By Laksiri Fernando -
Dr. Laksiri Fernando
There is a slang term in Australia, some people calling others ‘going
troppo’ to mean going crazy. The origin of this slang is supposed to be
the tropical heat in the northern parts of Australia driving people
crazy.
I am not sure where Mr Tilak Samaranayaka exactly lives in Australia, but when I was reading through his article, “Understanding the Causes of Sinhala-Tamil Conflict in Sri Lanka,”
it was this saying that came to my mind instantly. If he were living in
Sri Lanka, I would not have said this, although I feel he is in fact
affected by the Sri Lankan heat more than the Australian one.
Issues of Buddhism
His very first sentence itself is misconstrued to say that there is an “on-going conflict between the Sinhalese Buddhist organizations and Muslims over a number of issues.” On the part of the Muslims, the whole community is accused but on the part of the ‘Sinhala Buddhists’
there is a clear admission that only ‘organizations’ are involved. To
be more precise, only two three organizations are involved directly and
even indirectly.
The so-called ‘conflict’ is obviously a created one with some
political backing and for political objectives. Although there are
prejudices, fears and apprehensions being created, so far it is more
correct to characterize the situation as ‘thuggery, intimidation and
hate speech’ against the Muslims, rather than a conflict. It has
overwhelmingly been one sided except some exposure of intimidation of
the BBS by people like Azath Salley. Now the victims are persecuted instead of perpetrators being brought before the law.
The language, the tone and the pretended and concocted facts
presented by Samaranayaka are more dangerous than the hate speech
carried out by the BBS in the recent past. He appears to counter the
arguments of those who rejected the ‘hate speech’ and denounced the
violent attacks against religious and business premises of the Muslim
community, also correctly pointing out that these were against the
Buddhist principles. The last matter was highlighted by many because all
these injustices were done in the name of Buddhism.
But Samaranayaka unashamedly says that “the argument that we should
follow Buddhist principles and live accordingly has no relevance when
there are two sides to a problem.” Why? The following is his strange
explanation.
In fact, we are dealing with real people and real issues, and these issues involve two cultures, two religions, two languages, and two different life styles. Religion, cultural practices, and social values of Muslims are poles apart when compared with the Sinhalese. It is an absurd assumption to accept that by living according to Buddhist principles, these problems can be automatically solved.
I am not sure whether he is a Buddhist to talk like that, but frankly
I am not a Buddhist by birth although I have all respect, fair
knowledge and considerable influence from Buddhism. But to him Buddhism
has no relevance here because we are dealing with “real people and real
issues” as if Buddhism applies to ‘imaginary people and imaginary
issues.’ Then he says “religion, cultural practices, and social values
of Muslims are poles apart when compared with the Sinhalese.”
Has he discovered this only now? How come that the two communities
managed to live peacefully in the past? Poles apart undoubtedly are not
correct as there is so much rapport between the two communities.
No one would argue that ‘living according to Buddhist principles
would solve any social problem automatically.’ There are other ways of
dealing with our social problems through democratic means (not
majoritarianism), nonviolence and most importantly respecting human
rights of each other. But Buddhism is a profound philosophy which
enunciates the Middle Path when exactly there are two sides or extremes
to a problem. But artificially creating an antagonism or conflict when
there is none, is not the way to practice the Middle Path. It is
unfortunate if the Buddhists openly reject practicing Buddhism and
criticize Muslims for practicing their religion, only on the pretext
that they are poles apart from us. I think Samaranayaka should re-read
what he has written.
Rights Issues
Samaranayaka talks about rights issues a lot. But his perceptions are
completely misplaced. He creates victimhood to the Sinhalese as if
Sinhalese are colonized by a Muslim empire. He says, “It is very unfair
to suggest that only the Sinhalese should sacrifice their rights and
values and provide a solution to this problem. Since the Sinhalese are
beginning to take action to protect their culture, religion, and
fundamental rights, they are branded as ‘extremists.”
See the words “very unfair.” No one has suggested that anyone should
sacrifice ‘their rights’ unless those are privileges or ‘rights’ against
the others. Since 1948, this country Sri Lanka has been governed by the
Sinhalese and quite discriminately against the other communities, both
ethnic and religious. We should have the rationality and modesty to
accept that. The colonial period was a different story and it ended 65
years ago. What are the actions that the Sinhalese need to protect their
culture, religion and fundamental rights when there is a Sinhala
supremacist as the President with two thirds majority in Parliament? Why
the religious and business places of the Muslims community are attacked
to protect the rights of the Sinhalese? Samaranyaka should answer these
questions.
Samaranayaka pretends to be fair for both sides and claims that since
the Muslim side is presented that he wants to present the Sinhala side.
The following is what he presents.
Muslims live everywhere in the country. In some regions, there are more Muslims than the Sinhalese. They not only live with the Sinhalese, but also carry out most of their economic activities with the Sinhalese and supported by them. Furthermore, they practice their religion the way they want despite the inconvenience caused by their religious practices to others living in the area. Evidence that the Sinhalese are a tolerant community is that they allow Muslims in their neighbourhoods, contribute to their economic base, and allow their religion to practice. This does not mean, however, that there is no limit to their tolerance. Can the Muslims be considered a tolerant community, if they are placed in the same context?
