‘Moderate’ is a convenient garb for the pernicious

In the year 2019, sometime in the month of May a chance investigation threw up a name: Shanthilal Silva.  Dr Silva, attached to the Peradeniya Teaching Hospital. Although not an Obstetrician and Gynecologist, he was known to be one because he had performed caesarian sections and delivered babies. The name was thrown up, but no one picked it up.  

Now this Dr Silva, capitalizing on lax oversight at the hospital and of course able to cash cheques on account of superiors who got him to ‘cover’ when they went to earn a buck or two doing private practice, enjoyed his work. He liked to cut up expecting mothers. Mothers and of course the fathers of the children they delivered were extremely grateful to Dr Silva. After all, he ensured they could take healthy infants home.  

At one point something hit the fan. The ‘good’ doctor apparently had some skeletons in his cupboard which spilled out. Women ‘treated’ by Dr Silva suddenly remembered. Some claimed that they didn’t have babies after this doctor performed Caesarian Sections on them. Did he fiddle with their tubes, they asked themselves and others. Was he some kind of communalist (because all these people who claimed victimization happened to belong to some other community), they asked themselves and others.  

Immediately the big-name watchdog nations on human rights (never mind their sorry track record on this subject) got the wind up. They issue statements (politely) demanding that the Sri Lankan government provide speedy justice and reparation to the victims of this unfolding tragedy. Minister Mangala Samaraweera issues a 10 page statement against enemies of peaceful coexistence. He gaily indulges in essentialist terminology vilifying all Sinhalese and all Buddhists, especially the bhikkus. The US Ambassador immediately visits ‘victims’. There are howls of horror from ‘Civil Society’ especially women’s rights outfits. Demonstrations are held in Colombo by Born Against Democrats, Candlelight Ladies and Funded Voices at Lipton’s Circus. The UNHRC boss powwows with representatives of big-name nations to draft yet another resolution against Sri Lanka which Mangala and others of his ilk are itching to champion and endorse. 

Alright. None of the above happened. And neither were such revelations preceded by the bombing of churches and hotels by a group claiming to be the purest and only true adherents to the doctrine of the Buddha. 

We don’t have to listen to the not-so-veiled threats of ex Governor of the Eastern Province, Mahamood Hizbullah to understand that there is a real and abiding danger of a kind of terrorism this country did not know before Easter Sunday.  And yet, the noises made in English, in and out of the media (mainstream and social) are almost exclusively directed at the majority community, the Sinhala Buddhists. 

We know what happened. A large number of Sinhala women (close to 800) who complained about Dr Shafi (who is not, contrary to reports, a gynecologist and obstetrician) have been vilified. People have asked why only some 60 odd of them have agreed to submit themselves to examination, never mind that concern is one thing and anxieties about probes and related publicity are two different things. Pregnancy, childbirth and the ability to deliver are extremely personal matters which are surprisingly ignored in the relevant discourse.   

An academic, attached to an English Department in a state university no less, asks ‘where did all these women turn up from?’  

And we know what didn’t happen. We haven’t had a single Muslim woman ‘treated’ by Dr Shafi coming forward to say ‘I too was unable to conceive following the C-Section done by him’. Note that this doctor operated (!) in areas where there is a sizable Muslim population.

We know what is unlikely to happen too. Many have pooh-poohed allegations against Dr Shafi. Many of this ‘many’ were reluctant to pooh-pooh allegations against the Sri Lankan security forces during the last stages of operations against the LTTE. Innocent until proven guilty is a selectively applicable thing, apparently. Anyway, if they are so convinced, could they do the following: if they are of child-bearing age and inclination or have wives, daughters and friends who are, would they, by way of putting money where their mouths are, name themselves and say ‘Dr Shafi is my first choice medical practitioner in this regard!’? 

Today we have many lecturers on coexistence, harmony, reconciliation, peace and such things, just as there were when the LTTE played ‘Poor relation of the ISIS’.  Terrorists have no religion, we are told. Don’t conflate Muslims with the Jihaadists, we are told. Don’t alienate Muslims. Don’t isolate them. We are told. 

