 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Professor Wimal Dissanayake, a Peradeniya alumnus, and student of Ediriweera Sarachchandra, who has gained international renown as a specialist in Asian cinema was in Sri Lanka recently for the launching of a book dealing with the Sinhala novel and the public sphere. Two weeks ago, he published another book in London on popular culture in a globalised India. In this interview, Prof. Dissanayke, speaks to C.A.Chandraprema about several controversial topics with regard to the local literary scene such as the lack of intellectual depth in Sinhala literature both past and present, and the inability of a non-English educated intellectual class to produce good Sinhala literature.
Q. It’s not often that I get the opportunity to talk to a literary critic of your stature. So let me ask you, why is it that Sri Lanka has not produced a Shakespeare? On the whole, one gets the impression that Sri Lankan literature is far below the intellectual standards achieved by the literatures of other countries. We have not gone beyond recording social changes as in Gamperaliya. That is the ultimate that we have achieved. There is no comparison between this and the philosophical depth attained in a play like Macbeth. Are we therefore, a lesser culture?
A. Today, there is a kind of decline in literary culture. This is partly because our universities have failed to lead the nation in literary tastes and literary judgment. However I feel that we have produced some important writers. For me, the four most important are Munidasa Kumaratunga, Martin Wickremesinghe, Ediriweera Sarachchandra and Gunadasa Amarasekera. They have produced important works. But in general, there has been a decline and we have failed to maintain standards. In literary analysis, when you review books, there is a tendency in the Sinhala press to praise all works as outstanding. I don’t think that helps to promote good literary works. My own feeling is that we need to maintain standards. I agree there is a general decline in the literary culture.
Q. When you talk of a decline, that would leave someone with the impression that the literatures of earlier eras was better than this. But let’s look at these works of literature traditionally venerated by the Sinhalese, the Kausilumina, and the Amawathura – what intellectual or philosophical depth do these works have? Kausilumina is a versification of the Kusa Jathaka, and Amawathura is an essay in praise of the Buddha. On what grounds can we call this high literature?
A. The ancient classical writers had to follow conventions and within those limits I think Kausilumina and Amawathura have their merits. I see the point you are making, but within those limits these works invite closer analysis. All works produced do not have equal value. For instance, if you take Amawathura and Buthsarana, they are certainly better works than say, the Pujavaliya or Saddharmalankaraya. We have to judge what is good and bad in the context of the literary tradition of the time.
Q. Well, there may have been certain literary conventions which limited creativity in earlier times, but why is it that we are still stuck in that same old rut long after those conventions have been done away with and the field opened up?
A. In general we have not been very been very creative in shaping new literary forms and coming out with new genres and so on. At the same time, I take a more positive attitude towards the creative works of Wickremasisnghe, Amarasekera and Sarachchandra than most other people. I do feel that they present serious readers with interesting insights. So while there is a dearth or creativity, I feel that the writers that I mentioned perhaps merit closer analysis.
Q. If you take the four writers, you mentioned, what do you see in Martin Wickremesinghe, beyond the recording of social change?
A. Martin Wickremesinghe in the three novels that you referred to; Gamperaliya, Yuganthaya and Kaliyugaya, is trying to portray an important social transformation that took place in Sri Lanka – the collapse of feudal society and the rise of the middle class. He portrays that in terms of important characters like Nanda. Now Nanda’s characher is quite complex. And also, when he was writing in 1945, we did not have a kind of fictional language when making the transition from classical language to the modern art of the novel. So he created a fictional language which was improved upon in works like Viragaya. So beyond recording social transformation, he also creates a kind of fictional language – not just reportage - but which has certain poetic qualities as well.
Q. How would you regard the works of Amarasekera - where does politics stop and literature begin?
A. There is a certain controversy about Amarasekera’s works. Some feel that his novels are social history – recording what happened in Sri Lanka in past decades. But I take a different stand. It’s social history, but also, he’s not writing that as a social scientist. His analysis is that of a writer of fiction. So it seems to me that through the character of Piyadasa, he is portraying a very important social transformation and also the language that he uses – it’s quite poetic and it raises the important question –
what is the role of the writer? The role of the writer is to provoke readers into a new awareness of society and the changes that take place, so that it is a way of provoking them into new thinking. And it seems to me that Amarasekera has succeeded in doing that. Its not just social history, he goes beyond that. He has also written books of social criticism during the same period. But there is a clear difference between Gamanaka Mula or Wankagiriya and those books of social criticism. I may be in a minority on this, but I value his works very highly.
Q. I was under the impression that you were a member of the Peradeniya school…
A. Yes
Q. But you agree with Amarasekera as well?
A. Amarasekera was harshly critical of certain aspects of the Peradeniya school. However I feel that what he is trying to do is to reclaim the concept of realism which has been misunderstood. Realism is seen as merely portraying society. But what Amarasekera is saying is that there is a deeper layer of meaning to realism. It’s not just portraying society realistically. It’s also confronting history and trying to come to terms with various historical forces that shape us. So it seems to me that he’s trying to do something important.
Q. Where does that place you with regard to Sarachchandra and his school of thought? Should literature be simply literature, or should it be some kind of social message?
A. If it’s just a social message, its not literature. But at the same time, if it is just a subjective fantasy, it is also not literature. Literature has to have emotional content, and complex characters, but also it should provoke us into a new awareness of social processes. It seems to me that Amarasekera was successful in combining both.
Q. You spoke of subjective fantasies. How would you place Sarachchandra’s Malavunge Avurududa?
A. Malavunge Avurududa is written in a very narrow compass. It’s a love story, and not a novel that deals with important social issues. It does not claim to be that, and within that narrow compass of intercultural love, it’s an interesting effort.
The decline
Q. Since you have been moving around Asia quite a lot, where would you place the literary creativity in our culture vis a vis other Asian cultures?
A. If you take a country like India, there is a lot of excitement in the fields of literature and criticism which we don’t find in Sri Lanka. The intellectual culture here has suffered largely because of the failure of the universities, not just the Peradeniya university but the newer universities as well. If you take India, two of the most important universities are the Delhi university and the Jawaharlal Nehru University. The kind of intellectual excitement that professors there produce, is absent in our country. I agree with you on that point that there is a lack of innovative thinking.
Q. What do you ascribe that to?
A. What is expected of the universities is involvement in innovative research. Instead of this, our universities are confined to the provision of lectures and conducting exams. The lack of a bi-lingual education also has hampered intellectual debate. With all its faults, Peradeniya produced bi-lingual students. Because of the lack of English education, our horizons have been limited.
Q. Would you lay the blame for this cultural decline on S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike’s doorstep?
A. Bandaranaike introduced the changes he did with the best of intentions. There was this Sinhala educated class who were deprived and who had to be given their rightful place. But at the same time, the educators failed to maintain a balance. While giving pride of place to Sinhala, the educators should have maintained English education as well. When English education declined, there was a very sharp drop in the level of intellectual discussion. So although you cannot blame him directly, one outcome of his policy was the shrinking of the bi-lingual intellectual class.
Q. Isn’t it harrowing to think that we are unable to produce a worthwhile Sinhala literatrure without exposure to English?
A. My teacher Professor Ediriweera Sarachchcandra had this wonderful saying that "One who knows only Sinhala does not know even Sinhala". It is only when you know two languages that you know the identity of the other. So the lack of English education has hampered our intellectual development and our creativity.
