Sangakkara and the World Revolution

I am giving special importance to it because for me individualism is the most important signifier of modernity. Humanity has of course always consisted of individuals right from the inception, but in modernity the individual is given a special value and importance. The individual is a unit in a group, but with a capacity for detachment from the group in varying degrees, something to which importance is given under modernity.

by Izeth Hussain

(August 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) What was the reason for the standing ovation? Sangakkara’s was certainly a consummate performance, having behind it an ability to marshal a wide range of facts in an orderly way, to deploy arguments at a high intellectual level, and to present his case in a way that showed a command of English prose that was well above average. All that was admirable, calling forth high praise for mental prowess. But why the deep emotion that was clearly there behind the standing ovation? I want to argue that it was for the same reason for which Sanga’s otherwise consummate performance was faulted: he chose the wrong forum for his devastating critique of Sri Lanka Cricket. My argument is that that faux pas was overlooked at Lords because his critique connected with what I call the World Revolution. Significantly, the only previous occasion on which a Cowdrey Memorial address provoked a standing ovation was after the one delivered by Bishop Desmond Tutu. He was a hero of the anti-apartheid struggle, something that was obviously connected with the ongoing World Revolution.

But, before going further, I want to divagate briefly from my argument to comment on the literary quality of Sanga’s prose, as it may otherwise go totally unnoticed. After noting that in cricket we transcend petty politics and division, he states, "It is indeed a pity that life is not cricket. If it were, we would not have seen the festering wounds of an ignorant war." Why "ignorant"? As a war is a process and not a person, how can it be either ignorant or knowledgeable? It seems plain wrong English, but that is not consistent with the command of English shown in the address. I believe that Sanga had something very recondite in mind or at the back of his mind. According to the ancient Greek Socratic tradition, evil is the consequence of ignorance, of a failure to know and understand the world as it is. It is very different from the Christian notion of a primal evil that erupts because of the fallen nature of man. But that Greek notion passed into Western tradition because of the importance given to classical learning – until recent decades - in Western education. Hence we have "ignorant armies clash by night" in Mathew Arnold’s great poem Dover Beach. I must add – since Sanga is so emphatically in favour of indigenous roots – that the Socratic notion seems to me perfectly consistent with the Buddhist notion of evil.

From that touch of the mandarin in his prose, Sanga moves easily to the colloquial when he uses the term "guy" of Murali. I must note the way he can use very simple language to maximum effect. Describing the experience of coming under fire in Lahore, he writes, "Then the bullets started to hit. It was like rain on a tin roof." It is a beautifully felicitous simile conveying his initial impression, before he realized the lethal horror of what was going on. Something of that horror is suggested by a phrase which shortly follows, "As bullets started bursting through the bus …". There is an appropriate progression from the refreshing patter of rain to something that is irresistible and destructive in the "bursting through". In good literary prose emphasis is placed unostentatiously on certain words. Note the placing of the word "roar" in the following: "I hear the bus roar in to life and start to move." I have thought it worthwhile to break the logical continuity of this article to draw attention to the literary quality of this enormously talented young man’s prose because he could come to match C.R.L. James, the great West Indian cricketer, writer, and scholar. James wrote a superb book on the Haitian revolutionary Toussaint l’Ouverture based on his original scholarly research.

World Revolution

I now resume my main argument. It may seem that I have gone overboard in my enthusiasm for Sanga’s address and that I am being absurdly grandiloquent in associating him with something called the World Revolution. I am told that he is a Radala Govigama Kandyan, someone from the highest caste bracket, obviously with a solid Westernised middle class background, educated at Trinity, which is one of the top elite schools in the island. What is there about this lucky young fellow, who furthermore must be by now stinking rich, to associate him even remotely with anything revolutionary? My explanation flows from a certain conception of revolution. Mass revolutions are very rare, but they set off revolutionary changes elsewhere. The French Revolution of 1789 was fiercely resisted all over Europe, but after some decades practically the whole of Western Europe witnessed the rise to power of the bourgeoisie, together with a capitalist economic order, and a trend towards liberal democracy. After the Second World War, we witnessed the sweep of the feminist movement, leading to the emancipation from millennia-long bondage of half of humanity. But there was no violent mass revolution behind that indubitably revolutionary change, nor was there behind the sweep of the human rights movement which after 1975 has been seriously eroding national sovereignty, apart from eroding the traditional de facto privilege of rulers to abuse power. Revolutions are sometimes made. More often, revolution is something that happens to us.

I will not go into details to show how Sanga’s address fits neatly into the paradigm of world revolution as it is only too obvious. He has spoken out against divisions of caste, class, religion, race, and ethnicity, and he has done so in a manner that rings true unlike the vacuous rhetoric of Sri Lankan politicians and other rogues. He has spoken out for a true nationalism in which every citizen can participate fully and equally. He has given value to achievement-orientation – a cardinal value in modernity which has been held in utter contempt by the politically powerful in Sri Lanka – and seen it as a requisite for nation-building. His positives obviously include the secular trinity of liberty, equality, fraternity, which today is powering the world revolutionary process, a trinity that the world is coming to realize is valid for all humanity and is not culture-specific to the West. And it seems to me that he has the universalistic outlook to be expected of the true Buddhist while remaining proudly Sri Lankan.