I am in agreement with all of the above, in general. Isolation and alienation would, as argued, most certainly play into the hands of the extremists. There’s no doubt that we have to deal with the terrorists as they ought to be dealt with, from processes and structures that feed ideology and facilitate recruitment to detecting and dismantling operations. With respect to ‘processes’ anything that isolates and alienates the relevant community will be an obstacle.  Perhaps the error is in exaggerating the possibility of the latter and pretending that isolation and alienation can only be inflicted and not chosen.  In any event (and this is a generous reading), we have seen a lot of this exaggeration which has in fact snowballed into two things: a) a crass generalization and vilification of the majority community, and b) scandalous silence on all other factors including the threat at hand and the relevant complicities of the Hizbullahs of the Muslim community, apart from the odd and token reference.  

It is a script that we’ve read before. It is a film we saw during the nineties and the early part of this century. And those who wrote and read and play it out call themselves or would have us believe they are ‘moderates’.  

I firmly believe that there are some who are in fact ‘moderate’. Vilification of an entire community, in this case the Sinhala Buddhists, is probably not THEIR intention. Neither would they advocate the alienation and isolation that could result and indeed seems to be the outcome preference of their fellow travelers. In fact I believe the majority of the moderates are, well, moderate. I am not talking about them but those moderates who give a bad name to moderation.

What’s their beef, though? Who are they, though? Among them are people who are neither Sinhalese nor Buddhists. Among them are people who for whatever reason believe and worry that the ‘Sinhala Buddhist community’ is the preserve of those opposed to the current government led by the United National Party. In other words, they are politically inclined to support or are affiliated with that party. Among them are people who talk of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Sri Lanka while carefully avoiding numbers and percentages and of course brushing aside history and heritage.  They talk about a Sri Lankan identity in public, but fervently affirm their ethnic or religious identities in private. Many are wont to believe (although they won’t say it) that Sri Lanka is Colombo and vice versa, and assume (without saying it) that the affairs of the country should be managed by the English-speaking, Anglicized and relatively wealthy class.  

Many of them consciously or unconsciously are ashamed of their own skin and DNA traces, talk about how great things were under the Europeans (never mind ethnic-cleansing, genocide, extraction of resources and the fact that the ‘great works’ were funded by taxing the people and through their underpaid labor), and find the vilification of Sinhala Buddhists a means to self-isolation and self-alienation that makes them ladies and gentlemen.  They would shop, to put it a bit crudely, in the high end department stores like Odel (for instance) but would not be caught dead at Uptown Kandy in case (to use oft used derogatory epithets) ‘gode’ or yako’ rubs off on them. There are also among them people who do not belong to this class, people who are Sinhalese and Buddhists, who can’t afford high-end consumerism but want to be ‘posh’ and therefore do the costless thing of mimicking the ‘posh’, namely taking up the vilifying chant. They would be sneered at by the ‘Real Deal’ in private, but they won’t know it.   

They rant and rave against isolation and alienation, but in fact isolate and alienate. Caricature is their watchword. And this is why those like Rev Gnanasara and outfits like the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) are ‘heaven-sent’ to them. Such individuals and outfits, however rejected they may be by Buddhists, are used as proxies for that community. No caveats. No specifics. Totalizing, instead. Generalizing instead. Caricatured. And that’s ‘moderation’ and ‘moderates’ for you, ladies and gentlemen. Part of the problem. Sri Lanka must rise up, but to do that Sri Lanka must wise-up to these fake-moderates for they endanger everyone. That’s fundamental. 

malindasenevi@gmail.com

[A shorter version of this article was published in the 'Daily Mirror,' June 13, 2019]

RELATED ARTICLES
The politics of alienation and isolation
Reconciliation does not grow in the Valley of Lies
And here comes the Equivalency Circus
The prerogatives of humanity and citizenship

අනතුර, ආරක්ෂාව සහ පුරවැසි වගකීම

Easter Sunday Attacks: naming the enemy is a game now!

Ostriches cannot fight terrorists

The problem has to be unveiled

On matters and articles of faith

Read more

Is the Government pressing the ‘Snooze’ button on arson?

Inaction on ‘Aluthgama’, near silence on Bodu Bala Sena (BBC) rhetoric and a government servant (Gotabhaya Rajapaksa) not being taken to task for accepting an invitation to open the office of a political organization (BBS), and other acts of omission and commission raised the ire of Muslims in Sri Lanka.  That was during the tenure of Mahinda Rajapaksa and some claim that all this pushed the Muslims of the country to vote for Maithripala Sirisena en bloc.  

Crime and punishment, one can call it.  Not through accepted legal processes but through the vote; the crime being complicity by way of silence/inaction.  

