So you want to take out ‘Buddhism’?

The ‘enlightened’ people entrusted with the grave task of recommending changes to the constitution have sought to turn Sri Lanka into an official secular state.  Although the Final Report of the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF) doesn’t mention it, this particular recommendation clearly seeks to do away with Article 9 of the Constitution.

Article 9 reads thus: The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

Articles 10 and 14(1)(e) are as follows: 

10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 

14. (1) (e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

This recommendation should not surprise anyone.  The worthies on this committee are without exception either advocates of secularism and have on occasion been critical of Article 9 (and even openly been anti-Buddhist as judged by crass extrapolation of extreme Buddhist groups to cover the entire community and strange silence on the excesses of other religious groups) or are tainted by association with organizations that by and large do the same.  

This report claims legitimacy from both appointment and by claiming to have given ear to voices that cut across all categories, religious and otherwise.  

A report put together by the Committee on Constitutional Reform, headed by Lal Wijenayake, released last year, in contrast appear to have actually listened to people and recorded their representations faithfully, despite the problematic nature of the committee’s composition.  The CTF report, in contrast, is weak, slanted and quite in contrast to the reconciliation intent of the mandate, a recipe to deliver its very opposite.   However, given what has to be understood as real intent, the recommendation is what was always predictable.  

This is how it is worded: 

The CTF strongly recommends that meaningful steps should be taken through consultation with all stakeholders, towards a secular State and with equal respect accorded to the multiple religions practiced in the country.  

The logic of Article 9 draws from the clause related to Buddhism in the Kandyan Convention, the document that ceded the Kandyan Kingdom (to which the ‘land of the war-like Sinhalas’ — as described by the Dravidian marauder Raja Raja Chola I — or ‘Sinhale’ had shrunk by that time) to the British: ‘The religion of Buddhoo, professed by the chiefs and inhabitants of these provinces is declared inviolable and its rites and ministers and places of worship are to be maintained and protected’.  The British treated that as well as other protective clauses with utmost disdain (to put it gently) thereafter.  If the recovery of the nation from the invader was to make any sense, then reinstating those abrogated clauses was logical.  Hence Article 9, it can be argued, also considering the notion of ‘compensation’ for all the violence unleashed on Buddhists and Buddhist places of religious significance, and the burning and looting of Buddhist texts.  We could throw in the formal and informal advantages conferred on non-Buddhists, especially Christians, in all spheres, especially education and obtaining employment.

Someone might say, ‘but people, communities and geographies are always in flux — changing times and scenarios call for changed articles of faith’.  Correct.  If that’s the case, then we have to legislate for the moment, having duly dumped history in the waste-paper basked of constitution-making.  Out would go all talk of traditional/historical homelands (myth-lades though they may be) and with it calls for devolution.  Factored in would be the dispersed nature of the Tamil community (close to 50% live outside the so-called ‘traditional/historical homelands’).  Interestingly, that dumping is not called for by those who want to legislate for the here and now.

But what is this here and now?  Is it the number-erased, percentages-ignored thing described as multi-ethnic and multi-religious?  We are not talking of a population equally divided along lines of ethnic identity and religious persuasion.  We are not talking of a neatly ethnically enclaved geography.  So, in essence, Buddhists are asked to concede demographic edge in the interest of ‘a more enlightened’ political arrangement.  Perhaps Buddhists are being asked, in the name of the philosophy they subscribe to, to reflect on the Buddha Vacana, the notions of impermanence, the virtues of giving (dana) and equanimity (upekkha) and so on; essentially boiling down to ‘magnanimity’ and the celebrated of shared humanity.  

Let’s go with secularism. If secularism is what is sought and if Buddhists are being asked to waive demographic advantage in view of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘reconciliation’, if reconciliation can never be a clap with a single hand, and if secularism is citizen-focused in ways that keep religion strictly separate from state, we would have to consider alterations that are not limited to doing away with Article 9.  

Let’s begin with the simple things (things, please note that even the ‘enlightened’ West would not consider).  Holidays.  Religious holidays.  Communal holidays.  

No Poya holidays.  No extra holiday for Vesak.  No aluth avurudda on April 13/14.  No Easter. No Christmas.  No Ramadan.  No Thaipongal, no Mahasivarathri, no Idul Fitr and no Idul Adha.  No Deepavli or Milad-un-Nabi.  And Sunday, a day of religious significance for Christians will no longer be a holiday.  

