The common thread that runs through the observations of these commentators is connected to ‘the role of intellectuals in society’.  Doubtless this is a consequence of my reference to a lack today of an ‘enabling environment’ under which intellectuals functioned during my student days in Peradeniya and earlier.  Let me offer some clarification of the point I made.

The ‘enabling environment’ was the result of an educational system that did not brook interference from meddling politicians.  University autonomy was valued and respected at that time.  This was before the politicisation of our universities which began in earnest with the youth insurrection of 1971.  We had, relatively speaking, in place prior to that an environment that was conducive to the proper separation of town and gown.  Parliamentary democracy that prevailed in our country at the time respected and valued dissent  and  freedom of expression.  Academic freedom was available to those who were no card – carrying members of political parties to debate issues in a spirit of disinterested inquiry.  And those card-carrying members of the academic community, if we take Mr. Doric de Souza as an example, never brought their politics into the classroom.  To be sure there were then some academics who were less fastidious or decorous in their conduct who did indulge in partisan politics.  But these were a negligible few.  The significant majority of university dons at Peradeniya in my time stuck to their primary task: that of teaching, research and dissemination of knowledge.  And they were well aware that advancement and prestige came with real academic achievements and not through political lobbying.  I refer to academics of the calibre of Cuthbert Amerasinghe, Ian Goonetileke, Doric de Souza, Gananath Obeysekere, K.W. (‘Carl’) Goonewardene, Merlin Peris,  Ashley Halpe’, Mark Amerasinghe, Valentine Basnayake, Reggie Appadurai, George Dissanayake, A. Appapillai ,  Sultan Bawa,  to name some of those I was influenced by.

In those halcyon days, the voice of the intellectual was heard loudly and clearly and that voice had a hand in shaping the destiny of our country. Today, in the absence of such an enabling environment, such voices have been suppressed.  There were also other factors which contributed to the existence of the enabling environment I alluded to.  For instance,  the relative absence of fear in voicing trenchant criticism of the political establishment.  This  absence of fear often made possible the shift of debate and discussion of significant socio-political issues  outside the lecture room into the public fora.  Such frank airing of diverse views aided decision-makers to make informed decisions about the directions and pathways the country should take.  A very early example of such healthy and mutually beneficial interaction between academics and decision – makers is the role of Sir Ivor Jennings, the founding Vice Chancellor of the University of Ceylon, in the run up to our independence and for a few years thereafter as well.  In the absence of such intellectual inter-change, the executive today makes its decisions in a near-intellectual vacuum.

In an environment such as now exists how and in what manner could an intellectual contribute to society?  In a context where disinterested criticism brings reprisals (look at the violent suppression of the media to recognize the point I seek to make here), the truly educated amongst us must find their own pathways if they wish to make a difference.  Here I hold on to a maxim that has helped me immensely:  Traveller, there is no path; paths are made by walking. My own path towards contributing to the welfare of my country has been to voice my point of view, the fear psychosis notwithstanding, in  the public space of newspaper columns, television discussions and  lectures,  and in private debate and discussion, on the basis that there is bound to be a ripple effect.  Through my work at the Fulbright Commission,   I have tried wherever possible to extend the benefits of a liberal education for all deserving citizens of Sri Lanka regardless of ethnic or class considerations.  I have sought to do so because  I feel strongly that raising the level  of  consciousness of the younger generation  is of crucial significance  for  the  regeneration  of our country as it is this generation, not us,  who will shape the future of Sri Lanka.

Tissa Jayatilaka

7 September, 2010

Post-mortems are tiring, don’t you think?

Sarath Fernando asked a pertinent question from the 3 interlectuals and none have responded. Have we got to wait another 10 years for their responce? Don’t the interlectuals have a responsibility to their country, to prod the political leadership the consequences of their action and communicate with the public.
Our country is in a mess, considered as one of the most refugee producing country in the world, a pariah nation comparable to Zimbawe, N. Korea and Burma.

Mr. Tissa Jayatilake, can we here your response.

It is commendable, in spite of many other deplorable things he did, Tissa thought it fit to place on record one of the commendable things the late President D.B. Wijetunge did for the Fullbright Commission in Sri Lanka which none of the others did, if I am not mistaken.

