සිංහල-බෞද්ධ මනස තේරුම් ගැනීම
Responding to Kusal Perera’s ‘In Search of the New Man’, Ivan revisits two debates: Newton Gunasinghe’s great and little traditions, which suggest Sinhala cultural narrowness belongs to the era of decline rather than all history, and Sarachchandra’s claim, contested by Martin Wickramasinghe, that Buddhism does not see art as purifying. Europe escaped a similar world-denial through the Renaissance; Sri Lanka’s revivals, independence movement and parties never produced one. Every movement from Dharmapala and Bandaranaike to Wijeweera and the JHU has pandered to the Sinhala-Buddhist mind, shaped by an island that kept its identity against India, rather than changing it.
මගේ සිහිනය
Answering websites that claimed the Rajapaksa government was buying Ravaya through Milinda Moragoda and paying Ivan a bribe, Ivan sets out Ravaya’s 27-year record of refusing favours: turning down Chandrika Kumaratunga’s offer of the Lake House chairmanship, free newsprint from the anti-Premadasa impeachment camp, and Harry Jayawardena’s private money. He describes his dream for Ravaya before he retires — staff as shareholders, new presses, a stronger paper and a web presence — and the conditions under which Moragoda would buy only a 40 per cent minority stake, inviting alternatives.
අහිංසාවාදයේ පැණි තැවරූ අවස්ථාවාදය
Dr Sunil Wijesiriwardena, who turned back at the gate of Ravaya’s anniversary rather than submit to security checks, wrote that two front-page photographs showed Ravaya treating its readers as a feudal lord treats low-caste visitors. Ivan answers with satire and six historical photographs — LSSP leaders seated above their supporters, Trotsky at the Comintern’s top table, Tagore, Gandhi and Nehru in chairs above others — to show where such reasoning leads. He then turns the test on Wijesiriwardena’s own record: how he ran his organisation Vibhavi, why it closed when foreign funding ended, and whether as a paid consultant to other NGOs he ever challenged their corruption. Those who judge others’ spaces, Ivan says, must first look at their own.
පටිසෝතගාමී හා විප්ලවකාරී ළදරු වලිප්පුව
Replying to Gamini Viyangoda’s criticism of Ravaya’s anniversary, Ivan apologises to guests, including Chitrasena’s widow Vajira, who were distressed by the security checks, which he says could not be avoided once the President was invited. The real objection, he argues, is to the President’s presence and to Ravaya’s call for reform under this government. Rajapaksa’s regime, like its predecessors, is corrupt, wasteful and arbitrary, but it is not a dictatorship: it can be changed at elections, and a reorganisation of the political system needs the consent of both government and opposition. The critics’ insistence on waiting until the regime falls looks radical but is extreme and reactionary, and he asks why such a group has been pushed to that position.
බුද්ධිමය අවංකභාවය හා බුද්ධිමතකුගේ සදාචාර අර්බුදය (ආචාර්ය සුනිල් විජේසිරිවර්ධනට පිළිතුරක්)
Ivan questioned one idea from Dr Sunil Wijesiriwardena’s interview, not to put him in difficulty but because he believed it would put a wrong view into a reader’s head. The reply came, and this is Ivan’s answer to the reply — which begins by noting that the reply insists repeatedly that it is not a reply.
දෙමළ ප්රශ්නය හා සුනිල් විජේසිරිවර්ධන
An interview with Dr Sunil Wijesiriwardena on the Tamil question appeared in the last Ravaya, and the purpose of this article is to question one idea in it — the idea that governs everything else he says there. The claim that no attempt was made to give a fair political settlement and that war was all that was done is, Ivan writes, entirely wrong.