by Prof. Nalin de Silva
(July 30, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardain) Pandukabhaya was able to unite all the gothras except the gothra of Vyadha or the Vedda and form the Sinhala nation long before capitalism was established in any part of the world. If the westerners insist on capitalism as a prerequisite for building a nation, then it is due to the fact that in the west no nation had been formed before the advent of capitalism. The westerners should not be allowed to have a monopoly of creating knowledge and invariably the knowledge they create is based on their experience.
This is not something peculiar to history or social sciences in general but it is the same in physical sciences as well. Even the Mathematics that has been created in the west is relative to their culture and it is always possible to have different Mathematicses (plural of Mathematics – if there is no plural then it implies that the westerners think that there is only one Mathematics. In Sinhala the word ganithaya has the plural ganitha – how does the west talk of multiculturalism without referring to multi Mathematics.) based on different cultures.
Now the question may be asked as to why Pandukabhaya was not able to incorporate the Vedda gothra into the Sinhala nation. It appears that this particular tribe on its own has selected to be outside the Sinhala nation and have its own way of life without following the mode(s) of production of the Sinhala nation, and that the Sinhalas had respected their wish. It speaks volumes for the civilisation of the Sinhalas who did not want to "civilise" the Veddas unlike the so called civilised west that went on to impose their culture on the others in the name of civilising the other people of the world. The humanist west considers it to be humane to civilise the whole world thereby destroying the other cultures. If the Veddas have become Sinhala during the last hundred years or so it is due the civilising mission of the west that is being carried out by the Sinhalas educated by the west.
RMBS having spoken of Garibaldi goes on to indict the Sinhala nation. It is a relief that we do not have the "opportunity" to appeal in the Privy Council in England as otherwise some of the anti Sinhala Buddhist educated elements in the society would have taken up the case in this body. Before I quote RMBS I must add that a set of highly placed individuals none of whom were Sinhala Buddhists, and who had been found guilty of a coup against the government headed by Mrs. Bandaranaike went before this foreign body in England and were acquitted on technical grounds. Whatever the interpretation that is given to this episode, what happened was a foreign body coming into the rescue of a gang of conspirators who attempted to overthrow a lawfully elected government.
Having referred to the foreign body that was a threat to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, let me quote RMBS. "So in the 19th Century with the revival of Buddhism the identifiable enemy was the Christians. They were the "other". But SWRD went further. He found an additional enemy in the Tamils. An appeal was made to the baser instincts of human beings directed at rousing social jealousy. Ever since Pericles, populists have made similar appeals to win majority support. The ancient Athenians decided that such populists should be exiled or 'ostracized;' as they termed it. So the finger was pointed at the Tamils as having acquired an undue share of the top jobs and economic opportunities in the government, not by merit but by the preferential treatment shown to them by the colonial authorities. "
RMBS has concluded that the nineteenth century Buddhist revival has identified Christianity as the so called other (enemy), and that SWRDB had identified another enemy ("other") in the Tamils. As I have argued in Part III of the series I totally reject this "other" theories based on western Christian culture not because they are Christian in origin, but since they are inconsistent and contradictory. One cannot even think of "other" without first thinking of oneself. It is true that in the nineteenth century the Buddhists were discriminated and that they knew that they were being discriminated. It was not merely a perception but was a "fact" that can be established. Does RMBS think that the discrimination was a figment of imagination of the Buddhists? Strictly speaking all the so called facts are figments of imagination, but in this case there were other "facts" that were consistent with this particular "fact". The Buddhists did not become Buddhists having realised that there was discrimination but the fact of discrimination was felt or experienced by people whose ancestors had been Buddhists long before the Portuguese came to Sri Lanka. Perhaps for the descendants of those who had been converted to Catholicism by the "other" there was no discrimination as they had joined the "other".
