{"id":166069,"date":"2016-08-03T14:45:03","date_gmt":"2016-08-03T09:15:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=166069"},"modified":"2016-08-09T02:30:46","modified_gmt":"2016-08-08T21:00:46","slug":"embittered-tamilness-on-display-the-case-of-robert-perinpanayagam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/embittered-tamilness-on-display-the-case-of-robert-perinpanayagam\/","title":{"rendered":"Embittered Tamilness On Display. The Case Of Robert Perinpanayagam"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Michael Roberts<\/span><\/a> –\u00a0[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Dr.<\/a>

Dr. Michael Roberts<\/p><\/div>\n

Robert Sidharthan Perinbanayagam<\/span><\/a>[2]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> was a senior at Ramanathan Hall when I walked through its portals at Peradeniya Campus in 1957. He pursued an Honours Degree in Sociology and went on to secure his Ph. D. in Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Minnesota. He taught at Hunter College in New York and has a clutch of books<\/a> with respected publishers on symbolic interaction and the sociology of knowledge, with The Karmic Theater: Self, Society and Astrology in Jaffna, Sri Lanka <\/em>(1982) serving as the principal work relating to his home ground.<\/p>\n

Robert\u2019s father was Handy Perinpanayagam, an erudite and respected teacher in Jaffna, who was a moving spirit behind the Jaffna Youth Congress<\/a> in the 1930s (see Russell 1982 and Rajan Philips 2012). Perinpanayagam Senior was a Leftist whose activism placed him outside the reaches associated with GG Ponnambalam and the Tamil Congress and also at some distance from the Federal Freedom Party led by SJV Chelvanayakam.<\/p>\n

\"Perinbanayagam\"<\/a>

Prof. Robert Sidharthan Perinbanayagam<\/p><\/div>\n

Given this lineage one can safely say that Robert Perinbanayagam is not a Tamil chauvinist and that his affinities with Pirap\u0101haran and the Tamil Tigers are nil or minimal. I recall, here, that on one occasion he expressed agreement with my sharp criticism[3]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> of another colleague, A. Jeyaratnam Wilson for blatant dissimulation in his review of the concept of \u201ctraditional homelands\u201d within the seminal work on Tamil nationalism for Hurst & Company (2000).<\/p>\n

Thus Robert and I share interests in the academic realm. When I visited New York way back in the 1990s, we met on at least two occasions to chew over common interests. In my mind he was \u201cSid\u201d because that was the manner in which all his pals at Ramanathan Hall called him.<\/p>\n

So, he is a professional colleague and a friend. In this capacity we have sometimes communicated with each other in recent times by email. Sid aka Robert is usually direct. When I circulated an extended memo by one Ken Dharmapala, who had responded to my essay \u201cSecular Fundamentalism in Overkill<\/a>\u201d in Colombo Telegraph<\/em> in February 2016, Robert sent a sharp criticism in an extended memo. This was for private circulation and sent, he stressed later, in \u201csadness not rancour.\u201d However, the \u201cMichael\u201d disappeared from his opening address.<\/p>\n

I have been thinking of addressing that particular response, placed under a pseudonym, in the public realm because it (a) raised important issues about specific tendencies within the forms of righteousness<\/a> driving the humanist civil rights agenda in the West (selectively applied as it is) that I consider problematic and because it (b) intertwined with that thoughtful comment from Ken Dharmapala (whom I know not and whose location is also unknown to me). Other tasks intervened and delayed my planned exercise.<\/p>\n

However, now, Robert S. Perinbanayagam\u2019s sharp pen has ridden again \u2013 this time in public after I circulated the essay<\/a> entitled \u201cWhere Ratwatte and CBK stood strong: Coping with the Elephant Pass Debacle in April-May 2000.\u201d The item was chain-mailed to those from pu\u2026.07@yahoo.com.au<\/a> to S\u2026..gama at ed@….lk<\/a>. Robert Perinbanayagam\u2019s reaction (to the chain group) on 25th<\/sup> July runs thus:<\/p>\n

It has been said that retired generals are always fighting the last war. It has also been said that history does not repeat itself, only historians do![4]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> In the case of the renowned historian Michael Roberts both these predicaments seem to be operation: he seems to be not only fighting the last war but is also repeating himself!! More power to him: there is no doubt\u00a0a special joy in keeping the embers of the war glowing. RSP.<\/p>\n