Instead, let the work day be truncated by one and a half hours, Sunday through Friday.  Saturday, a religion-neutral days will be a holiday.  And yes, no half-days or short-leave for Friday prayers.  If employees want to be religious by all means, but on their time, not that of the organization that pays their salaries.  

Let’s take it further.  Not only will religion be taken out of the curriculum there won’t be morning prayers and there will no longer be schools based on religious faith.  No Buddhist schools, Muslim schools, Hindu schools, Catholic schools or schools run by or framed by other Christian religious organizations or faiths respectively.  The state cannot help in any manner whatsoever any private institution that has any association with any religious faith.  

Let’s get more serious.  Let this secular Sri Lanka of ‘equal citizens’ (never mind the inequalities that capitalism generate and depends on) be a land where there is one law: an eka-ratak, eka-neethiyak kind of entity.  

Nothing called 'Customary Law'.  No marriages under ‘Kandyan Law’.  It will no longer be possible to refer to Thesavalamai law in property-related litigation.  No Sharia law.   No ‘Muslim marriages’.  No Talaq.  No multiple wives.  

Come to think of it, if we want to be truly secular, then we need to revisit Roman-Dutch Law as well, since the man considered to be the founder of this system of jurisprudence, Hugo de Groot, was a Christian apologist.

The CTF has been quite cute in all this.   The CTF hasn’t gone into these important areas of secularism simply because it wants non-Buddhists to have religious privileges.   When they interject the phrase ‘towards a secular state’, they deliberately advocate ‘a start’ and the only ‘start’ that anyone has talked about so far in this business of secularizing Sri Lanka is doing away with Article 9.  That’s cute, ladies and gentlemen.  Very cute.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasene@gmail.com.   Twitter: malindasene.

Read more

A return to the Buddha Vacana is called for in this 2600th Sambhuddatva Jayanthi

A friend of mine, a Christian, asked me a couple of years ago what ‘Sri Lankan culture’ was.  ‘Culture’, like ‘love’ is not easily defined. They can only be recognized by those who live it or experience it.  My response was something like the following: ‘There is, naturally, diversity embedded in the overall ‘Sri Lankan’ when it comes to culture, but to the extent that anything can be claimed to be the core of our overall culture, or has contributed overwhelmingly in terms of customs, traditions, art, literature and way of life, it is Buddhism.’

I have observed on occasion that while this does not and should not accord Buddhists any or affirmation when those who cannot allude to as extensive a history on this island speak of multi-religious as though all religions contributed equally or are an equal part of what is conveniently called ‘Sri Lanka’ and/or ‘Sri Lankan Culture’.  It is in fact political, and speaks of a politics that is not benign in orientation, practice and intention, especially in cases where the particular religion’s history (as evidenced by how its adherents/advocates have responded to the above cultural and religious reality) is not acknowledged or pooh-poohed by way of the easy and convenient ‘in the past’.  Such ignorance, arrogance and deliberate silence rebel against the basic tenets of humility and acknowledgment of truth inherent in all religious doctrines, and this itself speaks of pernicious intent.

Buddhism does not belong to this country or to any particular person or entity.  ‘Belonging’ is a term that can be associated with a doctrine only to the extent that the particular individual inhabits or is inhabited by or lives the fundamental tenets associated with it.  ‘Belonging’ in any other sense has nothing to do with teaching, but relates to self-identification with doctrine and requisites, as perceived by the keepers of the word or institution.  These ‘keepers’ are either self-appointed or made to inhabit posts or live with titles on the basis of particular interpretations of the word. 

This country was not born Buddhist.  Buddhists make the overwhelming majority of the population. Buddhism has influenced the arts, crafts, literature, governance culture and way of life of more people across the centuries and across the length and breadth of the island than any other religion or philosophy. It is only in a political sense that these realities are asserted, challenged, disputed and sought to be changed.  On the other hand, if ‘nation’ is about people and about culture, then attempts to unsettle the foundational elements of who we are have to be seen as deliberate designs to make us vulnerable to forces that seek to destroy us, even if such malicious and hate-filled agents do so under cover of constitutional guarantees about ‘religious freedom’. 

