comments on: In conversation with Prof. Sumanasiri Liyanage

By: Thileepan

Thileepan — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:19:43 +0000

Dear all,

I am not surprised that the following quotation is from Dayan Jayathilake who has a long reputation for misinterpreting radical theory for the sake of the welbeing of right-wing politicians like R. Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapakshe. (This Intellect has recently praised Mahinda Rajapakshe as a Gramscian national-popular leader!! His misreading of Gramsci is not far from absurd.)

“no one who knows anything about the Sri Lankan scene or ideology in general can accuse him of being a Rightwinger! Sumanasiri Liyanage has a long established reputation as a leftwing academic, from his days in the leadership echelons of the Trotskyist Nava Sama Samaja Party. As for appealing to Groundviews’ progressivism, Liyanage’s radicalism places him far to the Left of GV!”

It is also understandable that he does his best to defend Sumanasiri Liyanage who is also playing intellectual hypocracy as a ‘Left-wing intellectual’. There is no need to say that Dayan’s argument is so weak and that no need to respond it seriously. It is so naive to conclude that someone should be considered as a ‘Left-wing intellectual’ only because of one’s past reputation; Musolini also should be Left-wing according to this criteria. I am wondering which plannet Dayan did emanate from, when he claims that Sumanasiri is far to the Left of GroundView! Again, I am not surprissed because this identification comes from none other than Dayan Jayathilake.

Regarding Left-Right dichotomy, I do believe that this is still relavant even with certain modifications. A Left-winger is someone who identifies oneself with demands, interests and politics of those who are supressed in different contexts and in different historical conjunctures. Take the issues related to IDPs as an example. Sumanasiri Liyanage once said to the popular English journal named Spectrum that the government should provide enough facilities to IDP camps in the North. Many progressive Left-wing intellectuals including Groundviews were demanding, during that period, to release the IDPs (they were not internally displaced but arrested and illegally imprisoned in containment camps). The matter was not about providing facilities but of releasing them. Likewise, Sumanasiri and Dayan have articulated their analyses so that Rajapakshes are fascinated, decorating the surface with some Leftist terms and slogans.

Sumanasiri Liyanage’s distinction between Democracy and Development also is finely compatible with the strategic thought of Rajapakshe regime. This is exactly what these Sinhalese rulers do need at this moment from their intellectual henchmen. As Zizek says, distinction between economy (in this case, Development) and politics (Democracy) is the fundamental strategy in right-wing liberalism. Against this dominant trend, the Left-wingers should re-visit political economy, by fighting for politicizing economic issues, as Zizek and many other living radical Left-wing thinkers (and also activists) are doing these days in all over the world.

By: TMama

TMama — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:21:52 +0000

I liked the way the interview was conducted and the forthrightness of the views expressed. I I bring a simile, one who collaborated with the Nazis loses the right to discuss human rights for some time at least, in the eyes of a Rawlsian liberal, however unjust it may seem to a human rights activist. THe period od ethniccleansing mass decapitations and child abduction for terrorism is over in the North and the East for another century, and the government has brought in massive development programmes and the folks in the Northare not yet ready to fold their arms around the new leaders emerging like Douglas Devananda, Muralitharan or KP. As Prof put it with many examples across the globe from Singapore, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia to China development / democracy / human rights are separate entities, and I would add the Vellala folks of Jaffna look back at the time under British Empire as a golden age for Jaffna.

Governments have to work for the greater heappiness for the greater number despite the short term difficulties ofvested interests. In my view intellectuals are not be welcomed by robber barons mleftwing or right wing as JRJ would put it, looking for a pliant labour force who would work and make it easy for making the next billion in cash.

