ABA
A quest for birthright?:
Sachitra MAHENDRA and Ruwini JAYAWARDANA
Jackson Anthony’s cinematic venture, Aba, focusing on the tale of
Prince Pandukabhaya, has been condemned for distorting historical
sources. Scholars led by Prof. Oliver Abeynayaka and Dr. W.M.K.
Wijetunga charged the filmmaker for distorting the of paternity of Aba.
They stressed that the director had portrayed the Yaksha lieutenant,
Chittaraja, as the father of the prince. They further stressed that the
film sides with the LTTE by indicating that Pandukabhaya is of Tamil
origins. Among their arguments they also relate that Chittaraja brings
forth the symbol of Christ. Debates to and fro had made Aba a
controversial topic of the era.
These scholars are of the opinion that the film harms the knowledge
of the younger generation. The filmmaker categorically states that the
film was based on the knowledge of 19 well-known historians including
Prof. Mendis Rohanadheera.
Following are the excerpts from the comments of both parties...
Anthony on Aba
In normal circumstances I do not wish to comment on criticism
levelled against Aba. I believe the artiste should step back and let the
audience make comments. However I am compelled to answer, as a group of
individuals have charged me on distortion of history.
I am ready to discuss with the intellectual community in schools and
universities, but I have no intention to dangle with bogus ‘intellectual
panels’. This is an organisation hunting for publicity, and I do not
need to fulfil their needs. However I chose to answer Professor Oliver
Abeynayaka and Dr. W.M.K. Wijetunga, since I have due respect for them.
Prof. Abeynayaka and the entourage has one mistaken question on
Prince Pandukabhaya’s father. They opine I have distorted the real
facts, and presented Chittaraja as the father of Prince Pandukabhaya,
which is obviously not so.
I challenged them to watch the whole movie, or read the script, and
locate a single instance where such a statement had been indicated.
Aba’s uncles warn Digha Gamini on the consequences if a male child is
born to Chitra. Mahawamsa and other historical sources do not go into
details about Digha Gamini. So I too left it at that.
There were claims that Chittaraja was Aba’s father among the scholars
such as Munidasa Cumaratunga, R Tennakoon and Arisen Ahubudu. This is
because of the prominent place given to Chittaraja even though he was a
lieutenant.
I have no argument at all with Prof. Abeynayaka, when he says I
distort history. Aba is not a documentary, which attempts to introduce a
new theory on history, but a cinematic work with the deserving right of
an artiste to reconstruct a source creatively. I respect Mahawamsa, the
official chronicle of history. Therefore I have not distorted the facts
embedded, but added some scenes to enhance creativity.
Dr. W M K Wijethunga raised the point of Yakshas being Tamils. This
is an outdated concept which is refuted even by Tamil historians like
Neelakantha Shastri. Yakshas are not Tamils, but they descended from the
early Hela inhabitants. Aba can be read in different modes. This is why
I emphasise Art is more philosophical than history.
Prof. Abeynayaka against Aba
I have been teaching Pali for over 40 years. Mahawamsa is written in
Pali, and I am well positioned to interpret the original Mahawamsa.
Aba director had been trying to bring out a certain theory on history
over a popular TV programme. However many renowned historians absented
themselves from the programme. So the Aba production is led by the
theories formed by a small number of historians. I have watched the
programme twice or thrice, then I soon lost interest. I am a history
enthusiast, but no fan of his programme.
Aba filmmaker vehemently denies his indication of the Chittaraja’s
paternity. He is not straightforward in saying so. However this theory
pervades the film indirectly, which itself is a distortion of historical
sources.
The filmmaker continues these falsities. According to chronicles, it
was a servant who carried the prince in a casket, though a character
called Habara, driving a cart, is introduced for no apparent reason.
Actual sources narrate how the prince’s uncles chased behind the
servant, and we see royal soldiers instead.
When tea exposed anti-Aba intellectual farce to a tee
Several public discussions and seminars were held on Aba for the past
few days. One discussion, as organised by Swarnasanka Foundation,
witnessed a discourse on Aba both for and against, with key reference to
history. Another event, headed by Jackson Anthony, spelled out his stand
against the allegations of history distortion. This was followed by the
public seminar on which Professor Oliver Abeynayake and his entourage,
took a one-party pop at Aba filmmaker in his absence.
Our standpoint remains that we do not support either party: neither
Aba filmmaker nor his opponents. Cinematically speaking, Anthony’s movie
has its own pros and cons, some of which were brought out by us earlier.
The spectator has more serious matters to contemplate in Aba than
history.
However it was amazing to observe how some so-called intellectuals
condemned the filmmaker with no basic knowledge on what Art is. One such
pseudo-intellectual noted that Anthony has no right to contribute to the
discussion.
He compared Anthony to a psychiatric patient who needs to be examined
by the forum. A senior diplomat said that he took the film title as an
advertisement at first glance. It seemed as if the forum was speaking
against the movie on personal agendas.
These intellectuals used English as a form of superiority complex
while some even declared that they are unfamiliar with the Sinhala
language. Ironically these English speaking intellectuals could speak
aloud on distorting the chronicle of the ‘Sinhala’ race. We spotted a
few of Anthony’s allies, silently observing the event. They stepped out
no sooner the function was over, with the most ridiculous episode yet to
come.
***
Refreshments are a normalcy in public functions such as book
launches, discussions and seminars. These refreshments provide food for
brain giving a chance for both the audience and the speakers to have
off-the-record discussions.
The chairman thanked the function inviting the audience for tea,
simultaneously asking his colleague whether tea is available, to which
the response was negative. The chairman winded up the seminar with his
discourteous final word: ‘tea is not available’; such would have been
best left to be discussed in privacy. The disorganised storm in a teacup
came to a close with the ‘scholars’ leaving the premises in their
vehicles swiftly.
|