Yes, sharp writing. Punching. Clever denigration. With rancour. Clearly an instance of twisting the knife in the body after it has been thrust in. Perhaps deemed deadly knock-out blows?<\/p>\n

But that verdict has to be tested has it not? That is what I am doing here. Presenting a response for the public to ponder over, join in and take sides.<\/p>\n

My initial reaction was to think \u201chow carping has Robert become\u201d! That evaluation remains. Let me, now, undermine the carping cleverness and deflect the knock-out thrusts.<\/p>\n

To assert that \u201chistory does not repeat itself, only historians do\u201d is an aphorism of sorts.[5]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> To imply that generals do not profit from revisiting their last war is another clever stratagem within this riposte. It seems a matter of common-sense for military academies to study ancient and past battles in considerable detail. It is not that history repeats itself exactly, but that one has to train the mind to numerous possibilities and stratagems. It is the ability to think flexibly on one\u2019s feet in new and different circumstances that can be inculcated in this manner.[6]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> Retd Major-General Lalin Fernando, however, tells me that British common sense did not adhere to this dictum. Though Stalingrad and Dien Bien Phu may have been mentioned in chats, those events were not deciphered. However, he delved into these struggles in his private time.[7]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Robert Perinbanayagam also seems to believe that the detailed history of the Elephant Pass episode in 2000 is irrelevant. The details, I stress, were new to me. These details<\/p>\n

and the sum total of that episode in history also point to something else \u2013 thereby providing one raison d\u2019etre<\/em> for my attention to that episode. The episode displayed the importance of strength of character in dire politico-military circumstances. In this instance it was the strength of character revealed by General Ratwatte and Madame Chandrika that served as one of the central factors[8]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> in saving the day for the Sri Lankan Army and thus for the Government of Sri Lanka \u2013 just as Mahinda Rajapaksa showed strength of character in overturning the crass imperial bombast<\/a> of the British Foreign Minister David Miliband in late April 2009.<\/p>\n

Their strength of character was allied with political acumen. The loss of the government\u2019s footholds in the Jaffna Peninsula in mid-2000 would have been a catastrophic political disaster. That reading fortified their fortitude.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, there were other elements in the story of debacle overturned: for instance, the rapid support coming from Pakistan and the logistical work of numerous personnel in ensuring that the MBRLs were delivered quickly to the Jaffna Peninsula. Here, too, history kicked in: as I indicated, the support given to Pakistan by Mrs. Sirmavo Bandaranaike\u2019s government in 1971 \u2013 when Pakistan needed refueling rights for their military airplanes to and from what was then East Pakistan[9]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> \u2013 was probably one factor that encouraged Pakistan to render whole-hearted support towards the CBK government\u2019s request for military aid. History can count.<\/p>\n

Again, I cannot see how anyone today can tackle the issues of reconciliation without a historical excursus that deciphers the principal causes of the Sinhala-Tamil conflict. Few Tamils re-visiting such an issue would avoid mentioning the mini-pogroms of 1958 and 1977 and the major anti-Tamil pogrom of July 1983. Whether the latter in July 1983 was a case of history repeating itself (1958, 1977) is a moot point \u2013 perhaps leading to the answer \u201cYes, up to a point,\u201d but \u201cNo; much worse and much more consequential in deepening the divide beyond redemption.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Robert Perinbanayagam<\/strong><\/p>\n

The carping note from pal Robert immediately raises the question: why such a tone?<\/strong> The answer must necessarily entail surmise, mind-reading in conjectural thrust.<\/p>\n

It could be the presentist leanings of the sociologist in Perinbanayagam aiming his guns at the historical delving of the historian in Roberts. Maybe so. One possible answer, but one which I do not weight much. Rather I would place his reaction more fruitfully within the broader realm of the sentiments of Tamil migrants in the West as the LTTE slid to defeat in 2009 and, thereafter, within the ongoing aftermath of this momentous event.<\/p>\n

