      |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gauntlet throwing knights and Bishops
A reply to D. S. Armstrong
By Nalin de SilvaMr. D. S. Armstrong writing to the Midweek Review says that I have thrown a gauntlet at the non-Buddhists who make up nearly 31% of the people of the country. This is in reference to my article entitled "Pax Vobis Cum", where I analysed parts of the Christmas messages of the Archbishop of Colombo and the Bishop of the Anglican (Lanka) church. At the outset I must say that I am not a gauntlet throwing medieval European Christian knight but only an unemployed humble Sinhala Buddhist, albeit with a degree from a Christian university.
It may be that ‘throwing a gauntlet’ is only a figure of speech, but it illustrates how much we are controlled by the Christian culture. English language cannot be dissociated from the European Christian civilisation and the figures of speech, idioms etc., of that language are naturally created by people belonging to the English Christian culture. A language in turn governs one’s thinking, unless one is very conscious of that fact and takes precautions against such measures. The western Christian culture dominates the rest of the world not only by their military and economic power but also through their languages, knowledge created by the intellectuals in that culture and we have a long way to go before we are truly liberated. Until then, I am afraid, we will have to pick up those gauntlets thrown by the knights and the Bishops of the western culture.
The western Christian culture is so powerful and skilful that they have invented methods by which they accuse those who pick up gauntlets, as gauntlet throwers. Unfortunately for them, long before Derrida talked of deconstruction, the Buddha had taught us that even deconstruction is a construction (sanskara). So deconstruction should be only child’s play to the Buddhists. People of the calibre of Rev. Acharya Nagarjuna of Bharat who developed Sunyata and Rev. Aryadeva of Heladiva belonging to the Buddhist tradition, have shown us the way to deal with the concepts whether they are created by the other cultures or produced by the Buddhist culture itself.
However, in spite of these traditions some ex -catholic priests, with nothing but the strength emanating from the credentials acquired at western Christian universities, are trying to teach the not so powerful Buddhist scholars in Sri Lanka how to compare Buddha with Derrida. We should remember that intellectual activities do not take place in a vacuum and are not devoid of power struggles.
For example, a previous vice chancellor, while I was in the university service wanted to know why I was teaching Jathika Chinthanaya to the students. My reply was that if the other lecturers could teach Vijathika (non-national) Chinthanaya I have a right to teach Jathika Chinthanaya. But these issues are not decided by so called rational argument, contrary to what is taught to us by the western civilisation. The Vijathika Chinthanaya and the associated culture are still very much powerful in this country that even after fifty years of "independence", the Jathika Chinthanaya cannot be taught in our universities.
Let us come back to the article by Mr. Armstrong. Let us start at the very beginning. Mr. Armstrong is of the view that " in Sri Lanka from a few years after independence attempts have been made by writers to throw abuse and admonish the Christians during Christmas time." He cannot be referring to me as I have not thrown abuse and admonished the Christians during Christmas or any other time. It is unfortunate that the Bishops have to issue their Christmas messages during Christmas time. I could have easily analysed the messages by the Bishops at some other time if they had issued their messages long before Christmas. I am sure that Mr. Armstrong would agree with me that messages of this nature have to be analysed at the time of issue while the contents are fresh in the minds of the people. In my article "Pax Vobis Cum" I had mentioned that Latin is the language of the Pope. Mr. Armstrong goes on to explain at length how Latin became the language of the Pope and Vatican and I have nothing against his elucidation. However, the fact remains that Latin is the language of the Pope.
The Bishop and the Archbishop in their Christmas messages, in seemingly innocent words, had said certain things with which they had thrown the gauntlet. I only analysed or, if one may so, deconstructed these statements in their messages. The Bishops in their messages had tried to equate different cultures in the context of the history of this country. All I said was that different cultures are not equated in the other countries including the Christian countries whether it is the Anglican Britain or the Catholic Italy.
