 |
| Pic courtesy Daily Mirror |
On December 26, 2004, just two days after Sri Lanka was hit by the tsunami, an infant was found among the debris on the Kalmunai beach. Abhilash was his name, but no one knew it. He was given a number, 81. There were various people claiming parenthood. The matter was eventually resolved by court and DNA tests.
Now in the Ummagga Jathaka, the pundit Mahoushada, not having the
benefit of DNA tests, resolved a dispute over maternity by asking each
claimant to grab the child and pull. It appeared to be a test of
physical strength but the pundit was depending on the strength of the
heart to resolve the dispute. The ‘mother’ who let go was given custody
of the child.
This is a fable that cuts across time and place with slight variations,
for example in the Judgment of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible. Bertold
Brecht used it in his well known play ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle,’ but
with a twist. A DNA test would have wrecked it and Azdak would have had
to rule in favour of Natella, but Grusha, whose love for the child was
true and unfettered by thoughts of estates and finance refuses to
comply. She lost, technically, but won the judgment.
It’s all about attachment. About true sentiments. And that’s the
preamble to the matter at hand, that of the tussle for the solitary
national list seat allocated to the Ape Jana Bala Pakshaya. In this
case, there are three claimants, all of them bikkhus.
There is Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera, a veteran parliamentarian and a
long-time activist on all kinds of issues including environment,
chemical-free agriculture, countering terrorism and at times a Sinhala
Buddhist nationalist. He played a key role in the regime change that
occurred in 2015. There is Ven. Galabodaaththe Gnanasara Thera, the
strident voice of the Bodu Bala Sena. Some would call both of them
‘extremists’ but one notes that the name-callers are loath to use the
nomenclature when speaking of ardent advocates of terrorism and
fundamentalism in other ethnic and religious communities. Then there is
Ven. Vedinigama Wimalatissa Thera, the Secretary of the party, who is
relatively unknown.
Now we can have a discussion on whether bikkhus should be in Parliament.
Well, they cannot be denied privileges that other citizens have if the
Buddhist Order does not object. Anyway, if it’s alright for Eran
Wickramaratne (a pastor) to be in Parliament, then it can’t be wrong for
any of these bikkhus to be there; if there is a lay-clergy distinction
that people want to have, it must be
applied consistently.
If it is alright for Pilleyan, it can’t be wrong for Ven Gnanasara.
Pilleyan is a former terrorist, Ven Gnanasara has taken extreme stands
and has infringed upon the law (and paid for it) but no one has accused
him of forced conscription of children, deadly attacks on civilians and
the like. If it’s alright for M.A. Sumanthiran and C.V. Wigneswaran,
both with track records of either openly celebrating terrorists and
terrorism or else being mouthpieces for the same, then it should be
alright for anyone who speaks for his/her community, these three theras
included. No, this can’t be about such things.
This is not even about who has the legitimate claim. It is not about who has what it takes, legitimacy notwithstanding. It’s about the why and why-not, the how and how-not-to, as per the philosophy and truth-ascertaining in the stories mentioned above.
What do these theras want? Well, the seat. What do they say they want it
for? Why, to represent Sinhala Buddhist interests. It’s a parliamentary
seat that is being treated like a baby called ‘Sinhala Buddhist
Interests’ or ‘Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism.’
At first glance it sounds ridiculous. Parliament can be a place where
any ideology can be articulated or where the interests of any community
(ethnic, religious, ideological) can be represented, true. However, to
imagine that having the seat is crucial is downright silly, as is the
perception that one is the best articulator of the particular
standpoint. I recall the film director and senior journalist at the
Divaina, Jayantha Chandrasiri, making an interesting observation about
15 years ago: ‘Hela urumaya naaganiddith sinhala bauddha jaathika
mathakaya issarahata yanava [even as the (Jathika) Hela Urumaya messes
things up in style, Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism goes from strength to
strength].’
Now maybe the JHU did play a role, but it would be simplistic to reduce
whatever gains of this particular political project to their efforts
alone. It just does not happen that way. Indeed the Ape Jana Bala
Pakshaya is politically very much weaker than the weakest the JHU has
been. Furthermore, they cannot claim sole ownership of the Sinhala
Buddhist Nationalism brand. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) makes
no bones about being nationalist. The SLPP has in Parliament people
like Sarath Weerasekera, Gevindu Kumaratunga and Anupa Pasqual (if you
want to say that Mahinda Rajapaksa is a fake nationalist just like his
most ardent followers in Parliament). The President of the country is a
nationalist. The Leader of the Opposition, Sajith Premadasa and his
party (Samagi Jana Balavegaya) have been badmouthed by those who have an
axe to grind with anything Sinhala and Buddhist. Premadasa is by
default a nationalist. None of them are anything like Ven Gnanasara
Thera, but they all belong to the same school.
The three theras are tugging (metaphorically) at a baby. They would like
Sinhala Buddhists to believe that each of them is best suited to take
care of the baby. They would like Sinhala Buddhists to believe that the
baby is, indeed, ‘Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism.’ Well, it is hard to
believe that Sinhala Buddhists would in the first place want to have an
entire community reduced to a chair in a large hall.
No, people and ideas, communities and identities have multiple addresses. These three theras are trying to make their loyalists believe that everything can be irrecoverably lost if the seat itself was lost. If they truly believe this, they are mistaken.
In any event, at some level, this side of the Buddha’s advocacy of treating things with equanimity, it is ‘true concern’ that is being tested, then the truly concerned will take a step back. The seat will be lost, but the right to represent community will be regained.
malindasenevi@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment