Susantha Goonatilake, Recolonisation: Foreign Funded NGOs in Sri Lanka. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2006.

Reviewed by Sankajaya Nanayakkara

Poverty of Politics

The book is basically an inquiry into the impact of Non Governmental Organizations on Sri Lankan society, particularly on areas such as, development, academia, foreign relations and human rights. With academia’s burgeoning interest on NGOs, the book is a pioneering study on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, the work tends to be more polemical than scholarly.

The Sarvodaya

There is a serious engagement with Sarvodaya. The author elaborates on the contradictions between the philosophy and performance of the movement. Contrary to the Ghandian village-centered self-sufficiency model, Goonatilake argues, Sarvodaya’s production activities targeted either the local commercial or the export markets. Moreover, the author claims that the movement was basically an aid-disbursement agency and in certain instances it even became an extension of government bureaucracy, especially in the context of Udagam Project, violating its status as a voluntary organization.

Goonatilake’s assessment of the performance of Sarvodaya is limited to the statistics of a handful of sources, mainly the Sarvodaya Annual Report of 1981. On the basis of somewhat limited statistics, he comes to his conclusions with regard to the contradictions between philosophy and performance of Sarvodaya. This seems to be a major weakness of the Sarvodaya study. Moreover, the author has further undermined the seriousness of his inquiry by giving vent to his predilection for smearing over scholarship. This is a major weakness visible throughout the book and at times degenerates into an outright smear campaign against certain individuals and institutions.

The Critique of the Anthropology of Sinhala Buddhism
The strength of the book is Goonatilake’s critique of the Sri Lankan anthropological edifice. The author has basically recycled his book-length exercise in this regard, entitled, Anthropologizing Sri Lanka: A Eurocentric Misadventure (2001). So far, this is the only challenge to the Sri Lankan anthropological canon. I was surprised to find a review done recently on the anthropology of Sinhala Buddhism in the Social Scientists’ Association’s journal, Polity, by Premakumara de Silva, a senior lecturer in the Sociology Department at the Colombo University, in which not a single word was written about the only critique so far available on the anthropology of Sinhala Buddhism. I strongly believe Anthropologizing Sri Lanka: A Eurocentric Misadventure should become part of the essential reading in sociology and anthropology programs in our local universities.

In his critique on the anthropology of Sinhala Buddhism, Goonatilake’s arguments against the so called foreign ‘experts’ on Sri Lankan society and culture are very entertaining. For example, Goonatilake questions the validity of Bruce Kapferer’s (mis)characterization of the Sinhala Buddhist culture which is derived from a miniscule sample of 57 people! Moreover, the foreign ‘experts’ lack of knowledge of the local languages, the key to the local culture and society, is revealed to the shocked reader. The author questions the somewhat neo-colonial type arrogance of such ‘experts’ in making sweeping generalizations of a people whom they hardly know.

On the negative side, the critique tends to be very polemical and in certain instances, lacks serious ethnographic research to substantiate author’s conclusions. Moreover, all attempts at critical evaluation of concepts such as, nation, culture and history are interpreted by Goonatilake as ‘anti-national’ and hence taboo subjects. This attitude is much closer to the Taliban intellectual tradition than to the free inquiry idealized in the Kalama Sutta of the Therevada Buddhist intellectual tradition.

Poverty of Politics

A theme that runs throughout the book is the author’s anti-Tamil position. Tamils are historically perceived by Goonatilake as invaders and thus not an organic part of Sri Lanka. Tamil are always suspect and mistrusted. Contrary to these false assumptions, there were Tamil Buddhist monks, Tamil generals under Sinhala kings, Tamil nobility who embraced Buddhism and ascended on the Sinhala throne, a historical Tamil kingdom in the Northern part of the country and frequent intermarriages at all levels between the two groups and so on. Tamils have also migrated and settled in the island as peaceful immigrants. To get a broader understanding of peopling of Sri Lanka read the excerpts of Dr. S.U. Dereniyagala’s interview with Muragala (2007 Dec-2008 Jan), the magazine of the Patriotic National Movement.

Author perceives Tamils as hell-bent on separation from colonial times. The formation of Tamil parties such as, ACTC in 1944 is presented as proof for his assertion (Goonatilake has no recollection of the formation of the Sinhala Maha Sabha in 1937). But he conveniently ignores the fact that ACTC was part of the D.S. Senanayake cabinet even when it disenfranchised Tamil plantation workers. Moreover, the author does not remember the fact that in 1952 parliamentary elections the Federal Party was routed out in favour of pro-establishment ACTC (whose program was to share power at the centre through holding cabinet portfolios) in the North and the East. The rise of Sinhala majoritarianism (1952-56) in the South created insecurity in the Tamil minds and strengthened separatist agendas in the Tamil society. When the SLFP led alliance captured power in 1956 in the South, it was the Federal Party that captured the most number of seats in Tamil areas.

Goonatilake discusses the dynamics of cold war and regional power politics in the form of the role India played in the Tamil armed secessionist politics in Sri Lanka. He also meticulously documents the interrelations between Tamil secessionist politics in South India and Sri Lankan Tamil nationalist politics. But he has omitted the role the Sinhala majoritarianist agenda played in fueling Tamil separatism. This does not mean that Tamil separatist ideas were not in circulation in the Tamil society prior to the rise of Sinhala nationalism in an exclusivist form in the mid 1950s, but the latter nourished the growth and expansion of the former.

Tragically, the complexity of the dynamics of the Tamil political society seems to be lost in the author’s perspective. All politically conscious Tamils are seen as enemies of Sri Lanka; any good Tamil has to be a (politically) dead Tamil! Unfortunately, the politics of which the author is part of cannot even distinguish between Anandasangaree/Devananda camp and the Tigers. Does Goonatilake reasonably expect Tamils not to have political aspirations? With this kind of an outlook what can the political masters of the author offer patriotic Sri Lankan Tamils who love Sri Lanka as much as we Sinhalese do and who are vehemently against partitioning our beloved motherland? What constructive political solution can the political masters of Goonatilake offer moderate and patriotic Sri Lankan Tamils who have opted for autonomy and rejected separatism at a great risk to their physical as well as political lives?