He was a filmstar, they said. But she had never much cared for films. She had heard of schoolgirls hoarding dog-eared posters; giggling over provocative poses; singing the songs the stars sang; dancing the dances the stars danced; wishing for the same clothes and hair styles. She had heard stories of the glitz and glamour of that faraway world. But they meant nothing to her. Her school days hadn’t lasted long. She hadn’t the time to grow up, watching films and singing songs.

Time was snatched from her and replaced by a gun in her hands. A gun could stop time, she was told. And it had. She knows it has been years since she’d pulled a trigger for the first time, but she can’t tell how many. She can’t measure time by days or weeks or months anymore. None of that makes sense. She can’t measure them by bullets either – there have been too many fired at her and fired by her.

Only her body hints at her that time has passed. She was short and stout when they took her away but now she has grown taller, slimmer. The puppy fat of her teenage years has given way to smooth, hard muscle from constant training, constant moving. Her hair, which she wore cropped short in her younger days, now snakes over her shoulder in a long plait that tickles her bare hip. Her then non-existent breasts have bloomed out over the years despite the tight, limiting uniform. She remembers blushing this morning as she put on her sari jacket, noticing almost for the first time how much her body had changed. In the past, it had been almost easy to forget she was a woman. The sudden reconnection with that essence of herself as she wore her crimson wedding sari that morning made her feel self-conscious and almost uncomfortable.

Beside her, the other brides jostle in the heat with ready smiles for the celebrity now coming their way. Dutifully, she smiles too, feeling the cheap lipstick chap and break on her lips. She resists the urge to bite it off. She doesn’t like the make up. The thick powder on her face makes her sweat and the kajol on her eyes is a jarring reminder of the paint they would smear on their faces for nighttime camouflage.

The only part of her costume that she really loves is the jewelry. The tinkle of the assorted gold bangles whenever she moves her hands delights her. The thick gold thali around her neck glints in the daylight, starkly bright against her sunburnt skin, an announcement to the world that she is married. Anklets jangle around her feet, making her feel irresponsibly like dancing the way they do in those films she’s heard about.

The star has reached her orbit. He grasps her hands and smiles at her, saying something to her that she doesn’t understand. He has said that something to every single one of the brides – she doubts any of them have understood him. She smiles a large pretend smile, and is startled by a barrage of photographers who descend on the scene to take pictures of the celebrity participating in his grand act of charity and her, one of the fifty-three laughing brides, happy to have her marriage witnessed by such a star. She has never heard of him before. Still, she smiles.

The actual ritual, though, she took seriously. She listened earnestly to the priest’s words and whispered prayers of thanks to the gods for this day. It was the only time she felt anything was really real. When her new husband was standing beside her, tall and silent and proud like he always is.

They haven’t talked much today – there simply hasn’t been much time – but she longs for nighttime, when they will finally be together and alone. Husband and wife. He has been her husband in her heart for a long time, but now is it no longer a reason for shame; no longer something to be hidden away. They will no longer have to pray for those secret pockets of time to come along more often so that they could be together. They will finally have each other to come home to. Even if that home is one they cannot leave. At least, they will be bound there together.

She watches him as he talks to a reporter, telling them their story. She knows he is uncomfortable, but they have all been asked to speak if spoken to. When the reporter leaves she can see him scanning the crowd, searching for her. For some sense in the madness. She almost runs to him and takes his hand. His eyes smile relief at her, but he says nothing. In one hand, he is holding their wedding present: two silver cups and plates off of which they will eat their first meal later that day, as a newly wedded couple.

Together they survey the festive mess of brides, grooms and officials. Without a word being spoken between them they start walking as one towards the fence that cordons them off from the outside world. Beyond the fence stands a motley crowd, peering between the rows of barbed wire, to get a better look at the proceedings inside. She can see her mother in that crowd, her best dress now stained with red dust from the long day, holding her struggling baby niece in her arms. The baby is uncomfortable in the heat and dribbles unhappy tears, but clutches onto the arms holding her for comfort. Her sister gives the baby – her daughter – a preoccupied kiss before moving closer to the knotted strips of wire, searching for her newly married sibling.

