The Jathika Hela Urumaya made waves back then and it can
even be said that vilified as they were they nevertheless played a key ideological
role in shifting the political drift away from division and appeasement to
unitary and removal of terrorist threat.
Their fortunes have since dipped, at least in terms of numbers, although
the ideology of nationalism they promoted does not seem to have lost any
ground. Even their detractors would
concede that the satyagraha of Ven
Omalpe Sobitha protesting P-TOMS (June 2005), the march to Mavil Aru (August
2006) and the stand taken at the Donor Forum in Kandy by Ven Athureliye Rathana
(May 2005) were landmark events that helped change policy direction.
Whether political activity violates vinaya rules is of course a moot point, with both defenders and
opponents having an array of arguments and citations to support their
respective positions. On the other hand,
states are not religious bodies and laws are for all; they have to be blind to
the gihi-pevidi (lay-clergy) distinction. A bikkhu,
for example, though a member of the clergy, remains a prthagjana or an unenlightened being (the same way that a Christian
missionary is not automatically deserving of beatification). He has an ID card and civic rights.
It is in this context that Wijedasa Rajapakshe’s ‘Private
Members’ Bill’ seeking to stop bikkhus
from entering Parliament needs to be examined.
It is not that this country lacks issues that warrant responses by way
of Bills, from the Government or from individual MPs. It is also strange that the debate that
ensued following this move by Rajapakshe has focused on prominent JHU members
but has completely ignored Eran Wickramaratne, a very well known preacher of
‘The Assembly of God’. This is why this
move is seen as patently ‘Anti-Buddhist’ and given rise to questions about
Rajapakshe’s agenda and inquiries about whose interests he is serving. It reads ‘Clergy’ but targets ‘Bikkhu’.
All citizens have a right to engage in political activity in
whatever form that is not illegal. The
Parliament is only one location in a political universe; the machinations of
people of other faiths, including clergy, in political affairs is well
recorded, for example. Closing
parliamentary doors to a certain group would be an infringement of fundamental
rights. The Bill, Rajapakshe ought to
know, would be shot down by the Supreme Court.
As such the move is unsavoury and only adds to an already tense
situation with regard to the politics of religion in this country.
It is up to the
Buddhist Order to pass determination on the kepa-akepa
(sanctioned and forbidden) of the bikkhu. Prohibitions should come from that address,
and not the state. In this, the dayakas do have a say and indeed one can
say that this ‘say’ was expressed in the 2010 General Election. Perhaps the two results (in 2004 and 2010) as
far as the JHU is concerned indicate that a Parliamentary role was sanctioned
in the earlier political moment but support for that position has since
declined.
Rajapakshe alone will know what prompted him to do this and
it is up to the general public to read the move as they will. The JHU would do well to read the general
sentiments of the Buddhists in this country in the matter of bikkhus entering Parliament. Effective as they have been in promoting a
particular policy regime, true though it is that Parliament is the supreme
forum for representing sentiments of one’s constituency, the JHU might want to
consider whether the utility value of Parliament has declined over the last 8
years.
Ven Omalpe Sobitha Thero famously stated in 2005, ‘Let my
silence be louder than gunshots’. That
was ‘Mayoral’, to use the analogy referred to above and written without
intending insult to the Venerable Thero.
It is an option that is still open for the JHU. Only, it could be called
‘Presidential’ at this point.
['The Nation' Editorial of June 10, 2012}