But that was a long time ago.  That government was defeated.  The new government, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe outfit I mean, vowed to end all that. For a while it seemed that they were half way serious.  Not any more.  

Ven Galabodaaththe Gnanasara Thero, the voice of the BBS is still at large although there’s a warrant for his arrest.  Is this purely incompetence on the part of the police or is there some truth in the rumor that a powerful minister in this government is protecting him?  We don’t know.  

Meanwhile, Colombo Telegraph puts the problem in graphic terms: ‘

A shop, a day’.  That’s one Muslim-owned shop being torched every day.  That’s a rate of violence.  That’s a rate of violence that has a communal signature.  

Let us not be hasty and point fingers just yet.  We cannot say ‘the BBS did it’ although their rhetoric and past record clearly indicates ‘incitement’ which could have spurred someone or several people or even an organized group to indulge in arson.  ‘Incitement’ is not a crime since we don’t have anti hate speech legislation and probably cannot have such ‘safeguards’ without also banning religious texts such as the Old Testament and the Quran. We can ask why the Mahanayaka Theros have been silent on Ven Gnanasara Thero because they are mandated to apply the vinaya rules on the bikkhus, but non-application (for whatever reason) is no crime.  

We an leave all that aside if we want, but it is still a discussion that needs to take place.  

However, if we stick to the basics of law and order and choose to be blind to the communalist mark of these violent and increasingly disturbing acts, we still have to ask ‘what is this government doing about all this?’  

As of now, the only logical answer to this question (What is the government doing?) is, ‘nothing’.  

When ‘Aluthgama’ happened, in an editorial published in ‘The Nation,’ I made certain observations where I blamed the then IGP for irresponsibility and called for his resignation.  A quick recap could be useful and for this reason I reproduce the following sections of that piece:

If there was convoluted justification of last Sunday’s violence and if justification spurred further violence the blame falls squarely on the IGP for making the following (irresponsible) statement: ‘Three Muslims in a trishaw assaulted the driver and the Buddhist monk. The Buddhist monk was in hospital receiving treatment for two days and then discharged.  He was to be taken to the temple in a procession when the incident occurred.’ 

The IGP offered speculation as fact. That’s incompetent and irresponsible. Yesterday the Muslim-owned ‘No Limit’ outlet in Panadura was torched.  While it is not clear how it all happened, it is clear that the sequence of events prompt people to connect dots and reach conclusion, wrong though they may be.  Tinkering with the truth and lying outright causes friction, throw out sparks and cause infernos that are hard to put out.

It is wrong to blame it all on one person, but it is equally wrong not to point out those who provided fuel and matchstick, tossed in extra firewood and refused to douse it even though they had all the water necessary to do the job.  We have to take issue with the IGP.  He must resign forthwith.

There are dots here and they will be connected.  Wrong perhaps, but disturbingly, perhaps correctly too.  All the more reason to err on the side of caution. All the more reason to spare no pains to ensure that culprits are brought to book not because this is the most effective way of insuring against future attacks of this kind (it may be or it may not be) but because it is the right thing to do and what this government solemnly pledged to do.  

We can of course debate about one extremism feeding off another and ponder the chicken-or-egg conundrum.  One could argue that this is a relevant discussion and I will not disagree.  One can say that extremism should be objected to and insist that such objection should be lawful.  That is however a different matter as far as the rights of citizenship and the responsibilities of relevant state agencies are concerned.  

The Police must act.  The Ministry of Law and Order must act.  The Minister must act.  The primacy of the law should be clearly evident.  This is not the moment for sloth (if that’s the case).  It is certainly not the moment for sweeping things under the carpet (as seems to be the case) and especially not for purposes of political convenience (a government with an abysmal performance rating needs distraction — this we know).  Failure to do so would see ‘useful distraction’ bleeding into inter-communal violence and eventually to anarchy.  

Alright, let’s say ‘that’s going a bit overboard’.  Fine.  Still, if are required to be stone cold sober and leave ‘the political’ out of it, we still have a question of blatant disregard for the law.  Arson is a serious matter.  Destroying private property is a serious matter. When the destroyed properties happen to belong to members of a particular community it is an even more serious matter.  

“Arrest this!” 

This is what we have to demand of the government at this point, even as we (as citizens) remain alert and support all efforts to a) prevent such acts and b) support the law enforcement authorities in their work.  

