Parliament is debating a draft constitution that is attempting to
subvert the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and erase the Sinhala-Buddhist
identity. The legislation has been written and negotiated in utmost secrecy
with only the reluctant cooperation of the opposition United National Party.
The Government is clearly attempting to force this constitution upon the
people of Sri Lanka with neither their knowledge nor their approval.
The
opposition of the majority Sinhala Buddhists to this treasonable piece of
legislature comes as no surprise. However, many other ethnic and religious
groups are also opposed. For instance Chandrasekeran’s Up Coutry Workers
Front has rejected the draft constitution, as it offers nothing to the
plantation Tamils. The Muslim Congress is fast losing its voter base because
the Muslims are divided over the creation of the “Muslim Unit” in the
Eastern province. In fact many Muslims are even forging alliances with the
hard line Sihela Urumaya because of that party’s no-nonsense stand on
separatism. For the first time since the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka
(around 300 B.C.), the Government of the country is denying and rejecting its
inalienable responsibility to foster and protect the faith.
The
role of Buddhism in Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict is a curious one. The
conflict has never been of a religious nature. Some foreign commentators like
David Little of the United States Peace Institute in Washington D.C., have
lost all credibility by classifying it as such (De Silva, K.M., Reaping the
Whirlwind, 1998). Perhaps the reason foreigners find the Sinhala-Buddhist
identity so hard to understand is because of the complex relationship between
its ethnic and “religious” elements. Buddhists are criticised because they
approve of military methods against Tamil terrorists while adhering to a
pacifist philosophy (avihimsa).
However, what many fail to recognise is that a pure Buddhist can never
advocate nor condone violence. Buddhism in its pure form cannot be easily
practiced by average people (gihiyo).
When a Sinhala-Buddhist says that the war against terrorism must go on, it is
not the Buddhist speaking, but the Sinhalese. Further, perhaps none can
appreciate the phrase “Let justice be done, or the heavens fall,” more
than the Sinhala Buddhists in this country. And clearly the PA Government has
done little to uphold justice since it assumed power in 1994.
Buddhism
is not a system of belief that is designed to resist the erosion of its
followers in a modern society. It is a pure philosophy for intellectuals, and
its only strength lies in the self-evident nature of reality that it
expresses. Buddhism neither insists on people converting to it, nor complains
against its followers from converting to other faiths. Buddhism is only for
those who can think and understand it, and not for those who are only looking
for a religion to worship.
When
Buddhism is threatened with extinction by invading armies or through the
persecution of Governments, someone must step forward to champion its cause.
And since the time of the monarch Devanampiyatissa, the champions of Buddhism
in Sri Lanka have been the Sinhalese people. The moral standards of the
philosophy are so high, that in vigorously defending Buddhism, its protectors
are forced to violate its very tenets.
Traditionally
the protection of Buddhism lay with the king. This was his principal
obligation – all other mundane responsibilities of state were subordinate.
In fact, the Sinhala people recognised the right of a monarch to rule only if
he possessed both the sceptre of authourity and the sacred tooth of the Lord
Buddha. The failure of the People’s Alliance Government to protect the Sri
Dalada Maligawa from terrorist attack (and its complicity in the
incident), is therefore highly significant, because it indicates that the PA
Government only possesses the sceptre of authourity. Further, in the King’s
role as protector, it was clearly understood that he must on occasion step
outside the moral codes of Buddhism in order to protect the faith (Rajakamai Thapasai Dekak Beha). Unfortunately, we no longer have a
king, and the President is a poor substitute for a king.
After
independence, in the absence of a monarch, the duty of protecting not only
Buddhism, but also the Sinhalese people, has fallen on the Buddhist Sangha. In
an ideal world the participation of the Sangha in the political process must
be avoided. However, since independence, the Sinhala-Buddhists have never had
an authentic political representative. The Jaffna Tamils have had the
so-called “Federal Party”, the TULF, the EPRLF, perhaps the LTTE and a
score of other political parties and terrorists groups to speak for them. The
Muslims have the SLMC. The plantation Tamils have had the CWC and recently
other groups. Sinhalese Buddhists have had to rely on their representation
within the SLFP and the UNP for the protection of their rights. It is only now
with the arrival of Sihela Urumaya that there is hope for the balance of
extremist Tamil and Muslim forces through a hard line Sinhala party.
