There are Buddhist revolutions and Buddhist revolutions

This was first published on August 1, 2010 in the Sunday Lakbima News as part of an exchange with the editor of that paper, Rajpal Abeynayake.  That debate is done (inconclusively, as is typical of such exchanges), but this article seems relevant given the recent fracas in Dambulla and the various claims of religious intolerance, extremism, fundamentalism and so on (on the part of 'Buddhists' of course). 

Rajpal Abeynayake claims that ‘the alleged Cultural Revolution happened’ (see his column in the Lakbima News of July 25, 2010).  That’s the title of his response to my comments on the subject of a ‘Sinhala Buddhist cultural revolution’ the previous week.  In the essay itself, the assertion is watered down, though.  He says ‘faintly traceable’.  The proof is pretty thin of course, but if Rajpal wants to believe there is some kind of silent move on the part of Sinhala Buddhists, that’s his choice (not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong in any social group stamping presence in a political, cultural, economic or other sense; it is the manner that one could object to, unless of course one says ‘it’s politics’ which means ‘anything-goes’). 

I am thinking of the French Revolution and all the secular rhetoric at the time and since.  I checked.  France has public holidays, like any other country.  France has 5 civil holidays: January 1 (New Year), May 1 (Labour Day), May 8 (End of WW II), July 14 (Bastille Day) and November 11 (End of WW I).  Surprise, surprise, France has 6 more ‘secular’ holidays: Easter (sometime in April), August 15 (to celebrate the Assumption of Mary), November 1 (All Saints’ Day), a Thursday in Mid-May (39 days after Easter, to celebrate Jesus’ Ascension), Pentecôte (50 days after Easter, usually on a Monday by the end of May) and of course December 25 (Christmas).  And just the other day, France’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public. 

The ‘state of revolution’ should not be based on the why and when and how many of holidays, but if France is secular then Sri Lanka’s ‘Sinhala Buddhist Revolution’ is to be preferred by religious minorities. Indeed, it can be argued that the Buddhist doctrine of tolerance and equanimity had something to do with the fact that other faiths were received and treated with respect even though those who came carrying bibles were also armed with Papal Bulls that sanctioned horrendous crimes against humanity (quite in opposition to the teachings of the Prince of Peace, Jesus of Nazareth). 

Rajpal says there is some kind of revolution happening.  I am not impressed. If this ‘revolution’ is about flag waving, pirith nool-wearing, pandals and festivities, not to mention being unable to adhere to Buddhist tenets of equanimity, compassion and the use of reason when deliberately provoked (by organizers of the Akon show and by Buddha-statue smashing, ‘Buddha-biscuit’ distributing people calling themselves ‘Christian Evangelists), then it would be ‘revolution by name’ and not ‘substance’ in my book. 

I don’t think that there is a revolution taking place and I am not even sure such a thrust is necessary. I think Buddhism is alive and well in the hearts and minds of Buddhists.  Having said that, I don’t think Buddhists have anything to lose by educating themselves further and more deeply about the fundamental tenets of the doctrine.  I believe that the best answer to those who vilify Buddhists and Buddhism is not to hang out Buddhist iconography from every nook and corner of the island (I think this defeats the purpose).  The best way to respond to ill-will is compassion.  The best way to respond to cross-waving fanatics is with reason and logic.

I heard how some bikkhus were upset that some group calling itself ‘Christian’ was smashing Buddha statues and ‘demonstrating’ the Buddha’s ‘impotency’.  They are supposed to have stormed into the premises of this ‘service’ and demanded that the ‘pastors’ (self-proclaimed faith-healers) cure a crippled who was waiting outside.  There was an easier and non-confrontational way, I believe: picking up the broken pieces of the statue as proof of the fundamental tenet of impermanence, and using the fact to elaborate on the concept and point out that it is universal.  No one and nothing is permanent. Not the Buddha, not Jesus Christ, not the Bible.  If on the other hand, reason is rejected in deference to faith and someone says ‘Jesus is God, is immortal’ and so on, the Buddhist response ought to be silence, respect for different opinion and if challenged further, polite reference to the Kalama Sutra with the observation, ‘not compelling enough, sorry’.

