Sixteenth death anniversary of Prof. Sarachchandra
today:
Integral dramatist, doyen among intellectuals
Miran PERERA
The 16th death anniversary of Prof Ediriweera Sarachchandra falls
today, August 16, 2012. Professor Sarachchandra's advent to our cultural
scene occurred at a critical time of its development and it is very much
similar to the socio-cultural background which prevailed at the time of
Rabindranath Tagore's emergence in India.
A moment comes which comes but rarely in history when we step out
from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation
long suppressed finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn
moment of Prof Sarachchandra's death anniversary, we take the pledge of
dedication to the service of Sri Lanka and her people and to the still
larger cause of humanity. At the dawn of history, Sri Lanka started on
her unending quest and trackless centuries are filled with her striving
and grandeur of her success and her failures.
|
Prof
Ediriweera Sarachchandra |
Among the Sri Lankan intellectuals engaged in the noble task,
Ediriweera Sarachchandra ranks above most of his contemporaries. Through
good and ill-fortune alike Sri Lanka has never lost sight of the quest
or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength.
Academic excellence
The achievement we celebrate in late Professor Sarachchandra is but a
step, an opening of opportunity to the greater triumphs and achievements
that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this
opportunity and accept the challenge of the future? Taking a quite walk
climbing up the hillock to Sanghamitta then taking the curve round just
behind adjoining the university medical centre was the abode of Prof
Sarachchandra.
The university was of world standing and a magnificent seat of
learning where nature itself had created an ideal and a favourable site
to achieve all round academic excellence. It was against this backdrop
that the greatest drama ‘Maname’, the brainchild of Prof. Ediriweera
Sarachchandra emerged in mid 1956. With this master piece he set in
motion the wheel of drama. Unequivocally, he was a prominent integral
dramatist completing the wider literary picture in South Asia.
Prof. Sarachchandra in his ‘Sahitya Vidyawa’, a discussion of the
theory of poetry certainly much more accommodating than the ‘Sinhala
Navakatha', ‘Ithihasa Vicharaya’ limits himself to the classical
Sanskrit literary criticism where he finds himself more at home than in
the Western counterparts. It is noted that though he resorts to the
mention of and quotations from several Indian classical and modern
critics in the former work he never quotes from or mentions any critic
of the West, besides Aristotle in the latter.
Sarachchandra's critical theories and evaluative criteria have become
totally accepted and taken for granted and he did succeed in what he set
out to do, he did create a popular audience.
Positive criticism
How did Sarachchandra create that indispensable audience?
Sarachchandra's criticism of the Sinhala novel; ‘bottle necked’ the
fiction writing of the day. Though the new Sinhala novel emerged in the
form of Gamperaliya in 1944 only two years after the appearance of
Sarachchandra's Modern Sinhala fiction, the latter did not have any
bearing or influence on the former. Sarachchandra's literateur is marked
by a superabundance of contradictions.
He has written one of the best two Sinhala novels, yet he has not
been a satisfactory critic of the novel.
He never wrote a comprehensive study of modern drama though his
brilliant study ‘The folk drama of Ceylon’ remains a hallmark in the
field of drama criticism; inspite of his being the greatest dramatist of
the country.
While Sarachchandra upholds the value of the ancient tradition in his
great work on folk drama in 'Sinhala Navakatha, Itihasaya ha Vicharaya'
he does quite the opposite of it.
He was the best poet of modern Sri Lanka without ever having written
poetry proper. He started his career as a teacher at a Christian college
but his doctoral thesis was ‘Buddhist Psychology of perception and the
theory of Bhavanga'.
Amidst all negative and positive criticism one thing must be
emphasised though it may be not only a tinglier but also a prickler to
some of our critics. The worst Sarachchandra wrote is better than the
best written by any of his younger contemporaries. All drama loving
people seemed to be in love with Sarachchandra.
Subsequently his whole university and the entire island. ‘Maname’
came to be ranked as the first ever best drama written and produced at
the time. Maname was a superb drama par excellence. Due to
Sarachchandra's gifted interest and determination, young talent was
explored to its fullest. Its actors were indeed privileged to
participate and enjoy.
He produced them to be the most talented actors Sri Lanka had ever
produced at the time.
Apart from being famous for creating a revolutionary change in drama,
he was hailed as the greatest contributor to the drama world.
Sarachchandra mercilessly attacked and rejected two of the principal
founder writers of Sinhala fiction, Piyadasa Sirisena and W A Silva, in
his 'Sinhala Navakata Itihasaye ha Vicharaya'.
Ironically, enough here it is Sarachchandra who indulges in criticism
in the process of which several misconceptions of literary criticism
were given air to and hence the readership who were till then completely
innocent of these Western concepts were largely misguided. This new but
misconstrued knowledge of criticism also affected ‘Swashbuckler
critics'.
Folk rituals
In the chapter entitled ‘Piyadasa Sirisena’ in the 1968 edition of
the 'Sinhala Navakatha Ithihasaya ha Vicharaya' Sarachchandra's language
is charged with sarcasm and pointed witticism as well both of which are
strongly suggestive of vilification and rejection of the writer as a
novelist though towards the end of the chapter and else where he praises
Sirisena for his patriotism condemnation of national depravity, clamour
for national resuscitation etc.
The strong conviction is that as has been mentioned earlier sarcasm
along with pointedness in witticism and in comments are directly
associated with emotion hence the critic is liable to be questionable in
using them.
The book ‘The Sinhalese folk play’ published in 1952 was the end
result of a research project.
There in Sarachchandra demonstrated that the forms of folk rituals
and entertainments could be founding dramatic interludes and other
theatrical features which were parallel to certain forms of folk theatre
in the present day India and which could in the final analysis betrays
to the classical Sanskrith theatre as evident in ‘Natya Sastra of
Bharata'.
As a sequel to this publication the Rockefeller Foundation in the USA
granted him a scholarship to study World theatre and this provided
Sarachchandra with an opportunity to visit Eastern countries like Japan
and China. When Sarachchandra saw the Noh and Kabuki theatres of Japan
he felt as if the image he had of the traditional oriental theatre had
suddenly appeared on stage in front of his very eyes as he states in his
autobiography.
|