The relationship between a bull and a cart-rider is undoubtedly exploitative. In the eyes of the rider, the bull is merely an ‘object’ or a ‘tool’ used by him to travel from one point to another. In the first 4 stanzas of ‘Plead Mercy’, Anne Ranasinghe metaphorically associates the ‘bull - cart-rider’ relationship to the contemporary political dynamic between the State and the General Public of Sri Lanka. In Norman Simms’s tribute to Anne Ranasinghe titled ‘Anne Ranasinghe: Jewish Poet of Sri Lanka’, he refers to the foreword of Plead Mercy penned by Pieter Keuneman where he states, inter alia, “the compassionate identification with suffering persons and other living things” was a general theme in Anne’s work (Simms 98).

Anne Ranasinghe creates a perfect visual imagery that is only too familiar to her contemporary ordinary Sri Lankans. Even in the 21^st century it is not uncommon to find bullock carts being used in Sri Lanka for transportation, especially outside the more developed Colombo region and its suburbs. By this point in the poem, the bull has worn itself out. It can no longer drag the cart any further. In this weariness, the bull has fallen on the side of the ‘rough edge of the road’. Naturally, for the rider, the next best option is to thrash the animal into submission. Those who are well acquainted with this traditional method of transportation would know that at this point the bull ceases to obey the rider notwithstanding any whipping or thrashing, out of pure exhaustion. 

D. C. R. A. Goonetilleke claims that the English writers in Sri Lanka are well aware of the fact that they are alienated from the mass of the people and local traditions by virtue of their English affiliations (Goonetilleke, Beyond Alienation: The Efflorescence of Sri Lankan Literature in English 27). According to Goonetilleke, these writers have attempted to assume a Sri Lankan identity by imagining ‘rural experiences and rural milieux’ (Goonetilleke, The 1971 insurgency in Sri Lankan literature in English 132). This poem is a perfect exemplar to Goonetilleke’s claim. Anne Ranasinghe was not born and raised in Sri Lanka and evidently had no roots in the country, but she certainly has finessed the art of executing this task of relating to rural experiences.

A preliminary examination of this poem would reveal a theme of animal rights. The ironic title of the poem in itself is a commonly used Buddhist preaching implying ‘may all being be well’. Overall, the poem suggests how hypocritic humans are and how blind humans are to the pain of animals.

However, the poem has a wider political take to it. We now compare this to the metaphorical relationship between the State and the General Public. After having been used (exploited) incessantly by state authorities (more specifically politicians) to attain their own personal agendas, the people have come to a point of complete exhaustion that is beyond recovery. And like the bull, the people also have fallen on the ‘rough edge of the road’. It is certainly not a pleasant place to be in but they don’t have the luxury of choosing. 

The stick potentially implies a plethora of state apparatuses including the executive arm of the State comprised of Law Enforcement Agencies and Military. It has a connotation of violent crushing of dissent. And now, no matter how hard the state attempts to thrash its constituents with the figurative ‘stick’, it would all be in vain. 

Although the bull has no energy at this point, its insubordination can be considered a rebellious act of dissent. This is a reference to the ‘revolution’ that is mentioned in the 4^th stanza. The series of uprisings that took place from the early 1970s up until 1990 led many Sri Lankan poets, including Anne Ranasinghe, to pen their disgust of the widespread human rights violations that were directed towards the general population (Goonetilleke, The 1971 insurgency in Sri Lankan literature in English 132). 

The poet sympathizes with the people when she says ‘Lord have mercy on his eyes?’. The eyes represent vision. This implies that people have witnessed so much violence in the hands of the state. Norman Simms interprets this as an expression of the writer’s vulnerability and the feeling of uselessness that the writer feels when he mentions the following (105): 

“There can be no practical response to aid the being in pain which stands as an indictment of our inability to act on its behalf; or the suffering is beyond my capacity as a fellow creature to endure or to accept, and yet, if only there really were a God to appeal to, a supernatural mechanism to alleviate the natural injustices of this world.” (Simms 105)

The treatment of humans during the late 20^th century was even worse than how animals were treated. The revolution was such a topic of conversation that the poet’s 13-year-old daughter was aware of the notion of revolution (4^th stanza) and had heard of the resulting casualties. Norman Simms refers to the last line in the poem as a flat declaration (105). His interpretation is quite interesting in this regard: 

“This means, I would suggest, something to the effect: how can I begin to explain to such a child the full complexities of evil in this world…” (Simms 105)

The complexities in this world are beyond comprehension for a child who is 13 years old. This last line is more of a justification presented by her for lying or more accurately declining to express the reality to her daughter (Simms 105). The daughter’s age plays a significant role in this poem because it also draws the distinction between the rebellious impatient youth of the country and the tolerant obedient older generations.