“Tomorrow, where?” is a question that many are probably asking.  If it is not answered, tomorrow we will see a report saying “here”.  Surely, this government can do better?  It must. Or else, its complicity will be suspected.

Read also: What's 'bodu' (Buddhist) in 'bodu bala sena'? 

This article was first published in Colombo Telegraph on June 9, 2017

Read more

With you, without you

The two don’t like each other.  Well, let’s say that they are opposed to each other.  The opposition is public knowledge.  They’ve made statements to this effect.  General Secretary of Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) Rev Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera and Convener of Jathika Bala Sena (JBS) Rev Watareka Vijitha Thera don’t exactly chit-chat over gilan pasa.  In a parallel universe, though, all things are possible.  Here’s a conversation that ought to take place and who knows might even happen someday. 

‘I heard you had an accident, haamuduruwane,’ the BBS General Secretary said by way of greeting. 

‘Haamuduruwane, you know how things are.  There are accidents and accidents.  This one was self-inflicted, although I tried to make it out that I was attacked and let a lot of people believe it was done by your people,’ the JBS Convener responded.

‘Aney haamuduruwane, you know how things are.  We don’t see eye to eye.  In fact I don’t blame anyone for thinking that I was behind this.  I don’t exactly order this or that.  I just create conditions and let others do stuff.  That way I can stay clean.  Tell me, what made you do this?’

‘Desperation.  Emotion clouded my reason.  Had I put some thought to the matter I would have figured out that I would be found it.  You see, I have my problems.  There are people who have checks to cash and they’ve been at my door.  I had to do something.  Now I am caught and they are caught too.  Yes, everyone in the JBS are now compromised.’

‘Come, come haamuduruwane don’t be so hard on yourself.  We are, after all, prthagjanas aren’t we?  It could happen to anyone.  Take me for example.  When last did you see me privileging reason over emotion?  I’ve burnt my fingers too.  Many times.  I speak out of turn and the forces I unleash say whatever comes to their heads.  I make claims I can’t prove.  And I’ve caught a lot of flak.’

‘But you didn’t self-inflict injuries ne,’   Rev Watareka Vijitha Thera countered.

‘Literally, no.  But then again, isn’t that what I’ve done?  The “BBS” is now attacked so much that it would seem that I invited people to injure us.  Worse, those who are inflicting wounds are not only taking a stab at the BBS but in fact at all Buddhists and even Buddhism.’

‘True, haamuduruwane,true. Come to think of it, we can’t blame others for doing that when that’s exactly what we have done, can we?’ 

‘Yes,’ Rev Gnanasara Thera said, thoughtfully.

‘What can we do now, haamuduruwane?’

‘I don’t know.’

‘I don’t know either.’

‘What does one do when in this situation, in general?’

‘What else but seek answers in the Buddha Vacana!’ 

‘Yes.  How could I have forgotten.  The Enlightened One said it all.  Let us return to the scriptures.’

Rev Galagodaaththe Gnanasaara Thera helped Rev Watareka Vijitha Thera to his feet.  The two retired into the pothgula.      

*All this in a parallel universe! 

Read more

The IGP must resign!*

These are days of frayed tempers, perceived grievances, real threats and real fears that can cloud and blow away reason.  This is the hour or the rumor-monger.  This is the hour of the extremist.  This is the hour of the passionate and irresponsible. 

The word on the street is ‘Aluthgama’.  Indeed it is the word on every street where matters of yesterday, today and tomorrow, matters of the nation and its destiny, matters of unrest and fear and other related matters are discussed.  Aluthgama moved from the Kalutara district to Colombo and Badulla.  ‘This is 83-July all over again,’ some said.  Not true, but we could get there. 

There were arguments over who threw the first stone, as though it justified throw-return and more.  After all it is hard to pin it down to first stone cast when there were only a handful of STF men to ‘protect the (BBS) procession’ in Dharga Town.  STF personnel were clearly confused because their orders were specific.   One source explained thus: ‘The Muslims keep saying that the STF sided with the mob.  We didn’t.  We were acting on our orders which were specific and were about protecting the procession.’  

It was not, let us repeat, not a peaceful procession.  There were anti-Muslim slogans, there was whipping of hysteria, there was undisguised inciting of violence against Muslims in a Muslim majority area by people who had petrol cans and carried weapons. Literally minutes after that ‘first stone’ Muslims and Muslim-owned premises were attacked and torched in Adhikarigoda, Aluthgama and the interior of Dharga Town. 