Her husband raises his hand to get their attention and in minutes they are reunited. For a few moments, she wishes she could tear down the fence so that she can feel her mother’s arms around her again. So that she can tell her sister stories they haven’t been able to share in years. So that she can cradle her baby niece and wonder if there will ever be a time when she will be free. Free to have her own child; to have her own life. She has been imprisoned for so long. First, by an idea. Now, by the ones who captured her and then planned her wedding day. Her head spins with the strange irony of it all.

It is time to go. She doesn’t want to turn her back on her family and begs them to leave first instead. The baby giggles just as they turn to leave and the sound rings out as they disappear into the dusk. She tries not to cry. Her husband steers her gently to join the 52 other newlyweds and they are all escorted to their quarters – 53 individual houses for two. A Peace Village, she was told. She wonders at the name. A house one cannot leave, a village one cannot leave, a place one cannot leave is still a prison.

She briefly rests her head on her new husband’s shoulder. He is silent but allows his body to give into hers a little – a tiny gesture of acknowledgement and reassurance, unseen and unfelt by anyone but her. For a brief moment, she feels protected, surrounded as she is by a ring of weapons. At least they are together, she thinks, taking the silver cup from her husband and tracing its edge with her finger. Her hand leaves the cup, to touch her thali and with that touch, she sends out another prayer to the gods. At least, she thinks. At least, in this prison, she has been allowed love.

[Editors note: Read Mass wedding at Vavuniya, published on The Hindu, for context. Read Mass Marriage, Vavuniya by Indran Amirthanayagam, published earlier on Groundviews, for a poetic take on the same event.]

• Prices Improve In Jaffna
• Unshed Tears
• The Fear of Peace
• Christmas 2008 in Sri Lanka
• Sri Lanka’s IDP camp Manik Farm is what it is (but what is that?)

The present Sri Lankan government has proved that though Sri Lanka is a small country, it has been able to achieve many things that other countries, specially in the West have not been able to. Nowhere in the world has terrorism been crushed and destroyed using only force. “Destroying terrorism is not a crime” the Defense Secretary told Stephen Sackur of the BBC. What was implied is that the means we used cannot be questioned. In other countries a military solution goes hand in hand with a political solution. In Sri Lanka the government believes that there is no political problem and therefore a political solution is not necessary. If that is so what made the LTTE take up arms? “There was no reason. They were born terrorists and the only solution was to exterminate them. We have done it. Now, don’t talk about the past, and put forward the demands of the terrorists like power sharing and devolution of power”, seems to be the government’s answer. Most Sri Lankans including some Tamils have accepted this answer. People of most other countries would not have. That too is an achievement of the Rajapaksa regime. Finally the Rajapaksa brothers have convinced the people that democracy imposed on us by our colonial masters is not such a wonderful system. It is much safer to hand over power to one family. The Rajapaksas did not take over power by staging a coup (Although Sarath Fonseka has called the presidential election the biggest coup!)Using different methods, they merely persuaded the people to vote the whole family into power, for after all the President can only trust his family members and friends. As Gotabhaya Rajapaksa pointed out in his ‘Hard Talk’ interview all members of the Rajapaksa family received a massive number of preferential votes. When Stephen Sackur questioned whether it was healthy in a vibrant democracy, for one family to hold such wide powers, Gotabhaya’s answer was, “If the people gives all that power – all Rajapaksas were elected – so what? If the people want the Rajapaksas – let it be” This then is the biggest achievement of the Rajapaksas,that they have been able to make the people want them, perhaps to stay in power for ever.

Anyone who watched Gotabhya Rajapaksa on BBC would have realized that Sri Lanka is now firmly on the road away from democracy towards authoritarian rule. Gotabhya Rajapaksa was bold enough to tell Stephen Sackur that General Sarath Fonseka, who was mainly responsible for winning the war for the Rajapaksas could be executed if he were to agree to testify before any independent investigation of alleged abuses during the war. To quote his own words, “He (Sarath Fonseka) cannot do that. He was the commander. That’s a treason, we will hang him if he do that. I am telling you. How can he betray the country? He is a liar, liar, liar”. Such is the power of the Rajapaksas. The Defense secretary was not elected by the people but he seems to be the most powerful man of the present regime.