Muslims living everywhere in the country (which is not completely
correct) is a grievance for Samaranyaka. He does not even casually
mention that the Muslims were evicted from the North and the East by the
LTTE.
Then it is a grievance for him that in some areas they are concentrated
and more than the Sinhalese. The genuine ire perhaps is that ‘they not
only live with the Sinhalese but carry out their economic activities
with the Sinhalese and supported by them.’ This is not a Sinhala
grievance but a grievance on the part of some Sinhala business groups.
He further says that “they practice their religion the way they want”
as if they should practice their religion according to what
Samaranayaka wants. Of course if there are inconveniences to others
those could be placed before the legal and judicial authorities and
there are courts and mediation boards to deal with them. But no one has
any right to interfere with their religious dress or any other practice.
Samaranayka claims that Sinhalese are a tolerant community, which is
largely correct, not because that they ‘allow’ but they live in the same
neighborhoods and engage in common economic activities. The tolerance
is also mutual because Muslims are not aliens to have special permission
to live among the others, the Sinhalese or the Tamils. This is a wrong
conception in anyone’s part.
Then the real attitude or the motive of Samaranayaka comes out when he says, “This does not mean, however, that there is no limit to their tolerance.”
This is in fact a threat which he repeats at the very end of the
article again. I don’t know who this Samaranayake is and what
connections that he has with extremists organizations in Sri Lanka. We
should ask the question from him, however, when and at what point that
this limit would reach? At the last paragraph he says “The Sinhalese feel that they have been pushed beyond the tolerant level by the activities of the Muslims,” but does not explain what activities, except the population growth and non-participation in sports!
There are so many prejudices that Samaranayka has propagated in the
article although he started by pretending to be an unbiased observer and
objective analyst of the causes of the conflict. Even he uses the term
‘root causes.’ Even if there is any serious conflict then what he
highlights cannot be the roots causes at all but some superficial
subjective reasons on the part of some Sinhalese at most. It is
ridiculous for him to accuse that Muslims are not participating in
national sports or social activities, which is not correct, and even if
it is correct, it is not a reason for a conflict other than for a for
prejudicial mind.
Statistics
Perhaps with an economics background Samaranayaka has some ability to
manipulate population statistics. There is no question that the
population growth rate of the Muslim community is higher than the other
communities as at present. But some of the figures given by him are not
correct at all. He says, “During the thirty-year period from 1981 to
2011, the average growth rate of the Sinhalese has been 0.94% compared
with 1.8% growth rate of Muslims.” The average growth rate of the
Sinhalese for the period was 1.04% and not 0.94%.
Although I have no intention to go into details of his figures or
calculations, if he has made his population projections on the above
basis, those are then simply incorrect and exaggerated. It is a known
fact even in Australia that population growth of the Muslim community is
higher than the other communities. This is the case in Sri Lanka. What
he does however is scaremongering without understanding the reasons.
Before my retirement from the University of Colombo in 2010, I recollect
that the issue came up during a seminar and a prominent demographer
explained that further studies into the matter reveals a downward trend
already among the Muslim community in certain areas where women acquire
education and participate in the work force in addition to urban
migration. As Dasun Edirisinghe reported to The Island on 18 March 2013,
a senior officer from the Census Department, Mrs Bandara, had expressed
a similar view.
Samaranayaka pretends to be a friend of the Tamil community. He on
the one hand says, “There is no animosity between an average Sinhalese
and an average Tamil. The two communities share long standing social and
cultural links, and have common cultural and social customs.” On the
other hand he says, “The ongoing conflicts throughout the world are
either directly or indirectly related to Muslims whose ideologies are
based on the rigid form of Islam.”
But he is clueless in explaining the drastic population decrease
within the Sri Lankan Tamil community between 1981 and 2011. The
percentage position has dropped from 12.7 to 11.2 between the two years.
Hill Country Tamil percentage also has dropped from 5.5 to 4.2 between
the two years. I am saying these to show that the superficial
statistical explanations are misleading. But he believes “that the
growth of population of the Sri Lankan Tamils is quite comparable with
the Sinhalese.” This is hilarious and the explanation given is the
following.
Although an increase of 1.7 million has been recorded under Sri Lankan Tamils in the 2011 Census, it cannot be considered as a net gain because the coverage of the 1981 census was limited to few parts of the Northern Province due to the ethnic conflict that was emerging in the North at that time.
In the first instance, if the coverage of the census was limited in
the North then it should be an ‘underestimate’ in 1981 and then 2011
census should show a higher growth. Secondly as far as I am aware, the
1981 census was not limited to few parts of the Northern Province as he
claims. That happened at the 2001 census but not at the 1981 census.
My conclusion remains, and even reinforced, that Samaranayaka has gone ‘troppo’ by trying to defend the Bodu Bala Sena.
No comments:
Post a Comment