Sangakkara’s individualism

I will not analyze his text to show all that. Instead I will focus on just one point: his individualism. He has spoken out in favour of a Sri Lankan style of playing cricket, a style that is expressive of our own distinctive culture, which might give the impression that he is committed to group identity above all and exclusively. But he is emphatically in favour of encouraging individualism among our cricketers at the same time. He writes: "In the new team culture forged since 1999, individuals are accepted. The only thing that matters is commitment and discipline to the team. Individuality and internal debate are welcome. Respect is not demanded but earned." Significant also are his strictures on the kind of coaching that irons out individuality. He writes, "… we are indeed fortunate that guys like Lasith/ Sanath/ Murali/ and Mendis have escaped formalized text-book coaching. Had they been exposed to orthodox coaching then there is very good chance that their skills would have been blunted. In all probability they would have been coached into ineffectiveness." His commitment to individualism can also be seen in the following: "We have recognized and learnt that our cricket is stronger when it is free-spirited and we encourage players to express themselves and be open to innovation."

Most significant of all in connection with his individualism are the moving words of his peroration in which he declares his national identity: "I am Tamil, Sinhalese, Muslim and Burgher. I am a Buddhist, a Hindu, a follower of Islam and Christianity. I am today, and always, proudly Sri Lankan". In multi-ethnic and multicultural Sri Lanka we have got accustomed to thinking of our national identity in terms of a spatial metaphor according to which each of us has his/her ethnic identity which we transcend, or hope to transcend, in an over-arching national identity. But is that what Sanga is saying? He seems to be saying rather that first and foremost and above all he is an individual, who as an individual transcends his own ethnicity, and that is why he can identify with all Sri Lankan ethnic and religious groups, and share with them a national identity. It looks like this young fellow has made a novel contribution to thinking on national identity. Or am I attributing thoughts to him that never entered his head? What is certain, however, is that his peroration is deeply felt, not just a rhetorical flourish. Equally certain is his emphatic individualism.

Signifier of modernity

I am giving special importance to it because for me individualism is the most important signifier of modernity. Humanity has of course always consisted of individuals right from the inception, but in modernity the individual is given a special value and importance. The individual is a unit in a group, but with a capacity for detachment from the group in varying degrees, something to which importance is given under modernity. After the Cartesian revolution of Descartes in philosophy – "I think, therefore I am" - the individual is even seen as the source of meaning and truth. What is of special importance for this article is the notion of Durkheim that with the rise of the individual under modernity the struggle for justice has acquired a very special importance. I have to be elliptical on this subject within the space of this article, and will limit myself to a comment on Hemingway’s sentence, "Writers are forged in injustice as a sword is forged". I doubt that that sentence could have been written before the rise of modernity.

I come now to the standing ovation. It is undeniable that Sanga broke the norms of gentlemanly conduct by choosing an alien forum for his critique of Sri Lanka Cricket. Moreover he chose Lords, the very symbol of conventional stuffiness, representing an ethos according to which it would be said of Sanga’s faux pas, "It’s not cricket." How come the standing ovation, then? I believe that the appropriate ambiance was set for it by the world of English cricket itself undergoing the process of World Revolution. There was a time when English cricketers consisted of Gentlemen (amateurs) and Players (professionals). Only a Gentleman could captain the MCC national team, even though he may not have been fit for inclusion on the ground of his prowess with bat or ball, until that tradition broke down in the ‘fifties when the great Len Hutton captained England. There was a time when Gentlemen and Players had separate dressing rooms, had their lunch and tea separately, and even entered the field through separate gates. But on the field liberty, equality, and fraternity prevailed while outside it English hierarchy was staunchly maintained. But all that is of the past, a scarcely imaginable past. Today, we see the English team being taken over by Asians and cricketers with continental names, and Nasser Hussain could captain England. The game which began on the village green and became a part of England’s rural culture has been going in a universalist direction because of the World Revolution. It was therefore possible for the Englishmen assembled at Lords to say of Sanga, "One of us".

A mighty blow for Justice

That set the stage for the standing ovation. The reason for it was that Sanga struck a mighty blow for Justice. His address though limited to Sri Lankan cricket impacted on the cricket world as a whole, which is why a retired West Indian great who had also risen to his feet declared that Sanga had spoken for West Indian cricket also. The point is that big money has come into the world of cricket, and where big money comes power and the abuse of power follows, in addition of course to corruption. It has led to spot fixing, and 20/20 cricket which they say even threatens the game in its classic form, test cricket. In Sri Lanka it led to interference in selection resulting in our losing the test series against England, showing that big money and power in Sri Lanka just doesn’t give a dam for the nation. We must bear in mind that in speaking out Sanga has risked his future, something rare in Sri Lanka where usually the reaction to the diktats of big money and power bear the marks of self-interest and pusillanimity. His address was forged in injustice as a sword is forged. That is why the world of cricket rose to its feet at Lords.

( The writer can be reached at izethhussain@gmail.com )