Poems of life in the place that is known for her marriage, of family growing up, venturing out from home, and injuries of maturing are the stuff of her verse. The empowering ground for her creative energy is the feeling of continuously being an outcast in an outsider's land and recollections of the Holocaust. These torment Ranasinghe's composing even now, numerous a very long time after her departure from Nazi Germany. (Silva 612-613)

Even in Plead Mercy, Ranasinghe changes her tone and content of the poem towards the fourth stanza of the poem and tries to pen down her holocaust experience as a survivor. The poet here, with the help of a little girl who is her daughter in this instance, tries to give us a solid moral. The topic of the poem Plead Mercy or “Sabbe Satta bhavanthu sukhi thattha” has a strong connection with religion, Buddhism in particular. The hypocritical nature of the blind followers of a religion is looked down upon by the poet. 

“She frowns; if there is a revolution, she says, I’ll kill myself.” as elaborated earlier, the poet’s little girl, who is thirteen years of age, can understand the dire consequences of being a bull who is ill-treated. Animal cruelty is expressed thing about by the writer in the poem and yet uses this subject to discuss the holocaust experience which tortures her. The girl is prepared to comprehend the transformation and the daily routine not worth experiencing subsequently. She would instead not choose to live instead of going through the cruelty experienced by the bull. The girl might not be old enough to understand the impending doom, yet decided to discuss it. 

The poet is trying to paste the Jewish holocaust into the Sri Lankan context. This elaborates on how well the poet remembers her past dreadful experiences. Frie, in his article “Memory and Responsibility”, goes on and on about psychoanalysis and the political, moral and personal imperative to remember the German-Jewish experience. The magnitude of the trauma (Lewis 90) is very intense, and this is why Ranasinghe's poems echo the violence of “All those horrible things they do to people”.

The stanza sees the speaker/narrator conveying to her daughter the idea that in life there’s always a reason to keep living, even though she herself does not necessarily believe that herself. One could assume that the reason why she lies here is that for one, she is talking to a child, and secondly, because the topic of death is a sensitive one, especially when conversing with children. Thus, we can conclude that these are mere words of comfort uttered by a mother to her daughter out of love in order to gatekeep the truth in an attempt to not scare her. Further, knowing that Ranasinghe herself has experienced the holocaust firsthand, it sheds new light on why she might have lied to her daughter. An educated guess is that she does not want her daughter to know the intensity of pain and suffering that man is capable of inflicting on others (an experience she has personally lived through) in order to protect her daughter from that knowledge and thus encourage her to have a positive outlook towards life (Simms, 105).

It is of importance however to connect this stanza to the wider theme of the poem and its connection to religion, specifically Buddhism. Any religion (Buddhism in particular, in this case) speaks about life and the act of being alive as a gift/blessing of the highest degree. To take that away willingly or for that to be taken away from someone would be a sin. In this context, for this to be true one would have to assume that life is always better than death and that there could be no instances that may potentially prove otherwise. The counter question then soon comes into the limelight, for is life always better than death? For an individual who has control over their life choices, possesses the ability to influence their immediate surroundings, and who has experienced freedom, we can confidently say that this is in fact a truthful statement.

However, can the same be said of a person that has not been privileged enough to know of such an experience, much less even experienced one? To a person who is not in control of their choices and bears no influence on their immediate surroundings? When suffering and pain are the only things they have ever known and most importantly all that they will know in the future as well, one could argue and say that for a person that belongs to this strata, no matter how niche that population may be in society, living is only a constant reminder of their pain and suffering and also the very factor that ensures that they will face this torment for the foreseeable future as well. For someone in those shoes, living may not necessarily be all that delightful. 

The bull referenced in the poem is no different. It too has no control over its choices and surroundings, for it is but a slave to the humans who own it, whose sole purpose is to do their bidding. The bull is bound literally, both to the cart and to its owner. It has known no freedom and will know no freedom. It has suffered and will continue to suffer so long as it is under the ownership of its owner. As previously established, when suffering is all one has known and all one will know, it becomes a challenge to propose the argument that continuing to live will be better than dying (which would end the animal’s suffering once and for all).

