by Bandu de Silva(Former Ambassador to France and UNESCO)
(December 20, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A project that was to be put in place under the Ranil Wickremesinghe government was withdrawn on account of the strong protest made by a concerned Sri Lankan public, including the Venerable Mahanayaka Thero of Pidurangala Viharaya in the vicinity of Sigiriya, former heads of the Archaeological Survey of Sri Lanka, environmentalists and many others. It was not surprising that those then managing affairs of this International Heritage Site of Sigiriya in collusion with the Ceylon Tourist Board and hoteliers in Sigiriya, were ready to sell the idea to the then government which attained notoriety by offering to celebrate the 500 th anniversary of the coming of the Portuguese to Ceylon, over which I was the first to protest.
It was the same government that was ready to negotiate Sri Lanka losing her national heritage [of a unitary state] extending over two millennia, for mere advantage following from the Ceasefire Agreement (2002) with the LTTE, for avoidance of human suffering and the loss of human lives, the economic gains, and the enchantment of humanitarian values, in a situation when the LTTE was claiming a feigned Tamil homeland which never existed in history and a right to establish a separate state (Eelam) on that basis, claiming both demands were non-negotiable. (I am indebted to the eminent constitutional lawyer, H.L de Silva, for the idea to negotiate the sacrifice of this national heritage but apologize if I have misread him and take full responsibility for any misinterpretation–See H.L.de Silva: "Sri Lanka-A Nation in Conflict;" Chapter on ‘Basic Premises of Peace Negotiations", p371).
How could the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, which even its opponents concede was ready to stand by our cultural values and against subjugation of and enslavement of our people and achieve for them a sense of dignity, accept to succumb to the same influences that the Ranil Wickremesinghe government was ready to succumb to over the issue of illuminating Sigiriya?
Anyway, what is the idea behind the so- called programme which has been presented as ‘illumination’ of Sigiriya, which has been presented this time couched in non-transparent terms? Is it another Trojan Horse like the "outrageous" Interim Self Governing Authority that the LTTE tried to introduce through the back door for acceptance by the Ranil Wickremesinghe government? However, the LTTE must be given credit for its openness, in contrast to the present programme for "illuminating’ Sigiriya over which transparency is completely lacking.
One may ask what is wrong with mounting a "Son et Lumiere" (Sound and Light) programme at Sigiriya when such programmes had been the fashion of the day –or rather stale already. I met leading exhibitors in Europe 30 years ago at the request of UNESCO to get an idea of these programmes and cost of installations and their economic viability. In France there were such programmes in the gardens of Chateau Versailles and in some lesser chateaux of the Loire valley but during my 10 year stay in Paris, I did not want to visit these shows because I knew French history and that of the chateau Versailles. Finally, I visited the show there to get an idea of it since this idea had been in the original UNESCO’s indications of turning the island’s tourist triangle into an economically viable project by building up tourist infrastructure which was awfully lacking in the 1960s to the 1980s. Not that they are much better today, if one were to judge from the report published in the ‘Sunday Times’ of blocked toilets, absence of clean water and approach roads to Sigiriya in a state of disrepair despite a daily collection of Rs.200,000 from sales of entry tickets, as reported.
Cultural Affairs Minister Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene has reportedly defended the project saying that "Son et Lumiere" programmes have been successful in neighbouring India, Egypt and elsewhere. He has also claimed that the show would last only 45 minutes and would be over by 9.30 p.m. The latter may be in answer to wildlife and environment enthusiasts. He does not seem to know what he is talking about- neither about the cultural, engineering or historical dimensions of Sigiriya nor on the conduct of " Son et Lumiere" programmes. He seems to live in his own world expecting tourists to come rushing to Sigiriya to see the night programme lasting 45 minutes when even to experience the climb and the majesty of the built-up rock, its awe-inspiring beauty, they would not spend more than half a day! Has he made an evaluation of present day tourist traffic and the future projections to speak so eloquently about the economic viability? Perhaps, he does not know that even in places like Versailles, where the visitor turnover is far greater than at Sigiriya, they mount more than one evening show to make the programme economically viable. So the Honourable Minister seems to be talking through the hat when he says in this desolate place the programme will end by 9.30 p.m.! Politicians will talk but the public have to take their statements with several pinches of salt these days!
