The name, the flag and the anthem of the nation

There has been a lot of discussion on the appearance in public of a sticker with a particular spin on what can be argued to be the true name of this island, “Sinhale”. 

Pic courtesy www.maphill.com

“Sinha-Le,” literally (of the) Lion (Sinha) Blood, with the first part in yellow and the last or ‘le’ element in red first appeared in social media when someone got a tattoo done, took a picture and posted it on Facebook.  Since then it has gone viral in Sri Lanka.  While a particular group has happily piggybacked on the term and extremist ‘interpreters’ have indulged in vandalism that is a clear articulation of virulent communalism, by and large, this ‘campaign’ if you want to call it that has been marked by a disorganization that can only indicate that it has resonated with something felt on the ground. 

There is palpable discontent among Sinhalese over the crass generalization in referring to them, reference marked by vilification and a mischievous (softer word) reducing of all identity-related ‘problems’ to the ‘chauvinism’, ‘extremism’ etc of that community.  Response, typically and initially, involves identity assertion.  In this instance, the fracture is actually a distortion of the etymology.  There  was no ‘lion’ and no ‘blood’ in Sinhale after all. [I wrote on the subject in the 'Daily Mirror' recently: "I say 'NO' to Sinha-Le AND to Sinhale-bashers"]

Indeed the use of ‘Sinhale’ as a reference to those whose mother tongue is Sinhala goes against the historical, political and philosophical thinking that yielded the named  ‘Sinhale’ in the first place:  Siv-Hela (the four Helas, namely Yaksha, Naga, Deva and Raksha).  Embedded in this is the idea of embrace, cross-fertilization of cultures and all those other things that those who vilify the Sinhalese want post-war ‘reconciliation’ to be, of course along with a disavowal of history, a reduction of all identity-related problems to ‘Sinhala chauvinism/extremism’ and a comfortable accommodation of other identity assertion/asserters including chauvinists/extremists and chauvinism/extremism of other communities. 

While the surfacing of the Sinha-Le phenomenon can be read as reaction to all this or, as the typical rubbishers of anything related to Sinhala would have it, a mere manifestation of latent racism ingrained in Sinhala DNA, the fact remains that it is a distortion that is detrimental to the cause of Sinhalese who feel short-changed by the whole multi-ethnic-multi-religious discourse and the cartel that dominates the discussion. 

So we come to the lion in the national flag.  The Sinha-Le folk would see a connection and an exclusive one at that between the lion in the flag and the presumed lion in the name ‘Sinhale’.  The fact is that the name Sinhale and the lion in the flag were produced by two processes of historical unfolding, the one having little to do with the other.  What Sinha-Le does is not only a devaluation of Sinhale but articulating consciously or unconsciously a racist and exclusivist creed. 

That said, the call for the removal of ‘Sinha-Le’ stickers is still silly and illegal.   It’s a name.  That’s all.  If those who swear by it indulge in vandalism or any other illegal activity, then the law should intervene.  One deals with the ideological and political connotations ideologically and politically, that’s all.  After all there are political parties and organizations which have ‘Muslim’, ‘Tamil’ and even ‘Eelam’ in their names, all recognized by the Commissioner of Elections as legitimate political entities.  Apply that rule selectively and you open a can of worms.  There are better ways to deal with it. 

There have been cries for ‘action’ against those who use flags that do not have the green and orange strips.  This too is silly.  There is an official national flag.  Any piece of cloth that adds or subtracts is technically not a corruption of the name, but merely another piece of cloth or a different flag. 

It is the same with the National Anthem.  There’s a lot of agitation of a Tamil version being sung at official events.  It was pointed out on social media recently that it is strange that those respond to the Sinha-Le phenomenon, even as they say ‘we all have the same blood’ or emphasize ‘plasmic’ similarity/unity, are fine with two national anthems, multiple legal systems and even the division of the country.  ‘Schizophrenic?’ the commentator asks, tongue-in-cheek.  However, one should not let the confusion of the politically schizophrenic inform a rational and sober reflection on the issue of a Tamil version.[I have dealt with the issue of the 'National Anthem' in "Affirming Sri Lankan identity in anthem(s)", "Is nation resident in flag and anthem?" and "In search of nation in anthem-singing, flag-waving times"]

If we go with the political and philosophical thrust of ‘Sinhale’ then we can sing the National Anthem in any language not just Sinhala and Tamil.  There can be official versions in Sinhala and Tamil, but it would of course be silly to have an official version in, say, Swahili.  If someone wants to sing a Swahili translation, so be it.  If someone wants to put a different set of words to the melody, it would be silly to call it the ‘National Anthem’.  For example, we have ‘Olu Pipila’ with basically the same melody.  No one calls it a version of the National Anthem and no one calls it a pernicious corruption either!  Any digression in terms of melody and content is a non-issue with respect to ‘corruption of the national anthem’ because, like in the case of the national flag, it’s just a different song.  We can't call it illegal can we?  It might hurt sentiments of Sinha-Le Sinhalese but that’s probably mostly because those sentiments are based on an erroneous understanding of ‘Sinhale’.