If ‘revolution’ is deduced from the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa makes‘Buddhistic’ noises, that’s pretty superficial and indeed aberrational.  We can, as Rajpal says, keep arguing whether or not there is a Buddhist Revolution or a Sinhala Buddhist Revolution, and we can throw in ‘evidence’ of non-Buddhist thrusts, but that will not make us a better society or better individuals for that matter. 

A few decades before the French made their so-called ‘revolution’ and began the liberty, equality and fraternity chant (for only those who are Christians, we later learnt), there was in this island, a saamanera, a novice bikkhu by the name of Welivita Saranankara.   This was a time of anarchy, moral decline and violence against all things associated with Buddhism.  There wasn’t a single bikkshu with higher ordination, upasampada.  The temples were full of corrupt ganinnaanses who were neither conversant in the dhamma nor interested in its basic practices.  A single person turned things around.  I believe that two things helped. 

First, the commitment to the dhamma on the part of Ven. Welivita Sri Saranankara Sangha Raja Thero, and two the deeply ingrained recognition of the Buddhism’s value in explaining how things are and in conducting one’s life in beneficial, benevolent and non-intrusive ways. 

Now if ‘revolution’ is required then the above is an example that one might want to study.  If what Rajpal has described is ‘Buddhist revolution’, then a) it is not ‘Buddhist’ except in name, and b) I don’t want any part of it, and c) it does nothing to make like better for anyone, not for Buddhists or anyone else. 

Buddhism is a reflective practice.  It is a doctrine that advocates simplicity.  Thrift.  Co-existence.  Concern for environment.  Like most other religious faiths, one might add.  It does not impose laws on pain of punishment, but recommends self-discipline as a necessary precondition for alleviating suffering.  All Buddhist practices can be adopted by anyone of any other faith without compromising his/her belief system.  A ‘revolution’ that promotes such things cannot harm anyone.  It can be called ‘Buddhist’ but it need not be.  All things, including names and labels are after all impermanent.

[Expect a similar missive that refers to the current debate in tomorrow's 'The Nation'.  I will of course post my article in the blog]

Read more

Human shields: never the preserve of the LTTE

['It's about civilians' has been the cry. 'Civilian' is easy prey, convenient proxy, lovely alibi.  In short, an effective 'human shield'.  This article, written in May 2011, speaks to the issue and I thought it's worth a re-visit]

A few days from now it will be mentioned somewhere, I am sure, that two years have passed since the war ended.  If the elimination of the LTTE’s military leadership is equivalent to war-end then this would be true.  On the other hand, it can and should be argued that the war ended in January 2009, when the LTTE leadership along with their cadres fled Killinochchi. From that point onwards it was technically and politically a matter of rescuing hostages.  Some might argue that the LTTE had held the civilian population to ransom from Day One, and that these hostages included every single citizen of Sri Lanka.  This is also true, but in purely military and practical terms, the LTTE, after it lost Killinochchi was nothing more than a ragtag bunch of gun-toting brigands whose aspirations had been reduced to surviving (perhaps to fight another day, but nevertheless intent on extending life-expectancy at whatever cost). 

The LTTE always used Tamil civilians as a human shield, this everyone knows.  It was a particularly convenient human shield, for dropping military fatigues, gun, grenade and cyanide capsule and wearing a sarong would take all of two minutes. That’s what it took for terrorist to turn into civilian and that’s what terrorists did, and not only after they were trapped (or ‘trapped’ themselves) in Puthukudiarippu.  On occasion, civilian in sarong could and did throw grenade and fire bullet and this should not be forgotten. 

Such civilians were expected to and did get rescued by the security forces.  There have been reports of LTTE cadres, who shot at people fleeing the No-Conflict Zone, turning up in IDP facilities, and being duly released after a short period of time or identified, detained, rehabilitated and then released, whereas the loved ones of those who killed still remaining un-resettled. 

Yes, it was a formidable challenge to get past this human shield, rescue the several hundred thousands that made up this shield and eliminate the hostage-takers, the LTTE military leadership, clearly the most ruthless terrorists the world has ever known. 