Moreover, another argument one can pose to support the above assumptions is that the attachment we have to life undoubtedly influences our attitude towards it. A person who experiences love and has liberty would obviously want to live in order to keep experiencing the sweet merits of life that they have been subjected to during their whole lifetime. That outlook, however, may not be shared by an individual who has been void of those merits and may thus, harbour a negative attitude towards life and the act of living.

We can connect this to the previous stanza where the daughter asks “Does he think life is worth living?”. Through our newfound understanding of the attitudes people may harbour towards life based on their life experiences, we can make an educated guess and say that the bull does not in fact think life is worth living. And that it would disagree with the words uttered by the speaker to the daughter.

Anne Ranasinghe's poem starts with a very visceral picture of a bullock cart being made to climb uphill by the rider.

The single line preceding the 2nd stanza, "only his eyes plead mercy" manages to convey the plight of the bullock so acutely that we, as readers are also affected by pity and compassion. The use of the word "Only" heightens this effect. The bullock which is an animal that also deserves love, freedom, compassion, and respect by the Buddhist doctrine followed by the country is not even given basic care as shown by the "Foam" (foamed saliva) that drips from his lips. The poor animal is not even given regular water breaks or any breaks at all in the sharp sun, being made to slave himself up the hill while pulling the rider and the cart. The bullock doesn't even complain. He completely believes that he must do as the rider say and pull the cart up the hill, and does not know anything other than following whatever the rider orders him to do. The animal has lost his autonomy and freedom and does not even understand what autonomy and freedom even are.

The second stanza again depicts imagery that shows the exhaustion of the animal as he tries to increase his pace under the whippings of its master. He slips and Ranasinghe's Daughter who is also watching this asks her mother a question.

"Does he think life is worth living?" 
A question like this from a child shows the kind of society the child is growing up in. She understands the difference between freedom and slavery, of what the animal is going through, and that it's due to the brutality of the rider that the bullock is going through such an exhaustive time. 

The subtext to this question is whether the bullock is even aware of a life outside of being made to pull a cart, and being made an object of human transportation and subjected to animal cruelty.

We also read the poem through a political stance, where the bullock is symbolizing the common man who is governed, and while all kinds of cruelty in inflicted on us, such as ethnic conflicts, political controversies, etc, the people still do the politicians bidding as the people does not know any better. They believe that voting for the same politicians is the only thing they can do and keep on doing it as it's their "only" option.

Anne Ranasinghe's focus on society and brutality is brought out by "plead mercy" using the extended metaphor of a bullock pulling a cart and its cruel rider as seen by Ranasinghe and her daughter. As written by Jayasuriya and Halpe, As an anglophone writer Ranasinghe is one of the leading women writers in Sri Lanka who brings into focus the conflicts and plights which befall the common man in Sri Lanka in a "trail of very original Sri Lankan poetry". (22)

The poem begins with the image of a cart being pulled by a single bull uphill and the narrator's observations of the various physical indicators of the animal's plight. The title, followed by the Pali utterance ('May all creatures be devoid of pain and sorrow')  immediately succeeds in locating a religious theme and prompting a socio-political reading in the proceeding stanzas. 

The poet's description of the bull seems to suggest the idea of an animal that has been repeatedly struck and utilized to an extent where fatigue has rendered its face emotionless. 

An interesting observation within the first stanza would be the poet's use of distinct pronouns to speak of the creature. The creature is therefore seemingly raised from its usual position of utility and instead placed closer to the human psyche, eliciting a more profound emotional engagement with the audience.

When the poem is located within the Sri Lankan context as suggested by the primarily Sri Lankan image of a bull and cart), the theme of religious hypocrisy becomes apparent. Anne Ranasinghe, who was married to a devout Buddhist, was acutely aware of moments when the Buddhist doctrine gave way to Sri Lankan politics that went against philosophical teachings. In an interview with Le Roy Robinson in 1990, Anne Ranasinghe discusses the pro-capital punishment rhetoric held by many Buddhist monks within the country, and how it fails to agree with the principle teachings of Buddhism (Robinson).  This observation and the subsequent interpretations open the rest of the poem for a religious and socio-political reading related to her contemporary era.