Most of all, it is hard to pin it down on first stone when Buddhist monks torched a shopping complex in Aluthgama more than a month ago over an alleged molestation of a Buddhist child by a Muslim, the relative of the shop owner, when in fact CCTV evidence disproved the allegation. The shop was torched only several days later. 

Blaming first-stone-thrower is therefore a joke.

There are questions which are not funny, though.  If Azath Salley was arrested for ‘hate speech’, why is Rev Galagodaaththe Gnanasaara still free?  Why did the Police not prevent the BBS rally despite many pleas to do so from many quarters (a planned ‘BBS’ rally in Mawanella was stopped, after all)?  Why was the STF not ordered to maintain peace but instructed only to ‘protect the procession’?  Why didn’t the police stop armed mobs scurrying around with clubs and violent intent (not just in Aluthgama on Sunday but elsewhere too thereafter)?  

Most importantly, why did the Inspector General of Police N.K. Ilangakoon state that a Buddhist monk had been assaulted when he had no evidence to support the claim?  The Judicial Medical Officer’s report which would have either proven or refuted the said monk’s claim (as of Friday) has not been issued.  Highly placed sources at the Attorney General’s Office could not confirm that the monk had indeed been assaulted. 

If there was convoluted justification of last Sunday’s violence and if justification spurred further violence the blame falls squarely on the IGP for making the following (irresponsible) statement: ‘Three Muslims in a trishaw assaulted the driver and the Buddhist monk. The Buddhist monk was in hospital receiving treatment for two days and then discharged.  He was to be taken to the temple in a procession when the incident occurred.’ 

The IGP offered speculation as fact. That’s incompetent and irresponsible. Yesterday the Muslim-owned ‘No Limit’ outlet in Panadura was torched.  While it is not clear how it all happened, it is clear that the sequence of events prompt people to connect dots and reach conclusion, wrong though they may be.  Tinkering with the truth and lying outright causes friction, throw out sparks and cause infernos that are hard to put out.

It is wrong to blame it all on one person, but it is equally wrong not to point out those who provided fuel and matchstick, tossed in extra firewood and refused to douse it even though they had all the water necessary to do the job.  We have to take issue with the IGP.  He must resign forthwith.

 

*Editorial, 'The Nation', June 22, 2014

** See also 
'Aluthgama' needs to be arrested
The Muslim in me
The bigger thing is to keep matchstick in matchbox

msenevira@gmail.com 

Read more

Vigilantism and the Rule of Law

The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), according to some, is a terrorist organization. They call for proscription.  The word ‘terrorist’ begs comparison with the greatest terrorist the world has know outside those states that have made terrorism an integral part of foreign policy, namely the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).  As of now, it remains a silly comparison.  The BBS, for all its provocative statements and belligerence, has not included assassination, suicide attacks, bomb blasts, landmines etc., etc in its curriculum vitae.  Should this warrant treatment with soft hands, though? The answer is an unequivocal ‘No!’  The reason is simple: vigilantism of any kind is a threat to the Rule of Law. 

This brings us to the vexed question of a marked reluctance by the law enforcement authority to protect places and persons ‘marked’ by the BBS.  Of late, though, action has been taken to investigate incidents involving the BBS, question its leaders and initiate legal proceedings.  Noteworthy too is the recent pledge by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to set up a special Police unit to move in quickly if and when religious harmony is threatened.  None of this seems to have deflated the BBS.  Its leaders continue to be vociferous and adamantly reiterate that if relevant authorities don’t take steps to curb certain activities which the BBS believes violates constitutional provisions, then the BBS will ‘do the needful’.

Now no one has given the BBS some kind of inalienable right to make determinations on legality and constitutionality.  The BBS has a right to opinion and can at best make their pleas to the relevant authority be it the police or the courts.  Violating one law in order to ensure that another law is protected is indefensible.  If on the other hand, the BBS (or anyone else for that matter) believes that existing laws are inadequate or unfair, then it can petition for change.  Democratically.  If the BBS feels that laws are being violated and the relevant authorities are turning a blind eye, then too the objection has to be formulated and acted out within the democratic framework.  The moment the law is taken into their own hands, the BBS cannot take refuge in the indefensible, i.e. one violation crosses out another.  If the BBS wants to be selective, it cannot cry foul if the Police or any other entity is selective in return. 