We are in the year of the Sambuddhatva Jayanthi, or the 2600^th anniversary of that life-changing, civilization-giving moment when the ascetic Siddhartha Gauthama attained enlightenment, achieved ultimate comprehension of the Four Noble Truths and vanquished the kleshas.  The entire country is decked with signs that acknowledge this moment.  It is not unnatural for the pruthgjanas to seek refuge in frill rather than substance. It is not unnatural either for those who are unable to engage substance but have some emotional association with trappings, to affirm the same by decoration and cheer.  Understandable, also on account of the violence unleashed upon all things and persons associated with ‘Buddhism’ by those who do a lot of injustice to the doctrines they subscribe to, for example the word of Jesus Christ, all the way from the Vatican to the self-proclaimed god’s-work-doers. 

I’ve been reading Susantha Goonatilake’s ‘A 16^th Century Clash of Civilizations’ and have discovered that I’ve known very little about the extent of hatred and ignorance that motivated bible-carrying, bullet-spewing Europeans to destroy and kill in the manner they did.  It is a book that all Christians in this country and elsewhere ought to read, to know what was done in the name of Jesus Christ and perhaps understand the suspicions with which evangelists are looked upon and indeed to understand the ‘why’ of the unjustified violence carried out against them.  This book, moreover, does not claim to cover the other eras of religious violence against Buddhists and the over structure of Buddhist social organization, including the destroying of temples, burning of libraries and books, institutional mechanisms to prompt convenience-conversions etc. 

All this explains to an extent the cry we hear now and then to ‘Save Buddhism’.  Lost in the rhetoric and related politics is the salient fact that Buddhism is a doctrine that is not soliciting protection.  The relevance and preservation of the dhamma is dependent not on flag, assertion and ritual, but by its acceptance and level of residency within, as exemplified by the extent to which it informs action. 

Buddhism is a way of life and ‘Buddhist politics’ is essentially about subscribing to tenets that shape action and word, thought and comprehension; in other words all engagements, personal and public, individual and collective. 

When I read this book I was surprised by the fact that there are still Buddhists in this country and that the dhamma is still alive, both in word and deed.  I realized that the reason for this has less to do with Buddhists getting mobilized than about Buddhists living the dhamma in accordance with their relative karmic strengths.  This is not to say, however, that Buddhists should not think ‘collective’, for the Buddha’s discourses did accord considerable value to things ‘social’ and reflect a deep consideration of interactions among people and groups.  Still, it was not ‘organization’ that saw this land fight back the wicked and ignorant.  If there was ‘Buddhist Politics’ that helped us get to where we were, it is because of individuals such as the Most Venerable Velivita Sri Saranankara Sangha Raja Thero, who were committed to relevant scholarship, deep reflection and had the knowledge, skill and will to teach. 

Listening to bana on the radio or associating with scholar bikkhus, attending discussions on the dhamma, following the five precepts, being aware of and reflecting deeply on how best to associate with different categories of people (e.g. in the Singalovada Sutta), abiding by the sathara brahma viharana (Loving kindness, compassion, equanimity and rejoicing in another’s joy) etc., is what will preserve Buddhism, and to the extent that preserving Buddhism preserves ‘Sri Lanka culture’ or ‘Sri Lankanness, if you will), protect this land. 

The Word of the Buddha or the Buddhavacana, was valid yesterday.  Today we celebrate the 2600^th Sambuddatva Jayanthi. Tomorrow too, the Buddhavacana will be valid.  It will empower.  Not on account of frill, but substance. 

We have seen signs, recommending that this celebration be a matter of returning to and inhabiting the tenets of Buddhism, viz ‘pilivethin pelagesemu’. Inherent in this call is the recommendation for a collective effort.  It is the ‘pilivetha’ (practice) that makes celebration meaningful. It is the ‘pilivetha’ that makes a meaningful collective that is wholesome, not just to Buddhists but everyone else, all other communities and indeed even those individuals and collectives that are anti-Buddhist or believe that asserting faith necessarily involves vilification of and/or destroying of other faiths, by burning books, unethically converting and seeking legislative cover to carry out such operations.

Of all the Buddhist assertions I’ve seen in the recent past, one stands out: those who abide by the dhamma is protected by the dhamma.  Valid for the Buddhist and valid for this country, not because this is a ‘Buddhist Country’ (a meaningless proposition), but Buddhism contains the understanding, logic and practices that make for protection.

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta!  May all beings be happy.

Read more