 

The final two stanzas of the poem project a moment of peak tonal intensity. The speaker, despite starting off with the images of a wildlife sanctuary, decides to end the poem with a rallying cry for savagery and barbaric union. While the initial reaches of the poem provide a very metaphorical depiction of the poet's contemporary social arena, the political reading of the text becomes very apparent during the final two stanzas.

Zoysa speaks of a creative artistry within humankind to mask their obscene qualities - any characteristic that would make them seem less human. Therefore, the illusion of civility, as depicted through man-made concrete structures, only converts into an artificial jungle housing far more dangerous beasts in the poet's eyes. This seems to prompt him to call upon society to embrace this savagery and make use of the inherent animalistic traits humans are equipped with.

In this context, understanding the position of the poet in relation to the narrative is of great importance. Zoysa seems to locate himself externally to the prominent political and social narrative of his day, as a stoic critic. He seems to address an audience of a similar mindset, who have distanced themselves from the dominant socio-political perspective held by the Government at the time.

The political reading of the poem also calls for an inquiry into Zoysa's own political affiliations. As Venuri Gangodawila points out in her article for Ceylon Independent, Zoysa's political philosophy is a complicated topic (Gangodawila, and Shauketaly). He is said to be a supporter of the leftist movement, which was primarily taken up by the JVP party (who are also responsible for numerous insurrections) and Zoysa was ultimately linked to their movement which resulted in his eventual abduction and murder, thus solidifying his identity as a political martyr (Fernando). From such a political perspective, the final two stanzas can also be interpreted as Zoysa's call for rebellion, and for the use of instinctual savagery to further the leftist movement and the Socialist doctrine.

Nonetheless, it should also be noticed that regardless of political affiliation or antigovernmental sentiment, the poem echoes the universal binary of those in power and those who are not. It emphasizes especially the measures those in power resort to, in order to retain their position. Considering that perspective, the poem projects a universal relatability of a power imbalance and rebellion of those who are deprived and abused in any socio-political setup.

Birds, Beast and Relatives appears to attempt at presenting three immeasurably different universes together. De Zoysa investigates the severity of man taking advantage of the intellect of the actual man to bring forth deception and ruin. De Zoysa utilizing the alias De Silva becomes an ironic example in this context, and resounds with the country's shakiness during the time. The large numbers of poems De Zoysa penned show his loathing against the main agenda of the government and condemned the socio-political arena at that point. Anybody can comprehend that Man is an advanced animal than a creature; however, the writer finds in any case that Man has utilized his pettiness and shallowness to become a more terrifying and efficient being thing than a wild creature. 

This specific stanza begins with a monosyllabic articulation of "Oh", communicating mock. Taunting the whole of humanity and debasing the deceitful ideas of man is one of the fundamental targets here by the writer. As identified before, man is very different from an animal, but in this poem, man is quite similar and “adept at camouflage” in fact “better than the whole menage”. The animal comparison seems to continue from his last stanza. 

Gooneratne, in his article “Sri Lankan Literature in English and the Changing Phases/Faces of Nationalism”, goes into an in-depth analysis of nationalism that De Zoysa in his poem, subtly brings about. Nationalism for Sri Lankans has a different sense, and as identified by Gooneratne in his article Sri Lanka was conceded freedom by England chiefly as a result of the opportunity battle for it in India. Since its freedom was won all the more effectively — truth be told, too effectively — Sri Lankans didn't feel areas of strength for as much public awareness as the Indians. (Goonatilleke 244), yet, according to De Zoysa, Lankans possess a sense of nationalism disguised by Patriotism.

The animal kingdom is known for the survival of the fittest, and De Zoysa exclaims that the human world is no better. Man takes advantage of each and every skill to survive the animal to improve his endurance of himself. Man can change for better or for worse simply and can be a God or a beast. Contemporary Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka during De Zoysa are very comparable, and the writer shows how the man himself brings the downfall of man by making destruction or brutality. This brutality is further analysed by Lewis in the article “The Development of Deception”, pointing out the reasons for a human to lie. A tricky way of behaving can appear as deceiving save the sensations of another, misleading stay away from discipline, and misleading oneself. (Lewis 90) Thus, two of the factors pointed out by Lewis are visible here “lying to avoid punishment” and “lying to oneself” this deceptive nature which was said to be limited to the animal kingdom to be seen in man is fascinating even to the poet  

“Moulting and sloughing skin” is an image related to the animal kingdom quite closely, but here the poet finds out that man sheds skins/fur better than any animal.  Two-tongued is a simile we humans use on a person who is underhanded and insincere, and similarly, De Zoysa explains that man can change his or her principles the way they want to benefit their own well-being even at the cost of the life of another human being. From the beginning to the end of the stanza with “Or just discreetly blending in”, De Zoysa confirms the deceptive nature of the man. 