But outside the issue of moral relativism and the logic of word play, there are reasons to worry about the BBS.  First, there is the fact that the Secretary, Defense Ministry, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa accepting an invitation to open a regional office of the BBS.  That was read as more than tacit approval and has been tagged to all comments regarding the BBS including allegations of regime-approval. Sloth and inaction by the police on several occasions when BBS activists and/or supporters went on rampage were naturally read as evidence of these actions having regime-blessing.  That one act of indiscretion wittingly or unwittingly committed has made for much inflation.  To be fair the BBS has not exactly had the privilege of soft-hand treatment in recent times, but that ‘scar’ remains. 

More serious is the vigilante pretensions of the BBS.  Now anyone can claim police inaction and use it as a claim to deputize.  That’s not part of the social contract though.  On the other hand, what gives credence to BBS-type operations is not the alleged inaction of the police on what the BBS claims are illegal or unconstitutional activities of certain groups but the inaction of the police in general.  It is not about lack of human resources or skill. There have been countless occasions when the Police Department has covered itself in glory in putting a stop to criminal activity and bringing to book criminals.  It is the selectivity of the whole thing that offers more than a window of opportunity to the BBS.   Indeed it gives legitimacy, theoretically, to vigilantism of all kinds, not just BBS adventures.   ‘We are doing this in the name of security, civic responsibility etc,’ has now become an acceptable excuse for all kinds of errant behavior.  A recent example would be the Hambantota Mayor Eraj Fernando brandishing a gun ‘to protect’ UNP parliamentarians.  There’s no fine line any more between exercising civic responsibility and hooliganism, hooliganism and vandalism. 

If anarchy is not desired, then the institutional arrangement has to reassert itself. Until such time public confidence in the Police is restored there will be little if any public objection to vigilantism, not because the public approves it but because outfits like the BBS so resemble the Police, in selectivity, belligerence and utter disregard for the Rule of Law. 

What is the key flaw here?  The key flaw is the problematic relationship between the police officer and the politician.  In ‘governance’ terms, it is about the independence of the police or rather the lack thereof.  Clearly, the constitutional provisions for that kind of independence are either missing or woefully inadequate to the point where a politician can on occasion act as police officer.   When this kind of behavior is repeated, public confidence suffers. 

One can and must call out the BBS for what it is: an un-Buddhist outfit that has no regard for Rule of Law and possessing great potential to develop into something that can wreck not just religious harmony but all democratic institutions.  The bigger problem, however, is in the institutional arrangement that has, due to insufficient provisions and/or marked disregard in the matter of operationalizing provisions, created conditions for such outfits to prosper.  The BBS can and must be brought to heel and made to abide by the law.  If, however, ‘the law’ is compromised not only will the BBS not be brought to heel, other versions of the phenomenon, some of them non-Buddhist and some non-religious, will emerge and prosper in much the same way.

msenevira@gmail.com 

Read more

What is ‘Bodu (Buddhist)’ in the ‘Bodu Bala Sena’?

Way back in the year 2004, when the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) was formed to contest the April elections, I objected on grounds that the political/historical role of the Bikkhu was advisory. The mayor, I wrote to the Sunday Island (February 15, 2004) has to get the drains cleaned, but is not required to cover himself in muck.  For all this, the key figures of the JHU conducted themselves with decorum; they made their points lucidly and treated critic with respect, opting to deploy word to counter word.  That the JHU became something else later on is a different matter. The point here is that the JHU of April 2004 is a stark contrast to the BBS of April 2013. 

Let’s consider the BBS.  Their statements, at media conferences and public gatherings, as well as their actions describe them well.  It is apparent in tone and facial expression, in word and deed.  It is also apparent in the organization’s silence on or responses to actions done in its name.  If there is one thing absent in all of this it is equanimity.  Emotion has ruled reason.  Attachment overrides all else.  There is clear inciting to violence.  There is fear-mongering and playing to the baser instincts of a community, a tickling of human frailty. 

‘Buddhist’ is an identity tag as much as it denotes preference for a particular teaching.  But if teaching is important (and it certainly is), then any organization containing the word or a derivative must be guided by that doctrine, in both word and deed.  The BBS is at odds with the fundamental tenets of the Dhamma. 