If there was discrimination of the Buddhists by the Portuguese first, then by the Dutch and finally by the British all of the western humanist tradition what were the Buddhists supposed to do? There are some anti Sinhala Buddhists who would justify the terrorist activities of the LTTE and the other groups on the pretext that that there was discrimination of the Tamils by the "Sinhala governments". The Buddhists did not identify the Christians as the enemy as such but the discrimination was by the British who were Christians by culture as well and who favoured those who had adopted Christianity and Catholicism. Anagarika Dharmapala led this struggle ant it was only a continuation of the major freedom struggles of the Sinhalas against the British in 1817-18 and 1848. If the latter were in the arena of politics mainly, the Buddhist revival of the nineteenth century was a struggle mainly in the field of culture. The western colonialism has three components mainly the political, cultural and economical and the Buddhist revival was nothing but the continuation of the former struggles however concentrating on the cultural component. It was mainly the culture that mattered though on occasions it took a more religious flavour. RMBS would have been happy if there was no Buddhist revival as the British could have continued with the discrimination against the Buddhists. There is still discrimination by the westerners against the Sinhala Buddhists as exemplified by the use of the knowledge created in the west against the latter.
The Buddhist revival was resented by some elite Catholics and Christians and some clergy but fortunately not so by the ordinary Catholics and Christians. The latter had been basically Sinhala Buddhist in culture though Catholics and Christians in religion unlike the elite who were either Christians or Catholics in religion and Christian in culture. The ordinary Christians and Catholics had soon realised that the Sinhala Buddhist culture has a significant place in the country and they could be agitated by the elite only during the time of schools take over. Even then they realised that nothing would happen to their religion in spite of claims to the contrary by the elite some conspiring to topple the government using their dominance in the armed forces and the police at that time (Could RMBS explain how the percentage of Catholic and Christian officers in the armed forces and the police was much more than the national percentage even as late as 1962?), and the protest movement could not be sustained. It is to the credit of the ordinary Sinhala Christians and Catholics that they could not be aroused against the Buddhist revival, especially after 1948. It is the elite Sinhala Christians and Catholics both lay and clergy who acted against the Buddhist revival and even today attack it for the simple reason that they cannot come to terms with the loss of some of their privileges in education and employment and in general social "status".
The Sinhala Buddhist revival though incomplete has redressed some of the grievances raised by the Buddhists in this country. The fact that the Sinhala Buddhists have been forced to struggle to redress their grievances is itself a discrimination against the Sinhalas. If the Anglican Christians in England had to fight to gain recognition in England what would they do? I mentioned that the Christians and the Catholics held more than their share of positions in the armed forces and the police. If not for people such as late Mr. L. H. Mettananda former Principle of Ananda College who was ridiculed by some of the other Principals and cartoonists such as Collette who migrated to Australia for not wanting to lose some of the privileges he enjoyed, and Mr. N. Q. Dias, the armed forces could have been still dominated by the elite Christians and Catholics, and if they were of the same brand as RMBS, then most likely the latter would not have written his article on Sri Lankan identity, as Prabhakaran would not have got the beating he deserved in the Eastern Province and the Northern Province.
RMBS then says that SWRD found an additional enemy in the Tamils. He further says that an appeal was made to the baser instincts of human beings directed at rousing social jealousy. RMBS tries to interpret fighting against social injustices as that due to social jealousy. If that was the case the French revolution, Cromwellian revolution in England also will have to be interpreted as due to social jealousy. Would RMBS, who I think upholds these revolutions as products of western Christian modernity agree with that interpretation? This myth that everything started after fifty six has been exploded by Mr. Rasalingam in a few articles that appeared in "The Island". In the next installment I will briefly deal with this aspect, which I have described in "An Analysis of Tamil Racism in Sri Lanka".
(To be continued)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
(July 30, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardain) Pandukabhaya was able to unite all the gothras except the gothra of Vyadha or the Vedda and form the Sinhala nation long before capitalism was established in any part of the world. If the westerners insist on capitalism as a prerequisite for building a nation, then it is due to the fact that in the west no nation had been formed before the advent of capitalism. The westerners should not be allowed to have a monopoly of creating knowledge and invariably the knowledge they create is based on their experience.
