I also would like to comment on some of the issues that are worth discussing, arising out of your anonymous writer’s attack on Dr. Kumudu. (වියරු වැටුණු බාහිර ලෝකයේ ගොදුරු වූ මේ කුමුදු සහ අහිංසක ස්ත්රිය කවුද? Posted: 7:24 pm, June 22, 2013 )
Your criticism of Dr. Kumudu is that he has said that the X Group wanted to bring to an end the university education in Sri Lanka. Didn’t the X Group claimed in its writings in Mathota and London that with the age of internet the university teacher becomes redundant and that anyone could go to the internet and self-study? ( Minister SB came into the scene a long time after the X Group’s attack on the university system in Sri Lanka.) X Group’s attack on Sri Lankan universities was part of its general attack on Civil Society. For example, Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda would remember how he was taken to task by leading members of the X Group in public without allowing him to speak.
Thus didn’t the X Group reject the very idea of university education that takes place between a teacher and student as having no validity anymore. Perhaps we should browse through some of the old issues of London and Mathota. The claim of the X Group then was that the universities in Sri Lanka had lost its rationale ( “atharkika wela ” ). Isn’t the decline in the influence of social science and humanities education in the universities in Sri Lanka due to changing social-cultural-political factors that lead to making swabahsha education the medium in teaching in the universities since 1960s and their implications? ( That the JVP came under criticism from the Old Left including its intellectuals located in the universities is due to that the JVP’s futile attempt to take over the state in 1971 was carried out immediately after the 1970 SLFP-Left coalition came to power on a popular mandate and was hoping to push a left-oriented agenda through parliament democracy).
You claim you gained the intellectual hegemony in Sri Lanka since the decade of 90s and you still hold it. To support your claim on gaining intellectual hegemony in Sri Lanka, can you show instances where your intellectual hegemony is accepted in the mainstream intellectual activities in Sri Lanka, in the 90s or now? For example, can you show any ideas you have introduced to the mainstream discourse in Sri Lanka which have gained currency and discussed and debated among the intellectuals?
You try to discredit Dr. Kumudu by saying that he does not criticize his brother Mr. Bandula Padma Kumara for running down Lake House as its chairman. Aren’t you making a spurious relation, to say the least? Do you mean to say Dr. Kumudu should act as his brother’s keeper? Do you mean he has written on how public sector media has been run down and purposely avoided criticizing his brother’s role in it? In other words, in what context of the writings published by Dr. Kumudu that he has avoided addressing the case of Lake House? If your political group has such a strong criticism of Lake House under Mr. Bandula Padma Kumara how do you explain that Mr. Saman Wickramaarchchi has become a columnist at Lake House and your web site republishes his columns hiding their source? To which criticisms of Dr. Kumudu are you referring to when you claim that Dr. Kumudu’s criticisms are always directed against those who deprive him of his enjoyment and not against the totality? Also, do you think unless someone criticizes the totality it is not a valid criticism? Isn’t the notion of totality is only one way of looking at things rather than the only way?
Your writer refers to Dr. Kumudu’s marriage as follows: “ පළමු කසාදයෙන් වෙන් වී දෙවන විවාහයට සිත සදාගෙන ආත්මීයව පර්වර්තනයක් වෙමින් සිටි එම කාලයේ.” Can you pl. explain what does your writer mean by this as a response to Dr. Kumudu’s criticism of X Group? What is the “ආත්මීයව පර්වර්තනය” your writer is referring to here? Does he suggest that Dr. Kumudu’s second marriage disqualify him from discussing political ideas?