In short we can have an official version in Tamil which by and large contains the same sentiments as the Sinhala version.  That’s what the spirit (shall we say?) of Sinhale recommends.  And that, moreover, is the spirit of the words ‘eka mavakage daru kala bavinaa…’ (since we are all children of a single mother…).  That’s this island, our mother.   It is about embrace.  It is about a celebration of commonalities (as opposed to the crass affirmation of difference).  And if it is about the politics of the here and now, a Tamil singing a Tamil version of a national anthem that is and has been exclusively sung in Sinhala, it speaks of a political choice to belong along with others and not belong as a separate entity in the sense of a communal enclave.   More wholesome, one would think.

      

We are celebrating 68 years of Independence.  There are political and ideological issues of ‘Independence’ of course and some might think there’s nothing much to celebrate.  In fact it could be cogently argued that the celebration itself is a disavowal and rubbishing of history and heritage over and above insulting the memory of those who turned a geography into a country, a population into a people and practices into a rich culture.  We have much work to do to recover ourselves and our nation, however we may want to define these.  So if we must quibble about names, flags and songs, let us at least resolve to draw the remarkable, unique and rich philosophical thinking that yielded ‘Sinhale’ even if we don’t want to go with that name.  

Read more

Denigration of the National Flag

Here's the 'National Flag' with all elements erased. A gross denigration, right?

Countries have multiple flags.  There are national flags and there are regional flags.  Clubs and societies have flags.  State departments have flags.  Schools and universities have flags.  The national flag is special because it is something that (ideally) everyone can identify with. It is a unifying symbol, just like a national anthem.  It is special because unlike other flags it warrants mention in a country’s constitution.  It flies above all else at ‘national’ events.  And as a unity-seeker its use is promoted actively by state agencies, knowingly or unknowingly.  People rally around it.  

However, flags, like all things, are not for all time even though those who design it may dream of unlimited flying time.  Nations were not always nations as we understand the word now.  They are sometimes made by the amalgamation of regions (each often with flags of their own) or are fractured into several nations.  These territorial movements bear upon flag-design.  The national flag of Sri Lanka over which there’s controversy did not exist in the year 1947.  There were certainly elements of the current national flag that were part of other flags sometimes considered as ‘national’ or if not in flags at least in popular consciousness.  

Symbolism of this, that and the other get stitched on to flags. They represent things that are considered extremely important in terms of what a nation is, i.e. the most entrenched elements of history, heritage, ways of being etc.  To the extent that people attach themselves to such things, they get hot under the color over their absence or presence in a national flag.  

All of it is of course colored by politics and political preferences. For example, many of those who cry out in horror over ‘versions’ of the national flag that have deliberately cut out those strips which represent the Tamil community and other minority communities, were even asking for parity of status for a separatist group that was waving a totally different flag, calling it ‘national’ after ‘Eelam’ and shooting bullets not by way of salute into the sky but into real, live bodies of citizens whose rights the horrified claim to defend.

The key word, however is ‘version’.  There cannot be, by constitutional definition, any ‘versions’ of the national flag. There’s one and that’s it.  Anything else is not a ‘version’ of the national flag but something else.  You can call it a flag if you wish, you can say it’s a handkerchief or serviette but it is not the national flag.  For this reason any piece of cloth that is not identical in design (regardless of size) of the national flag as described in the constitution, is just that — a piece of cloth.  A piece of cloth, ladies and gentlemen, can be cut into pieces, cut into different shapes and be decorated in any number of ways.  You can paint it, embroider it, cut holes in it or do anything you like.  You can use the color red, you can print or paint bo leaves or crosses or a crescent moon all over it or, if it’s rectangular in shape in its four corners.  You can have a lion on it or a dolphin or any other creature.  You can paint a flower on it or a tree or a leaf.  You can have a lion that is yawning.  You can have the lion carry a sword or an umbrella.  Up to you.

The bottom line is, it affirms this thing called freedom of expression.  If removing some element of the national flag is called a perversion, then a white flag (theoretically) would be the ultimate perversion of the national flag because it can be ‘read’ as a total erasing of every ‘sacred’ element stitched into it constitutionally.  

It is time that the courts or the law-makers sort this out once and for all.  Let us reiterate: there is only one ‘national flag’; even the slightest deviation from that particular design does not make the resultant a perversion but a ‘different’ flag.  If someone wants to wave a piece of cloth that resembles the national flag but has an elephant in place of the lion, that’s his/her choice.  If someone, similarly, wants to cut off the green or the orange strips or both or the tail of the lion, that too is his/her choice.  If someone wants to add a couple of testicles to what appears to be a castrated lion on the national flag it wouldn’t amount to a correction of an error but a political, creative or even hilarious expression on the part of the ‘giver’.  Someone could replace the lion with a lioness too.  That’s not denigrating the national flag.  It’s expressing a thought on a piece of cloth.  You can’t legislate against that kind of thing, surely?

Read more