Politics amidst a global health crisis
“The two things given to each patient were a bottle of the standard quinine mixture and Marmite rolled into the form of vederala’s pills…” was how one account of the historic ‘Surya Mal Movement’ of the mid-1930s described the labours of those freedom activists during the Malaria epidemic. The forerunners of some of our country’s biggest political parties were among them.
In 1934-35, heavy rains combined with persistent malnutrition among the poor peasantry resulted in almost a quarter of the total population of 3.5 million suffering from Malaria, of which as much as 125,000 people died. Historical writings of the time reported that agricultural production suffered due to so many farmer families being stricken with the debilitating fever. The British colonial administration struggled to maintain order at the time and was weighed down by the costs of financial support for poor peasant families.
But young radical freedom fighters Philip and Robert Gunawardena, N.M. Perera, Dr. S.A. Wickremasinghe, Colvin R. de Silva, Leslie Goonewardene and Vernon Gunasekera had, on their own initiative, diverted their already successful ‘Surya Mal Movement’ into a campaign of voluntary help and care for the Malaria victims. So rooted had the Surya Mal cadres become in the Malaria affected villages that, ultimately, the colonial authorities had to partly rely on these activists to distribute food and medical supplies.
These young political leaders were some of the social-heroic originators of major national political parties of today. And they were already in the forefront of politics at that time.
Today, the country faces as big a health crisis as that which ravaged the island in the 1930s. Even though the death toll is yet nowhere near the fatalities in the 1934-35 Malaria epidemic, the severe economic disruption bodes to be as nationally crippling. Given the manner in which all sectors of the economy are interlinked in this era of globalized capitalism, the impact could be far worse.
In contrast to the Malaria epidemic of yesteryear, today’s political Opposition is not to be seen mobilizing the masses in movements of social response to the COVID-19 epidemic. Unlike Malaria, COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease and, therefore, current political leaders cannot traipse the roads (as they did in the Kelani Valley in 1934-35) to tend to the disease-stricken – at least not in the COVID-19 high intensity areas. In fact, Sri Lanka has now become only the second country in South Asia to eliminate Malaria after a massive anti-Malaria campaign.
But the tools and methods of today’s politics and popular mobilisation are far different in this age of electronic media and digital mass communications. Social movements and, even regime-toppling ‘revolutions’, have been launched via social media and the smartphone. Huge volumes of promotion of political personalities and social causes are now entirely powered through these forms of messaging (just as it is done in commerce).
But our national Opposition has not thought to take any significant and imaginative initiatives to meet the social needs of our current pandemic even as the Government, the health agencies and philanthropic commercial enterprises are doing. The electronic news media and the Internet buzz with such governmental and commercial messaging all the time.
Except for a few Left parties, the major Opposition alliances are only known to focus on Constitutional matters. In this era of digital art and virtual platforms, there is nothing as imaginative as the ‘Surya Mal’ as a political tool of mass activism-cum-social-service.
The recall of Parliament, in effect, the return to Parliamentary power of the politicians, seems to be the sole objective of the latest joint statement put out by the some of the biggest Opposition parties.
The leaders of the Surya Mal Movement were also concerned about the democratic struggle against colonialism at the time. But in the midst of a deadly epidemic, they chose to focus on the immediate societal contingency and the people’s urgent needs. Of course, ultimately, by being true to the people’s priorities, these political personalities did benefit politically, but that was the result of their down-to-earth activism rather than mere constitutional manoeuvres.
The nation is in the clutches of a vicious pandemic that spreads swiftly and unseen. Such is the threat to community life that livelihoods are in suspense for weeks. While formal political deliberations and decision-making ultimately must come, cannot these be done in engagement between all political forces in new processes of on-going consultation rather than by mere constitutionally framed party competition?
The Surya Mal activists were engaged with on the Malaria frontlines by the colonial administration of the time (their political foes). In today’s post-modern frameworks, the Opposition must be already on the COVID-19 frontlines in various ways of virtual conferencing, mass communication and social guidance just as much as the administration and the business sector are active. That will also provide the compulsion for the Government to engage with these other national political forces.