Your claim that it is the X Group that created an intellectual climate for Dr. Kumudu in this period does not stand to scrutiny. It is known Dr. Kumudu had been a founding member of the editorial board of Mawatha cultural magazine in 1974. At the same time he was also on the editorial of Janawegaya, newspaper. In the 80’s he was working with Dr. Newton Gunasinghe on the SSA project on Capital and Peasant Production. In 1995, Dr. Kumudu organised a series of seminars on Post Modernism at the International Center of Ethnic Studies which began with a presentation by Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda on Foucault and ended with a lecture by Dr. Arjuna Parakrama on “What is post-modernism trying to do?” Wasn’t it due to the pressure of some leading members of the X Group that Dr. Kumudu was invited to talk at the inauguration of the magazine London because those members wanted to bring within the X Group the critique Dr. Kumudu had been making about the X Group in his discussions with members of the X Group at Colombo University? When you read the speech made by Dr. Kumudu at the inauguration of the London magazine which was included in an article published by Balaya magazine later, did it show that Dr. Kumudu was trying to curry favour with the X Group by giving this talk or was that a strong critique of the ideology of the X Group? By that time Dr. Kumudu had been conducting study circles at the ICES and Vibhavi with some leading members of the X Group attending these seminars. In this context how can the X Group stand by its claim that it provided a stage for Dr. Kumudu? Why would the X Group do that?
Isn’t it clear that this entire criticism of Dr. Kumudu by your writer is a politically motivated attack rather than being based on facts?
I hope your writer will respond to these comments.
I posted this as a comment on the previous post titled සුරේන්ද්ර මහතාට පිලිතුරක්. My name has been dropped when you post it as a new post.
Who is the News Editor? Usually, it is an accepted practice to publish the names of the editorial board on the web page. Who is the Editor of your web page?
A mother fucker.
That’s a good one. 🙂
This rationalist fucker’s name is Vangeesa sumanasekara.
I can’t just understand why does 3mana give this much of publicity for an insignificant lecturer in Colombo university, which held 2251st position according to the latest world ranking.
Has Kumudu Kusum Kumara (KKK) ever done a significant contribution to advance social science knowledge production? What are the well-referred academic papers published in international journals by him? Has any of his ideas translated into currency in the present day social science debates? At least, has he contributed in intellectually nurturing a new generation of social scientists in the country? If so, who are they and where are they?
Being unable to present KKK as an important figure in terms of his academic and public interventions/contributions, the author of the above article had merely admired his degree certificates and credentials! What sort of intellectual stupidity!!!
It is also very clear that, if KKK comes into public notification today, that is only when 3mana publishes something on him; yes, except that he gets some irregular public lecture invitations that wouldn’t enough to make him a public intellect as such.
This senior lecturer will retire from the university within few years leaving no intellectual legacy per se, basically for the benefit of the future social science scholars in the country. People will forget him easily, since he just remained as another usual conventional university tuition guru, although this real is veiled by some empty theoretical jargon.
If this is the case, why should a political web site like 3mana gives him an unnecessary publicity?
If I put what I want to say in Sinhala,
“kabbo form karanna epa..”
Let him speak about his side.
Later we will reply.
We report, you decide- Prof Mahajara.
මේ තමුන්නහෙලා නොදන්නා සීන් එකක් මෙතන තියනවා. වංගීසයට ඕන කොළඹ විශ්ව විද්යාලයේ දර්ශන පීඨයක් පටන් ගන්න. මේ කර්තව්ය සඳහා මෑන් තමන්ගේ වටේ කොල්ලෝ කුරුට්ටෝ ටිකක් සෙට් කරගෙන ඉන්නවා. උන්ට මෑන් කියල තියෙන්නේ පේරාදෙණියේ තියන එකෙන් වැඩක් නැහැ කොළඹ තමයි කේන්ද්රය ( කලක් මේ කොළඹ සන්නිය දීපිටත් තදින්ම වැළඳිලා තිබුනා. හැබැයි දැනුත් නැතුවම නොවෙයි ), පේරාදෙණියේ දර්ශන පීඨය කියන්නේ බෝඩ් ලෑල්ලක් විතරයි කියලා. ඉතින් උන්ට අනුව පේරාදෙණියේ ඉන්න එකෙක්වත් උන් තරම් දර්ශනය දන්නේ නැතිලු. නිර්මාල් දෙවසිරිත් වැඩේට සෙට් වෙලා. මිනිහගෙත් මේ පිලිබඳ අදහස තමයි ලංකාවේ “සමාජවාදය” ගොඩනගන්න නම් කොළඹ විශ්ව විද්යාලයේ දර්ශන පීඨයක් පටන් ගන්නම ඕන කියන එක. අන්න ඒක කරගන්න ඕන නිසා තමයි මෑන් දැන් මාදුළුවාවේ සොබිතයා රටේ ලොක්කා කරන්න ට්රයි කරන්නේ. කොච්චර ජාතිවාදියෙක් උනත් අධ්යාපනය නගා සිටුවනවා නම් ඒක තමයිලු වැඩේ. එකෙන් පස්සේ නිකන්ම ජාතිවාදය ඉවර වෙනවාලු. වැඩේට ජෙප්පෝ සහ විමල්ලා සෙට් වෙන එකට නිර්මාල් දේවසිරි තදින්ම විරුද්ධ වෙන්නෙත් ඔය නිසාමයි. මොකද ජෙප්පෝ, විමල් ,චම්පිකලා සෙට් උනොත් නිර්මාල්ට මදුලුවවේගේ උපදේශක වෙලා ලංකාවේ අධ්යාපනය නගා සිටුවන්න බැරි වෙනවා. එතකොට දර්ශන පීඨයක් කොළොඹ විශ්ව විද්යාලයේ පටන් ගන්නත් බැරි වෙනවා.
දැන් මේ සීන් එකේ කුමුදු කුසුම් කුමාරගේ පාට් එක මොකක්ද කියල බලමුකෝ. මෑන් තමයි දර්ශන පීඨයේ ලොක්කා වෙන්න ඉන්නේ. තාම නිල වශයෙන් ආරම්භ නොකලාට කොළඹ විශ්ව විද්යාලයේ නිල නොවන දර්ශන පීඨයක් දැනුත් පවත්වාගෙන යනවා. ඒකේ ලොක්ක තමයි කුමුදු කුසුම් කුමාර, දෙවනියා වංගීස, නිර්මාල් දේවසිරි තමයි එකේ තෝමස් හොබ්ස්ගේ දර්ශනය ගැන දේශනා දෙන්නේ.
තෝමස් හොබ්ස් ගැන විතරක් නෙවෙයි මාක්ස් සහ තෝමස් හොබ්ස්ගේ සමාන කම් ගැන උගන්වන්නෙත් මිනිහා. මිනිසා ස්වභාවයෙන්ම ප්රචණ්ඩකාරියි කියන එක තමයි නිර්මාල් දේවසිරි හොබ්ස් හරහා රැගෙන එන ප්රධාන තියරිය. ඒක ගානට බදියුගේ ප්රධාන තියරියක් වෙච්ච “ඩ්රයිව් එක” ස්වභාවිකයි කියන එකත් එක්ක ගානට මැච් වෙනවා. ඒ නිසා වන්ගීසටත් ඒ ගැන ප්රශ්නයක් නැහැ. වන්ගීසයට අනුව කාන්ට් නැත්තම් ලෝකෙත් නැහැ. මුන් මේ කියන විදියට කාන්ට් කාන්ට් යනුමද දෙවියන්වහන්සේගේ තීරණයකි. එනම් සියලු දේ මවා මිනිසාද මවා ඇති එම අනුභූති උත්තර දෙවියන් විසින් ඊට අදාළ කාල වකවානුවකදී කාන්ට් නමැති දාර්ශනිකයා මවා ඇත. ඒ වන්ගීසලාගේ න්යාය ගත කිරීමට අනුව කාන්ට් නොමැතිව ඉන් ඉදිරියට ලෝකය ගමන් නොකරනා බැවිනි.
දැන් තමුන්නහෙලාට තේරෙනවා නේද කුමුදුට ගහන කොට වංගීසට රිදෙන්නේ මොකද කියලා ? නිර්ර්මාල් දෙවසිරිගේ අදහස තමයි කොළඹ විශ්වවිද්යාලය “සංවාදයේ” කේන්ද්රය බවට පත් කිරීම. ඒ අදහසට අනිත් අයත් එකඟලු. සංවාද කරන එකෙන්ලු සමාජය වෙනස් වෙන්නේ. ඒ සඳහා “සංවාදී සදාචාරය ” මත පදනම් වෙච්ච අචාරධර්ම පද්ධතියක් ඕන කියල කුමුදු කුසුම් යෝජනා කරලා තියනවලු. ඒ කියන්නේ අනෙකා ඉවසීම, අනෙකාට ගරු කිරීම, අනෙකාගේ අදහසට ගරු කිරීම, මඩ ගැහිලි පුද්ගලික අපවාද, වැනි දෑ වලින් තොරවීම වගේ දේවල්.