We know only too well that pro-Tiger Tamils assembled en masse in histrionic mode in the early months of 2009 to agitate against the Sri Lankan government\u2019s successful military campaign. Lies and exaggerations circulated by the efficient LTTE agit-prop activities were an integral part of this campaign<\/a>. The term \u201cgenocide\u201d which had cropped up in Jaffna Peninsula circles as early as 1995 was a central theme in this campaign.[10]<\/a> It has been pursued to this day by Tamil activists of various shades and even by Western liberals mired in their net<\/a>.[11]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Set thus in context, Eardley Lieversz\u2019s summary exposition of the thinking of Sri Lankan Tamil migrants on the basis of his experiences in Sydney and elsewhere is pertinent:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026\u00a0they all attached themselves to the Tamil cause<\/a>, because when your side goes to bat and creates havoc, it makes you feel strong. I\u00a0heard\u00a0stories of Tamil expatriates celebrating the anticipated\u00a0fall of Jaffna in\u00a02000. They didn\u2019t seem to care for the suffering of Tamils caught in the conflict\u2026. Prabakaran didn\u2019t know when to stop. And Tamils supported him out of a\u00a0false sense of invincibility\u2026. If you go for broke and lose you cannot expect sympathy. Tamils are bitter because of the hubris generated by LTTE victories on the ground. That hubris made them blind to Sinhalese sentiments and the Sinhalese anger\/fear at the possibility of a divided country\u201d (email note, 1 August 2016).[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

I would not extend this reading blindly to Robert Perinbanayagam. But it provides partial possibilities. Thus, I believe \u2013 in explicit conjecture — that there may be two factors generating Roberts\u2019s ire.<\/p>\n

ONE:<\/strong> It is probable that he has linked this particular essay from my pen to other articles and placed me in the box of Sri Lankans in triumphant mode celebrating the defeat of the LTTE.[13]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> This is rather a stretch for an article about the year 2000. However, I have certainly indicated elsewhere that, in 2008\/09, faced with Pirap\u0101haran\u2019s single-minded goal of Eelam or death, Sri Lanka was faced with a Hobsons\u2019 Choice and had no option but to defeat the LTTE militarily.[14]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

TWO<\/strong>: I conjecture that, deep down, Perinpanayagam is driven by a Tamilness that cannot abide by the defeat of a force (however questionable in his assessment) representing his people \u2013 sentiments powered also by a profound bitterness about the conditions of his people back home in Sri Lanka (people he has not visited for decades perhaps?). Whatever distaste he had (has?) for the LTTE would seem to pale before the dislike of the Sinhala-dominated state \u2026 and thus the quiet satisfaction when the LTTE seemed invincible. When that bubble burst, then, it seems, the defeat underlined his Tamilness because tales of celebration in Sinhala-land added salt into the wounds of defeat. It was not just a \u2018match\u2019 lost by the Tigers, but a \u2018match\u2019 lost by the Tamils.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If valid, this set of conjectures is of some consequence. There are many Sri Lankan Tamils in the diaspora who were not, and are not, Tiger supporters, but who are nevertheless totally disenchanted with the various Sri Lankan governments and with the situation of their people today in Lanka<\/strong>. This is a factor \u2013 a powerful animating force in fact \u2013 that we must heed and must attend to. Now, today.<\/p>\n

Robert Perinbanayagam is not a Tiger activist like Victor Rajakulendran<\/a> (Roberts 2012). For precisely that reason his depth of anger and sadness in combination is of great significance. When Tamils of his philosophy are so embittered, that means that reconciliation is a task that is that much more difficult and daunting. Ulimately, however, reconciliation has to reach to ground level among the peoples in Sri Lankan \u2013not those abroad.<\/p>\n

So this conjectural exploration here is linking history \u2013 the history of sentiments \u2013 to the tasks of reconciliation and political adjustments we face today.[15]<\/strong><\/strong><\/a> History is not necessarily farce, though it can certainly be tragic \u2026. .as the people residing in Sri Lanka know only too well.<\/p>\n

Finally, let me note that Perinbanayagam is an octogenarian. As I am nearly one myself I can understand his impatient, irascible response to my article \u2013 given his political standpoint and his Tamilness. Aging embitters perspective. I perceive it in myself. Coupled with the bellicose spirit of Australian lifeways, aging leads me too into sharp writing. Bugger friendship. The empirical facts and analytical concerns of topic studied must trump that sort of benign relationship.<\/p>\n

So, now, new battle lines are hereby drawn.<\/p>\n

Robert S. Perinbanayagam BOOKS<\/strong><\/p>\n