Sumanthiran comes within slapping distance

‘Moderate’ is a subjective tag.   Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran may call himself a moderate but not everyone will go along with his self-perception. The same holds for any moderate, self-labeled or labeled as such by others.  Politicians, in particular, are notorious for self-labeling and crafting speech with particular audience in mind.  

Despite all these truisms and some contentious assertions Sumanthiran’s intervention in the budget debate has to be labeled ‘brave’.  It is not easy, after all, for a Tamil politician to admit that wrong was done in the name of the Tamil people. 

One can argue that he hasn’t done enough, for example that he cannot be taken seriously until he acknowledges the pernicious role of pro-LTTE elements of the expatriate Sri Lankan Tamils.  Indeed, Sumanthiran’s ‘acknowledgements’ sound bland compared to the listing offered by Rajan Hoole (‘A flawed liberation Struggle: Massacres of Sinhalese civilians,’ in www.colombotelegraph.com).  When he says ‘We are in refugee camps for 23 years’ and asks ‘Why is that?’ he could be asked also to ask himself whether the question is less valid for Tamil politicians and militants.

On the other hand, reluctance to acknowledge crimes done in the name of a particular community is not the preserve of Tamil politicians.  Exchange of barbs and listing the crimes of the ‘other’ has been the order of play for several decades.   

This is why, despite serious silences in Sumanthiran’s speech, it has to be seen as a brave intervention.  In all probability he would have been the recipient of much flak from his party colleagues, behind closed doors of course.  While it was not exactly an ‘own goal’ it was certainly a kick in the ‘wrong direction’ in terms of the general practice of political football, one might say. 

When he acknowledges that was done in the name of Tamils to Muslims was unjust (and adds, albeit as an afterthought, that the Sinhalese also suffered), he puts himself within slapping distance of both friend and foe.  This is not courage but double courage.  It appears that he at least has understood that few Sinhalese would be interested in listening to any litany of woes uttered by any Tamil politician who pussyfoots around the vexed issue of atrocities perpetrated in the name of the Tamil community. 

He is only saying part of the story when he states ‘Only when David Cameron spoke, the world heard; otherwise our voices are stifled’ for he cannot be ignorant how Cameron’s ignorance and cheap politicking.  And yet, he is correct that certain grievances fall on deaf ears in Colombo.  He probably understands that the identity of grievance-articulator is part of the problem.  What is important is that name of messenger and his/her past history should not cause listener to turn away.  Even if there is frill and inflation as per the dictates of expediency, there often is a core that is real and big enough to warrant complaint and therefore redress. 

Sumanthiran, let us repeat, has come within slapping distance and this constitutes opportunity and warrants applause. This is why.

About a year ago, Bishop Duleep de Chickera during a thanksgiving service for the former Vicar of St. Paul’s Church, Kandy, Rev Fr James Amerasekara, said that Fr James’ ministry was governed among other things by Jesus’ exhortation ‘If a man slaps you on your cheek, turn to him the other also’.  Bishop Chickera explained that it had taken him a long time to realize that what Jesus meant was ‘stay within slapping distance, don’t move away; because that distance is also the distance for an embrace’. 

Embrace a member of a party that was once the mouthpiece of a terrorist outfit, a Tamil whose party turned the other way when in the name of the Tamil community thousands of Sinhalese and Muslims were slaughtered in cold blood?  Yes.  ‘Yes’ because perceptions aside there was a ‘real’ that happened in the other direction too.   Humility is the cornerstone of any edifice of co-existence and inter-communal harmony.  Sumanthiran is not always humble and his humility even here leaves out large parts of a very violent text, but that’s not reason enough to dismiss. Rather, it is reason enough to turn searchlight inwards. 