He also does not seem to know the behaviour of wild life. Will the elephants who usually come to their feeding grounds and frolick in the early evening, wait till the "Son et Lumiere’ show is over at 9.30 p.m. to take their cue after the drum beats and flashing lights have made them retreat? Will the show finally turn out to be a battleground between the mighty beasts and the "Son et Lumiere’ organizers? Will we see a scenario like in the film ‘Elephant Walk’ where the partying colonial bungalow of the planters was finally reduced to smithereens by the elephants! If the elephants decide to give up and leave, then we would be losing even the present attraction provided by elephants. I am speaking with the experience of living in the jungle where our family was engaged in hauling timber in the Lahugala forests and of visiting a number of wild life sanctuaries in Kenya and Tanzania.
The situation today is that Sigiriya is no longer being treated as a Cultural Heritage monument despite it being declared a World Heritage Site. Even officials, like Cultural Affairs Ministry Secretary G.L.W. Samarasinghe, have spoken irresponsibly when they say there is no need for the GOSL to consult UNESCO which is the organization responsible for managing World Heritage Sites. And we expect to submit more sites for the World Heritage List!
This is nothing but politics to deceive the Sri Lankan public. With officials like this running cultural affairs in Sri Lanka who make irresponsible statements like this not knowing even the contractual obligations arising from a place being listed in the World Heritage List, how could UNESCO be expected to approve more Sri Lankan sites for the World Heritage programme? As a former vice president of the World Heritage Committee and one who submitted Sri Lanka’s first sites for inclusion in World Heritage List and was present at its final approval in 1984 by the Committee, I consider it my responsibility to warn UNESCO on this matter. I wrote in these columns recently on the ‘Politics of World Heritage’, commenting on how World Heritage Sites are being used as a political ploy.
Sigiriya is now being converted into a Dollar-earning Disney Land affair? As the person who got UNESCO to launch the International Campaign for the Preservation of Cultural Monuments in Sri Lanka, working from 1975 onwards till a resolution was passed by UNESCO in 1978 on my initiative which paved the way for declaring Sigiriya an International Heritage Site, I can relate the history of the proposal to turn it into a ‘money machine." It started from the time UNESCO’s Director of Cultural Heritage, Dr.Gerad Bolla first visited the place in 1960s. UNESCO had prospects of raising funds for an economic- oriented cultural development programme. Bolla proposed to develop tourist facilities in the Tourist Triangle of Sri Lanka. Sigiriya, Dambulla and Kandy were primary targets. Sigiriya project included a rudimentary idea of a ’Son et Lumiere’ (Sound and Light) programme as found in some parts of Europe centred around old castles, like Versailles, and a few less significant Loire valley castles. The sagas surrounding Sigiriya as recorded in the chronicles might provide fascinating material on which the Sigiriya story could be built. That is at the expense of suppressing its Buddhist background as an Avalokitesvara temple which King Kassapa might have entered to expiate his heinous crime of patricide.
Sigiriya’s history has then become very controversial, not the way Jackson Anthony made the story of Pandukabhaya controversial through his film without an iota of evidence, but through sound archaeological evidence established by Dr.Raja de Silva who has spent a lifetime at this monument conserving the world renowned frescoes there to establish its essentially religious character. His is not an arm chair evaluation but one expressed through insight developed into the subject through years of personal contact with the monument. He advocated that Sigiriya complex was a Buddhist temple given to Mahayana persuasion. I supported the idea with literary evidence from Mahayana texts suggesting that the place was dedicated to Avalokitesvara worship. The idea that the rock represents Potala, the abode of Avalokitesvara, has been suggested.
The ‘Son et Lumiere’ project did not even come into consideration when the international campaign was launched to emphasize the cultural significance of the monument. Its revival is something new. Isn’t it clear that the present endeavour is to suppress the cultural content and convert Sigiriya into a commodity - a ‘saleable product’, in tourist trade jargon. Who knows? It may include a revival of the enacting of the Sigiri play on the rock that was proposed under the Ranil Wickremesinghe regime with searchlights beaming at the rock disturbing the hornets even at night! Why the secrecy this time? Do the Sri Lankans want the place turned into a tourist show-place than to see it remain a proud cultural monument over which the whole nation could be proud for generations to come?