This interview brought into focus many matters that need consideration in today’s situation. As usual, Sanjana was able to steer the interview deftly to bring out key issues to the lime-light.
Lets have more interviews of this kind.

The Sri Lankan situation too should be viewed similarly, however vile the FP and its culmination LTTE combination maybe it is not quite right for the liberal intelligentsia to write about the cast ridden racism and fascism of Jaffna of the last century that brought the sad debacle.

Ihope the anglophiles would not be encouraged to look at the glitter of the Jane Austin but analyse the West and the East both more critically. One can see theintellectuals of the earlier period Anada Coomaraswamy, Sarathchandra, Malalasekera, Mudaliar Rasanayagam or Wickramasinghe turned away from the Western roots to look closer at the idiom and culture of their own countries and analysed the strangle hold created by the Brahmin class of Civil Servants..

There is much interest in writers like the US black writer Toni Morrison who analysed the roots of segregation.

I have heard it that some of the founding fathers of American constition were idle landlords who made their money cultivation rice much of it by the trusted black overseers and labourers. Yet the land ownership remained with the whites and Blacks were kept out of schools.

I had meant to ask this of the previous two intellectuals Rohan and Sumanasiri, but procrastinated – and now, I have three to ask from. May be I was lucky! I will appreciate a response from any or all.

All three seem to concede that the governance has deteriorated steadily over the last three decades or so and that things could have been quite different and that it is the politicians who are to be blamed for the lack of foresight or sincerity towards progress in good governance. Instead we regressed as politicians made bad choices, influenced, I assume, by lack of foresight and selfish interests. My question is “What is the role of the intellectuals in fashioning the country’s progress and what is the group’s responsibility to the nation in that regard?” Can it be argued that actually it is the failure of the intellectuals that contributed to enabling, if not encouraging, the regressive path?

In my opinion, intellectuals are given the pride of place, recognition, resources, and global interfacing opportunities at significantly elevated, protected and distinguished level, not available to the common man. The nation, in return expects not mere enhancement of the individual’s intellectual capacity, but rather to also effectively induce the necessary changes towards fashioning a society’s progress – somewhat like a Research unit in a Manufacturing Company. The research unit has the responsibility to not only provide their technical expertise that they alone understand best, but also to provide insight, communicate, persuade and influence the adoption of apt changes, and to make that well in advance. Mere after-the-fact critique is utterly useless unless insights learned contribute towards future action. Post-mortem’s for most-mortem’s sake contributes nothing.

For instance, take the topical issues such as, say actions against Sarath Fonseka, Former Deputy Minister Mervin Silva being considered for a (another?) honorary degree, unique concentration of power for a democracy, country’s stand on UN Panel, purpose and appropriateness of the Lesson’s Learned and Reconciliation package, Government’s stand on requesting Canada that the 500-odd boat people be denied landing or investigated. Are the intellectuals as a group able to provide long-term insights of the likely impact of Government’s choices in these regards, and are the intellectuals able to influence and guide the Government to track the progressive path on these counts? The politicians have their agenda, and that may not necessarily be in the best interest of the nation – policies and actions may be regressive for the nation and at the same time be progressive to politician’s (or vice-versa), even if only in the short term. In the pursuit of their individual goals, if the politicians end up out-smarting the intellectuals, would that be a failure of the politicians? Rather, I would argue that it is the failure of the intellectual — failure to foresee, or failure to effectively induce action despite excellent foresight.

Perhaps I am far too naive. In any case, in the same vein as your willing assessment and critique of the Government of Sri Lanka, could you briefly give your view on the responsibility of the intellectuals as a group (perhaps narrowed down to the social and political scientists in particular) as you see, and also follow it with your assessment of how successful or unsuccessful they have been in the past decades since independence.

I will also appreciate brief statements of your view on the specific topical issues I listed above, and what actions you personally would take in pursuit of what you consider progressive choices. Post-mortems at this point are dead-horse. Hope that is not a tall order.

I must add, all three interviews were impressive on different counts and also insightful and thought provoking. And, hats off to the undeniably well informed Sanjana for the exceptional professionalism and pleasant manner with which he conducts these interviews.

Thank you and the very best.