In
the context of the Sangha as protector, their increased participation in the
political process cannot be criticised. The Sangha is only provoked into
stepping in, when the Government is attempting high treachery, as in the case
of the current constitutional proposals. If the Sangha should be kept out of
politics, then the Government must perform the role that the Sangha is
otherwise forced to play, namely the protection of the rights of the majority
Sinhala-Buddhist community in this country. It is highly disturbing to note
that the Buddhist clergy have announced that some of their members will go on
a fast unto death, if the constitutional proposals are not withdrawn. If the
Government insists on its undemocratic course of action and allows a Buddhist
monk to starve to death, a highly volatile situation can be created.
On
the eve of general elections, the influence of the Buddhist clergy on the
outcome of polls must not be forgotten. SWRD Bandaranaike was essentially
brought to power upon the shoulders of the 13,000 Buddhist monks who took to
the streets in his support. At its inception Bandaranaike’s SLFP was the
very bastion of Sinhala-Buddhism. The party’s success depended entirely upon
this agenda and the protection of the Sinhala people and the Buddhist
philosophy were its principal contributions to this country. However, today
the SLFP (the largest constituent of the People’s Alliance Government), has
become a bastard organisation. It is now the SLFP, under the leadership of
renegades, which is trying to undermine the rights of the Sinhala Buddhist.
Therefore, not only does the SLFP no longer have a contribution to make to the
nation, it has become a danger to it. In terms of economic development clearly
there is no substitute for a UNP administration. The political responsibility
of protecting Sinhala Buddhists must therefore be assumed by the Sihela
Urumaya, and it is high time for the imposters of the SLFP to bow out of
public life and go about their private affairs. Some even say that the late
Minister Dharmasiri Senanayake, who was a devout Buddhist, died of a broken
heart because he was forced into participating in the betrayal of his faith.
If the SLFP persists in making a national nuisance of itself, perhaps it would
do well to recall what happened to SWRD Bandaranaike when he attempted to
renege on his promises to Buddhists.
Even
on March 2nd, 1815, when the British assumed the Governance of this
land, the Kandyan Convention specifically required the protection of Buddhism,
its Bhikkus, places of worship and
the properties of the vihares and devales.
The Kandyan Convention, to which the British Government is a signatory, has
never been abolished and remains in effect to this day. Violation of the
Convention is a direct violation of an international treaty.
In
thinking of the champions of the Sinhala Buddhist cause, a few names stand
out. Perhaps foremost among them were Anagarika Dharmapala (1864-1933), F.R.
Senanayake (1884-1925) and D.B. Jayatilaka (1868-1944). One distinction these
great men drew was between a government of Buddhists and a Buddhist
Government. They were always careful to maintain certain boundaries between
state power and religion (De Silva). The name of SWRD Bandaranaike can perhaps
be marginally included among those who made a contribution. It comes as no
surprise that President Premadasa was also a great champion of Buddhism. He
understood and appreciated his grave responsibility to Buddhism as the Head of
State. In 1989 the Buddha Sasana Ministry was created under his
administration. The President himself assumed this portfolio, because he
personally wanted to oversee its implementation. Even state involvement in the
inland fisheries industry was discontinued because it was considered an
un-Buddhist practice (De Silva).
Today
Buddhism in Sri Lanka has no powerful champions. The great ones have all
galloped into the pages of history and the banner of Sinhala Buddhism lies
trampled and dusty. Due to the decades of Tamil chauvinism and international
hypocrisy directed against the Sinhala Buddhists, a resurgence in activism is
evident which is comparable to the movements of the 1920s and the 1950s.
Unfortunately parties like Sihela Urumaya can only have a marginal impact in
the short term due to their infancy and the suppression of the Government.
Therefore, a champion must rise from among the mainstream political parties.
Because of his distinguished record as a Buddhist leader and his reputation as
a thorough gentlemen, Karu Jayasuriya is a natural candidate to be the torch
bearer. It is up to him to decide whether he will join the ranks of the great
patriots of this country and at the same time take the UNP to electoral
victory.
