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