මේ කියන කතාව බොරු කියලා තමුන්නහෙලා හිතනවානම් කොළඹ විශ්ව විද්යාලයේ පවත්වාගෙන යන නිල නොවන දර්ශන පීඨයට ශිෂ්යයෙක් විදියට ඇතුල් වෙලා කාලයක් ඉඳලාම ඇත්ත දැනගන්නකො. හැබැයි මේ ගැන අහන්න නිර්මාල් දෙවසිරිලගේ ගෙවල් පැත්තේ යනවා නම් බල්ලා බැඳලද කියලා කෝල් එකක් දාල අහල පමණක් ගේට්ටුවෙන් ඇතුලට යන්න. නැත්තම් අර කුරුණෑගලින් ගෙනත් ඇති කරන තඩි බල්ලා හපා කාල තමුන්නහෙලාට හොස්පිටල් ඇඩ්මිට් වෙන්න වෙනවා.
I am the one who started this discussion on the anonymous article titlted “ වියරු වැටුණු බාහිර ලෝකයේ ගොදුරු වූ මේ කුමුදු සහ අහිංසක ස්ත්රිය කවුද?” published on the June 22, 2013 ( http://126.96.36.199/~mana/වියරු-වැටුණු-බාහිර-ලෝකයේ/ ) and still carried on the front page of 3mana under the most commented, but with out a single comment to be seen.
I asked 3mana to place my comment under the above article but they published it as a new article with their reply to my comment. It appeared under the title සුරේන්ද්ර මහතාට පිලිතුරක් and was published on May 20, 2014 ( http://188.8.131.52/~mana/සුරේන්ද්ර-මහතාට-පිලිතුර/ )
In my last comment under this correspondence, I asked some specific questions as to your allegation that the X Group helped Dr. Kumdu to get his appointment at the University to which your news editor replied “ We will reply to you as soon as possible.”
I am still waiting for that reply. In the meantime our correspondence has disappeared from the radar into the oblivion of the archives and now new correspondence has started a under the title “On X Group” ( http://184.108.40.206/~mana/on-x-group/ ) again on issues arising out of your original article “ වියරු වැටුණු බාහිර ලෝකයේ ගොදුරු වූ මේ කුමුදු සහ අහිංසක ස්ත්රිය කවුද?”
While you prepare your reply I would like to sum up my questions / comments to refresh your memory.
1. If Dr. Kumudu wanted a favour from Dr. Parakrama with regard to the appointment for the post he was seeking, why should he go after the X Group when Dr. Kumudu and Dr. Parakrama have known each other as batch mates as undergraduates in the university long before the X Group came to know Dr. Parakrama?
2. What is your source for claiming that Dr. Kumudu has a first degree in philosophy? You can’t go by heresay when you want to criticize a person.
3. What are the qualifications that were required to join the Department of Sociology at the time Dr. Kumudu was recruited to the Department? Pl. provide facts. Don’t go by heresay.
4. What do you mean when you say the department had to interpret basic rules and regualtions (ඒ අනුව දෙපාර්ථමේන්තුවේ මූලික නීති රීති යළි අර්ථකථනය කොට ඇත). ? What are these rules and regulations you are referring to? Do you know that the decisions regarding appointment are made at the interview panel itself and not at the Department level because recruitment procedures/ rules and regulations are laid down by the University/ University Grants Commission and not by each department?
5. You are misrepresenting facts when you say “සුරේන්දු මහතා සදහන් කරන කුමුදු ගේ පසුව එකතු කර ගත් සුදුසුකම වන්නේ එම කොන්දේසිය සැපිරීමයි. එනම් පශ්චාත්-උපාධි සහතික ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමයි.” All the post-graduate qualifications (except the PhD ) I have mentioned as Dr. Kumudu had obtained, he had at the time of the interview. They were not obtained after the interview as you are suggesting. As for the PhD, Dr. Kumudu came for the interview from Canada where he was reading for the PhD.