The most recent example is how BBS representatives behaved in Thunmulla when confronting a set of individuals who had organized an event tagged ‘Buddhists Question Bodu Bala Sena’.  That particular event was either organized or hijacked by people whose political agendas are anything but innocent.  On the other hand, they were not violent.  They came to light a candle, recite some lines in Pali (printed for the benefit of those unfamiliar, Buddhists and non-Buddhists) and take a stand.  The BBS representatives present were abusive.  In word, gesture and tone, they were in clear violation of ways of conduct prescribed by the Buddha.  They could have, for example, spoken to those present cordially, even while recognizing pernicious intent and mischief-maker, and invited them to chant the thun-sutra together. 

That particular incident was rather mild, compared to the foul and violence-inciting language and rhetoric indulged in by the BBS leadership.  The BBS can claim they had no hand in the attack on Fashion Bug, for example, but they are certainly guilty of whipping anti-Muslim sentiment and ‘Muslimphobia’ among Buddhists.  The stone-thrower is guilty, so too are those who planted ‘stone-throwing’ in his mind, directly or otherwise.  The BBS has deliberately distorted statistics gathered by the Department of Census and Statistics to buttress arguments about ‘Muslim Expansion’.  If, as the BBS claims, Muslims are in ‘expansion-mode’ and if whatever they find objectionable is illegal, then the BBS must take to the courts. 

If there’s nothing illegal but it still offends, hurts and threatens, then the BBS (or anyone else) must seek answers in the Dhamma, which prescribes as fundamental engagement factors, pragna (wisdom) and maithree (compassion).  There’s a palpable absence of intelligence and absolutely no compassion in the way the BBS has conducted itself.  They could find answers in the Kalama Sutra (the Buddhist Charter on Free Inquiry), use the Sapta Aparihani Dharma (Seven principles of indestructability) etc.  They could find in the notion of sanvaraya (decorum) associated with the figure of the bikkhu a useful ally in conduct.  They have not. 

Buddhists are not Arahats and there is political dishonesty in demanding that kind of enlightenment from Buddhists in the face of aggression (real or perceived), but an organization that purports to uphold Buddhist doctrine, culture and values must consciously and actively strive to adhere to basic doctrinal tenets.  The BBS is so far away from that point to justify using ‘Bodu’ in its name.  If Buddhists find the BBS to be a slur on their identity and belief system, then they too should respond with the compassion, wisdom, moderation and other concepts that guide action embedded in the Buddha Vacana.  This would include circumspect in who to stand with of course. 

What non-BBS Buddhists and other non-Buddhists of whatever political persuasion do is their business. The BBS cannot play mirror-politics if they hope to achieve anything close to moral high ground.  As of now (and perhaps for all time, given the arrogance and invective that they’ve adorned themselves with), ‘Buddhist’ is not a tag they can wear without insulting all Buddhists and Buddhism.    

 

Read more

On Dayan’s ‘logic’, mildly

This refers to Dayan Jayatilleka’s response (Anti-BBS Vigil: A critique of the critique) to something I wrote on the subject of a candle light vigil organized by a group that named the event ‘Buddhists Question Bodu Bala Sena’.   I called my comment ‘The “Vigil” I saw’. Colombo Telegraph re-posted with what I consider to be a mischievous re-titling, “The BBS ‘Buddhists’, ‘Nightclub Buddhists’ and The ‘Vigil’ that I saw”.  Dayan, sadly, seems to have let that title guide his rant and has missed out all the caveats inserted.  That’s an old trick.  You deliberately take a black-white picture and then rant and rave.  That’s something I would expect from a high school debater, not from a man who has a doctorate, and one in political science to boot! 

Dayan, true to form, throws his CV at the readers.  That’s fine if only he was not so selective.  His description of MIRJE is eye-wash, but that again is Dayan.  I will let that pass and get to his ‘critique’.

Dayan wants to know ‘how on earth’ I determined the following: ‘But there were non-Buddhists in proportions that were a fair distance away from national ratios’. 

Dayan, by his own admission is not one to attend such vigils.  He will only stand with ‘The Left’ (he thinks the JVP and FSP are ‘Left’, but that’s another story for another laugh).  In my case, I have made it a point to keep myself informed about who does what and why, especially I/NGO operatives and their cheering squad, in the media, at Lipton’s Circus, I/NGO forums and the workshop rounds.  That’s how I know. The only people not speaking in English were those who were talking with the Police.  This was no cross-section, as I pointed out.  Not that it had to be, but I was only making an observation. 