Not satisfied with the power they already wield, the regime plans to legally acquire unlimited powers for an unlimited period of time, by changing the constitution. The AHRC (Asian Human Rights Commission) referred to the taking over of the Attorney General’s Department by the President as “one more nail in the coffin, one more step on the road to consolidation of despotic government in Sri Lanka”. But there are more nails to come in the form of constitutional reforms to firmly seal democracy in a coffin. The new constitution would remove the 2 terms limit and give Mahinda Rajapaksa the freedom to remain President for life if he wished to or at least till he could hand over power to Namal Rajapaksa who is already referred to as the “heir apparent”. The senate would make it possible for any pro-democracy law to be effectively vetoed. That would be another nail in the coffin.

Stephen Sackur thinks, “The suggestion that General Fonseka could be executed is likely to cause a political storm in Sri Lanka”. He is wrong. We Sri Lankans know better. There will be no political storm, not even a strong breeze. The Rajapaksa brothers have seen to that. They have convinced the majority that while they won the war on terror and saved the country, General Fonseka has been proved to be a traitor, willing to betray the country. It may not take very long for the same people to be ready to cheer and applaud the hanging of this ‘traitor’ if and when the Rajapaksas decide to do so.

Organizations and institutions that could have staged a protest have been effectively silenced. The media has been the worst hit. Many journalists have been threatened, killed, abducted, tortured, disappeared or exiled for criticizing the government. Any thing that is said in support of these journalists is called LTTE propaganda. Even the killing of Lasantha Wickramatunga is being referred as part of anti-government (LTTE) propaganda!

What about the main opposition? They cannot prevent this erosion of democracy as long as Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe remains the leader. He has now forgotten the ceasefire days when he spoke of a political settlement based on power sharing with the minorities. Like the Rajapaksa cabal he too seems to believe that ultra nationalism is the way forward and it is wiser to share power with the Rajapaksas than with the minorities. Being with them he helps the brothers to consolidate their power base. When Chamal Rajapaksa was chosen as the speaker of the House Ranil Wickramasinghe was expected to protest.  But he did not. Instead he lent his support to the Rajapaksa brothers and made his own job secure. Some people are beginning to wonder whether there is a secret agreement between Ranil Wickramasinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa that while one remains President for life the other remains leader of the opposition for life. And so the UNP remains weak and ineffective unable to convince the people that willingly handing over all powers to one man and his family would ultimately destroy their freedom, and when that realization dawns it would be too late.

What about the intelligentsia in this country? Today many professionals and intellectuals are supportive of the Rajapaksa regime. They are ever willing to “protect the President’s good name”. Well known and respected intellectuals are prepared to accept a “little more corruption (un provable) and a little more nepotism (which is understandable)” from the Rajapaksa brothers – all this support is of course purely in the interest of the country they say.

What of the left parties and their leaders? As pointed out by Kusal Perera (June 06^th, Sunday Leader) the old left parties like the LSSP and CP do not have any organized party structures as they had in the 50s and 60s. Their leaders are more interested in holding ministerial posts than in offering any constructive criticism. Enjoying state privileges and supporting a corrupt regime they have lost all credibility among the people. Left leaders of the past like N.M., Colvin and Leslie among many others were men of political integrity and honesty. Today there is none among the left parties of that caliber who could give leadership to the dissenting voices. Wickramabahu Karunaratna’s is a lone voice in the wilderness. The JVP does keep protesting but the people do not trust them due to their violent past.