By: cyberviews

cyberviews — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:58:15 +0000

I am quite amused by the debate among my fellow commentators to this interview as to whether the Prof is aligned to the “left” “right” or “center”of the political spectrum . Thileepan who started the debate has of course ungenerously and without proper cause castigated him a right winger. The professor during the interview when asked why he was not attracted by the “middle way “( i.e. “center”) of Mangala Smaraweera, made out that he was of a Marxist inclination, which is essentially characterised as being “left”. Dr DJ has weighed in heavily to point out the professor's past credentials as a member of the NSSP to categorise him as being very left indeed, prompting others to query as to whether the DJ was Left, Right or Rajapaksewaadi. Now the terms Left , Right, and Center have their roots in the political lexicon of the cold war era, and essentially classify political positions from the stand point of whether they espoused capitalism (right) or communism/socialism (left) or of a social democratic, in-between persuasion (centre). In my analysis of the Professor's responses to the interview I would like to base my approach on the political stance he takes vis-a-vis this government. In order to do this I would like to state my view point, which is that this government, like all governments since 1977, is capitalist, with an interesting distillation of parties of the traditional left (ULF), the traditional right (UNP crossovers) and the centre parties of the SLFP and the MEP. It is also my view that this government tends towards authoritarianism, fails to abide by the rule of law, is not inclusive in its approach, panders to Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism and rules in violation of the constitution, especially in regard to compliance with the 17th amendment to the constitution. It is not respectful of the minorities and has no interest in resolving the Tamil question. Having decisively won the war against the LTTE and projecting itself as nationalist and patriotic, it has firmly ensconced Mahinda Rajapaksa as a king figure, and allowed the Rajapaksa family a privileged position in the politics of the country with possibilities for dynastic rule. Viewed from a Gramiscian perspective what one sees is how the centrifugal forces of this particular political hegemony has exerted an influence on individuals and institutions coming within its ambit. It is this degree of influence that I would like to use as my basis for categorization describing it as either “radical” “moderate” or “conservative”. On the conservative end of the spectrum one sees, as Gramisci would a particular state of consciousness that “produces a condition of moral and political passivity” and in the case of some individuals and institutions even going beyond passivity to bending back to please or even sycophantly bending down to lick. Sadly today there are members from the right, left and centre doing this. It is these people that the cartoonists like to depict as laundry men and women. The Bandula Gunewardenes, the Dinesh Gunawardenas, the Keheliya Rambukwella's and sadly even the Tissa Vitaranas fall into this category. There are many media persons and institutions and members of the clergy, the academia, the artistes, actors and poets, and civil society organisations who fall into this category. They have capitulated completley to this political hegemon for personal and political gain. There are also different shades of this conservatism. Vasudeva Nanayakkara and D E W Gunasekera are clear cases of politicians who run with the hare and hunt with the hound and therefore are a lighter shade of this conservatism but are nevertheless disinclined to take a stand when put to the test. Now in this scheme of things it is difficult to discern the moderates, because they oscillate between the moderates and the conservatives. Dr Dayan Jayatilleke is a case in point. He is the typical weathervane in both the literal and metaphorical senses of the term. Like a weathervane his incisive and critical analyses have great predictive value of political weather patterns, but he would also shift his position in order to please the powers that be when it suits him. Now listening to the interview with Prof Sumanasiri, I would place him among the moderates. He would not join the fox hunt, but neither would he stand up against fox hunting. There was a subtle attempt to justify and legitimize some actions of the government. I do not accept the argument that democracy and development can exist independent of each other. Development under an undemocratic regime, will in the long run bring about negative impact to the country as we saw in the case of Indonesia under Suharto, which the Professor cites as an example juxtaposed to Uganda. In the absence of Democracy and the institutions that underpin it, e.g. the rule of law, a free press, the development process is undermined. One could already see this happening in the development initiatives underway in the Northern and Eastern provinces. The development that takes place may not be determined by the needs of the people. Similarly, I saw an attempt to down play the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunga. By saying similar things happened to others during previous governments, does not absolve the current government for its failure to bring the perpetrators of this murder to book, thus affirming its commitment to media freedom and the rule of law. In this sense, despite past blemishes, and his joining the UNP, a party of the political right, I see Mangala Samarawera as radical, because he does not mince his words in denouncing the government for its failure to uphold democratic norms. Read Dayapalan Thiranagma or Lionel Bopage and one is clear where they stand. Therefore DJ's position that Prof is any day far left of Groundviews does not hold water, because to me GV has taken an unequivocal stand on these issues and based on my categorisation, I would put GV, by virtue of the consistent stand it takes on these issues, as being on the radical side of the spectrum in this debate.

By: PresiDunce Bean

PresiDunce Bean — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:06:32 +0000

Is Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka ‘Left Wing’, ‘Right Wing’ or ‘Rajapaksa Wing?’

By: Travelling Academic

Travelling Academic — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:27:36 +0000

@justitia

Good Lord, looks like you don’t know much about universities or what they are there for, but I can tell you with good authority that we have already addressed your concerns by tagging the term “science” to many disciplines. We have academic departments in Political Science, Social Science, Forensic Science and, believe it or not, even Computer Science! (And, BTW, have you not come across unemployable science graduates — who are actually much more expensive to produce, and whose job demands are even more difficult to meet ?)

By: justitia

justitia — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:02:09 +0000

Thileepan, you are right.
It matters not whether Liyanage is leftwing,rightwing or in the middle.
He totally ignores the severely flawed last two elections which propelled the Rajapakse Family to power and the impending emasculation of the constitution to entrench the dynasty forever.
Dayan J is one of those who sing hosannas to this family in hopes of reinstatement to the ranks of the subserviant serfs.
Their common rant is about Ranil & the UNP to make the Family happy.
These theoreticians and their ‘disciplines’ should be abolished in our universities as they produce unemployable arts graduates who live in perpetual cloud cukooland and demand jobs.Only scientific disciplines which contribute to the betterment of humanity should be allowed.

By: Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:30:15 +0000

Which planet did this guy Thileepan emanate from? One may disagree with Sumanasiri Liyanage, as I have, but no one who knows anything about the Sri Lankan scene or ideology in general can accuse him of being a Rightwinger! Sumanasiri Liyanage has a long established reputation as a leftwing academic, from his days in the leadership echelons of the Trotskyist Nava Sama Samaja Party. As for appealing to Groundviews’ progressivism, Liyanage’s radicalism places him far to the Left of GV!

I’m curious as to what Thileepan will call Dayapala Tiranagama? Another ‘ Right winger’?

By: Thileepan

Thileepan — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:43:28 +0000

This narrow-minded right-wing Professor Sumanasiri Liyanage analyses politics in a very abstract manner, by isolating certain minor issues from the most concrete realities on the ground. For instance, he is not able to see any connection between weakness of the opposition and authoritarian moves of the Rajapakse regime. His explanation of development-democracy connection also cannot be connected to his psudo-social democracy. I can’t understand why a progressive site like Groundviews is promoting this kind of Right-wing intellect who misinterprete theory for the sake of Rajapakse regime’s well being?