Bindunuwewa Media Narratives – PART II [For Part I see ….]

-- Tilak Jayaratne

Every society constructs mythical narratives to fulfill social tasks. A myth is a type of language. The narrative is a manifestation of language. Ancient societies very often carried out this construction of narratives and communication through an oral tradition. Today's situation is different. Modern means of communication have developed, and today the process of communicating these myths is more rapid than in the past. Newspapers, radio, television, cinema, sports events, political campaigns, meetings, paintings, computers, schools, temples, churches, all these institutions assist in the propagation of these modern-day myths. Therefore the myths being constructed should be analysed with great care. The myths constructed in ancient times helped people to live without unnecessary remorse about the debacles and problems forced on them by their environment. Yet it is crucial to discover whether the narratives of modern myths have created even greater problems.

However, it is relevant to inquire into the narratives built up by the myths of early Sinhala society. Sinhala society has a traditional archive built up by the dramas, exorcisms, folk literature and written literature, performed in village theatres to invoke blessings. The rules of the narratives in the popular preaching of bana (religious sermons of Buddhist monks) and the chanting of pirith (lyric form sung by Buddhists monks), which have not yet been thoroughly examined, are important in the study of Sinhala narratives. The large number of Jataka stories (based on the previous lives of the Buddha), in continuous use among Sinhala people, are significant here. The entirety of the Jataka stories, amounting to 550 tales, have been written down from oral transmission.

As Barthes has pointed out, a myth is a language. At different times, different objects are used as the language of the myth. There are many instances where a woman is used as the subject of the story. The narratives so built up do not follow a linear pattern. The Sambula Jatakaya may be taken here as an example (Amaramoli 1962: 250-58)

1. King Bambadat of Varanasi appoints his grown son to succeed him, and makes the princess, Sambula, his consort.

2. She is most beautiful, with skin so lovely it glows like a lantern in a dim unlit place.

3. They live happily together for some time. The heir-apparent then breaks out in a terrible rash.

4. Informing the King it is better to die alone, he leaves his harem behind, yet as he tries his best to take leave of his wife Sambula , he finds he cannot not do so, and takes her with him.

5. He builds a temple in a beautiful forest, and resides there.

6. Saying, "My Lord! Do not fear, I shall attend to all your needs," Sambula worships him and goes into the forest with a basket and tools to pull out roots and pluck fruit. She brings a basket of fruit to the temple daily, then fills a pot with water and bathes the king with many herbal balms and ointments. She feeds him sweet fruit, gives him scented nectar to drink, and covers his wooden bed with the branches of trees to make it comfortable. When he is asleep, she attends to all their other needs, washes herself, eats her own meal of fruit, and then sleeps next to him.

7. One day on her way back from the forest, she sees a rocky pond, and placing the fruit basket on the ground, goes into the fresh water and bathes. Applying turmeric to her body, she sits on a rock. The forest delights in the beauty of her body as if the forest were bathed with the rays of gold.

8. A rakshaya flying by, seeing a princess more alluring than all the golden women of the heavens, falls in love with her. The rakshaya says to her, "The whole forest glistens as if gilded in gold because of you, I bow before thee! - Who art thou?'

9. The Princess says, "I am Sambula, wife of Soththisena, the son of the King of Varanasi, in the City of Kasi."

10. "Why serve a prince so severely diseased, so helpless and alone? I will make you the favorite of my harem, with hundreds of the finest performers, dancers and musicians, you shall be their Queen, and delight in whatever you wish. I shall be your husband."

11. "Rakshaya! My husband is sick, I sorrow for him day and night. What is this beauty you see in me, my clothes so rough and rude? This forest abounds in nymphs, goddesses and Naga damsels. Select one of them. What use could you derive from me? Do not pursue me."

12. "What anyone most enjoys in this world belongs to me. Come with me, let us make the most supreme love. If you do not willingly come with me, I shall take you by force to live with me. If you still refuse to live with me, I shall kill and eat you."