Finally the people could protest against these moves towards authoritarianism but that is very unlikely. Most Sri Lankans are not perturbed by the sweeping powers exercised by the Rajapaksa brothers. To them what matters is that there is peace in the country. They are free to move around without any fear of sudden bomb explosions. There is security and they also believe that the economy is growing and the cost of living will gradually come down with development. As to freedom of expression, independence of the judiciary, probing war crimes and bringing those found guilty to justice, implementation of the 13^th and 17^th amendments, preventing Human Rights violations, abuse of power and corruption among the politicians, police and the government officials, and finally treating the minorities as equals through power sharing – these mean nothing to them. They are happy within the cocoons they have woven around themselves and refuse to see the reality outside their world. Amidst such apathy and indifference of the people, is there any hope of democracy surviving in Sri Lanka? An honest answer would be “No, not really”. But then as Kumar David says, “Weep not for the People; their mandate was the executioner’s Certificate”. (May 23^rd, Lakbima News) Sri Lankans have failed Democracy.

• Hard Talk
• In defense of the JVP campaign to support Sarath Fonseka
• Sarath Fonseka and the Role of the Opposition: Will Sanity Prevail?
• Blinkered vision of Tamil nationalists and socialists is self-defeating
• The Return of Sarath Fonseka: An Enduring Headache?

In the article “The bowl-or-ball dilemma of rubbishing English standards” (Sunday Observer, 6/6/2010), Dilshan Boange adds his voice to the growing clamour of protest at the idea of speaking English “our way”. He recounts the anecdote of a friend who called an Indian hotel and “had to face a lingual jumble of a marginally intelligible dialogue from the hotel staffer”, concluding that the problem was that the Indian was talking English “their way”. If only everyone learnt to speak English properly, such situations would never arise.

He goes on to discuss the pronunciation of the various ‘o’ sounds in English, and asks: “What happens when you ask for a ‘ball’ and are given a ‘bowl’?” It is difficult to think of an actual situation where this might happen in reality: Murali asks for the ball and Kumar throws him a bowl? Unlikely. Language is full of such potential theoretical pitfalls, but context is everything, and such misunderstandings (though they do happen) are rare between competent speakers of the language.

There are three ‘o’ sounds in standard English pronunciation: the short ‘o’ in long, hot, wash, etc.; the long ‘o’ in ball, born, law, short and caught; and the diphthong in bowl, coat, note, go and know.

How you pronounce the first (short) ‘o’ says a lot about where you come from, both geographically and socially. Speakers of British English tend to pronounce it with the mouth quite open, though not as open as in American English. First-language speakers of Sinhala and Tamil tend to pronounce it much more closed, reflecting the way the equivalent letter is pronounced in Sinhala and Tamil. Competent speakers of “standard Sri Lankan English” are likely to make a much clearer distinction between a more closed ‘o’ in Sinhala words such as pol, and a more open ‘o’ in English words like office. This difference is the origin of the term “not pot English” – the words not and pot being pronounced with an exaggeratedly closed ‘o’ to imitate an accent that is widely perceived as socially inferior.

The pronunciation of the ‘o’ sound in bowl is equally flexible, and equally revealing. It is pronounced as a diphthong (though with considerable variations) in standard British, American and Australian Englishes. But in many others, including Geordie, Scottish, Irish, Caribbean, African and South Asian accents, it is not pronounced as a diphthong at all, but (again, with variations) as a long, closed ‘o’ similar to the long ‘o’ in ball – making ball and bowl, to all intents and purposes, homophones.

The problem from an English-teaching perspective is that there are so many words which can be confused if the two ‘o’s are pronounced the same, or almost the same: ball/bowl, bought/boat, bore/bow, born/bone, bald/bowled, to name just the ones beginning with B. As a result, English teachers tend to devote a disproportionate amount of time and energy to attempting to correct an “error” which is in fact just a natural feature of the accent of many first-language English speakers around the world, including here in Sri Lanka.