I’ve just read Shanie’s column, ‘Notebooks of a Nobody’, in The Island of May 14, 2011 (‘Accountability, rule of law and good governance’).  Shanie quotes from the text of H.M.G.S. Palihakkara’s 2011 Professor J E Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture, underlining sections where he refers to the legal binds associated with international treaties and agreements a country has been a signatory to.  The following comment is slipped in: ‘It was undeniably within the mandate of the UNSG to appoint a Panel of Experts to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to the alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka.’    

That move runs counter to all established UN procedure and moreover amounts to cocking a snook at the Human Rights Council, the Security Council and indeed the General Assembly, not to mention creation of a dangerous precedent.  The legitimization of the move by big name nations only indicates the asymmetries of the global political landscape.  Shanie does not, one notes, question the neutrality-credentials of the advisors nor the manifest disingenuousness of the report nor the reliability of sources cited. 

Now people like Kumar David (‘Factual reliability of the UN Report’ – Sunday Island of May 8, 2011), like Shanie, have little to say about the bona fides of the ‘advisors’, the man who appointed them and the legitimacy of the appointment, to say nothing about factual inaccuracies, deliberate lying, carelessness, misquoting, half-quoting and double standards which robs the report of integrity and academic worth.  Indeed, he has spared no pains to paint these ill-intentioned forces as a benign, competent, intellectually astute bunch who are disinterested and neutral.  He nevertheless asks a pertinent question: ‘Is it true or false?’ 

In that piece, Kumar regurgitates claims made by fellow-travellers in a now par-for-the-course factoid-legitimating exercise.  Much of the claims made in the report are nothing more than hearsay and a re-uttering of pro-LTTE propaganda.  They have been effectively refuted on numerous occasions.  The demand that the Government offer an official response is basically an attempt to bait the Government into conferring legitimacy to what is essentially a mischievous document.  The Government should of course read the document carefully, study the allegations, offer evidence that debunk the claims made and, if this is the case, have the humility to acknowledge error, if not for anything, because there is absolutely no doubt that malicious elements in the international community would use this document or at least its substance (ugh!) to hurt Sri Lanka in various forums, beginning with the Human Rights Council. 

Kumar is naked in his Eelamism and has made no bones about wanting the LTTE to prevail over the security forces.  Add the fact that he is an ace quote-twister, confused Marxist and a got-nothing-to-do Leftist, doesn’t know whether he is coming or going when it comes to reading global political processes and political economy therein and he is good for a lot of laughs. Shanie is different. 

Shanie has been consistent in expressing opposition to the LTTE and its methodology. And yet, Shanie’s columns have consistently taken the save-the-LTTE’s-butt position.  This is done, not surprisingly, in a manifest mimicking of the LTTE’s time-tested strategy of using civilians as a human shield. 

On May 26, 2006, Shanie wrote: ‘The country cannot afford the luxury of waiting indefinitely for the LTTE to come to the negotiating table. For how long can we allow them to hold the country to ransom? A blueprint that ensures for the Tamils and Muslims a real sense of belonging, equality and dignity and which is just and fair by all the people needs to be presented to our people. If it is found acceptable to the Tamil, Muslim, Sinhala and other communities who make up our country, it will politically defeat the LTTE and in the longer term, militarily defeat them as well.’

Shanie demanded that President Mahinda Rajapaksa adopt a ‘change of strategy’, i.e. to give up the military offensive against the LTTE. 

In June 2006, Shanie admitted that the LTTE has ‘no interest in any kind of negotiations that will lead to peace and dignity for the Tamil people whom they claim to represent’ and that they ‘will give the impression that they are going along with international efforts at mediation but will find all kinds of excuses when they find themselves in a corner’. The line of argument has been consistent: offer a political solution to ‘Tamil and Muslim grievances,’ undercut the LTTE’s support base and thereby bring about its political demise.  The call for ‘political solution’ we know is about legitimating claims based on myths and done with absolutely no consideration of demographic, political or economic realities.

On November 25, 2006, Shanie spoke in nostalgic terms about the Chandrika Kumaratunga presidency and called for international pressure. 