13. "This rakshaya will take me, pluck off my hands and legs like stripping sugarcane, but this will not sadden me. What grieves me is if the king afflicted for so long thinks that I, Sambula, being so young and pretty, so much so that no one's eyes could  turn away from me, is late returning - because I was making love with another"

14. Sakra, the king of the gods then appears and warns the rakshaya. The rakshaya listens in fear to what Sakra says, and lets the princess go. Sakra, thinking this rakshaya may still harm her, then whisks the rakshaya off to another mountain, and returns to heaven.

15. As the sun sets, the princess walks back to the temple in the moonlight. The king hearing movement, thinks Sambula's lover is returning with her to kill him. The king hides and watches.

16. The Buddha then said to those assembled thus: Sambula returned to the temple that day in the moonlight. She could not find her husband, and with great sorrow, walked here and there, crying.

17. Soththisena, seeing his wife in great sorrow, her heart at the point of breaking, shivering and begging for help from the gods, appears at the door of the temple.

18. The heir-apparent Soththisena says, "Women are fickle, and cannot be understood. Just as one cannot determine the course of fish swimming in the water, and of birds flying in the air, the nature of women too cannot be fathomed." Sambula then performs sathiyakriya, resolute in her own fidelity.

19. Due to the power of her fidelity, the husband's rash is cured, and he returns to the city, and is crowned King, Sambula is made Queen.

20. The King, however, ignores his Queen and spends his hours frolicking with his harem. Sambula , overcome with shame and jealousy, grows weaker day by day.

Modern narratology covers many fields of narratives. Anthropologist Levi-Strauss, folklorist Vladmir Prop, cultural theorists Roland Barthes and Stuart Hall are foremost among researchers on the nature and role of narrative in determining social status in both ancient society and modern industrial society. There is an art of storytelling inherent in any society. The art of such stories provides both entertainment and spiritual satisfaction.

There is one clear reason. We learn about the world in the form of stories. From our infancy, the nature of the world has been garnered from the stories told us by parents, teachers, friends, and those not that familiar. This does not mean that these stories determine the nature of the world. These stories give us a sentient system to enable us to construct our world. A narrative may be defined as a system that creates within us an understanding of the world of our society. As a result of this, we get an opportunity to share this knowledge with others. Thus, in the development of human communication, the construction of narratives or the art of storytelling holds an important place.

It is not only narratives that are evident within all cultures, but structural resonances also appear. A visible narrative or structure in one culture may be evident in another culture. What this really means is that the structure and the role of the narrative implicit in the folklore are a universal. The analysis made by Vladimir Prop of Russian folktales shows there is a similarity among structurally dynamic features. Characters, relationships between incidents, background, etc., may differ from each other - yet in all these, similar structural characteristics may be identified. They are:

 

1. Villain

2. Benefactor

3. Assistant

4. Princess and her father

5. Tormentor

6. Misfortune due to absence of hero

7. Mythical hero

All characters and actions within folklore may be found in this list. Subsequently, the story is developed by getting a cast of characters to interact within limited narratives. Prop, in his analysis, arrives at the following conclusion:

1. In a character interactive story, continuous permanent action is served up. Who and what are not applicable.

2. The number of interactions in a fairytale is limited.

3. The order of the interactions is mostly similar.

4. All fairytales are structurally similar.

It appears that the narrative of the Sambula Jathakaya may be analysed using this structure:

1. Villain             -       Rakshaya, Soththisena

2. Benefactor          -       King Bambadat

3. Savior              -       King of Gods

4. Prince              -       Queen Sambula

5. Tormentor           -       Rakshaya

6. Illusory hero       -       Soththisena

 

These characters too can be identified in the binary oppositions offered by the classifications of Levi-Strauss:

Sambula                                  Soththisena, Demon

 

Noble Tenderness                    Protruding Teeth

Refrains from evil                      Evil

Leaf of a fragrant tree   Decaying carcass in cattle-shed

Windblown undulating gold necklace      A crude lout

Sexual Jealousy                        Lecher

Ideal friend                               Traitor

Performs sathiyakriya              Unfaithful

The Sambula Jatakaya seems to fit the criteria of the narrative process described by Prop and other structuralists. For example, it is seen in the above Jataka story that Soththisena plays the role of a villain as well as the role of a hero. Soththisena betrays a beloved wife who has saved him from a horrible disease by performing the arduous act of Sathiyakriya. "After becoming King upon being healed, he cavorts with beautiful women, abandoning the precious Sambula. In this narrative, one character possesses different characteristics, while different characters may play the same role.

The narrative manifest in the Sambula Jatakaya discloses certain differences in relation to the European folktales/fairytales or western cowboy narratives. Its content is more complex. Symbolic victories that destroy enemy forces that cannot be induced in the real world are not included here. The solution of destroying the other in the binary opposition is not provided for here. The demon is frightened by the display of a weapon (vajirayuda), and is restrained by a chain, yet is not killed. Soththisena is also excused for his wrongdoings. In this narrative, Soththisena is not a total villain, but rather is given the opportunity to change when he understands the truth. Such opportunities are not provided for in the western narrative. The villain in the cowboy film is a permanent villain. No opportunity is provided to this villain to change or to alter his behaviour. Their characters are moulded on one model. They cannot understand the truth and change. They are ineluctably headed for destruction. But in the narrative of the Sambula Jataka what gains our attention is that terror is not made use of to resolve the conflict. Opportunities are provided to change their roles in life, or more so, to improve their ways.

Instead of the narrative which through out our history never proposed destruction as a way to resolve problems, the contemporary mass media is positing a new narrative as a 'final solution'. The proposition of much of the press of 26 October 2000 was to destroy the (constructed) villain physically. It is not an extrapolation of the continuous Sinhala narrative, but rather its clear opposite. This capacity for forbearance in the narrative of the Jatakaya sustains our humanity, and its other features, such as language, descriptiveness and the construction of an alternative solution to violence, is very relevant here.

 

The newspapers of 26 October 2000 were constructing a narrative to justify the Bindunuwewa massacre and constructing Tamil detainees as villains. Sadly, the Bindunuwewa media coverage brought to the surface the proposition that the communities are antagonistic towards each other, and that the ordinary members of those groups should fight it out among themselves.

 

Tilak Jayaratne

 

ANNEX 1

Narrative of Captain Abeyratne: From his Fundamental Rights application and the interim report of the Human Rights Commission:

"I am the OIC of the Bandarawela Bindunuwewa camp. Even though, I am an Army Officer, I do not wear a uniform. I work as a civil officer. I do not carry arms. The Bindunuwewa camp is a rehabilitation camp. It was first under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, and later attached to the National Youth Council "

"The inmates of this camp are those connected with terrorist activity. The rehabilitation is being done here. I have rehabilitated about 1,700 people up to now."

("Fundamental Rights Application of Mr. Abeyratne," Lakbima, 28 November 2000)

According to the information supplied by the police authorities and the OIC of the camp, a meeting was held as usual on 24th October at about 6.00 p.m. Some of the detainees protested that their release was being delayed unnecessarily and requested that they be released immediately. Some of the detainees surrounded the OIC. A police officer fired in the air and the detainees turned more violent. They forcibly entered a storeroom and damaged the building by attacking it with iron bars and other weapons.

They entered the police checkpoint, burnt the documents, broke the electric bulbs and damaged the furniture. They tried to set fire to a gas cylinder but were not successful. The police officers and the Assistant OIC, fearing there could be a threat to their lives, escaped.

