The stillborn artificial Sri Lankan identity – II

‘Our knowledge is termed traditional, indigenous etc., giving the impression that the western knowledge is universal and not limited to any particular place and time. What is not taught to us in the schools and the universities is that no knowledge is universal or objective and any knowledge is created in a certain culture at a certain place and time.’
--------------------------------

by Prof. Nalin de Silva

(July 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) R M B Senanayake states that the western tradition is humanist and he has grown up in a tradition that was not dominated by the Sinhala Buddhist ethos. It is not difficult for anybody who knows something about the history of the world and also for the experts in history to at least write volumes and volumes of what the westerners have done in the other parts of the world. People like RMBS may not refer to these as atrocities but many others would find that atrocity is not strong enough to describe the "human" activities done in the name of humanity by the Europeans and later by the Americans (meaning USA) as well. I will refrain from giving further examples on physical atrocities but concentrate on the mental atrocities that they have been carrying on since the beginning of the sixteenth century.

RMBS claims that he grew in a social environment not dominated by the Sinhala Buddhist ethos. What does he mean by this? Does he think that we are now in a social environment dominated by the Sinhala Buddhist ethos? If it is so what was the dominant ethos during the period he grew up? Is he of the opinion that there was no dominant ethos during that period? What was the "dominant" ethos in the country before the Portuguese came to Sri Lanka? What does he mean by dominant?

It has become a pastime of the so called educated people in the country, especially the English educated, to use words without clearly defining (intellectual exercise no doubt) them and thus get away misleading the readers. Sinhala (Buddhists) have never dominated the others with their ethos or whatever in this country since Pandukabhaya days the way the westerners have dominated the people. Of course Sinhala Buddhism did not exist in the country before king Gemunu as such but since then and specially after the fifth century Sinhala Buddhists have tried to protect their culture not only from the physical invasions from South India and Europe but also from the cultural onslaughts. The history of the Sinhala Theravada Buddhists from the fifth century onwards has been a history of protection and the Sinhala Buddhists still refer to preservation of Buddha sasana (Budu sasuna) as their most important function. There is a reason for being protectionist in attitude and we have dealt with it in our series of article (Ape Pravada – Our theses) in Vidusara. These articles are written in Sinhala, not because we live in a social environment dominated by the Sinhala Buddhist ethos but because I can write better in Sinhala and also since the majority of the school going children are more conversant in Sinhala. The Sinhala people may not have created much knowledge in the last one thousand five hundred years or so but they have been able to preserve Theravada Buddhism through dedication and commitment.

What is the dominating ethos in Sri Lanka today? Is it Sinhala Buddhist? It is still nothing but western Christian. What do we teach in schools? Our school curriculum is dictated to us by the so called educationists in the west. Our specialists in education have the freedom to imitate the west. What are the criteria used in evaluating Sinhala novels by the academics and others? I have been compelled to write this article in English as people such as RMBS would have either ignored or would not have been even aware of its existence if it was written in Sinhala. Even today, fifty two years after fifty six people in Sri Lanka can afford to ignore what is written in Sinhala the language understood by more than ninety percent of the people in the country (I know from experience that many Tamils and Muslims can understand Sinhala) but not that is written English still understood by less than ten percent of the people. Who or what is dominating whom?

Now we will come to knowledge as a whole. Whose knowledge we have to study and teach today? There may be some people who believe that there is only one corpus of knowledge and that is what is taught in the schools and in the universities. The University senates have no academic freedom and in order that the degrees awarded by them are "recognized internationally" they have to teach what is "recognized" by the west. I will give one example to illustrate how we are conditioned to think that western standards are the so called international standards. In the Sri Lankan university system there are Faculties of Medicine and Institutes that teach what is called indigenous medicine. Now what is taught in the so called Faculties of Medicine is western medicine, though they are not called Faculties of western medicine. Thus western medicine is considered to be The Medicine while other systems of medicine may be called indigenous, Ayurvedic, Siddhi, Unani etc. The humanist west of RMBS has inhumanly degraded the other systems without the people realising what has been done. Moreover what is the recognition given by the state to these other systems again fifty two years after fifty six that saw a Vedamahattaya being appointed as a member of the old Senate? If RMBS thinks that western medicine is scientific and objective, but the others are not let us have a debate on that separately.

