      |
|||
|
|||
A response to Mr. Hemal A.
Pieris I refer to Mr. Hemal A. Pieris' article under the above title appearing in The Island's issue April 24, 1998 in reply to Ms. Kamalika Pieis' article entitled Buddhism, State and Separatism, which also appeared in the columns of the same paper on March 27 1998. What matters in this question is not the attitude of Christians as individuals but the attitude of the Christian churches as the bodies representing the Christians. Christians as individuals can hold any views and opinions on national issues, that is, issues that affect everybody in the country regardless of his or her ethnicity or religion. It is a fundamental right. But the Christian churches as bodies representing the Christians and the Christian clergy as their moral and spiritual teachers and preceptors, have the duty and the responsibility to guide the laity in these matters, of course, in accordance with Christian principles. The Buddhists cannot but help but come to the conclusion that the Christian hierarchy, by their attitudes and sayings have shown a tendency to favour Tamil separatism, not on the grounds of Christian principles but on the ground of expediency and advantage. They seem to use the national crisis to steal a March on Buddhism. They also seem to point the finger of accusation at the Buddhists for the so-called ethnic conflict. In this article I propose to set out the reasons which have led the Buddhists to that conclusion. Not only the Buddhists but all Sri Lankans who love their fatherland and also yearn for peace -- not the peace of the grave -- must be much concerned with the adverse effects of a tedencey on the part of the Christian churches to support Tamil separatism as indicated by some of the sayings and the doings of the hierarchy. It was only the other day that Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar, Minister of Foreign Affairs, revealed the fact that enormous sums of money are coming regularly from the industrialized countries in the West to run the war machine of the Tamil separatist terrorists. Fund-raising One such propaganda was that the successive Governments of Sri Lanka since 1956 were resorting to ethnic cleansing of the Tamils and that the anti-Tamil riots from time to time were engineered by the ruling government. Sinhalese are represented as thugs, ruffians and killers. I am told that a video film was shown by some expatriate Tamil separatists in which was depicted some men hanging on branches of trees from iron hooks attached to their bodies. The viewer were told that they were innocent Tamils who were hung alive by Sinhalese thugs. The film was actually one showing Hindu devotees hanging themselves from branches of trees in the premises of the Hindu shrine at Kataragama either to fulfil vows or as acts of penance. It is a common sight at Kataragama during the festival season. These expatriate separatist Tamils are also said to be trafficking in drugs and extortion in those countries to collect fund ''to liberate their kith and kin in Sri Lanka.'' These fund-raisers for ''the war of liberation of the Tamils in Sri Lanka'' would not hesitate to exaggerate, distort, embellish and present to the unknowing public in those countries, a seemingly pro-Tamil utterance made by a member of Christian hierarchy as supportive of Tamil separatism or as a condemnation of ''Sinhalese Buddhist chauvinism''. Some time ago, a Jaffna Tamil Roman Catholic Bishop was reported as having referred to the LTTE terrorists as ''Our boys" affectionately and appreciately of their doings. A Sinhalese Anglican Bishop who met the LTTE supremo at his hideout had on his return to Colombo told the journalists that he found Prabhakaran to be a very Humane person. These two prelates might have said these things as an expression of Christian love. Apparently they did not bargain for the fact that separatist Tamils would or could interpret them to their advantage. More recently, the Archbishop of Colombo, the Rev. Dr. Nicholas Marcus Fernando, obliquely blamed the Buddhists for the ongoing war. In his Christmas message he said, among other things: ''In our country today, we are speaking of races and nations, of religions and cultures, of Eelams and Tri Sinhales and fighting for them, shedding blood and killing ourselves. We are blind to our own foolish and suicidal rush while the world can only laugh at our boast of 2500 years of civilization'' (Daily News 25.12.97). The Archbishop uses the first person plural ''we'' in his message. But it is patently clear that he refers to the Buddhists. There is no ethnic or religious group in Sri Lanka other than the Buddhists who can or who do boast of a civilization of 2500 years. No one can deny the fact that the Archbishop, as the local Head of a great and universal Church and as a Very Important Person whose voice is heard with respect at the highest places in the land, has, as a moral and spiritual teacher and leader, the duty and the obligation to speak out his mind on national issues in which moral and spiritual values are involved. In what state could moral and spiritual issues be involved more than in a state where the country is faced with an internecine war? But in speaking out their minds' leaders of religion like the Archbishop must rise above petty ethnic and sectarian differences and also refrain from attempting to steal a march on other sects or religions. All right-thinking people, no matter to what ethic or religious group they may belong to will appreciate such a stand. As the Rev. Dr. A. Powell Davies says in his The First Christian: ''Criticism.... does not imply a hostile attitude. Its meaning is derived from the Greek krikos, which means skilled in judgement''. In our daily life, we have to exercise judgement at every turn. Except, of course when we accept everything