The Road from Elephant Pass by Nihal de Silva

     Ilankai Tamil Sangam in a review on The Road from Elephant Pass in August 2004 states:

The Road is not an unbiased narrative. The author works hard – especially in the leading chapters – to establish firm anti-LTTE credentials. However, farther into the novel de Silva apparently does his best to present reasonably objective perspective from both sides of the conflict.

     The narrator Of The Road is Wasantha Rathnayaka, a captain of an infantry regiment in the Sri Lanka Army, who believes war to be the only solution at that point in history towards the elimination of the LTTE. And he believes it is possible for the Army to win the war “if only the politicians would give us weapons we need and left military decisions in our hands” (4). Still, he strips the idealistic veneer that is often given to the soldier and reduces joining the Army to an economic decision: “I thought about the thousands of young men who jostled each other to join the army, lured by the lush benefits and prestige of the uniform. The army was often the only employer who would give them a second glance” (256). He is critical of inept leadership, glory-seeking, and arms deals in the Army. Similarly, he stripes Prabakaran of his own idealistic cover and calls him “a ruthless and a despotic tyrant … who has not only killed off most of the moderate Tamil leaders but also his own deputies who may have posed a threat to his leadership” (16). Wasantha also admits a reciprocal “loathing … for the Tigers” which according to him does not extend to “the ordinary Tamil villagers” (4).

      The narrator, who sees the war firsthand as an infantry officer, considers it as a menace that must be put an end to: “The fighting had, so far, taken sixty thousand lives and caused untold misery to tens of thousands of innocents” (16). Significantly, according to Wasantha, Black July “was the real beginning of the war that still rages in our country, seventeen years later” (103). However, he points out the erroneousness of Kamala’s choice of words which according to him gives a wrong picture of what really happened in 1983:

You say the Sinhalese attacked your family … but it wasn’t the Sinhalese nation was it? … It was a gang of men who happened to be Sinhalese … It has to do with confusing ‘all’ and ‘some’ in the minds of people. When you say Sinhalese are vicious murderers, you imply that ALL Sinhalese are like that. Surely that is not true. (321)

     The series of conversations between Wasantha and Kamala, an LTTE cadre, provide a rare insight into the conflict from both sides. Kamala says, “The Sinhalese have no right to peace”, for they have destroyed her family (133). Wasantha in reply asks, “How many times have your people bombed civilian targets in Colombo? … What about the families of the people killed and maimed in these attacks? If they also started personal vendettas, when will this ever end?” (133).

     For Kamala, the “history of violence and cruelty” towards Tamils by the Sinhalese which “is almost an instrument of government policy” and “the efforts of successive governments to colonize Tamil majority areas with Sinhala settlers” make ethnic coexistence in a unified state impossible (153). “We have the right to live without fear, to live in peace. We have the right to manage our own affairs, to use our own language and to preserve our culture. The Sinhalese want to subjugate us and keep us as citizens of a lower class, a subservient race,” states Kamala (153). She accuses the army of retaliatory attacks while defending the LTTE tactic of using civilian shields. In addition, she also illustrates the impossibility of winning a battle against a group that uses guerrilla tactics using a conventional style of combat:

We are guerrillas and we use guerrilla tactics. If you use draconian laws to control civilians, we will see to it that you are crucified in the media. If you ease up and allow civil liberties, we will use those same freedoms to infiltrate and destroy you. This is how this game will be played. (201)

     The forest in The Road plays a similar role to those in Shakespearean comedies by providing a space outside civilization where people can resolve problems brought on by civilization. Ultimately, the sworn enemies fall in love. Hence, the thrust of the novels’ argument is that one can build bridges and cross the ethnic divide at a personal level irrespective of the larger discourse on the war and the ethnic conflict in one’s society in general. His experience with this particular Other changes Wasantha. In agony over the fate of Kamala who is being questioned at the Army Headquarters, Wasantha muses:

How many thousands of my countrymen had their children, parents and lovers taken for questioning in the same way? … And all in the name of security! … And I had condoned, even supported, the practice. Now it is my turn to feel the anguish and mind-destroying anxiety. I could not bear it. (410)

Similarly, Kamala worries about how her own action might affect Wasantha’s life and career. Yet, as it was neither the time nor the space for a union such as theirs, the two go on their separate ways. Later, the reader learns that Wasantha has been reported “missing in action”. The novel ends leaving a feeling of deep regret over the irrational wastefulness of war.

     The Road provides a more intimate stage than Island for the two representatives from the warring parties to present their accusations, answers, and counter accusations. It also captures some of the “irrationalities” of the conflict. Wasantha is critical of all parties involved in the war, including himself. Yet, despite his attempts at being “rational”, when roused to anger Wasantha erupts into violent outbursts. Conversely, Kamala’s views often come out as dogmatic and clichéd. Unlike Wasantha, Kamala never makes any criticism of the LTTE except to say that it never forgives betrayal. One reason for this could be the fact that the reader does not have access to her thoughts unlike in the case of the narrator. Hence, it is impossible to gauge the impact the conversations between the two have on her.