Our knowledge is termed traditional, indigenous etc., giving the impression that the western knowledge is universal and not limited to any particular place and time. What is not taught to us in the schools and the universities is that no knowledge is universal or objective and any knowledge is created in a certain culture at a certain place and time. Perhaps RMBS does not feel it that way having been accustomed to think that western knowledge is universal and scientific. If one goes through the records one would find that the so called scientific method is merely a creation of the western intellectuals who want to dominate us through the knowledge that they have created in the last five centuries or so.

RMBS perhaps following the "intellectual giants" Charles Abeysekera and Newton Gunasinghe and the historian turned anthropologist Michael Roberts want to believe that nationalism is caught not intellectually grasped. However, though Benedict Anderson may think of unmaking nation no ordinary Englishman would think that Englishness is something that has been created but that does not exist. Now as far as I am concerned everything has been created and that includes not only nationalism but atoms, tables, chairs and soul as well. However, I do not deny that there are people and objects by convention and to me nationalism is not different from a table or a personal computer, and as conventional truths they are on equal footing. I am for unmaking not only nations but personal computers and souls as well. However I accept that conventionally all these exist in space and time, though space and time also are our creations. There can be cultures without the notion of time as they would not have created the concept of time at any time as reckoned by us.

Now what is meant by stating that something is intellectually grasped? Do the "intellectual giants" grasp more than us the mere hoi polloi? Or is it the other way round? The "intellectual giants" do not grasp, for example, nationalism, but the mere masses whether an Englishman or a Sinhala has no difficulty in grasping this concept? The trouble in Sri Lanka is that we are a homogeneous society very much thanks to Sinhala Buddhist culture and we tend to discuss freely those concepts that are restricted to academic circles in Europe which is very hierarchical in structure. Benedict Anderson may not be a household name in Europe but in Sri Lanka both the English and the Sinhala newspapers refer to him as if his is the last word on nationalism. We do not create knowledge but we are very fond of repeating and imitating what others have created. Our "intellectual giants" are not far away from the "intellectual dwarfs" as I have experienced during the last forty five years of my life among the "intellectuals". Perhaps RMBS is finding it difficult to grasp the concept of Sinhala nationalism intellectually. He says Sri Lankan identity is dead but if he asked to give his nationality he would, I suppose, not hesitate to say Sri Lankan. After all his passport, assuming of course that he has this little book issued by the Commissioner of immigration and immigration, identifies him as a Sri Lankan. Though he says Sri Lankan identity is dead (for me their concept was stillborn) most probably he intellectually grasp the concept of Sri Lankan.

A Sri Lankan is a citizen of Sri Lanka, which is a well defined country on the earth, which can be "intellectually grasped". Further citizen is also a concept that can be "intellectually grasped". Now how on earth are we going to intellectually grasp the concept of a country on the earth? Sri Lanka being an Island it may not be such a difficult task but what about India, for that matter? Would Pakistan concede everything that is claimed by Indians as India? The countries define who their citizens are and if one has that piece of paper that recognizes one as a citizen then one has no problem in intellectually grasping one’s citizenship. Intellectual grasping is nothing but holding on to definitions, criteria, concepts and pieces of paper that are called certificates again according to some criteria. When does a piece of paper become a certificate? RMBS as a former civil servant knows the "value" of certificates. My small second grandson, who was born outside Sri Lanka while my son was studying, has a smaller certificate to say that he is a citizen of Sri Lanka. Am I to recognize my grandson as a citizen of Sri Lanka intellectually because of this small piece of paper? Intellectual grasping is nothing but humbug, and I know what I am talking about as I have done only a little bit of Mathematics. Not being a Mathematician I do not come under the "definition" of Bertrand Russell according to which Mathematicians do not know what they are talking about. Intellectual grasping is subordinating feelings to definitions, formal concepts, criteria and Aristotelian logic, and of course pieces of paper that masquerade as certificates in view of certain bylaws, circulars, ordinances and what not. It appears that western intellectuals have so far failed to formulate criteria to define a nation and hence nationalism. If the western botanists could not come out with criteria to define (distinguish) an Anamalu as opposed to an Ambun are we going to say that there is nothing called Anamalu. In "corrupted" Sinhala I would say "evani botaniyak mona kehelmalakatada?"
(To be continued)

- Sri Lanka Guardian