There are several variations in the way the ‘o’ sound is pronounced in Sri Lankan English. Competent speakers of standard SLE make a greater distinction between ball and bowl than first-language speakers of Sinhala and Tamil. But still, the distinction they are making is not the same as the distinction British or American speakers make between these sounds. In standard SLE pronunciation, the long ‘o’ sound in ball tends to be pronounced as a long version of the more open ‘o’ in office (similar to the standard British pronunciation of the same sound), while the ‘o’ in bowl is generally pronounced more closed (similar to the long ‘o’ in Sinhala words such as bo gaha).

Another way of looking at it is that standard SLE pronunciation has four distinct ‘o’ sounds (while standard British pronunciation manages with the three mentioned earlier):

1. the short, open ‘o’ in English words like hot and office
2. the long, open ‘o’ in English words like ball and born
3. the short, closed ‘o’ in Sinhala and Tamil words like pol and boru (which are also part of the Sri Lankan English lexicon)
4. the long, closed ‘o’ in Sinhala and Tamil words such as poya and thosai, and in English words such as bowl and bone.

In fact, the only Sri Lankans who naturally pronounce the bowl diphthong the way it is pronounced in the UK are those who have spent a considerable part of their formative years in the UK themselves. Anyone else who talks like that (or tries to) here in Sri Lanka is ridiculed for talking with a “polkatu” accent, simply because it sounds so alien to the natural Sri Lankan way of speaking.

There is one situation where I have started hearing the ‘o’ diphthong (or a variation on it) regularly here in Sri Lanka. It’s when someone answers the phone and says “Hellou”. You immediately know two things about your interlocutor: 1) he/she probably doesn’t speak English very well, and 2) he/she has followed a Telephone Skills Course. Call centres train people to talk like this, in the name of the Orwellian term “accent neutralisation”, which in reality means training people to speak with a British or American accent. And the same insistence on the artificial ‘o’ diphthong is alive and well in the elocution industry – English language schools purporting to teach standard British pronunciation, but in fact teaching a parody of an outdated perception of a colonial-era accent. It certainly doesn’t sound like any accent I have heard in contemporary Britain.

In his article in the Sunday Observer, Dilshan Boange claims, “Shakespearean grammar would befuddle us today, but the words are pronounced the same.” This is nonsense. Modern UK and US accents are vastly different, yet both evolved from the way the language was spoken in Shakespeare’s time. He also claims that unless everyone learns to speak the same way, there will be a state of what he calls “lingual anarchy”. If this was the case the UK would long ago have broken up into hundreds of linguistic fiefdoms unable to communicate with each other. In the US the people in North Utah laugh at the South Utah accent, and no doubt vice-versa. This is not lingual anarchy, it is linguistic diversity, and it should be celebrated. Even if you don’t like it, it is here to stay.

###

A-Z of Sri Lankan English is an all-new, occasional alphabetical dip into the variety of English spoken in Sri Lanka, published exclusively on Groundviews. The original A-Z of Sri Lankan English was published in the travelsrilanka magazine, and can be found here.

• A Snooty English Speaker’s reply
• Putting cuts, part-putting and pol symbol
• Sri Lankan English: The state of the debate
• English language is the need of the hour
• Doing It in a Foreign Language

In Sri Lankan politics, things oftentimes turn topsy-turvy. When people asked for lower prices for basic food items, government lowers prices of luxury cars with absolutely feeble argument that the latter would in turn benefit people. The same thing appears to be unfolding in the sphere of constitutional reforms. In the last Parliamentary Election, one of the key appeals that the United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance made was that the UPFA be given two third seats of the new Parliament so that it can amend the Second Republic Constitution changing the system highly criticized electoral system. People appeared to have accepted the necessity of changing the electoral system that have created intra-party conflict for preferential vote (manapa pore)with heavy campaign expenses on the one hand and the distanciation of elected members from the citizens on the other. As a necessary corollary of massive campaign expenses, the sponsors to election fund have naturally been placed before the people in the process of post-election decision-making. In the context in which the UPFA government is planning to present a bill to the Parliament to amend the constitution, I think people of this country should be attentive and see if the amendments are actually oriented towards correcting the existing flaws of the present constitution. Is what has now been proposed by the government consistent with what was asked for by the people in this country? What is the resemblance of the government’s proposals to what UPFA leaders promised to the people prior to the last Parliamentary election? How should people react, respond and resist in case of inconsistency and non-resemblance? These are the kind of questions. I intend to address in this article.