It is important to understand the lens with which Zoysa coveys the poem which is by setting the poem in the context of the tense political atmosphere at the time of writing the poem.

It begs the question as to why man is being compared to a predatory beast. We believe that the specificity of mentioning that man is a ‘predatory’ beast is of great significance. This is because, in the animal kingdom, violence and bloodshed can only be observed with animals who tend to be predators. Therefore, man’s cruelty and capacity for violence are highlighted through this comparison.

Zoysa further elaborates that man possesses a “chauvinistic sense of smell”. This is indicative of man’s acquired intrinsic sense of demarcating himself and his group of people from others of his own kind that are outside of their respective group. Man’s pursuit to establish chauvinism is quite deadly as noted by Zoysa, because it occurs most often at the cost of his own kind (Goonetilleke, 450). No one is born a racist or a chauvinist. These are all social constructs that man learns as he grows and learns from the pre-existing social norms around him. The word ‘hereditary’ which precedes the phrase “chauvinistic sense of smell’ is of great importance then, as it presumably alludes to the fact that these established social constructs are passed down from generation to generation. This ensures that the cycle of violence continues. The phrase “hunter’s eye he claims can tell the subtle shades of class and race” conveys that man is trained to spot, identify, and differentiate between those that belong to his group (in this case, ethnicity) and those who do not. These “shades” here refer to the different types of people present in society who can be categorized by ethnicity and religion among other things. Thus, while unfortunate, we can conclude that man’s prey in this context as identified by Zoysa tends to be those of his own kind that belong to other classes and races. The clear division between religious groups and ethnicities is a clear representation of the racism that existed (and continues to exist) in the nation. The violence that Man exerts onto his fellow man is tragic and futile, a point that Zoysa doubles down on.

However, while Zoysa identifies man to be similar to that of a ‘predatory beast’, he elaborates that certain traits that man possesses unlike beasts make him a far more dangerous animal; traits that distinguish and set him apart from other beats. Most beasts cannot change their appearance, but man “quite unlike beasts” can. The changing of his ‘spots’, in this case, is a metaphor that refers to man’s ability to change and adapt. His beliefs, policies, values, and ideas can all change on a whim.

Towards the later stanzas of the poem, Zoysa sets the stage to convey that Man is the apex predator. What makes him unique is what makes him the most dangerous. The ability to pretend and be someone else, someone who stands for something else is one such quality. Zoysa thus portrays Man’s deceptive nature through his ability to hide his true nature and identity. It makes man unpredictable; it makes him deadly.

However, when Zoysa cites that man “can change his spots” is he necessarily referring to a negative change? If man possesses the ability to change, can he not change for the better? While the ability in itself allows man to change either for better or worse, we believe that with the tone of the poem and the direction that Zoysa seems to be directing the conversation in, we can comfortably assume that he presents this quality as something man uses in a negative manner.

Further, this may also be a reference to the changing face of the politicians at the time when the then governments capitalized on extreme chauvinism and nationalist ideals in order to attain their self-centered goals such as further deepening the gap that existed between the Sinhala and Tamil communities. While not explicitly mentioned, Zoysa alludes to the fact that political violence has been an intrinsic feature of the Sri Lankan political sphere and that even politicians who belong to the government, the central institution tasked with maintaining peace and harmony in an economy, engage in violence and inflicts it on members belonging to the general public (Samaranayake, 117). Through these acts, they subject those that they once swore to protect (through their oaths) to unimaginable pain and suffering.

In the wider context of things, during the time at which this poem was written, many Sri Lankan writers were deeply affected by the conflicts that unfolded around them and thus usually incorporated violence as a key theme of their works. The ways in which the writers approached this theme however differed. Zoysa, for example, as seen clearly in these two stanzas, does not directly point fingers at a person or institution in particular explicitly. His approach observed here is quite different when compared to other writers during his time who wrote on the theme of the ongoing conflict in explicit detail. Instead, he writes about his thoughts and feelings in such a way that is only suggestive of the critiques he harbours towards the political system. He does this by tackling the aforementioned theme by framing the poem from the viewpoint of man's capacity to inflict violence (Jayasuriya, 206).

