Monkeys and Literature

Punyakante Wijenaike’s “The Monkeys” is an innocuous short story which deals with a kid monk’s reciprocation with a monkey herd which frequented his ashram. This kid monk — who, as per the dogma, is subjected to rigourous Buddhist training, and is made to abstain from worldly comfort — finds solace in feeding and playing with the kid monkeys in the vicinity of his retreat; and things go smooth until, one day, the monkeys follow the monk to the ashram and create havoc. Subsequently, the abbot of the ashram reprimands the kid monk and “corrects” him, while re-orienting the little fellow in the path of renunciation.

I encountered this simplistic story several years ago in a collection of Lankan Fiction, edited and collected for a cheap commercial purpose by a well known English scholar who, of late, does cheap shopping for the government. Among other work collected in the volume under scrutiny were items prescribed for a cross section of local exams, from A/L to courses in External Degrees. “Monkeys”, corresponding with the anthology maker’s choice, was in a study course offered by the Sri Jayewardenepura University External B.A.

The short story, though innocuous, —- and perhaps, in a simpleminded “innocent” way characteristic of certain Punyakante Wijenaike texts — tables several themes which, in a narrowminded country like ours, where fraught Buddhist patriotic banners are waved with saber-sharp tenacity to the least of provocations, can be “controversial”. For instance, the story unveils a kid monk who is given to the robes at a tender young age, where the decision taken on his behalf by his elders, deprives the kid of his childhood. In fact, in the playmates he seeks in the monkeys is a letting off of anxiety at being subjected into the Spartan principle of monkhood at that age of play.

Questions of free will and suppression repeatedly emerge in the story where the Sinhala Buddhist mainstream is invited to rethink a cultural practice (of ordaining kids as monks) which has been naturalized into the system. Once — late 2011 or early this year — I remember speaking of this short story at a seminar organized by the USJP (where, as I felt it, I was making little sense to the largely “Packeted Literature” fed audience of the day) where, amidst a group of 80-100, a solitary monk occupied the front bench. I have very rarely spoken Literature at seminars / sessions attended by monks; and to comment on thematic strains which to the uncritical Buddhist mass would appear as “unpatriotic” and “demeaning” of their institution was a novelty.

A few months from the USJP seminar experience, I was introduced to the GCE Ordinary Level English Literature syllabus which had, by then, been in use for several years. As a person who sees very little imagination and openmindedness in the GCE A/L syllabus for the same subject, I confess, the O/L Literature Syllabus caught my eye for an intriguing line up which, I felt, had sufficient fire and energy in it to stimulate the student and teacher alike. Among prescribed passages and prose material, I also discovered the short story with which we have been breaking bread so far: “The Monkeys”, by the Grand Old Lady of Lankan English Literature.

Upon this chance discovery, in a vein of jest, I casually mentioned the Jayewardenepura Incident to a O/L teacher friend: where I had to hold forth at a seminar of the kid monk’s childhood being twisted and of how he was deprives of choice; less of all, of having to submit them with a monk taking down notes in the front row. The friend informed me that the people responsible for syllabus design have issued an amendment to the O/L syllabus, removing “The Monkeys” coming to effect from the next batch. Though not documented anywhere, the reason for this removal could only be one —- and that, I assure, is not the simplistic quality of the Wijenaike text. Being an insecure, volcanic social mass, the narrowmindedly “Sinhala Buddhist” sentiments are hurt by the Wijenaike story, in spite of its mediocrity as a short story to be taken seriously. I back up my insinuation that someone in the education bureaucracy would have seen the “inaptness” of the story as a “post-war” Sri Lankan narrative, where tribal insecurities and cult-consciousness have permeated into a whole new premise of social regimentation and appropriation.

The Wijenaike story, I am told, is set to be replaced by Oscar Wilde’s “The Happy Prince”. Wilde, being a worthy writer who is hardly given discursive space in our literature studies, makes a welcome feature even though the GCE O/L is a level too low (and “The Happy Prince” being not the best of his works) for him to be studied with the tenacity which Wilde’s work deserves. Nor is this inclusion to Wilde’s merit; for his short story is being used as a substitute required by a mean political agenda.

“The Monkey story”, at its best, reflects how our syllabus material are weighed, appropriated and imposed —- how, even in a subject that is meant to broaden our reading of culture and politics, petty insecurities creep in and how narrowmindednesses and perversions infiltrate. Literature is no longer a safehouse in a country imploding to ignominy. Education is not about opening out to critical discourses — it is more the serving spoon of the state, where the soup of its anxieties are poured out.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Monkeys and Literature

  1. I totally agree with the idea. Not only “Monkeys” , the drama “Everyman” too is in inappropriate for the ord. levels. The drama revolves around a Christian theme. Majaority of the ord. level students are Buddhists and it would be hard for them to comprehend such Christian practices and beliefs.

    Bernard

  2. As a student who studies Monkeys for her GCE O/Ls, I find Monkeys a breath of fresh air. Many people are often prejudice towards this text and often ignore it’s true messages. what I cannot understand is how this can be looked as a criticism of Buddhism. It is more like a criticism on the average individual who is blinded superstitions. Because, ultimately, the young Samanera’s tale starts off with him being subjected to the cruelest kind of superstition. If his father was more level headed and more loving, the young Samanera would not be deprived of love. However, it is also important to note that, in this text, Buddhism is shown for the simplicity and the complexity it truly stands for. The Chief Priest advises the Samenera to always note how lucky he is to be born a man and also how passionate desires can often end in downfall. It may not be the ideal advice that should be given to a 6 year old but I think that just by saying this, this story should be given more credit. The chief Priest actually restores my faith in Buddhism due to his earnest desire for the Samanera to better himself and he also sets an example that we should all follow. This is only my view, but honestly I think Happy Prince should not be a part of our curriculum. I admire Oscar Wilde immensely, and after reading Dorian Gray I felt like I was looking at life in an entirely new perspective, but the fact still stands that, the more foreign authors we put in our syllabus, the more the younger generation seems to ignore our own native authors, who are vastly talented in their own ways. And as to Monkeys being a bit controversial, so what? If a story makes you think about society and the true lifestyle you are leading then hasn’t that story achieved it’s greater purpose? After all, this is the story that is most relevant to your country. Changing Monkeys in entirely unnecessary and if you were to question most students studying for O/Ls, you would find that most of them actually prefer to write essays on Monkeys purely because it is a story that conveys so much more than all the other short stories in our syllabus.

    • Veesha, I’m truly honoured by your response — I truly am. Unfortunately Veesha, the people who “decide” on our behalf are bats hanging from their rotten caves! I seriously wish you luck!

  3. I feel that we have heavily mistaken with the point that Wijenaike attempts to build up. ‘The monkeys’ clearly visualizes the one of the hard core concepts of the ‘behaviour of living beings’ consciousness. How craving develops through the signals ‘Sangna’ taken through five receptors which is called ‘ayathana’ in Buddhism.Both story and buddhist philosophy go hand in hand.At least Buddhists should understand this is a crime to label “The Monkeys” as a anti-Buddhist novel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s