Any student of history would say this is the epitome of naiveté.  Shanie has on numerous occasions, especially when it became clear that the LTTE was not going to make a comeback, militarily or otherwise, called for a cessation of hostilities and/or cheered calls by politically compromised individuals and organizations (for being naïve and arrogant about the LTTE or else supportive of their agenda) for a ceasefire. When the LTTE was getting cornered, Shanie was dismayed. In January 2008, suffering a fit of depression on account of the CFA being abrogated (Shanie, like others, forget that it is customary to bury the dead), Shanie conferred halos upon pro-LTTE peace-racketeers, gave a character certificate to the politically compromised, incompetent and even racketeering individuals of the SLMM and saw talk of Chandrika Kumaratunga getting a UNICEF post as a light at the end of the tunnel.  

After the LTTE was made to flee the Eastern Province, Shanie adamantly insisted that they would soon recapture territory liberated by the security forces. 

In December 2008, Shanie wrote: ‘In today`s context, it is not necessary to declare a ceasefire for the war to end. All that is required is for a consensus political package to be offered to the minorities and the war will end by itself and with it the loss of innocent lives.’  In April 2009, Shanie wanted Prabhakaran to be celebrated as hero and argued that he warranted bracketing with individuals like Gongale Goda Banda, Puran Appu etc.  

All this in the name of civilians.  There is admittedly some more distance to go in the matter of resettlement and reconstruction.  The same is true of rehabilitation of LTTE cadres.  The LTTE and its apologists can take credit for making it necessary for the Government to err on the side of caution in all these matters, not least of all the necessity of demining operations prior to resettlement. ‘The poor civilians’ remains, therefore, a wonderful shield behind which the Eelam-mongering, want-to-save-the-LTTE brigade can hide and throw political grenades at the Government and the general citizenry. 

‘The poor civilian’, if he/she can reasonably hope for a different and better future today, can thank and salute the security forces, not the LTTE and certainly not its direct (e.g. Kumar David) and indirect (e.g. Shanie) cheer leaders.  Today, we are in ‘Post-LTTE’ Sri Lanka. Had we been in ‘LTTE-active Sri Lanka’ the ‘poor civilian’ would be getting no sleep at all, worrying about the possibility of LTTE’s child-snatchers robbing his/her children and their childhood. The ‘poor civilian’ would be wondering if the child he/she kissed and sent to school would be home to offer greeting and smile in the evening. 

The ‘poor civilians’ in the North and East, especially the Tamils don’t have to concede political voice to a gun-toting, bullet-spraying thug. 

Shanie speaks of ‘accountability’.  Yes, accountability is an integral part of good governance. Rule of law too.  Now let’s play ‘Physician heal thyself’.  Let Shanie read all the ‘Notebooks of a Nobody’, engage in deep self-reflection and come up with some conclusions that include self-criticism, guilty-plea and remorse, followed of course by ‘change of strategy’, which means of course that Shanie drops the human shield and perhaps be more like Kumar David, i.e. upfront about loyalties and preferred outcomes.   

Read more

Preconditions for fighting ‘grievance-liars’

There are grievances and there are aspirations.  Grievances refer to wrongs done, by omission or commission.  Aspirations may or may not be extrapolations of redressed grievances, i.e. they can always exist and be articulated but need not necessarily grow out of grievances.  Aspirations, in general, tend to be formulated in grand terms enabling ‘resolution’ through purported compromise in terms favourable to the ‘aggrieved’.  In short you ask for something close to the impossible so that you can secure large chunks of the improbable which far exceed the goodies warranted by resolution of grievances. 

That’s politics, whether it’s about salary hikes, securing territorial control or operating space to fiddle around with the share market.  The success of Tamil nationalism/chauvinism, at least in the ideological sphere, is that it has cleverly used grievance and aspiration interchangeably, virtually rendering the two coterminous.  This is perhaps why ‘addressing minority grievances’ almost always has references to power devolution and is framed in territorial terms. 