The Bishop of Colombo had said "there is no other way of making Peace among human beings except by speaking, by dialogue and by negotiation". He had also stated that we cannot make peace if we demonise the enemy. In the context of Sri Lanka this means that the government should negotiate with the LTTE. We also know that this particular Bishop has been very active in the so-called peace movement. Knowing the interventions by Messrs. Fox and Fatchett in our affairs, I had to point out that the two powerful Christian countries United States of America and the United Kingdom do not pay heed to the words of the Bishop. I also stated that the western world have always demonised the enemy whether it is Sadam Hussein, Ho Chi Min or any body else. I added that this does not mean that the Bishop should advise the Christian world (in spite of Mr. Armstrong’s assertion that the whole world is the mission field of the Bishops), before he preaches the others, but that it goes on to show that people go to war under certain conditions.
I was not talking of medieval Europe but of the twentieth century ( By the way the term twentieth century is in vogue because of the dominance of the Christian culture. According to the Buddhist way of reckoning we are in the twenty sixth century.) wars. Now what has Mr. Armstrong to say on this matter? He says: "History unfurls the truth that none of the religions were free of guilt of conflicts. Medieval Christians and the Muslims engaged in holy wars. So were the wars between other believers in the subcontinent of India. The conflicts in Sri Lanka mentioned in the Maha Wamsa are nothing but conflicts between the Buddhist rulers and the rest. Not very long ago our television stations showed some monks donating money for the present war. All these people had deviated from the teachers of their religious leaders."
First of all it is not a question of whether people follow their religious leaders or not. It is a question of cultures. Here, I must repeat what I have said in my previous article. People of different cultures go to war for different reasons. The Mahavansa kings have not fought wars to spread Buddhism, unlike the kings of some other cultures. Mr. Armstrong, if he has read the Mahavansa, would know that in the ancient times some monks have de-robed and joined the army while some others had marched with the other army. Starting with the king Dutugemunu, the Buddhists have gone into war in order to protect the Buddha Sasana and not to spread Buddhism.
Mr. Armstrong then goes on to say: " But some of his (Jesus Christ’s) messengers were drowned with the edicts of Moses taken together with the teachings of his own- interpreted ‘if one should love his neighbour as himself and if one could save a soul from going to hell, the neighbour who is not a believer of the one true God must be converted’. Perhaps there is such a feeling in the followers of most religions, and they tend to propagate their beliefs and way of life. I would think that is a right anyone should have, so long he or she does not use penal methods". However there is a distinction between propagation of ideas and conversion and the Christian civilisation, taking a hue from Moses is more concerned with conversions. Also it has to be pointed out that penal methods are culture dependent. A penal method in one culture could be a perfectly legitimate method in another culture and hence the concept of conversion of a person from one culture to another culture without using penal methods, cannot be defined in a culture independent way.
Mr. Armstrong like some others talk of a mythical Ceylon fifty years ago, ‘with several communities of people living in peace’. He says: " We as school children learnt and appreciated that all what was in Sri Lanka, the people the religions, physical remains of their handiwork and the intellectual work of the ancestors of this country and also all the developed and undeveloped natural resources were our heritage and we were proud of them". If that was the case how was it that within ten years everything was changed. Is it due to the fault of the Sinhala Buddhists as some of them would like to conclude? Only if Mr. Armstrong is aware of the racist policies followed by the Tamil leaders in the previous decades and the discriminations against the Buddhists, he would have realised that the people were not living happily ever before. I do not want to go into details, which I have described elsewhere on the evolution of Tamil racism from the last two decades of the previous century. I as a schoolboy in the fiftees, before and after fifty six, in two schools, have come across teachers who were not proud of the history, literature and culture of the country. In fact one of them made not very encouraging remarks of the Jathaka stories during the Sinhala period and as a twelve year old boy I was appalled by the opinion he had of some of the Buddhist schools.
The Buddhist Commission report, tells us how the Sinhala Buddhists were discriminated against during this period people were supposed to have lived happily. People who were students before the fifties in the so-called elite schools, would know the values imparted to them through the education.
Prof. Sarachchandra in his "Valmath Vee Hasarak Nudutimi" and "Pin Ethi Sarasavi Varamak Denne" vividly describes the education given during that period. The English Christian system of education, was interested only in producing a set of people who were brown in their skin colour but English and Christian in their thinking. Unfortunately we have still not been able to replace this system. All we have done during the fiftees is to change the medium of instruction from English to Sinhala and Tamil.