6. When you say the following you are admitting that your attack on Dr. Kumudu was politically motivated and not based on facts: “කුමුදු සහ අප අතර ඇති ආරෝව පටන් ගත් තැන සුරේන්ද්ර මහතාට කුමුදු ගෙන්ම අසා දැන ගන්නට හැකිය. දේශපාලනයේ දී අනෙක් මිනිසුන් විචාර කරන විධි ක්රමය බුර්ෂුවා තාලයට ඌණනය කර මෙන් සුරේන්දු මහතා අපගෙන් කරන ඉල්ලීමට අප එකග වන්නේ නැත. ඒ සදහා ඕනෑ තරම් උදාහරණ මාක්ස්-ලෙනින්වාදී සාහිත්යයේ දක්නට ඇත. එබැවින් දේශපාලන විචාරයේ දී අප අනුගමනය කරනු ලබන විචාර විධි ක්රමය ඔබ වැනි මැද පාන්තික බුද්ධිමතුන්ට අල්ලන්නේ නැතිවාට අපට කරන්නට දෙයක් නැත.”
7. When you say that “අවසාන වශයෙන් කුමුදු කුසුම් කුමාර තම සම්මුඛ පරීක්ෂණයට සහභාගී වීමෙන් අනතුරුව ධම්මගේ කාමරයේ දී පැවසු සමහර විට කුමුදුට දැන් මතක නැතිව ඇති” again you are insinuating without coming out with facts? What did Dr. Kumudu say in Mr. Dhamma (Dissanayake’ ?) s room? Pl. explain.
8. When you say that “කුමුදුව විශ්ව විද්යාලයට බදවා ගැනීම සදහා යම් බලපෑමක් සිදු වූවාද නැද්ද යන්න කට කතා වලට අදාල මාතෘකාවක් නොව හර්දය සාක්ෂියට අදාල මාතෘකාවකි. අවශ්ය කෙනෙකුට අර්ජුන පරාක්රම මහතා පෞද්ගලිකව හමුවීමෙන් මේ ගැන වැඩි දුර විස්තර ලබාගත හැකිය,” what you are doing is drawing a redherring. It is your responsibility to get such information if any, from Dr. Parakrama and inform the reader. My question to you again is what is this influence? Why did the X group have to influence Dr. Parakrama on Dr. Kumudu’s behalf if you admit Dr. Kumudu and Dr. Parakrama were friends from their undergrad days (“අර්ජුන සහ කුමුදු කැළණිය විශ්ව විද්යාලයේ සමකාලින මිතුරන් බව අපි හොදින් දනිමු.”)
In response to a post titled “ සුරේන්ද්ර මහතාට පිලිතුරක්” dated May 20, 2014 ( http://220.127.116.11/~mana/සුරේන්ද්ර-මහතාට-පිලිතුර/ ) I posted a comment but you have on your own decided to publish my comment as a new post under a title you have given as “On X Group” ( http://18.104.22.168/~mana/on-x-group/ ) . I suppose such are the privileges of being editors! My comment seems to have rattled the editors and hence the response “ a mother fucker” when I asked for the names of editor/s. I posted my comments with some specific questions to the editors. But to this date they have not responded to my questions. Instead, several people other than the editors have made comments. I will briefly respond to those comments here.
When Ruwan gamage says “ This rationalist fucker’s name is Vangeesa sumanasekara” is he responding to my query about the editor/s?
Aravinda Ekanayaka says that he “ can’t just understand why does 3mana give this much of publicity for an insignificant lecturer in Colombo university, which held 2251st position according to the latest world ranking.” I am wondering what is the university Aravinda Ekanayaka attended and what are his significant contributions? I searched the internet to find information on Aravinda Ekanayaka but nothing is there except some Facebook pages but with no intellectual contribution, academic credentials, research or publications referred to.