in blind faith. As far as the Buddhists are concerned, they are enjoined by their religion to give heed to the criticism of others even of things they highly cherish. It says that without a critical approach to any problem no true or correct judgment can be formed. The Buddha says in the Brahmajala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya: The Dhamma If the Buddha, Dhamma and sangha are open to criticism how much more the Buddhist laymen and lay organizations give heed to criticism and correct themselves in the light of criticism? In this instance, however, the Buddhists have reason to believe that the 'oblique criticism of them in the Archbishop's Christmas message is more a jibe directed at them and their religion than a criticism done bona fide. His message was specially addressed to his fellow Roman Catholics for their edification and the increase of their faith. They would have understood telling them: ''Look at our countrymen, the Buddhists. They boast of a civilization of 2500 years. They have been professing and practising their religion during all that time. But in the name of religion, culture and land, they fight, shed blood and kill. They are blind to their own folly. Their much talked-of 2,500 years of civilization appears to have had no effect on them. Their boast of it only makes them the laughing-stock of the world'' If this is not the underlying meaning of the Archbishop's statement, we would like to know for the sake of good and harmonious relations between the two religions, what its real meaning and purpose is? The Archbishop speaks of ''shedding blood and killing''. Does he mean that the successive governments since 1956 without any reason or provocation have declared war against the Tamil minority? Or that the governments were fighting to save the Sinhalese race, the Buddhist religion, Sinhalese culture as he seems to suggest? It is true that the governments which came to power since 1956 had to use strong arm tactics to suppress certain militant groups which were attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government with the force of arms and capture power. One group is still at it. Admittedly, these groups have certain genuine grievances. But taking up arms against the government is not the way to get them redressed. In a democracy, there are two ways of ousting an inefficient or corrupt or dictatorial government. The first is for the Opposition in the Parliament to pass a vote of no confidence. Then the government has to quit. The second is to create public opinion against the government and vote it out at the next general election. Those who take to extra-parliamentary methods and means to over-throw a democratically elected government invariably play into the hands of the armed forces who use the occasion to capture power. This has happened in many countries. According to international as well as natural law, it is the paramount duty and the responsibility of the state to defend itself against any threat from within or without, with all the resources at its command. If and when there is such a threat the government cannot be expected to fold its hands and keep quiet. Sri Lanka attained political independence in 1948. Not one year had passed when, a new political organization called Ilankad Thamil Arasu Kadtchi or Tamil State Party (later known as the Liberal Party and Tamil United Liberation Front under the leadership of Mr. S. J. V.Chelvanayakam demanded for and on behalf of the Tamil nation an autonomous state guaranteeing self-government and self-determination. This party also claimed the Northern and Eastern Provinces as the traditional homeland of the Tamils. There would have been no ethnic conflict if the new-born independent government of Mr. D. S. Senanayake had surrendered to the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadtchi (the T.U.L.F.) the two provinces which comprised more than one third of the land surface of Sri Lanka to it to establish an independent and authnomous Tamil state! Did Mr. Senanayake do wrong in resisting the ITAK's demand? It is on record that as early as in 1934, Mr. K. Balasingham, a veteran Jaffna Tamil politician and a former Member of both the Executive Councils wrote an open letter to the people of Jaffna asking them not ''to encourage irresponsible persons to talk of Jaffna joining the Madras presidency''. In the course of his letter on ''The Present Political Situation, Mr. Balasingham said: ''As I am addressing these lines to the Jaffna Tamils only, I am not suggesting here what other communities might do to bring better understanding with you or with each other. As for yourselves you will find that maganimity is often the greatest wisdom even when dealing with those acting unfairly towards you. The opportunities for employment under Government in Malaya and even in Ceylon would become less as years go by in spite of all alliances you may form with the Europeans. There is nothing to prevent the Sinhalese also from seeking such an alliance: and Europeans have valued of late Sinhalese friendship more than yours. Mr. Balasingham But this veteran Tamil statement's advice was ignored by communal minded power seeking politicians who roused the dormant tribal feelings of the common Tamil people. They have brought tragedy to the very people whom they sought ''to liberate.'' In the debate in the House of representatives on the state of emergency on 4th June, 1958, the Prime Minister Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike quoted from public speeches made by Mr. C. Rajadurai, Member for Batticalo and Mr. C. Vanniasingha Member for Kopay, in which among other things they had predicted ''that the birth of Tamil Nadu will take place and all Tamils will live under one flag.'' Commenting on these speeches Mr. Bandaranaike said: ''The point I wish to make is this: that under the guise of doing nothing being peaceful and everything else, there is a movement a foot to completely overthrow the state. Do you think these people who talk like this will be satisfied with a Federal State? That may be the first step only. No, I am sure that there is no Government in the world with whatever goodwill towards the minorities, that can view with complacency such a situation. (Debate in the House of Representatives, 4th June 1956). (Continued tomorrow) The Consultative System The late Mr. Gamani Jayasuriya, an experienced, sincere politician, and a leader of high integrity an exemplary character, had advocated prior to his demise, in the electronic and other media, the Consultative Committee system as the best recipe for our political ills that besiege the country today. In effect, the principle evolved is for a change in the attitude in the parliamentary practice followed today. The Westminster system of majoritarian confrontation democratic practice a legacy left behind by the British when they left our shores, has to be replaced by a well meaning and more appropriate system of governance, the like of which is reflected in the Executive Committee system under the Donoughmore Constitution. Such a system is the Consultative Committee system where all parties in parliament unite and regroup themselves into Consultative Committees to run the country in the best interest of the nation. This call demands a high degree of patriotism from all party leaders and their membership to put the country before the party. This is a must if we are to train and gear our youth, our most valuable national asset, to face the future united with confidence under one banner, and meet the challenges bravely and march together to develop our motherland for the benefit of the present and generations to come. Even at this late hour if we do not effect a change in the undertaker’s attitude towards the parliamentary practice of living on the misfortunes of others followed today, and continue to follow the same rugged path, we can rest assured of a national disaster. If the youth are left to fend for themselves with a bleak future starting in their faces, what else could one expect than a revolt against the establishment? Do we want a repeat performance of the insurrection? The damage that has been done to Sri Lankan politics by the adoption of the Westminster parliamentary model is well illustrated when we look at the political scenario that exists in the country today. The entire nation is divided into two warning factions. There are the two major national parties composed of the majority community which in the process has divided the major community into two factions, and there are also the numerous minority communal parties, who are invariably the king-makers, as their support can only decide which party will govern the country. So long as the fighting among the major parties continue, the killings and the disappearances will go on regardless. Therefore, the only solution left to save the nation is a concerted united effort by all parties to rebuilt the nation on a firm solid foundation. Divided we must fall, inevitably. Therefore, let all parties unite and govern the country by common consensus adopting the Consultative Committee system and lead the country on the path to progress and prosperity. The irony is that the validity of what has been stated above is well appreciated by our politicians but it is hard for them to change the existing order. It is this lethargy that keep them enmeshed and submerged in the boggy morass. Who cares? The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on regardless. While advocating the Consultative Committee system, one other important change that is desired is to revert back to the first-past-the-post electoral system where each electorate is represented by an elected parliamentarian, and to do away with the impersonal Proportional System, which concentrates more on the party and party power at the expense of the personal factor which is best reflected in the electoral representation system serving the electorate and the country much better. A classic demonstration of the Westminster parliamentary practice was televised in the Rupavahini on 19/5/98 when they telecast the Air Lanka-Emirates deal. This in contrast to the ETv British telecast of the proceedings of the British Parliament, amply demonstrated our attitude of confrontational party politics practiced here. The debate at one time was so unruly, that the speaker had to suspend the sittings to defuse the heat generated. What further evidence is needed to show the unsuitability of the practice of the Westminster model to Sri Lanka. What we need is Consultative politics of discussion, dialogue and consensus on the lines of Consultative Committee system and not confrontational politics if we are to develop and progress. The standard of the parliamentary debate televised was so poor and low, that perhaps the (Hon) members are undermining the rate of literacy and the average intelligence of the Sri Lankan public. In contrast the public school debates are conducted in a very dignified manner adhering to the civilized norms which were lacking in that televised debate. Apparently the members tend to forget that the Sri Lankan public are the best judges of their performance. Perhaps, they are living in a world of their own elated by the cheers and the applauses of their stooges hanging around them. After all, they must not forget the fact that they are utilising public funds, and they are serving the public. And that function must be carried out to the best of their ability, and to the satisfaction of the public. Theirs is not a mere theatrical performance. They have to possess a more serious outlook and work for the progress of the country. |
|||
 |
|||
