Ex JVP MP Anura Dissanayake appeared on a TV talk show and said that 'the unfortunate aspect of last week's campus incident is that violence that was seen in all other areas of society has now seeped into institutions of higher learning.''

Sweet. Exactly where has this innocent flower-child been moonlighting all these years? Daya Pathirana was killed, but if that issue is too complicated, how about, for instance, the ragging death of Selvam Varapragash in Peradeniya? Or the ragging death at Hardy Technical Institute in Ampara in which Kelum Thushara Wijetunge was made to drink copious quantities of arrack until he slipped into a coma and died?

Anyway, it has to be a particularly sleepy kind of moron who has to say now, in year 2002 'that violence is gradually seeping into campuses from elsewhere in society.'' (!!) Perhaps all those ragging deaths that have taken place previously were not 'gory' enough for Anura Dissanayake's sophisticated idea of what qualifies to be campus violence? But to say that ' violence is seeping into Sri Lanka's campuses now'' one needs to have a particularly dense head, or a particularly thick hide - because the culture of student violence has been identified with campuses so intimately, that everyone knows that problems are basically approached in Sri Lankan campuses by a first resort to violence.

To be so glib as to make the statement 'violence is seeping into campuses now' shows that the JVP is not outraged enough by the death of student Samantha in Sri Jayewardenepura to tell the truth. For the JVP - and all other politicians who appeared in various talk shows after the event, the J'pura death was another political issue to be subject to the regular treatment of spin-doctoring and political shadow boxing. A certain emasculation (frigidity?) can be seen in people who seem to be so politically anaemic, that they really can't get outraged by an incident of the nature of the brutal killing of Samantha. One PA MP wanted to be in touch with his feelings - but all he could muster was 'kanagatuwa prakasha karanna tharang siddiyak.'' (It is an incident that 'almost calls for us to begin by expressing our sorrow to the parents.' In effect, what he was saying was 'If you really want to know, I really don't give a damn.'' )

Leave alone being outraged, MPs of all political hues were barely able to hide their glee at getting their hands on another issue that could be used to bludgeon their opponents with. This was definitely the intellectual equivalent of campus brutality.

If these political poofs are so desensitised that they cannot show emotions such as outrage, they also show that they are so absolutely moronic that they cannot grapple with the issues in any logical sense. Who do these idiots think they are, do they feel that victims of campus violence, and their mothers or fathers will be supremely gratified that there are MP's out there, who are trying to be serious on these issues on their behalf? ("My son's death was not a colossal waste after all - these Members of Parliament have in fact taken time off their busy schedules to discuss the problem. Sigh'')

For instance, not a single one of the talking heads who appeared on television could identify the single most glaring truth about this incident - which was that it was a death that was caused in the name of protecting the tradition of 'ragging.'' This was not death due to doctrinaire differences that had to do with the continued oppression of the masses - or even with nuts and bolts stuff such as, say, inadequate campus housing, or for instance a strike concerning the lack of nutrients in the campus buth curry. It had to do with the fact that the killers thought it is an outrage to oppose the tradition of now notorious (often violent) campus ragging.

Talk show hosts who paraded the leaders of student unions closely associated with perpetrating last week's killing, did not simply have the guts or the brains to ask their guests about this aspect of the killing. But, those who cannot show outrage - show a transparent glee at being able to get bogged down in the political minutiae of these issues. The only question they did not raise regarding the politics of the incident was - 'how is all this going to alter the numbers game in parliament, and effect the longevity of the present government?'' But they got pretty close to that.

The political elite and civil society elite are more embarrassed about anyone verbally showing any sense of outrage at anything objectionable or obnoxious - than they are about seeing elements in society who will actually kill in favour of ragging for instance. In general, Colombo's sanitised civil society is less embarrassed by violence, that they are embarrassed by genuine expressions of outrage at injustice or violence. I had to scream at a recent session of the ICES to get the attention of the multitude - but most of these civil society ladies and gentlemen are so caught up in their non-governmental sweet dreams, that they think a little bit of hard-talk at a seminar is actually louder than the report of a landmine…

End-piece: Sports and entertainment quote of the week: Brian Thomas says in his cricket-show, that Sri Lanka, 'now no longer spectators in test cricket'… 'but a truly good team' lost to South Africa in the first cricket test, 'due to unavoidable circumstances.''

What exactly was unavoidable Brian? The fact that Russel Arnold got two ducks because he just couldn't play the rising delivery - or that Dilhara Fernando was no-balled some 40 times?

What would Brian Thomas say if Sri Lanka doesn't get into the final round of next year's World Cup? 'Jayasuriya and his boys couldn't make it to the super-sixes due to tragic circumstances?' What would he says if MTV decides to take his show off the air? 'Brian Thomas says goodbye due to really tragic circumstances - he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.'

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster