Aba – an alternative perspective

"Equally damaging are the statements made by political leaders and prominent clerics, regarding the supremacy of the Sinhala Buddhists over other racial and religious segments of this country, relegating, with calculated insensitivity, all minorities to a subservient niche. Minister Champika Ranawaka has gone on record with the statement that such minority groups are dependent on "Buddhist Compassion" for their continued presence in this country."

by Anura Gunasekera

(November 19, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) No Sinhala film in recent memory has provoked as much mixed comment and emotion as Aba. It is being varyingly perceived as an attempt to subvert the true face of history, as the Mahawansa decrees it; as a not so subtle attempt to impose a Judeo-Christian image on an essentially Sinhala-Buddhist tradition; as an essentially Sinhala-Buddhist episode, perversely interpreted by a mind and a personal ideology honed by the Catholic upbringing of its Director.

At least one critic has even drawn a parallel between Prabhakaran's ideology and the narrative direction of the film and the list goes on. Nor can 1 recall any other film which was the subject of two seminars involving specialists in various disciplines. The film seems to have impacted deeply and hurtfully on a collective Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness. Objectively viewed, the responses seem, by and large, overt and in a few instances, downright hysterical.

What really is the Aba story? It is about the formative years of Pandukabhaya, the first home-grown king of Sri Lanka, although the latter title should, strictly speaking, be considered an extravagant premise as it is not clear as to what cultures, kingdoms and or principalities existed then in other parts of the island. Even in the absence of an irrefutable record, in either corroboration or rebuttal, I believe it would be safe to assume that in the 3rd century BC, Sri Lanka was not under unified rule. The Pandukabhaya story is as much myth and legend as it is history. It belongs to a shadowy period in the history of the country, which does not have either the benefit of undisputed corroborative documentation- except for the Mahawamsa - or conclusive propositions supported by extensive archeological research.

Consider, for a moment, the history which precedes it. Vijaya, the scion of a Vanga lineage having its genesis from a union , first between a lion and a woman and then a brother and a sister - (an engaging sequence of bestiality and incest) - lands in Sri Lanka with a band of followers, with miraculous coincidence, on the very day of the death of the Buddha. With one masterful stroke of his quill, the Rev. Mahanama, writing the story perhaps a thousand years after the event, links the alleged genesis of the Sinhala princely line with the last significant episode in the life of the Buddha. The main elements of the early life of Pandukabhaya are no less spectacular, being liberally laced with various supernatural connotations which should not merit serious debate.

As for the fabric and nature of society of the Aba period, little is known for certain . Here again it would be safe to assume an agrarian society, composed of many tribes with diverse religious beliefs and most likely, varying dialects as well. There is no conclusive information on the type of government or administration then prevalent although there would have certainly been a coherent social order and mores of conduct and governance as such have been observed in other areas of the world, even in cultures considered to be completely backward according to the modern understanding of social development.

Much has been made of the depiction of the village women in the film, in their long cloak - like attire and hoods. This feature, combined with Chiththaraja's periodic post-death appearances in flowing white robes and dramatic attitudes , have been attributed to a deliberate attempt by the film maker to introduce a Judeo-Christian orientation to the narrative. On a recent visit to India, driving through deeply rural Maharashtra, I noticed that most adult village women moved around in public with their faces completely covered by the free end of the sari, worn like a Muslim chador. My driver, a native of the state as well as a Hindu, was horrified by my assumption that such women would be Muslims. He hastened to explain that after marriage, all Hindu women in those areas were required, by tradition, to keep their faces completely covered when in public and that this restriction could be relaxed only in private and in the presence of members of the immediate family. In this context, an Islamic connotation would be as valid as the alleged Judeo-Christian likeness of the attire of the women of Aba. So much for the perception of the religious significance of dress.

In purely rational terms what is the significance of the women's attire? We have no clear idea of the female dress code of the period. Most stylized carvings and statuary of the later periods depict voluptuous women in diaphanous, figure-contoured robes, not infrequently bare-breasted. The reality may not have been much different, albeit a trifle less glamorous. Village communities of that period would have been very basic and the clothing of citizens consistent with the minimalistic nature of their existence. In this context, the women in the film seem to be somewhat overdressed but Anthony could hardly have cast them in a more natural state without running foul of the censors. In any event, in the cinematic depiction of events which took place before both the birth of Christ and the introduction of Buddhism to the country - (if we are to rely solely on the Mahawamsa story of the meeting between Arahat Mahinda and King Devanampiyatissa) - does the supposedly Christian imagery really matter? Why should it offend Sinhala-Buddhist perceptions?

I do not think it necessary to deliberate on the nature of the Chiththaraja apparition as, in my view, the reality or lack of it, in the depiction of after-death appearances, do not merit rational consideration. The so called Christ-likeness of Chiththaraja on the rock is, perhaps derived from the film-maker's perception of recreation after death and may not be necessarily driven by a Judeo-Christian mindset. Jackson Anthony has always been serious about his art and we must concede that in all previous roles he has spared no effort in placing before the public a credible creation. I have noticed that most people who claim to have seen "after-death recreations", commonly describe such apparitions as being dressed in white. Perhaps, Anthony was merely following the established tradition of the credulous! Cinematically too, the apparition of Chiththraja in flowing white robes is far more dramatic than, say, a figure standing on the rock, wearing a loin-cloth with an axe slung across one shoulder.

Some of the critics have likened the execution of Chiththaraja and Kalewela to the crucifixion of Christ, on account of the logs that the condemned men were compelled to carry on their shoulders, to the execution site. Again the imputation is that the similarity is contrived. Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga maintains that during the time of Sinhala kings such events were totally differently orchestrated. Certainly, there is reliable evidence on the manner in which executions were carried out in later periods, particularly during the era of the Kandyan kings, but what credible information do we have on the nature and content of such happenings at the dawn of Sri Lankan history? Apart from ritualistic beheadings there may have been other, more imaginative forms of corporal punishment.

The professor also maintains that the absence of Buddhist features, in a film that narrates an early episode in a nation fashioned by a subsequently introduced Buddhist tradition, to be a serious departure from probability. He points to a total absence of Buddhist features or symbols, especially a yellow robe. To start with, one must consider what Buddhist features or symbols one could possibly introduce to a film which deals with a period preceding the accepted point of the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka. That would have been a clear deviation from the Mahawamsa line, which is the very transgression that Anthony is being accused of. Least of all, what Buddhist feature could one link to the scene of an execution although, in current society, there is in fact much violence associated with a philosophy which preaches, as a core value, compassion and non-violence.

Perhaps the pundits who have taken such serious issue with the narrative direction of the film and the cinematic depictions, should pause to reconsider the historical veracity of the story itself. As I said earlier, the Pandukabhaya story belongs to a very shadowy and indistinct period of our history. According to the Mahawamsa, Pandukabhaya became king at the age of 37 and reigned for 70 years. With the regnal periods of the two succeeding kings, Mutasiva and Dewanampiyatissa, it comprises a regnal period of 174 years by three rulers. Is this possible? Pandukabhaya's supposed life span of 107 years is exceptional for any period and seems incredible for an era, when the average life expectation of a person is bound to have been much less than in modern times. Is it not possible that there was more than one king during the period assigned to Pandukhabhaya? In the context of such clearly visible ambiguities, how much importance should we attribute to the cinematic depiction of an episode of debatable antecedents? Is it worth such searching critique and emotion? Such energetic inquiry could be more profitably directed in an attempt to sift fact from legend, myth and fable and, thereby, establishing a more credible account of history.

Histories of all nations are composites of myth, legend, fact and not infrequently, out-and -out fabrication . These ingredients, rightly or wrongly, contribute to the distillation of a national culture and psyche. The longer the history, the more difficult it is to distinguish between the constituent elements. Most histories are written, often centuries after the major, defining events, with the writers relying either on records, now no longer available for confirmation of sources, or second-hand reportage and on oral traditions highly vulnerable to distortion with each recital. The narration of events are also naturally coloured, interpreted and fashioned by the personal affiliations and view point of the recorder. The truth is, often, as the writer perceives it and how he/she would like it to be and to this end, it is not unusual for the writer to resort to both embellishment and fabrication. The Mahawamsa is a good example of such reconstitution of history. It is an incredible and unique record but , in view of the many uncertainties and inconsistencies in dating sequences of the early Anuradhapura period in particular, serious historians have pointed out to the need to re-examine the accuracy of the succession line, even up to Dutugemunu.

All the arguments submitted by the critics of the film have based their reasoning on history, exactly as it is depicted in the Mahawamsa, which is also the bedrock of a Sinhala -Buddhist ideology, nurtured in isolation. It is a myopic view point estranged from objective assessment and reasoned inquiry. The unquestioning attachment to the Mahawamsa accounts of our early history has also locked its adherents into a mindset of Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy, which is frequently used to legitimize morally unjustifiable attacks on the position of Sri Lanka's minority groups.

The Mahawamsa is a Pali poem, first committed to writing almost a thousand years after the events it first describes. Its primary purpose seems to be more to glorify Buddhism in Sri Lanka than to render an accurate historical record for posterity. Prof. W. Geiger, who translated the Mahawamsa from Pali to German in 1912, in his introduction to the subsequent English edition engages the many departures from reality and the disparities in chronology, evident in the chronicle. Prof. V. A. Smith, who published a number of studies on Indian history and, particularly, an illuminating monograph on Emperor Asoka and the conversion of Sri Lanka to Buddhism, has raised similar issues in more trenchant vein. I am not aware that any of these issues have been subsequently resolved, through either archeological or documentary research.

Aba, its detractors claim, has challenged a historical tradition and popular belief in regard to a significant event in the origins of the Sri Lankan princely line, including the paternity of Pandukabhaya. However, popular belief and tradition together do not constitute irrefutable fact and any position, unless unquestionably irrefutable, should be open to dispute and alternate interpretation. If any reader of this letter has not already read the Mahawamsa, I would recommend a perusal of the account of the events associated with the birth of Pandukabhaya and his formative years. It reads very much like a fable and at this distance in time, it is impossible to separate the truth from embellishment and fabrication.

I would also like to ask, what is so sacred about a tradition developed from an obviously fallible information matrix? Leaving aside the Aba story, why should any belief, tradition or position, be considered inviolate and secure from re-examination simply because it has been long held? Consider the raging controversies being regularly debated regarding the paternity of Christ, the circumstances of his birth, the crucifixion and the events which followed. Doubts have been expressed as to whether such a person actually existed. Has the Christian doctrine and its diverse denominations diminished as a result? Reasoned inquiry promotes honest self-examination and paves the way for greater accuracy and the enrichment of knowledge. Science challenges its own positions constantly and emerges all the stronger for it, while widening the frontiers of knowledge and human endeavour. Aba, portrays an alternate version of an episode that took place 23 centuries ago. Why should this version be considered less credible than the traditional belief?

Sociologist Dr. Gunatilleke sees Aba as a "well made film that targets Buddhist culture, in a country where the government banned both the "Satanic Verses" and the "Da Vinci Code", for distorting respectively Islam and Catholicism". I am confident that I am not alone in considering that both bans were derived from an asinine logic. The latter film was exhibited in countries, with a much higher proportion of Catholics than in Sri Lanka but there is absolutely no evidence, to suggest that the Catholic faith in those countries was damaged in any way, as a result. In the same context, what damage could Aba do to Buddhist culture in this country? I believe that the real damage to the image and cause of Buddhism in this country, is the result of violent demonstrations of intolerance by Buddhist groups against minority faiths. Places of worship of other faiths have been physically attacked and vandalized by mobs, often led by Buddhist priests. In recent times we have seen a spate of such incidents, carried out, most disturbingly, with total impunity.

Equally damaging are the statements made by political leaders and prominent clerics, regarding the supremacy of the Sinhala Buddhists over other racial and religious segments of this country, relegating, with calculated insensitivity, all minorities to a subservient niche. Minister Champika Ranawaka has gone on record with the statement that such minority groups are dependent on "Buddhist Compassion" for their continued presence in this country. All those pundits, who have become so emotionally charged over the alleged impact of Aba on Buddhist culture, should spare a moment to consider both the implications and the impact of such uncivilized behaviour , on our much vaunted image of Buddhist compassion and tolerance. A cultural tradition of 2500 years has far more to fear from the conduct of the bigoted and intolerant segment of its so called champions, than from a film which suggests a different version of an un-provable episode in its early history.

I am writing as a Sinhala Buddhist, revolted by the unspeakable conduct of some of the more vocal and aggressive proponents of the Buddhas doctrine of "Mettha and Mudhitha". This Sinhala-Buddhist culture is in much greater danger from such aberrant behaviour within, than from incursions from without. The damage, if any, that could be caused by Aba would be miniscule in comparison. - Sri Lanka Guardian