D. C. R. A. Goonetilleke identifies the 1971 insurgency being used by Sri Lankan English writers as their subject matter as a way of bridging the gap between mostly elite writers and the average Sri Lankan (Goonetilleke, Beyond Alienation: The Efflorescence of Sri Lankan Literature in English 27).  In his view, the increasing unemployment, foreign exploitation of the country, the predicament of the underprivileged were most often presented in literature as the fundamental triggers behind the creation of revolutionaries (Goonetilleke, The 1971 insurgency in Sri Lankan literature in English 137). Going further, Goonetilleke identifies the different characters present in Sri Lankan English Literature. The rebellious university students and the leftists on one side (including those who were blindly following the cause and those who were rational, noble, and passionate about the cause) and on the opposing side the brutal military, police and the manipulative power-hungry leaders (Goonetilleke, The 1971 insurgency in Sri Lankan literature in English 138). Richard de Zoysa is recognized as a social critic by Kandiah Shriganeshan (Shriganeshan 60). Richard de Zoysa’s Birds Beasts and Relatives predominantly addresses the predatory leaders of the country and the victimized public. 

Richard de Zoysa draws an image of a sanctuary at the beginning of Birds, Beasts and Relatives. In these two stanzas, he identifies a natural phenomenon that is common among several species of animals. That is how certain species of animals return to their own faeces under the assumption that there’s some undigested nutrients left in them that would otherwise go to waste. 

It starts when the poet notices a bovine from afar (a quarter mile across the plain) returning to its ‘dung-heap’ again and again. He implies that this animal is indistinguishable from afar and that he is not happy to put in the effort to identify whether it is a cow or a bull. He is hinting at the fact that all humans, regardless of their differences are equally party to this metaphorical phenomenon that he is about to describe.

The term ‘Dung-heap’ symbolizes excretion, waste or things that must be disposed of. Richard de Zoysa uses sarcasm when he says that the cow or the bull returns to its own ‘dung’ thinking and hoping that other species like Humans also return to their own faeces but the readers very well know that Humans don’t return to their own faeces. Humans are much more intelligent, advanced and superior. This line of thinking would inevitably drive the reader to latch on to his sarcasm. Although humans are more intelligent, humans do return to their own waste in a metaphorical sense. 

In a purely political take of his idea, it would imply the general public not getting rid of those predatory individuals who should’ve been disposed of and not be returned to again and again. Sri Lanka is quite well known for its habit of voting-in deceptive politicians continually even while knowing how corrupt these individuals are. This predictable habit affords a perfect opportunity for the hunters (corrupt politicians) to lay a trap. He implies this when he says that not even the spotted hunter is as interesting as the deceptive humans.

Sri Lanka is an agricultural country and thus cows and bulls are an essential part of the Sri Lankan culture. Richard de Zoysa’s use of these animals to put forward his ideas is an ideal instance of how Sri Lankan English writers have used the Sri Lankan identity to address their subject matter. The dung-heap that is representative of waste matter is another similar use of language familiar to Sri Lankans. 

However, the most identifiable characteristic of Sri Lankan English in his poem is its theme. History has, since independence, influenced Sri Lankan English literature (Halpé). It has caused the creation of several phases of thematic development in Sri Lankan English literary work. He identifies Alagu Subramanium’s ‘Big Girl’, Raja Proctor’s ‘A Child Must Cry’ and Punyakante Wijenaike’s ‘The Third Woman’ as the writers gaining a new awareness of their cultural environment (Halpé 286). New Social Issues (such as the ethnic crisis, riots, youth unrest, poverty and cultural clashes) are recognized by writers such as James Goonewardene, Punyakante Wijenaike and among these writers, is Richard de Zoysa (Halpé 286). 