Since the late 1980s, there has been a general consensus that the Second Republican Constitution that was enacted in 1978 and the state structure set up by it should be replaced by a new constitution based on a new set of principles. It has also been emphasized that a legal foundation for a new state structure that is radically different from the state structure existed since 1948 should be laid. Prior to the Parliamentary and Presidential elections of 1994, discussions on this subject in different fora took place and new constitutional principles were delineated.  At least two areas of the Second Republican Constitution (SRC) that need significant and far reaching changes were specified immediately after its enactment in 1978. These two areas were (1) the excessive powers of the executive president and the downgrading of the Parliament, and (2) the electoral system based on proportional representation that made representative and represented distant from each other. Subsequently, the constitutional discourse also raised the issue that a highly centralized state structure that emanated from the First and Second Republican Constitutions should be transformed in order to meet the basic needs and the demands for power-sharing of the numerically small nations and other ethnic groups. Hence, the nexus between state restructuring and the establishment of peace, democracy, justice and human rights were widely recognized. The unresolved national question and the violation of human rights in the South in the late 1980s contributed immensely to the emergence of this general consensus. The election manifestos of the two principal candidates at the presidential election in 1994, Gamini Disanayaka of the United National Party (UNP) and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga of the Peoples’ Alliance (PA) mentioned explicitly that if elected as the President of Sri Lanka, they would introduce a system of devolution of power as a means of resolving the national question and changes to the executive presidential system. Hence, in the early 1990s, the environment for constitutional changes of democratic nature appeared to be favourable and encouraging. However, the situation changed significantly and the favourable environment began to fade away due to multiple reasons. In spite of this situational shift, one may note a development that had positive implication with mixed outcomes, namely, the continuation of the constitutional debate in the form of drafting a new constitution. Although the drafting process contributed in defining basic constitutional principles, it had led to polarization of opinions on constitutional change, particularly on the issue of power-sharing.

Nonetheless, in the Presidential elections in 2005 and 2010, two principal candidates sought mandate of the people to change the SRC by introducing amendments to reduce the powers of the executive president, to change the electoral system and to introduce some kind of power-sharing arrangements. This was what Mahinda Chinthanaya (MC) proposed in 2005 in relation to executive presidency: “I expect to present a constitution that will propose the abolition of the executive presidency” (p. 97). It also proposed as an interim measure to amend the constitution to make president answerable to the Parliament. In addition to above changes, MC aimed at improving people’s rights by amalgamating to the SRC a Bill of Rights. It says: “Steps will be taken to include ‘the Charter of Rights’ into the Constitution based on the Declaration of the United Nations and other international treaties to uphold and protect social, cultural, political, economic and civil rights of all Sri Lankans” (p. 98). In order to get consensus on constitutional reforms, President Rajapaksa convened an all-party meeting and asked All Party Representative Committee to come up with proposals for a new constitution/ or substantial changes to the existing constitution. On the basis of its interim report, he reiterated that his government will take measures to implement fully the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution that was violated by all the previous governments. The last Parliament also appointed a select committee to recommend electoral reforms so that flaws of proportional representation system can be corrected.

Table 1: Main Features of Constitutional Reform Discourse, 2005- June 2010

[Editors note: Please click on the images below for larger versions]

Table 1 summarizes the main features of the constitutional discourse in Sri Lanka in the last 5 years. It shows how and to what extent expectations and desires of the people were abused by the politicians in post-election periods. Columns one and two show close resemblance, but column 3 deviated from them substantially and it gives the impression that politicians are more and more concerned about protecting their power rather than satisfying people’s demands and desires. One may argue that there is no consensus on Area 3, namely, power-sharing, although two main parties, the SLFP and the UNP, have accepted the position that some degree of power-sharing is imperative in addressing the issue of numerically small national groups. But the irony is that there is no progress in Area 1, 2, and 3 in spite of the fact since the late 1980s almost all the political parties have been in broad agreement on these three areas of constitutional reforms. This in itself shows one of the basic problems of the Sri Lankan political system, namely, the nature of representation that stems directly from the existing constitutional framework the influence of other factors notwithstanding.