“The two things given to each patient were a bottle of the standard quinine mixture and Marmite rolled into the form of vederala’s pills…” was how one account of the historic ‘Surya Mal Movement’ of the mid-1930s described the labours of those freedom activists during the Malaria epidemic. The forerunners of some of our country’s biggest political parties were among them.
In 1934-35, heavy rains combined with persistent malnutrition among the poor peasantry resulted in almost a quarter of the total population of 3.5 million suffering from Malaria, of which as much as 125,000 people died. Historical writings of the time reported that agricultural production suffered due to so many farmer families being stricken with the debilitating fever. The British colonial administration struggled to maintain order at the time and was weighed down by the costs of financial support for poor peasant families.
But young radical freedom fighters Philip and Robert Gunawardena, N.M. Perera, Dr. S.A. Wickremasinghe, Colvin R. de Silva, Leslie Goonewardene and Vernon Gunasekera had, on their own initiative, diverted their already successful ‘Surya Mal Movement’ into a campaign of voluntary help and care for the Malaria victims. So rooted had the Surya Mal cadres become in the Malaria affected villages that, ultimately, the colonial authorities had to partly rely on these activists to distribute food and medical supplies.
These young political leaders were some of the social-heroic originators of major national political parties of today. And they were already in the forefront of politics at that time.
Today, the country faces as big a health crisis as that which ravaged the island in the 1930s. Even though the death toll is yet nowhere near the fatalities in the 1934-35 Malaria epidemic, the severe economic disruption bodes to be as nationally crippling. Given the manner in which all sectors of the economy are interlinked in this era of globalized capitalism, the impact could be far worse.
In contrast to the Malaria epidemic of yesteryear, today’s political Opposition is not to be seen mobilizing the masses in movements of social response to the COVID-19 epidemic. Unlike Malaria, COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease and, therefore, current political leaders cannot traipse the roads (as they did in the Kelani Valley in 1934-35) to tend to the disease-stricken – at least not in the COVID-19 high intensity areas. In fact, Sri Lanka has now become only the second country in South Asia to eliminate Malaria after a massive anti-Malaria campaign.
But the tools and methods of today’s politics and popular mobilisation are far different in this age of electronic media and digital mass communications. Social movements and, even regime-toppling ‘revolutions’, have been launched via social media and the smartphone. Huge volumes of promotion of political personalities and social causes are now entirely powered through these forms of messaging (just as it is done in commerce).
But our national Opposition has not thought to take any significant and imaginative initiatives to meet the social needs of our current pandemic even as the Government, the health agencies and philanthropic commercial enterprises are doing. The electronic news media and the Internet buzz with such governmental and commercial messaging all the time.
Except for a few Left parties, the major Opposition alliances are only known to focus on Constitutional matters. In this era of digital art and virtual platforms, there is nothing as imaginative as the ‘Surya Mal’ as a political tool of mass activism-cum-social-service.
The recall of Parliament, in effect, the return to Parliamentary power of the politicians, seems to be the sole objective of the latest joint statement put out by the some of the biggest Opposition parties.
The leaders of the Surya Mal Movement were also concerned about the democratic struggle against colonialism at the time. But in the midst of a deadly epidemic, they chose to focus on the immediate societal contingency and the people’s urgent needs. Of course, ultimately, by being true to the people’s priorities, these political personalities did benefit politically, but that was the result of their down-to-earth activism rather than mere constitutional manoeuvres.
The nation is in the clutches of a vicious pandemic that spreads swiftly and unseen. Such is the threat to community life that livelihoods are in suspense for weeks. While formal political deliberations and decision-making ultimately must come, cannot these be done in engagement between all political forces in new processes of on-going consultation rather than by mere constitutionally framed party competition?
The Surya Mal activists were engaged with on the Malaria frontlines by the colonial administration of the time (their political foes). In today’s post-modern frameworks, the Opposition must be already on the COVID-19 frontlines in various ways of virtual conferencing, mass communication and social guidance just as much as the administration and the business sector are active. That will also provide the compulsion for the Government to engage with these other national political forces.