What I found most hilarious about this man who charges me of jumping to conclusions about composition, is that he sees fit to indulge in caricature of a magnitude that would make my error seem utterly trivial.  He calls the BBS Bay-Badu Bala Sena, picking on a drunk-drive-without-license transgression of its main political figure 13 years ago.  So based on that incident each and everyone in the BBS is a drunkard.  Wonderful logic! Dayan asks me how I made a call on ‘cross-section’.  I live in this country.  I move around.  I keep my eyes and ears open.  Can tell.  Dayan can’t, but that’s his problem.  I challenge anyone who took part in the vigil to say that the group was a cross-section of Buddhists in this country.

No, demonstrations need not necessarily ‘accord with national, ethnic and religious ratios’, but it is strange to me that one which claimed it was a by-Buddhists event ended up having such a non-Buddhist preponderance.   Add the other rider, there being a significant number of people with definite political agenda, and the picture is not as rosy as Dayan might think it is.  The implication is that it was either not organized by ‘innocents’ or else some with suspect agenda had hijacked it or else were piggybacking on the innocents.  Dismissing issues of class and category in politics by alluding to the Dhamma, as Dayan has done, is once again silly.  One cannot be innocent in politics and Dayan certainly has not been.  He has not subjected himself to the rigor he seems to demand from others.   

Typical of Dayan, he took my ‘facebooking’ comment out of context.  It is linked to my observation regarding composition.  Dayan, true to form, deliberately misses the point and goes off at a tangent about who is on facebook and what being-on-facebook means and does not mean. 

He does the same with the word ‘violent’.  It’s easy.  Pick a word and spit at it.  Maybe it gives a thrill, but that’s not intelligent, engaging debate, but sophomoric word-play.  I don’t have to answer for those Sinhalese and Buddhists who have been violent in one way or another against Tamils, Muslims or anyone else. Never been part of any of that.  But Dayan does have a violent past and I find it strange that he didn’t pick some stuff from his own story to buttress his argument.    

At no point have I condoned the Bodu Bala Sena.  This does not mean that I have to agree with everything that those opposed to the Bodu Bala Sena say and do.  Only someone who cannot extricate himself from flawed Cartesian logic would expect me to do so.  In this instance, I went to oppose the BBS.  In retrospect, I found that I was ill-informed.  But I informed myself quickly enough.  I did not stand with the BBS but I went to stand with people opposed to the BBS and the way I do politics, criticism and self-criticism are part of the story.   

I said the policeman cannot be faulted for wondering how a ‘Buddhists against BBS event’ could have so many non-Buddhists.  It’s enough for Dayan to go off at another tangent.  If you mark an event as organized by X, Y or Z and realize that there’s more of P, Q and R in it, you can’t blame anyone for wondering what is what!  That comes from bad organizing or too many people being taken for a ride. 

This is what I wrote: ‘The Police Officer can’t be faulted if he wondered how a ‘Buddhists against BBS’ event had so many non-Buddhists.  It was a sweeping generalization nevertheless and the ethno-religious composition is anyway not relevant to the matter of peaceful, democratic action, even if there was nothing innocent in intent and design.’  Dayan has either not read the second sentence or has deliberately kept it out of his rant.  That’s cheap.  Sophomoric. Typical.   

Dayan ends his piece with a confession: ‘This hardly seems a fair or rational critique’. I agree, wholeheartedly; he has neither been fair or rational.   Why he pressed ‘send’ after writing it for the Colombo Telegraph, I really cannot fathom. 

NOTE 1:  Dayan’s article in Colombo Telegraph has prompted a lot of comments.  Many have saluted Dayan and showered me with invective.  There is very little reason and very little sobriety in these comments.  If they were at the vigil or supported the vigil then I can safely say that they are totally unsuited to question the BBS from a Buddhist perspective.

NOTE 2:  I learned that spokespersons for the BBS have quoted my article.  They, like my detractors, have misquoted me, leaving out important caveats.  In my next article I will explain why I am opposed to the BBS.

NOTE 3:  Most of those who cheered Dayan and most of those whove cheered the BBS, I noticed, did so during the nonagathaya and on Aluth Avurudda (April 14th) and into the festivities.  Made me smile. 

Read more