Nevertheless, the above question he raises is valid. The X Group in fact had known to have associated with Dr. Kumudu even before the Group got its name. I am told that recently, the former leader of the X Group, Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri, has mentioned in an interview with a national Sinhala newspaper that X Group gave itself that name in response to a request by Dr. Kumudu (who was a graduate student in Canada at that time), to give a name to the group represented by Dr. Nirmal. Dr. Kumudu was was collecting books in Canada among the academics on behalf of this group . He needed a name to introduce the group to potential donors. As the group had not thought of a name until then, they just gave the name X Group, according to Dr. Nirmal.
Even though Dr. Kumudu was a friendly critic of the X Group he was never a member of the X Group. In the book සංස්කෘතිය හා අප්රධාන දේශපාලනය (2000) published by the X Group they devoted the article titled “චිත්ර කලාව: කලාභවනේ සිට සුපිරි වෙළඳසැල කරා“ to discuss issues raised by Dr. Kumudu on X Group’s position on the arts. Here the XGroup referred to Dr. Kumudu as “අපේ සමීප මිතුරෙකු වන කුමුදු කුසුම් කුමාර“ and further said that “ අපේ ඇසුර තුළ කුමුදු හොඳ සංවාදකයෙක්. …..interlocutor කෙනෙක්…..“
The point is that the X Group has not been able to ignore the influence critical insights Dr. Kumudu bring to bear on the views of the X Group has on society. That is why the write of Sri Lanka Vanguard Party gets mad when Ms. Prabha Manuratne, ‘political activist and Lecturer in English,’ and former leading member of the X Group calls Dr. Kumudu an important public intellectual and Dr. Kumudu refers to X Group’s desire to declare the university system in Sri Lanka as “අතාර්කික“. Just as much as the X Group, the Sri Lanka Vanguard Party also considers Dr. Kumudu’s views as influential on society and hence their reaction to these. My point is that instead of engaging with Dr. Kumudu’s criticism of their views, the Sri Lanka Vanguard Party takes the path of slander and mud slinging.
“Mr. /Dr. /Prof. / Aravinda Ekanayaka” (which one of these you would take as your status? ) raises the issue of academic output of Dr. Kumudu which is relevant to an evaluation of Dr. Kumudu’s academic career and hence should be submitted to the relevant institutions in the case of such an evaluation, for example for his careers promotion, takes place. In the issues raised in this discussion what is at stake here is not Dr. Kumudu’s academic output but several claims made by the writer of the Sri Lanka Vanguard Party. .If you carefully read what I have written you will realize this.
Aravinda Ekanayaka says that “ Being unable to present KKK as an important figure in terms of his academic and public interventions/contributions, the author of the above article had merely admired his degree certificates and credentials! What sort of intellectual stupidity!!!”. Where have I referred to Dr. Kumudu’s “degree certificates and credentials” here?
All what I have done is to present some evidence to counter the claim of the write of the Sri Lanka Vanguard Party that it is the X Group that created an intellectual climate for Dr. Kumudu in this period. The only reference to academic work given here is about the Capital and Peasant Production project which also had a political significance in the intellectual climate in Sri Lanka. My point is that by the time the X Group came into contact with Dr. Kumudu he already had his place in public political life in the country. His spirit of engagement with the X Group was in the role of friendly interlocutor with their ideas providing them an occasion to think with him. There was no need for him to hang onto a group of young people who were just entering politics except to engage them to rethink their positions. . Now who is stupid? Me or Aravinda Ekanayaka who cannot follow the simple logic and facts involved in an idea and makes false claims? I am sure if he had followed Logic 101 course for first year undergrads at Colombo University he would not make such glaring errors in logical thinking.
Aravinda Ekanayaka tries to run down Dr. Kumudu saying that “ if KKK comes into public notification today, that is only when 3mana publishes something on him; yes, except that he gets some irregular public lecture invitations that wouldn’t enough to make him a public intellect as such. “ What are “irregular public lecture invitations”? What makes one a public intellectual? Regular public lecture invitations? Has Dr. Kumudu ever made the claim that he is a public intellectual? This is obviously a reference to Ms. Prabha Manuratne’s point above which we have mentioned. The issue at dispute here is not whether Dr. Kumudu is a public intellectual but whether it was the X Group that created an intellectual climate for Dr. Kumudu to do his work which is an utter lie made in a desperate attempt to discredit him due to political reasons.
