Ranjith Dharmakirti’s Ginisiluwaka Sanda
Eliya is narrated by a third person omniscient narrator who moves between
Sinhalese and Tamil milieus. The protagonists are Nandani, the eldest daughter
of an impoverished rural upper-caste Sinhalese Buddhist family, and Anandan,
the elder son of a middleclass upper-caste Hindu family. Anandan sees the caste
as a factor that unifies Nandani and him despite the difference in their
ethnicity. Yet, initially Nandani refuses to work with Anandan for “[f]rom her
childhood she had the idea that Tamils were rough people” (26). When he offers
to visit her at her home she tells him not to, for she is afraid that “the
villagers might consider her as traitor if she invited a Tamil to her home”
(32). The socialist director of the hospital where Nandani worked is critical
of her “ethnophobia” . The narrator says that the kind of socialization the
Sinhalese undergo, lack of respect for Tamils - “treating all Tamils, even the
upper class educated Tamils who live in Jaffna as beneath the Sinhalese”, “lack
of recognition for Tamil as an ancient language with a Great Canon, lack of
facilities to study the language and literature, and the non-availability of
Sinhala translations of Tamil literary work” are the reasons for the ethnic
divide (53).
In Ginisiluwaka Sandaeliyak,
written by Ranjith Dharmakeerthi, a dramatist and a writer, the West is the
place of great philosophers, rule of law, cleanliness, order, rationality, etc.
while the East is a place of irrational racial conflicts. The Sinhalese are
depicted as engaged in practicing repressive socio-political policies that
trigger “a civil war”. Hence, the Sinhalese heroin and some of the important
Sinhalese characters are repeatedly engaged in extensive cultural
self-criticism (155-56). They apologize repeatedly to Dr. Ananadan on behalf of
their race. Similarly, according to the Tamil characters in the novel “the
majority of the Sinhalese are ethno-nationalist, uneducated, rural farmers and
industrial workers” (97).
Both Nandani’s and Dr. Anandan’s points of
view are given equal space and weight. The ethnicity of the protagonists and
their two families could be interchanged without causing any great change to
the plot. However, as Hemarathne Liyanaarchchi in “Ranjith’s Rich Structure and
Characterization” (Daily News 13/3/2012) points out, the author does not focus
on the escalating terrorist activities as an important factor in his novel. The
novel ends in a positive note with the couple flying to a new country in search
of a new life.
Anandan, Shivalingam -his father, and
Indrakumar - his university educated brother, engage in extensive criticism of
both the Sinhalese and Tamils. However, the brunt of their arguments is that
the Sinhalese “ethno-nationalism” pushes Tamils towards an armed struggle for a
separate state or into fleeing the country as refugees . According to Anandan:
“If all those parties in the South had got together and supported
Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Agreement, this problem could have been solved at
that time” (93). The reason for not supporting such a resolution, according to
Indrakumar, is that “[t]he majority of the Sinhalese are racist uneducated
rural peasants and factory workers” (97). He concludes that, “[i]f Tamils
cannot live freely, then our people are pushed towards a position where we have
to obtain a fair solution through an armed struggle as the Boys say” (95) . In
reply to Indrakumar’s view on the emerging Tamil national pride due to the
activities of the “Boys”, Anandan states, “We must stop talking about both
Tamil pride and Sinhalese pride and build a common patriotism” (199).
Interestingly, none of the Sinhalese characters engage substantially in a
socio-political analysis of the current situation. Nandani’s family is
portrayed as besieged by socioeconomic problems to the point that the members
are beyond the kind of intellectual engagements frequent among Shivalingams.
There are references to Sinhalese people
acting generously towards Tamils who have become victims of the Sinhalese
“ethno-nationalism” and vice versa. The novel also refers to LTTE practices
such as kidnapping, death-threats, confiscation of property, and demanding of
‘dues’. In fact, mulling over his family’s situation, Shivalingam laments, “The
way things are going on we cannot live either in the South or in the North”
(202).
In the novel, the West is depicted as a
rational, rule governed place devoid of corruption, conflicts, and inequity.
Indrakumar says, “European intellectuals and artists stood up against Hitler and
the war with one voice … The only country with artists saying that war is good
is Sri Lanka” (152). Upon immigrating, Anandappa, a permanent resident of
Australia, tells Anandan, “You would experience a great change after living in
Sri Lanka. People respect the law, here. Law is common to everybody. People are
well-behaved. Civilized” (206). In the end, “Anandan gives up the idea of going
back to Sri Lanka due to the situation back there and the peaceful and
comfortable life he has made for himself in Australia” (220). Still, Anandan is
aware that his problem would not end with migration to another country. So he
warns his bride: “When we go to Sydney, the Sinhala organizations will approach
you. The Tamil organizations will approach me. Those two organizations may even
brand us as traitors for marrying outside the ethnicity. We have to build a
life amidst these problems” (239).
The third person narrator and some of the
characters of Ginisiluwaka Sanda Eliya practice “cultural criticism”
extensively. Yet, much of the criticism is done by the Tamil characters or the
narrator on behalf of the Tamil characters in mono-ethnic milieus. Thus, in
addition to a marked one-sidedness of the criticism, there is no space for an
exchange of ideas between ethnicities. In addition, throughout the narrative
Sinhalese characters all too readily accept a sense of racialized guilt.
Interestingly, Ginisiluwaka Sanda Eliya, written immediately after the Final
War, does not make any references to it. Also, as Hemaratne Liyanarachchi in
his web article “Ranjith’s rich structure and characterization” states, in the
novel, “the imminent threat of terrorism whose flames have already begun to
lick the social web of the country has been viewed from the far end of the
telescope”. Moreover, though the novel makes passing references to the issue of
caste discrimination that had led to youth unrest in the North and the South,
this is not explored as an essential cause of the rise of armed insurgencies.
Yet, when the writers’ own ethnicity as a Sinhalese is taken into account, this
study of how the Self is seen by the Other is clearly an example of an attempt
at a “cultural self-criticism”.
In contrast, in Ginisiluwaka Sanda Eliya,
Dharmakirti makes use of the voice of the Other to criticise the discriminatory
activities of the Sinhalese as well as the violence practiced by the LTTE. The
Road, too, despite the limitedness of its viewpoint, conducts a cultural
criticism of the Other as well as the Self. Also, with its stories of victims
and victimizers on both sides of the ethnic divide, Island is indubitably a
cultural self-criticism.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)