I do not think that those at the helm of the Cultural Triangle Project understand what the Ceylon Tourist Board, the tourist hoteliers and those in the travel trade are trying to advance. Or, have they themselves fallen in line? Simple illumination of Sigiriya, a ‘Son et Lumiere’ show or a Sigiri play on the rock will not enhance the cultural significance of the place but derogate it to a commercial venture and disturb the hornets and wildlife on the rock enclaves. The problem is an economic one facing the tourist sector. It is simply that Sigiriya, despite the historical/cultural attraction, is only a half-day tourist destination. Night stop-overs are very few. The adjoining Dambulla which too has only the rock caves and was a half a day destination has turned out to be more than that now with a few luxury hotels like Kandalama in its environs. Even illicit venison dishes (Herchen Stakes) served at Sigiriya dining rooms cannot retain the tourists for a night’s stay. Speaking of venison, that was my first experience in 1956 when I went to Matale Kachcheri for training. The young AGA who was my batch mate in the parallel Civil Service, who stood us lunch asked the Rest house Arachchi, if venison was available. Who would refuse to offer the dish to the ‘Aejanta Hamuduruwo’? Again in 1974 when the first modern hotel had its soft opening I was one of the first to visit the place during a round of new hotels on a tour offered to me by the Ceylon Tourist Board. The Board’s vehicle bearing its logo was sufficient for the Food and Beverages Manager to offer me venison which I refused! Questioned, he admitted that the dish was normally offered only to foreign tourists.
Tourist hotels and the Tourist Board have to find other alternatives to attract tourists. It is common knowledge that right along the sea belt child prostitution is proliferating with the connivance of the hotel industry. Perhaps, the old tradition called "pael-peyawa", which was a common night pastime of youth in jungle villages (providing company for lonely women when husbands went to the Paelas in the Chenas), could be revived for the benefit of tourists! Perhaps, some locals could encouraged to loot old temples in the neighbourhood for old manuscripts and Buddha statues and Gajamutu, which is already taking place; and even train some wild fowls for cock-fighting, which was an old tradition in oriental society.
Now, the issue is if the question that H.L. de Silva asked in the case of the CFA, i.e. the analogy of losing the national heritage extending back to over two millennia for mere advantages flowing from it for avoidance of human suffering and the loss of human lives, the economic gains, and the enchantment of humanitarian values, should not equally apply to the case of tampering with Sigiriya for the sake of earning tourist dollars. Why cannot Sigiriya be allowed to lie as it is, with permissible scientific archaeological surveys carried out to unearth its inner secrets? Should its history as an Avalokitesvara temple complex or otherwise be allowed to be distorted through a ‘Son et Lumiere’ programme to be introduced through the backdoor with prospects of distorting the religious characteristics of the monument to suit what foreign tourists might like to hear, i.e. that it was a palace of Kasyapa. They might even call the King, Kasiappah and Sachi Ponnambalam would be happy!
If the tourists who come to Sigiriya would not read a simple leaflet which describes the history of the place or have no patience to listen to a tourist guide’s explanation and spend a night there reflecting and conversing, watching the movement of wild life, would they care to watch a ‘Son et Lumiere’ programme? Will that be another white elephant? More importantly, wouldn’t that diminish the cultural value of this historic creation and reduce it to simple merchandise? Why should the mystery of Sigiriya be exposed so cheaply?
I am not competent to comment on any damage it would cause to the rock and its environment through over exposure. Many historical monuments, including Taj Mahal, are found to be suffering from over exposure to human contact. Sigiriya is no exception. Its valuable frescoes are seen to suffer this effect.
Shouldn’t the President intervene and stop this tampering with the island’s premier world cultural heritage site and an acknowledged place of Buddhist worship before it is allowed to be further desecrated with the prospects of someone even quoting the Mahinda Chintanaya book for that purpose? - Sri Lanka Guardian
 (December 20, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian ) A project that was to be put in place...){kind=link}
Post a Comment