Mr. Armstrong says that I have to accept the stark fact that the non-Buddhists who make up nearly 31% of the population are different from the rest, meaning the Sinhala Buddhists. Of this 31% many would accept the fact that this country is a Sinhala Buddhist country and I do not see much of a difference between them and the vast majority of the Sinhala Buddhists who are also of the same view. Those non-Buddhists who accept that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist country, just as much they acknowledge that England (Britain) is an English Christian country, know how to retain their cultural identities while living in a Buddhist country.
Mr. Armstrong wants the section 29 of the Soulbury constitution to be brought back. This section denied the rightful position given to the Sinhala Buddhist culture in this country. How about having something like the section 29 in the conventions of the British parliament, the so-called mother parliament? It is unfortunate that people like Mr. Armstrong forget that without these sections forced on us by the British the Sinhala Buddhist kings looked after the Catholics when they were threatened by the Dutch and that priests like Joseph Vaz were given all the encouragement to propagate their religion in this country. However, the European Christian rulers in our country were not that magnanimous.
Mr. Armstrong says that the English protected the Sacred Tooth Relic and handed it back on independence. This is far from the truth. The British who gave a pledge to protect Buddhism and to rule the country according to the Sinhala customs by the Udarata convention of 1815, breached all the promises. According to the convention they should have protected Buddhism and also the Sacred Tooth Relic. But by 1848 they had handed back the Sacred Tooth Relic to the Bhikkus and the Sinhala leaders . They did not protect Buddhism as the Christian priests were against that particular clause from the very beginning. The Christian priests did not want the English king, through the governor, to protect a heathen religion. The way that the British breached the 1815 convention is described by Prof. Tennekone Wimalanada and Mr. Durrand Appuhamy in their works.
Mr. Armstrong says that I have tried to drive a wedge into the Catholics and Christians to divide them into racial groups. All that I have said is that I believe that the overwhelming majority of the Sinhala Christians and Catholics are hundred percent loyal to Sri Lanka. It may be that most of the non Sinhala Christians are also loyal to the country. But unfortunately, judging by what is written by the English educated Tamils in general, I cannot come to that conclusion. Mr. Armstrong talks of Bhikkus who have given money to the so-called war fund. I have dealt with this earlier. What Mr. Armstrong does not mention is the involvement of the Tamil Catholic priests in the LTTE activities. Perhaps in the eyes of Mr. Armstrong the association of these priests with the LTTE is justified. He himself says that the JVP and the LTTE are campaigning for some liberation.
This is the crux of the problem. What is this liberation Mr. Armstrong is talking about? LTTE is campaigning for a separate state based on myths propagated by their elders. Mr. Armstrong is tying up the JVP with the LTTE only to mislead the readers. When the government was going all out to defeat the JVP using the armed forces, did Mr. Armstrong and the others campaign for negotiations between the government and the JVP? Where were all these Samaritans then? 19. LTTE is only the tip of the iceberg. I am only interested in finding out the political and cultural forces behind not only the LTTE but Tamil racism in general.
Cat’s Eye
Woman power in America?Cat’s EyeFeminists who have been watching the goings-on in the US Senate on T.V. are struck by the sight of the (mainly) old, (mainly) white, (mainly) Christian men, presided over by the Chief Justice (who is all of the above), listening to white male prosecutors (called managers) from the lower house presenting their case to remove from office the twice-elected President of the USA. This in defiance of 2/3 of the American people who oppose the whole ridiculous and dangerous circus.
Obviously this is an attempt of the Top Boys of the ultra- Right to lynch the poor white from Arkansas-whom they obsessively hate for his politics, his solid support from African-Americans and most of all, for his feminist wife.
Yes, we had a good inside view of American patriarchy in its witch- hunting, Puritan mode to "get Clinton" making this out to be a "solemn" occasion. Meanwhile on the outside, the King of Porn, Larry Flynt was adding to the circus atmosphere by "outing" all the pompous adulterers in politics’ one by one.
Leading Right-Wing Republican hypocrites who have indulged in a sexual witch hunt against Clinton have been exposed for "immorality". First Dan Burton of Arkansas, Clinton’s fierce opponent, Henry Hyde the judiciary Committee Chairman, next Bob Livingstone, the Speaker elect, and now Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, one of Clinton’s most virulent and racist opponents.
These were the witch hunters casting stones, while pretending to be holier — than thou.
While the whole world thinks US politicians have gone nuts, making the country the laughing - stock of the world, there is also a feeling in America that women might do a better a job than all these sleazy men whose private lives have now become public property.
• Turning to women
Women have been in the White House as secretaries, interns and First Ladies and in the usual female service roles-cleaning, polishing, cooking and taking out the garbage. But now it seems that American opinion is getting fed up with this scenario of men getting into a mess, and women cleaning up after them. "If men are out of control, where’s a nation to turn?" is the question and the answer seems to be "to its women, stupid."There is a discussion on now in the USA about the need for women to contest for the highest offices of President and Vice President; both parties find this an attractive proposition and the names mentioned include Diane Feinstein, Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton.
As Maureen Dowd writes: "Desperate times call for desperate measures. Suddenly, the cognisance think they’ve discovered the antidote to this pubic mess in the nation’s capital , a female president... Now that the capital has been contaminated by testosterone why not try estrogen?"
This is an interesting point - especially since conventional male (chauvinist) wisdom has been that women were "harmonially unsuitable" for either high political office or for combat in war. That testosterone (male hormones) produce macho leaders and oestrogen (female hormones) keep women at home, was the view of Newt Gingrich the Rightwing former Speaker, whose mother called Hillary Clinton a bitch . He remarked that "men are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes while women like to sit still. Mercifully this Gingrich guy is out of politics.
But as Dowd says "Now it is the men who are acting hysterical, and Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr are scratching each other’s eyes out. Women may be affected by lunar tides. But men are total lunatics. Women are sometimes driven by hormones. But men are pushed around by them all day long".
Woman power in Arizona
The gender landscape in the USA is changing. All over America women have made advances in the professions and in politics. Arizona, for example, has the first all-female state administration where the State Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney-General and Superintendent of Public Instruction are women. And they were sworn in by the first woman on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor of Arizona. If anyone thought Arizona was macho, desert country, they should remember that this state, in 1914 had 2 women in the state legislature, before other states had even given women the right to vote. Today the unofficial state slogan is "Arizona - Where Women Lead".Bob Dole - The First Gentleman?
When nearly four decades ago Sri Lanka produced the world’s first woman prime minister, and after Margaret Thatcher came to power in the UK, there was speculation that the USA was so patriarchal, it would take 100 years for a woman to become president. And this would be after the first Jewish, African American and Hispanic male presidents had broken the white, Anglo-Saxon Christian stranglehold on the US presidency. But now change looks nearer at hand and there is speculation by the pundits that at the presidential election of 2000, there would be women on the tickets of the parties for both the Presidency and Vice Presidency.The leading female presidential contender is Elizabeth Dole, wife of Bob Dole, who lost to Clinton in 1996. In the recent Time/CNN polls she rated 60% to the question "Do you have a favourable impression of Elizabeth Dole?" and runs a close second (48%) to George W. Bush’s 49% in the choice of Republic presidential candidate. As a reporter Michael Duffy quips in test marketing for a presidential candidate to follow Clinton, it would be better to choose one who "instead of chasing skirts, wore them." But as another cynic said, in the current political climate in the US to make Elizabeth Dole more credible they would have to invent a sex scandal for her."
Dole has been president of the American Red Cross for 8 years and recently resigned, leading to speculation about her political ambitions. But unkind critics say she is like Nurse Rachet (in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest"), obsessed with cleaning up and establishing law and order. Hail to Mrs. President and the First Gentlemen!
The Hillary Factor
More attractive as a candidate for Senator, Vice President and someday President would be Hillary Clinton, who is today the most popular woman in the USA, and was the leading contender for Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. She is not only among the nation’s top 100 lawyers and a brilliant political campaigner, but she also was able to keep her head (when all others were losing theirs) and move in early to politicise the sex scandal debate by appearing on TV and speaking of the Right-Wing’ Christian fundamentalist conspiracy against both the Clintons. As even Time admits "she shone the light on Starr - his agenda, his henchmen, his ideological gene pool - and suggested that this was the real story, the real danger." The person who has come out best out of the mess has been Hillary, who is nationally and internationally admired, not merely for standing by her man or showing grace under pressure, but for by her immense political acumen. Good luck Senator Rodham!Violence in the NWP
All eyes are on the North Western Province these days as the situation steadily deteriorates the closer it gets to the date of the elections, along with the hourly increase of intimidations, beatings, and stabbings, there has now also been a fatal shooting. In such a context, we laud the Organisation of Business and Professional Women for having come forward, for the first time, to express their concern about election violence by holding a seminar and sending out an appeal to all those involved in the election campaign to desist from violence. It was also a welcome change to find the popular discussion program, Inside Story, fielding a panel of women last week to discuss the issue of political violence and women’s (non) participation in politics.We were disappointed however, to find that the panel did not include any representatives from the Women’s Collective Against Political Violence or the Sri Lanka Women’s NGO Forum. The Sri Lanka Women’s NGO Forum has been engaged in an extensive program, throughout the island, to increase women’s political participation in every legislative body be it local or national government. The Forum has also been lobbying all political parties to include more women candidates, while encouraging and supporting the Sinhala-Tamil Rural Women’s Network in Nuwara Eliya which was, for the first time in Sri Lankan history, trying to field an independent women’s group to contest the (now postponed) Provincial Council Elections in the Central Province.
The main objective of this group, as stated in their manifesto, was to "enhance women’s contribution to governance and the creation of a peaceful and prosperous society." What is particularly heartening about the Network is not only that it is a consciously multi-ethnic group that believes in working for the welfare of all ethnic communities, but also that it does not seek to mouth the usual platitudes that women are caregivers and thus better suited to take on issues of social relevance. Rather, they have come forward as competent and knowledgeable women who are intimate with the concerns and needs of the rural poor and estate labour having worked among these groups and for these groups for many years, as grassroots activists.
The Women’s Collective Against Political Violence has been monitoring the situation in the NWP for several weeks now, along with many other concerned groups. Their findings so far emphatically dispute yet another popular platitude about women that they are more non-violent and peace loving than men. Such a fact has also been disputed in India with the women members of the BJP and RSS turning out to be as fascistic and as violent as their male counterparts. This trend has been noted in Sri Lanka too.
The questioning of K. Ponnambalam
By Jehan PereraThe lengthy questioning of Mr Kumar Ponnambalam by the CID cannot be glossed over as an inconsequential event. As a political leader, Mr Ponnambalam may be heading a political party that has become inconsequential (though under his father it was once the largest party representing the Sri Lankan Tamils). He also has a knack for riling his opposition, only partly due to the marked disjuncture between his radical words and his easy going lifestyle. But he often speaks the truth that no one wishes to hear, especially when it comes from him.
According to news reports, Mr Ponnambalam was questioned about certain statements he had made publicly in support of the LTTE in a television interview done in Colombo. He was questioned under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been locally and internationally condemned. The section of the law under which he was questioned was reportedly that of causing disaffection between races and inciting violence.
He is likely to be questioned further on the matter. There is reason for the peace movement to be concerned about the CID’s questioning of Mr Ponnambalam in the manner he has been. There is the danger of a governmental design (probably badly thought out) to suppress dialogue between the people, and power groups, inhabiting the two parts of the country and two mind sets even in the same part of the country.
On the contrary, what the country needs are more bridges of communication to be built up for successful conflict resolution.
As a political leader who, without an iota of doubt is non-violent in action, Mr Ponnambalam is morally entitled to express his views however repugnant they may be to a government that has declared a war for peace and the type of unacceptable state violence that this has entailed. Not so long ago, Mr Ponnambalam was an extreme opponent of the LTTE which he publicly described as engaging in "naked terrorism" much to the dismay of those who wished him long life and not assassination at its hands. But now Mr Ponnambalam has described himself to be a supporter of the LTTE’s political ideology. Surely this means its claims to be a liberation movement of Tamils, fighting for a separate state or for a viable alternative to it based on the Thimpu principles. It surely does not mean the other aspects of the LTTE ideology which include the cult of the leader, of suicide and of selective bombing of civilian targets.
It may be that many of those who saw and heard him on television believed he also supported the latter aspects. OSTRICH SYNDROME But why the CID should question him for four hours about his alleged links with the LTTE is worth analysing. It cannot be for security reasons.
The Sinhalese people who remained unprovoked in the face of the LTTE’s bombing of the Temple of the Tooth could not possibly have been provoked to communal violence by any of Mr Ponnambalam’s utterances. Nor is it likely that his claims to be an LTTE supporter make him specially privy to any of the LTTE’s military plans. The reason for Mr Ponnambalam to be questioned by the CID is most probably to harass him into silence and to intimidate others not to emulate him. This is part of the ostrich syndrome practiced by the Sri Lankan government.
They seem to believe that if the LTTE point of view can be suppressed, locally and internationally, the task of suppressing the LTTE itself will be easier. If the first principle of life is to know oneself, the second would be to know one’s opponent. It is necessary to comprehend fully the nature of the LTTE, its ideology and the support base it enjoys among the Tamil population. Otherwise the government will be at a disadvantage in coming up with the correct strategy to deal effectively with it.
For the past several years, the government has been handicapped by the fact that it has not had access to LTTE-controlled parts of the country and to the minds of the people living there. Due to the government ban on the LTTE, the difficulty of travel to the LTTE-controlled parts of the country and its inaccessibility even to journalists, a vast communication gap has arisen between the Tamil people in whose midst the LTTE operates and the rest of the people. For a government that claims to be sincerely interested in conflict resolution and in ending the ethnic conflict, the next best option is to permit those persons who do have access to the LTTE-controlled parts of the country to speak up without harassing them.
This does not mean that the government in anyway gives up its primary objective of protecting the unity and territorial integrity of the country, but only that it better understands its opponent for purposes of conflict resolution. ETHNIC NATIONALISM Last week a group of people from the Theatre Action Group of Jaffna who have access to the LTTE-controlled areas held a press conference in Colombo. What they said tallied with what Mr Ponnambalam had tried to articulate earlier, even though he lacks the direct access to people living in the LTTE-controlled areas that the group has.
Led by Kandiah Sithamparanathan, a lecturer at the University of Jaffna, the Theatre Action Group has conducted its work in both the government-controlled and LTTE-controlled parts of the north-east, including Jaffna, Mullaitivu, Vavuniya, Batticaloa and Trincomalee. They use arts and drama to get people to overcome their fear and suspicion and to act out their true feelings. Listening to this group of young persons speak of life in the north-east and the sentiments of the people, it was easy to see how the fires of Tamil nationalism burned within them. They spoke of the "love-hate" relationship of the people to the LTTE, of the fear and humiliation that comes with living under an army of another ethnic people, and their desire to live as free beings with pride in their ethnic identity as a separate people.
The futility of using the military to suppress these sentiments, and the support given to the LTTE, becomes clearer in the face to face encounter with the other. This is not to say that the demands of ethnic nationalism are morally correct. Tamil nationalism can be as destructive, callous and blind to the rights of others as Sinhalese nationalism has been. It can even be worse in some respects. But a military solution is not the answer to it. The lesson of ethnic conflict from different parts of the world is that numbers do not count when it comes to ethnic nationalism. The mighty Russian army discovered this in its war against the Chechnyan guerillas. The best a well equipped and disciplined army can do in those circumstances is to contain the conflict at a manageable level, but with no end in sight.
In the modern world, an end to ethnic conflict lies in the domain of political negotiations. Ironically, to the extent that the government succeeds in censoring voices like Kumar Ponnambalam’s, and intimidates others such as the Theatre Action Group into silence, false notions of what is possible will continue to prevail. An over reliance on the military option, based on ignorance, will ensure that the war continues well into the next century.