Mr. Jayantha Seneviratne, Inspector of Police (IP) of the Bandarawela Police Headquarters, having come to know by telephone that detainees at the Centre had attempted to take the weapons of the police officers on duty by force, had gone there by about 8 pm, with 10 police officers carrying T-56 weapons. The detainees allowed only the Inspector of Police to enter, but without weapons. After the discussion, the officer in charge of the police had proposed a withdrawal of the police checkpoint. Captain Abeyratne had agreed to it.

By this time, a group of soldiers from the Diyatalawa camp had arrived at the camp. Also, about 200-300 persons supposed to be villagers had gathered around the place and were shouting. Responding to the query of the headquarters police inspector who saw this crowd, Capt. Abeyratne said he would look into the internal matters at the camp, and that the police should try to prevent entry into the camp from the outside.

Subsequently, the Police and the Army informed the villagers to leave, and the police inspector left the place by about 10.30 p.m. The police team present was under the control of police inspectors Karunasena and Jayaratne and the army group was under the control of Captain Balasuriya. It appears that normalcy was restored by 11.30 p.m. The commanding officer said that the army personnel had left by 1.15 am, after informing the Inspector of Police Karunasena.

(Human Rights Commission Report, in Lankadipa, 5 December 2000)

"On the following day, i.e. the 25th morning, two instructors of the camp informed me that there were some posters on the walls of the camp. Also, on the walls of the town of Bandarawela. There were about 700 villagers gathered around the camp. They were shouting that I was supporting the LTTE terrorists.

I informed the police of this situation. By about 8.15 am, the crowd gathering around the camp increased. They were shouting, and they attacked the camp with stones, etc. There were weapons such as rods, swords, axes with them. I saw this crowd trying to enter the camp.

I alone with Lt. Abeyratne went towards them and told them not to come. It did not take 15 minutes. This crowd killed 24 inmates of the camp. The dead bodies were thrown into the dormitories and set on fire. They threatened to kill me also."

("Fundamental Rights Application of Captain Abeyratne," in Lakbima, 28 November 2000)

 

 

APPENDIX II

The Report of the Human Rights Commission,

As published in Lankadipa, 5 December 2000

"The halls of the detainees were completely destroyed. As we were going in, there was a dead body among the debris. By looking at the condition of the buildings, it appears there was intent to destroy them beyond repair.

The same evening we spoke with 9 out of the 10 detainees who were in the Diyatalawa Army Hospital. One injured person was 11 years old. Another was 12, and there were three under 18 years.

According to what the detainees say, they had questioned the OIC of the camp on 24th October about: their mail not being handed over to them, no permission being given for telephone calls, and their detention for a period of more than one year, etc. The OIC of the camp had replied that he had nothing to say with respect to these matters, and would have to ask the higher authorities. The detainees were not satisfied by this, and were agitated. Due to the tense situation, the police had fired into the air. The tension worsened. A crowd put out the electric lamps and attacked the police checkpoint. After a little while, the Headquarters police inspector was allowed to enter the camp without weapons. The villagers who gathered near the camp had thrown stones.

The situation turned calm overnight and the detainees went to sleep.

On the following morning they saw a large crowd had gathered around the camp. The crowd had thrown stones at the camp, and some of them had swords and knives with them. They said there were women among the crowd.

According to what the injured persons stated, they were attacked while they were in the hall. The dormitory was set on fire and one or two detainees were thrown into the fire. They stated that the police did not do anything to stop them. One of the injured persons said that a detainee who ran away for shelter was shot by the police. Two fingers of an injured person had to be amputated due to a gunshot. According to what some injured persons said, the detainees had tried to hide inside a police truck for protection but army personnel attacked them. The police were not able to do anything to control the crowd.

From all the information received, it appears that the 60 police officers present at the incident , by failing to come forward to prevent the violence, are guilty of dereliction of duty. There were no firearms among the crowds gathered. The police personnel who were fully armed, not only failed to control the crowd but also failed to take into custody those who were directing the crowd."

(Human Rights Commission Report, in Lankadipa, 5 December 2000)