This makes it necessary that people should participate actively in the process of constitution-making and should bring pressure to their representative in the Parliament and reactivate their own organizations. The issue of constitution is a national issue so that it should necessarily transcend party boundaries. Hence, people should ask for open and free vote in the Parliament on the issue of constitution change.

The writer teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya. E-mail: sumane_l@yahoo.com

• A brief response to Dr G.L. Pieris
• Views of the Periphery – A presidential candidate with a transitional programme
• Abolition or reform of Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka?
• On the UNP’s “Repositioning”
• FEDERALISM AND THE UNP

It’s February 14th, Valentines day and I am browsing the net, going from one link to the other, without a particular destination, enjoying tidbits from the cyber world.

I happen to come across an interesting TED talk http://on.ted.com/88Xq. Its about a school in India (Riverside School) that starts a program called I Can, where children aged 8 – 14, in small groups are empowered and inspired to become change agents. It’s a simple concept. The children are asked to pick an issue that bothers them, that they want to change, and then they are given a week to make the change. The impact and results are amazing. From cleaning up garbage, to making cities child friendly, to stopping child marriages, to teaching their parents to read and write, no issue was too big or too small. Kiran Sethi, the lady spearheading this project sees the potential of the project and starts taking the idea to other schools in the state and then across India. It gathers momentum and start spreading all over … Pakistan, England, Canada, Bhutan. Check how its spreading.

Coming back to my random web surfing. I tweet the link. My dear friend Bishan Rajapakse, in New Zealand picks it up and is equally inspired and does more than tweet it. He writes to Kiran praising her for her work and saying it would be amazing to start this in Sri Lanka. She replies. Of course … You Can! He puts me and several others in touch with Kiran.

In the meantime I have been meeting with a group of my friends, who are depressed and disheartened about some of the political and social issues in Sri Lanka. We wanted to get out of the apathy we were in and were looking for practical way to engage with social issues and the community, to bring in values, empowerment and good governance. I Can seemed like an ideal way to engage with children, teachers and the education system.

We pick up the idea, and today we are running a few pilot projects with amazing results. children have been involved in teaching under-privileged children English, stopping bullying in the school, cleaning up a garbage dump and convincing the municipality to give a job to an unemployed person known to them etc. Amazing what children will do when adults believe in them and they believe in themselves. The teachers are amazed too. Children whom they have hitherto written off as being ‘naughty’ and ‘undisciplined’ have worked the hardest and shown their true potential in their engagement with the project.

So what’s the moral of this story?

A simple random act can often have an unpredictable chain reaction and create change! A tweet. An email. A contact and introduction. A group of friends.

A change initiative that is empowering children to believe in themselves as change agents and adults to start respecting the passion and action of children.

I did not know at the time I tweeted the link that it would connect me to a social change initiative that is growing as we speak. I didn’t realize that this would be a project that my friends and I would start doing.

What was the link?

Each one of us (me, the group of friends, Bishan, Kiran) in our separate corners of the world had one intention – the intention to transform human society, to empower the good humanness in all of us, to believe in children, to believe in the good in the world. This connected us. And simple random acts with this underlying intention connected us. That’s all. Simple.

I can make simple random acts, holding my intention closely to my heart, and see my intentions unfold, and connect with others.

I am not alone. You are not alone.Be brave. Be foolish. Make one simple random act of goodness. Share a story. Help someone. Believe in yourself. Believe in someone else. You never know how far it can reach.

Wishing life and energy to your good intentions!

• ‘I want a decent Education’ – A twelve year old’s plea
• A requiem by Karuna: The death of sub-regionalism?
• The untold story of a child
• Groundviews upgrades: Preview websites before visiting them
• Causing a storm in a tea plantation