Birds, Beasts and Relatives resonates quite well with rest of its contemporary literature in terms of its fundamental themes. It is possible to recognize other contemporary poetry that address the same subject matter such as ‘April 1971’ by Ashley Halpe and Suvimalee Karunaratne’s ‘Vesak 1971’ (Goonetilleke, The 1971 insurgency in Sri Lankan literature in English 143). Kandiah Shriganeshan and Ashley Halpe, both, identify a set of writings during the same era that align with the same theme of 1971 insurgency comprised of Ediriwira Sarachchandra’s ‘Curfew and a Full Moon’, James Goonewardene’s ‘Acid Bomb Explosion’, Punyakante Wijenaike’s ‘The Rebel’, M. Chandrasoma’s ‘Out Out Brief Candle’ and Raja Proctor’s ‘Waiting for Surabiel’ (Halpé and Shriganeshan). These similar thematic poems suggest a degree of relatability that is precise to the Sri Lankan culture. Any foreigner who reads this poem would hardly relate to what Richard de Zoysa is attempting to express if they have no understanding of the Sri Lankan culture and history.

Richard De Zoysa’s Birds Beasts and Relatives is an account of how man is becoming more animalistic and brutal day by day. The context of the time is that of a political conflict where the leftist believers (consisting of students, political visionaries, and common man who understand the bare minimum of the movement along with the intellectual visionaries) were staging demonstrations and protests that were turning violent day by day owing to the multitudes of leftist leaders and protestors being killed due to the state of unrest. The poet was also taken to be a leftist believer and killed in 1990 February by a death squad believed to be operating under the then government headed by President Premadasa. The poet has written this with helping the public understand the plight of man in mind. He is trying to bridge the gap between the knowledge of the common man and the politically affluent, as it was a confusing time between the propaganda of both the militarized government and the protesting leftist movement.

The poem starts off in the first-person perspective of the speaker observing an animal sanctuary. The imagery of animals is said to be symbolic of the political entities in power at the time but the animal imagery also lends to the meaning of the poem in how man is more animal than even animals as later explained during stanzas 5,6 and 7.

As the speaker is commenting on what he sees we can take the poet to be an outside observer at this point in time, an external entity to society who is critiquing society. 

The animal sanctuary had been a place the speaker used to visit frequently in the recent past but had not recently been visiting as seen by the 2nd stanza. The poet is using the animal sanctuary as a metaphor depicting the soceity of the time (if you take the universal reading) and the political satge of the time (if you read the poem politically). The years have made a difference he says as he can notice "bigger batches" of teal than the previous time he visited. If we decode the teal as the JVP visionaries, we can safely take it to mean that when comparing this time with last time, the JVP has grown in numbers vastly. This also means that the uprising that the poet may be alluding to is the biggest one yet as well.

Richard de Zoysa was unique in how he wielded the pen as he was not of the usual leftist supporter ilk (University educated rural born youth) as most supposed JVP sympathizers were but instead hailed from 2 prominent Colombo families. As Arasanayagam mentions Richard was a part of the poets of the 19&0s who used his very vibrant poetic genius and was very evocative in nature as we can see from the start of this poem and made the suffering of the country under the 1971's uprisings very visceral. (64). As an anglophone poet of the 1970s and 80s, Richard de Zoysa was able to show the Sri Lankan perspective on the 1971 conflict under a pseudonym, especially with the silencing of writers of sensitive material. (Jayasuriya et al., 22)

Fernando, L. (2021). Richard De Zoysa: ‘A Life Brutally Taken Away 31 Years Ago’ - Colombo Telegraph. Colombo Telegraph. Retrieved 15 September 2022, from https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/richard-de-zoysa-a-life-brutally-taken-away-31-years-ago/.

Gangodawila, V., & Shauketaly, F. (2018). Silencing the voice: The forgotten tragedy of Richard de Zoysa - Ceylon Independent. Ceylon Independent. Retrieved 15 September 2022, from http://www.independent.lk/silencing-voice-forgotten-tragedy-richard-de-zoysa/.

Goonetilleke, D.C.R.A. “Beyond Alienation : The Efflorescence of Sri Lankan Literature in English.” The Journal of Commonwealth Literature, vol. 21, no. 1, 1986, pp. 26–38., https://doi.org/10.1177/002198948602100108. 

Goonatilleke, D. C. R. A. Changing Phases/Faces of Nationalism - JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23234223.

Goonetilleke, D. C. R. A. “Sri Lanka’s ‘Ethnic’ Conflict in Its Literature in English.” World Literature Today, vol. 66, no. 3, 1992, pp. 450–53. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/40148368.

Goonetilleke, D. C. R. A. “The 1971 Insurgency in Sri Lankan Literature in English.” MFS Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, 1993, pp. 131–145., https://doi.org/10.1353/mfs.0.1078.

Halpé, A. “Sri Lankan Literature in English.” Sri Lanka's Development since Independence: Socio-Economic Perspectives and Analyses, edited by Weligamage D. Lakshman and Clement A. Tisdell, Nova Science Publ, Huntington, NY, pp. 285–290.

Jayasuriya, Maryse, and Aparna Halpé. "Contestation, Marginality, And (Trans)Nationalism: Considering Sri Lankan Anglophone Literature". South Asian Review, vol 33, no. 3, 2012, pp. 17-28. Informa UK Limited, https://doi.org/10.1080/02759527.2012.11932893.

Jayasuriya, Maryse. “Terror, Trauma, Transitions: Representing Violence in Sri Lankan Literature.” Indialogs, vol. 3, no. Violences, 2016, pp. 195-206., https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/indialogs.48

Lewis, Michael. (PDF) the Development of Deception - Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232513786_The_development_of_deception.

Salgado, Minoli. "Sri Lankan Literature And Territoriality: The Politics Of Literary Criticism". TRANSCULTURAL HUMANITIES IN SOUTH ASIA : Critical Essays On Literature And Culture, Waseem Anwar and Nosheen Yousaf, 1st ed., Routledge, New York, 2022, pp. 95 - 106, Accessed 19 Sept 2022.

Samaranayake, Gamini. “Patterns of Political Violence and Responses of the Government in Sri Lanka, 1971–1996.” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 11, no. 1, 1999, pp. 110–122., https://doi.org/10.1080/09546559908427497.

Shriganeshan, K. “The Contribution Of Sri Lankan English Poetry To Sri Lankan Life .” 2001, http://192.248.56.27:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5882/1/The%20Contribution%20of%20Sri%20Lankan%20English%20Poetry%20to%20Sri%20Lankan%20Life..pdf. 

Halpé, A. “Sri Lankan Literature in English.” Sri Lanka's Development since Independence: Socio-Economic Perspectives and Analyses, edited by Weligamage D. Lakshman and Clement A. Tisdell, Nova Science Publ, Huntington, NY, pp. 285–290.

Jayasuriya, Maryse, and Aparna Halpé. "Contestation, Marginality, And (Trans)Nationalism: Considering Sri Lankan Anglophone Literature". South Asian Review, vol 33, no. 3, 2012, pp. 17-28. Informa UK Limited, https://doi.org/10.1080/02759527.2012.11932893.

Salgado, Minoli. "Sri Lankan Literature And Territoriality: The Politics Of Literary Criticism". TRANSCULTURAL HUMANITIES IN SOUTH ASIA : Critical Essays On Literature And Culture, Waseem Anwar and Nosheen Yousaf, 1st ed., Routledge, New York, 2022, pp. 95 - 106, Accessed 19 Sept 2022.

Shriganeshan, K. “The Contribution Of Sri Lankan English Poetry To Sri Lankan Life .” 2001, https://doi.org/http://192.248.56.27:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5882/1/The%20Contribution%20of%20Sri%20Lankan%20English%20Poetry%20to%20Sri%20Lankan%20Life..pdf.

Silva, Lilamani de. “Sri Lankan Women Writers in English 1983-1994.” (PDF) Sri Lankan Women Writers In English 1983-1994 | Lilamani De Silva - Academia.edu, 1 Jan. 1984, http://www.academia.edu/65485895/Sri_Lankan_Women_Writers_In_English_1983_1994.

Simms, Norman. “ANNE RANASINGHE: JEWISH POET OF SRI LANKA; Three Strands in a Literary Corpus.” Journal of South Asian Literature, vol. 23, no. 1, 1988, pp. 94–107. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40873030.

Sunday Observer. Anne Ranasinghe: A Voice For Peace That Emerged From The Ruins Of War. 2016, https://www.sundayobserver.lk/2016/12/25/thoughts/anne-ranasinghe-voice-peace-emerged-ruins-war. Accessed 19 Sept 2022.

Robinson, Le Roy. "An Interview With Anne Ranasinghe On Aspects Of Culture In Sri Lanka". Keiei To Keizai, vol 70, no. 1, 1990, p. 231., Accessed 19 Sept 2022.