When Aravinda Ekanayaka says that Dr. Kumudu will retire in a few years as a senior lecturer he seems to suggest that if one were to be an intellectual he should obtain higher posts in the university systems such as Professorships. As such Aravinda Ekanayaka betrays that he measures one’s intellectual contribution by the academic position one holds in the hierarchy in the university system. Did Aravainda Ekanayaka missed the opportunity to join a university by any chance? So, according to him, one would have made a better intellectual contribution by the virtue of the professorship one holds? What a high opinion Aravinda Ekanayaka has of the university system of Sri Lanka! One who holds a professor post is an intellectual. I thought he began by running down the system?
When Aravinda Ekanayaka refers to the idea of “ intellectual legacy” attacking Dr. Kumudu, he seems to suggest that on the basis of his own judgment of Dr. Kumudu’s legacy alone, the latter stands discredited. Dr. Kumudu’s contribution to society will be assessed by the future generations in whatever work he has undertaken to do in his life time. Already the writer of the Sri Lanka Vangaurd Party has acknowledged his contribution as a teacher when he says that “එපමණක් නොව සුරේන්ද්ර මහතාටත් වඩා හොදින් අප දන්නා පරිදි කුමුදු කුසුම් කුමාර යනු හොද ගුරුවරයෙකි” and earlier “ අපේ ඇසුර තුළ කුමුදු හොඳ සංවාදකයෙක්. …..interlocutor කෙනෙක්…..“ . The converse of what Aravinda Ekanayaka argues is that the X Group / Sri Lanka Vanguard Party has created an intellectual legacy. Can you pl. tell us what does this legacy consist of ? And who has appreciated it?
Aravinda Ekanayaka states that people will forget Dr. Kumudu easily, manifstingt his fear that Dr. Kumudu will be remembered by people. He also seems to value ‘social science scholarship’ which according to critics of modernity is an appendage of modernity (see Foucault, The Order of Things). Moreover, this shows that Aravinda Ekanayaka is exercised by the fear of not being remembered by people. Do ordinary people who are not exercised by the idea of being remembered, live lesser lives?
Aravinda Ekanayaka’s claims that Dr. Kumudu has been a “university tuition guru”. This is a utter lie made maliciously. From what we know Dr. Kumudu has never given tuition and never charged money for teaching students even outside his university teaching. In fact he had protested that some university lecturers of the X Group were charging fees from university students to teach them theory in the university.
Aravinda Ekanayaka is correct that 3mana, the web magazine of the Sri Lanka Vanguard Party continues to give publicity to Dr. Kumudu by keeping an article on Dr. Kumudu on its first page since June, 2013 (“ වියරු වැටුණු බාහිර ලෝකයේ ගොදුරු වූ මේ කුමුදු සහ අහිංසක ස්ත්රිය කවුද?” ) . Is it because they think that Dr. Kumudu an insignificant person in their scheme of things?
The funniest part of this exchange of views is that having posted the comment by “Mr. /Dr. /Prof. / Aravinda Ekanayaka” the news editor says “Let him speak about his side. Later we will reply. We report, you decide- Prof Mahajara.”. I have already spoken about my side. But dear Editor/ News editor you have not responded to any of my queries/ questions. Aravinda Ekanayaka has not either even though he has come to your help. His is only an attempt to distract us from the point of discussion by raising issues which are not relevant to the questions I have raised. In Englihs idiom this is called a red herring.
The last comment by Dasun goes contrary to what “Mr. /Dr. /Prof. / Aravinda Ekanayaka” is saying about Dr. Kumudu. According to Dasun Dr. Kumudu has a leading position among those who are studying philosophy at Colombo University. But I must say that I am not Vangeesa Sumanasekara as some of you have perceived to be. So, please leave him out of this.
At the end of all this all what I have to say is Editor/News editor (is this news we are discussing? Or what?) all my questions to you remain unanswered. Over to you.
I hope you won’t post this as a new post lest that we lose the continuity of discussion.
Comments are closed.