The power of the lie is such that when the LLRC Report talks of devolution, devolutionists (both of the Eelamist kind and those who believe it’s a democratizing move and not necessarily pandering to Eelamists) cheer and demand ‘full implementation’.  They ignore deliberately (and that’s telling!) the caveats in the report which recommend that devolution be framed by the need to ensure justice for all communities and have modalities that prevent and not foster suspicion, antagonism and division.  That kind of selectivity, especially from those who pooh-poohed the LLRC when it was set up, shows that they are not in this for peace and harmony among communities but for setting things up for another Eelamist putsch in the reduced circumstance of Tamil Fascism being vanquished military.  In short, the legitimizing as ‘ethnic demarcation’ the boundaries that were not drawn on ethnic terms but according to the whims of some errant foreigner who came to this island to plunder, maim and kill.  

The truth is that there is nothing tangible in either grievance or aspiration in terms of ‘territory’ as far as Tamil nationalists are concerned.  Most Tamils live outside the areas to which power-devolution is envisaged.  There is no archaeological evidence that supports the thesis of exclusive traditional Tamil homelands.  The demography, especially of the Eastern Province (the North was ethnically cleansed of Muslims and Sinhalese by the LTTE fascists), thumbs a collective nose at territorial claims.  Even if one counted out ‘colonization’ (which is by no means illegitimate, either by law or by virtue of historical claims of anyone to any place), one cannot get away from the fact that vast swathes of that province has nothing of ‘Tamil homeland’ written on them, either by habitation or historical account. 

Does this mean that there are no minority grievances? No. There are.  Only, there are not territory-bound and therefore territorialized proposals are nothing but red herrings that can only lead to further aberrations engendering further antagonisms and dislocations.  Non-territorial issues must have solutions where the non-territorial is core and ‘territorial’ elements incidental or peripheral. 

 

Some of the grievances can be called minority grievances because they refer to conditions suffered by minorities.  Poverty is a grievance.  Poverty among Tamils is a minority grievance.  But poverty is not a grievance that is peculiar to Tamil people.  Development-lag is a similar grievance.  Representational anomalies too.  Not peculiar to Tamils.  The point however is that Tamil nationalism will not point this out.  They will label such grievances as ‘Tamil Grievances’  implying somehow that all is hunky-dory for Sinhalese.  Conflict, however, did produce Tamil-specific grievances. For example, IDPs.  Now there have been Muslims and Sinhalese that have been displaced for decades, but they are outnumbered by the Tamils who were displaced by the conflict, a displacement caused primarily by the rise of fascism in the name of Tamil ‘liberation’. 

Those who represent these people have a right to be part of decision-making processes pertaining to resettlement and reconstruction.  This is why elections are important. This is why those elected should be incorporated into such bodies as they are mandated to address these issues.  Roping in ‘friendly’ Tamil politicians who cannot claim to represent the majority of Tamils is tokenism.  Whether R. Sampanthan, for example, is a bankrupt Eelamist and terrorist-apologist or not is not relevant.  He is elected and has the right to represent. 

Development, as has been pointed out by many, is necessary but not sufficient in alleviating anxieties.  Language issues remain resolved not due to lack of constitutional guarantees (and I am NOT talking about trivialities such as the National Anthem) but problems in resources, resource-allocation and political will.  In addition, to the extent that grievances that cut across communities are articulated with ‘minority’ or ‘Tamil’ tag, it is incumbent on the Government to resolve them across the board.   This includes concrete measures to address citizenship anomalies that favour the powerful and rich.  It includes constitutional amendments and procedural arrangements to ensure good governance.  If these things remain unaddressed, the Government (erroneously and perniciously dubbed as ‘Sinhala-Buddhist-Nationalist’) will be accused of neglecting minorities and not as being deaf to the pleas of the constitutionally and variously disenfranchised and marginalized. 

’13 Plus’ is a joke because problem and proposal are of the koheda yanne malle pol kind, or like giving cough syrup to correct a sprained ankle.  The Government is erring by not pointing this out and instead preferring to play the game within the frames created by Eelamists. 

There’s a simple point that needs to be tossed at devolutionists: ‘Demonstrate the territorial nature of your grievances and show how devolution sorts it out for all minorities within and without the Northern and Eastern Provinces’.    However, the Government obtains the right to make this point, only if it has shown genuine purpose in correcting the citizenship anomalies and institutional flaws that already exists.  There’s no way around it.  If you are not serious about democracy then you will be forced to fight on the terms of the separatists, whether they masquerade as democrats or devolutionists. 