For several decades we have had people speaking on behalf of various collectives choosing to react to slap with slap.  Someone must start by refusing to slap-back.  Someone has to come within slapping distance.  For now, it might be pointed out that Sumanthiran came within slapping distance but took care to hold a shied in front of his face.  Still, it is better than what others of his political persuasion has done and better than what his detractors have done and do. 

msenevira@gmail.com 

Read more

The virtues of staying within slapping distance

Twenty one years ago in a small temple in Pallimulla, Matara, a man by the name of Jayantha Silva lectured a bunch of undergraduates and young graduates.  There were also two Maoists in attendance, Sunny Dayananda and M.D. Daniel.  The subject was the chathuskotika, the four-fold system of logical reasoning in Buddhism.  Jayantha Aiya brought in several examples to illustrate the point.  One was the story of the Ascetic Siddhartha placing his paaththaraya (begging bowl) on the waters of the river Neranjana wiling it to travel upstream and thereby offering a sign.  The other was the biblical slapping, the turning of the other cheek.

The logical frame in four parts, in brief, can be described as ‘Exists, does not exist, exists and does not exist, and neither exists nor does not exist’.  This is not the place for elaboration.  I remembered Jayantha Aiya, then working as Shroff in the Agriculture Department, Peradeniya when a friend related a story about a week or so ago. 

Here are the relevant excerpts:

‘I've just returned home after a 'thanksgiving service' at the little church -the corner of Jawatte Rd. It was for the Very Rev Fr James Amerasekara, who was Vicar at St Paul's church, Kandy in the late 60s and 70s. A lovely man. Not a great speaker, but good-very liberal and kind. He put up with my never-ending questions about church dogma. He died some years ago.  But what really interested me was what Bishop Duleep de Chickera said in his short sermon.  Apparently Fr James was chaplain at St Thomas when Duleep joined as a new curate. He said Fr James' ministry was governed by 2 points. The first was intriguing. The reference was to Jesus' exhortation- 'If a man slaps you on your cheek, turn to him the other also'.  He said that he, together with many others, found that very difficult, until he realized that what Jesus meant was 'stay within slapping distance; don’t move away because that distance is also the distance for an embrace’.’

Later, after thinking more about the story, I wrote to my friend:  ‘Reflected on this just now.  Sits well with the Buddhist notions of attachment and non-attachment.  You neither seize nor do you dismiss.’

We are human being and frail consequent to the fact.  A doctrine can be encapsulated in a few words strung together but it is only those who have studied the word and practiced as per prescription that can assume to read even approximately.  Rev. Chickera would know and I would not.  My friend, a deep reflector and ‘liver’ would know more than I do. Much more, probably.  

Buddhist philosophy is voluminous and the idea finds extensive elaboration, for example in the Satipattana Sutta and in the various erudite commentaries from a long time ago. For the prthagjana or the uninitiated who are yet to step on the path interpretation is not forbidden. Nothing is, in fact.  Only, the assumptions and actions thereto have consequences in the manner of the paticcasamupaada or, as a Christian might put it, in view of Judgment Day.  Whether we indulge or step away from interpretation, we act, as the existentialists would argue. 

What is slapping, then?  In a sense, an attack, possibly out of anger.  In another sense, a Christian might say, it could refer to a divine testing of faith.  ‘God’ would put one through trials and tribulations and how one responds will count at the end.  Such ‘slaps’ can make you rebel against the ‘giver’, in this case ‘faith’, which would amount to return-slap, or make you run away, which mean disavowal, a rejection of faith, again a return-slap (of the negative kind).  The omniscient and omnipresent would arguably remain within embrace-distance, but the slap-taker, if he or she did not offer the other cheek (or remain within slapping-distance) would by choice have rejected embrace. 

A Buddhist reading would draw from the principle of non-attachment, the employment of upekkha or the ways of treating life’s vicissitudes with equanimity, with metta (compassion) and pragna (wisdom), with full cognizance of the errors spawned by the defilements and showing fidelity to the recommended practices. 

The extrapolations are many of course.  We could, for example, use the principle to think of tensions between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state.  We could think of ‘competition’.  Or, simply, our relations with one another. 

In this world there are very few Christians who turn the other cheek and very few Buddhists who can claim to treat things with equanimity.  There is much to be learnt in the respective doctrines, the respective faiths.  And from each other of course.  We don’t do that enough.  And perhaps this is because we don’t stay within slapping distance (literally and metaphorically); we don’t will our respective begging bowls to travel upstream against the tide of human misery and ignorance. 

msenevira@gmail.com     

Read more