Are we following the British, or are the British following us? Tony Blair followed Chandrika in leaning towards the left, yet we learnt cricket from the British and beat them at their own game. (But of course everybody beats the British these days...)
This cultural love hate relationship, however, never ends. Laws long antiquated in Britain, for instance, are applicable here, despite the fact that the British said good-bye to these laws long ago. (For example, we still allow the dock statement to go un-cross - examined. The British did away with these luxuries for criminals long ago.)
The British liberalized and said good-bye to Victorian sexual mores sometime back. We still like to think we are Victorian!
So the end result is that we are a British hangover. If you want to see a little bit of Britain, come to Sri Lanka we could say.
We don't have page three topless girls. Cheers for that. But, we are in love with the concept of tabloids. We love television as much as the British do, but the way we handle the idiot-box is quite at variance with the way in which the British would like to do it.
Yet, we love to say that we should be as liberal as the British. Media pundits made a business of saying that we should be "like the BBC", for example.
Like hell we should like the BBC! There wasn't a more lying distorting channel in the world. But , to give it to British television, it is not confused. For example, the British don't make a spectacle of liquor in television by splashing squares all over the screen whenever a bottle of liquor makes an appearance.
Now, a theory has surfaced that it is the hooch sellers who really don't want liquor ads on television, because they don't want the "official liquor to be advertised. '' Interesting theory this, but as far as state policy goes, we are still quite confused — almost intoxicatingly addled...
In Sri Lanka, it is acceptable for various politicians to come along and practice philosophy on the masses. For example, now we have this very interesting political animal who comes along and says that "we should have love parks (whatever that means) for our youth." This creates a tornado of protest from the conservative , righteous and plain joyless types. Not that we are holding a brief here for "love parks,'' suffice to say that's a different issue altogether. But, the prevailing political culture here is that various politicians come along and play the dice. They come along and try their individual philosophies on the mass mind.
From here, to the point at which these whims become social reality is a very short distance.
The television thing is the best example. The less said about the recent Broadcasting Bill the better . Enough has been said by other columnists about this matter already.
It is the cultural orientation regarding media policy that is of more import. For example, it is not surprising that this government has taken a tough and stifling stand on media matters that concern the war, and state policy.
All governments, in power, want to have control over the media in matters of disseminating state decisions.
That's as natural as the sky is blue, especially in a Third World context where the flash point for crisis is of a very low degree.
The volatility of Third World politics is such that an irresponsible media renders a state virtually ungovernable.
So, when former saviours of the media now turn out to be the worst censors, that's to be expected, though the hypocrisy of course stinks nevertheless.
But, everything that happens on television does not concern war and politics. When a cricket match is shunted off the air, or when the state decides to go spotty all over liquor bottles, those decisions are not exactly political.
They are not decisions on which the life of the government depends.
There is what's really funny about the Sri Lankan media. Though we have always liked to "model'' ourselves (quite slavishly of course ) on the BBC, what we have actually meant by a responsible media is a media that is regulated, as opposed to being self-regulated.
For example, the BBC would rarely be governed by the whim of a Cabinet decision to do something as silly as knocking -on spots on liquor bottles. ( Banning liquor advertisements on television is an entirely different matter.)
Neither would the BBC be governed by somebody's whim that peace should prevail in homes on good-Friday , hence say good-bye to cricket.
The issue of course is not whether cricket is so important that we cannot forego one little game . The issue is why what seems to be a highly personal decision is allowed to prevail in a country which is after all multi ethnic and multi racial. The Muslims don't eat pork. Does that mean that all other communities are forced to eschew pork as well?
The Vesak calm is apparently torn asunder by a game of cricket, or so we are told. Does that mean that the rest of the country has to suffer the Vesak calm as well, Christians, Muslims an all the rest?
These things are tricky of course. Such policy emanates from liberal minds, not conservative and parochial minds which belonged to policymakers of a more gung-ho capitalist persuasion.
But , in an ethos in which "liberalism" equates to being "liberal" with liberal policies, this kind of jugglery with state policy is quite the done thing.
That says something for the mindset of the Sri Lankan liberal. We are not liberals of the Blair type.
We like liberalism, but when it comes to the crunch, our liberalism has to be tempered and this of course is done by our liberals without any visible embarrassment. Dew Gunsasekera, for instance, is no A. J. Ranasinghe.
He is a man of the world, who came to the helm of Rupavahini because of more reasons that just sycophancy.
D.E.W. Gunasekera was a ideologue of the left, a man who was considered ideologically astute enough to set state policy for the media.
But, the man never seemed to be comfortable in his seat. Its probably because there were other fiery media dragons breathing down his tail.
But yet, the kind of statement that carried the D. E.W Gunasekera signature was not exactly what we expected from a responsible official appointed by a media friendly government. Media friendly! What the heck, it is Sunday, and we are not British, what?
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page