 [Published in 'The Nation', April 29, 2012]

Read more

Atta hi attano nato! (one’s solace lies in oneself)

Satyajit Ray in his film ‘Ghare Baire’ (Home and the World) based on the novel by Rabindranath Tagore, offers a comment not just on women’s lives and roles but a thoughtful observation on nationalism.  Set in early 20^th century India, the story is framed by the movement to boycott foreign goods, a position articulated by the ‘radical’ nationalist Sandip.  The Bengali noble, Nikhil, who is not given to noise-making and chest-beating patriotism offers the view that boycotting is not enough, there has to be local production too.

In a world where nations depend on one another, there are some who can dictate terms and some who have to submit.  It’s all based on interdependencies and dependencies underlined by relative economic strength and to a lesser degree the dignity of peoples and political strength of relevant governments.  Flag-waving, anthem-singing and chest-beating nationalism makes no sense without on-the-ground activity that insulates a nation and a people from dictates originating outside the country and made to further interests of others. 

There is no point in burning the US flag, for instance, if we are all ‘Americans (of the USA)’ in spirit, culture, outlook and philosophy of being’.  It’s odd to salute ‘Americanism’ by way of living ‘Americanism’ while decrying the USA for its many crimes against humanity and machinations against Sri Lanka.  That ‘Americanism’, let us not forget, can be and is to a large extend embedded in economic policy which affirms and further entrenches dependency.  Patricia Butenis has gone on record, for example, observing that for all the China-friendly rhetoric we hear Sri Lanka’s exports are essentially tied to European and North American markets.     

It is in this context that efforts such as entrepreneur Ariyaseela Wickramanayake’s foray into the dairy industry make a point and show a way out of what appears to be endemic dependency.  Sri Lanka spends Rs 43,000 million every year on importing milk products.  Wickramanayake believes that Sri Lanka has the capacity to save this entire amount and boost per capita income to US $ 5000. Australia and New Zealand have banned milk imports while India levies a stupendous 167% import tax, all to protect the respective local industry.

One of the biggest myths around is equating ‘foreign’ with ‘good’ and ‘local’ with ‘inferior’.  What is ‘good’ about most things foreign is packaging and advertising. Not so much ‘good’, actually, as ‘effective’.   There’s a lot in the small print and a lot that doesn’t even come in small print.  As Ranjith Page of Cargills once said, most ice creams in the market are made of powdered milk which is not necessarily made of ‘fresh milk’ and therefore are referred to as ‘frozen deserts’ and not ‘ice cream’ in other countries.  Stories about contamination and ingredients don’t make the news or are played down or obliterated by aggressive ad campaigns.

Now it would be folly indeed to claim that we can become some kind of idyllic, self-sustaining and self-sufficient island paradise.  Our ancestors were not averse to international trade.  What is important is to be intelligent about policy and smart about what we take and what we say ‘no’ to.  The war against terrorism was not exactly won without any help from outsiders.  What is important to understand, however, is that the design and execution of strategy was home-grown.  The same principle can be applied to other areas of activity, especially the economic sphere. 

We are not in a position to demand, but neither should we assume that we will never get out of this dependency rut.  Getting out of the rut requires vision, energy, determination, courage and a strong sense of national dignity.  We cannot turn things around overnight, but we can take little steps on all fronts that expand the range of options. 

‘Api wenuwen api’ was and is an excellent slogan but one that need not be limited to the welfare of those who rid the country of the terrorist menace.  Our enemies are many and are multi coloured as well as ready to operate on multiple fronts. It is good to identify and condemn them, but that’s doing the ‘necessary’ but not the ‘sufficient’.  ‘Sufficient’ includes the kind of thinking and operationalizing of thought in the way Wickramanayake has done.  If the government helps with policy it is certainly a boost, but it is up to the individual or collective to do what is necessary even if state support by way of policy adjustment is lacking. 

In this, the words of the Buddha offer an excellent thinking frame: ‘atta hi attano nato. Kohi nato paro sia’ (one’s solace lies in oneself; what other master could there be?); what is true for the individual in struggles of emancipation is also applicable to the collective in struggles to win true independence.    

[The Nation Editorial, April 29, 2012]

Read more