This is not something peculiar to history or social sciences in general but it is the same in physical sciences as well. Even the Mathematics that has been created in the west is relative to their culture and it is always possible to have different Mathematicses (plural of Mathematics – if there is no plural then it implies that the westerners think that there is only one Mathematics. In Sinhala the word ganithaya has the plural ganitha – how does the west talk of multiculturalism without referring to multi Mathematics.) based on different cultures.
Now the question may be asked as to why Pandukabhaya was not able to incorporate the Vedda gothra into the Sinhala nation. It appears that this particular tribe on its own has selected to be outside the Sinhala nation and have its own way of life without following the mode(s) of production of the Sinhala nation, and that the Sinhalas had respected their wish. It speaks volumes for the civilisation of the Sinhalas who did not want to "civilise" the Veddas unlike the so called civilised west that went on to impose their culture on the others in the name of civilising the other people of the world. The humanist west considers it to be humane to civilise the whole world thereby destroying the other cultures. If the Veddas have become Sinhala during the last hundred years or so it is due the civilising mission of the west that is being carried out by the Sinhalas educated by the west.
RMBS having spoken of Garibaldi goes on to indict the Sinhala nation. It is a relief that we do not have the "opportunity" to appeal in the Privy Council in England as otherwise some of the anti Sinhala Buddhist educated elements in the society would have taken up the case in this body. Before I quote RMBS I must add that a set of highly placed individuals none of whom were Sinhala Buddhists, and who had been found guilty of a coup against the government headed by Mrs. Bandaranaike went before this foreign body in England and were acquitted on technical grounds. Whatever the interpretation that is given to this episode, what happened was a foreign body coming into the rescue of a gang of conspirators who attempted to overthrow a lawfully elected government.
Having referred to the foreign body that was a threat to the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, let me quote RMBS. "So in the 19th Century with the revival of Buddhism the identifiable enemy was the Christians. They were the "other". But SWRD went further. He found an additional enemy in the Tamils. An appeal was made to the baser instincts of human beings directed at rousing social jealousy. Ever since Pericles, populists have made similar appeals to win majority support. The ancient Athenians decided that such populists should be exiled or 'ostracized;' as they termed it. So the finger was pointed at the Tamils as having acquired an undue share of the top jobs and economic opportunities in the government, not by merit but by the preferential treatment shown to them by the colonial authorities. "
RMBS has concluded that the nineteenth century Buddhist revival has identified Christianity as the so called other (enemy), and that SWRDB had identified another enemy ("other") in the Tamils. As I have argued in Part III of the series I totally reject this "other" theories based on western Christian culture not because they are Christian in origin, but since they are inconsistent and contradictory. One cannot even think of "other" without first thinking of oneself. It is true that in the nineteenth century the Buddhists were discriminated and that they knew that they were being discriminated. It was not merely a perception but was a "fact" that can be established. Does RMBS think that the discrimination was a figment of imagination of the Buddhists? Strictly speaking all the so called facts are figments of imagination, but in this case there were other "facts" that were consistent with this particular "fact". The Buddhists did not become Buddhists having realised that there was discrimination but the fact of discrimination was felt or experienced by people whose ancestors had been Buddhists long before the Portuguese came to Sri Lanka. Perhaps for the descendants of those who had been converted to Catholicism by the "other" there was no discrimination as they had joined the "other".
If there was discrimination of the Buddhists by the Portuguese first, then by the Dutch and finally by the British all of the western humanist tradition what were the Buddhists supposed to do? There are some anti Sinhala Buddhists who would justify the terrorist activities of the LTTE and the other groups on the pretext that that there was discrimination of the Tamils by the "Sinhala governments". The Buddhists did not identify the Christians as the enemy as such but the discrimination was by the British who were Christians by culture as well and who favoured those who had adopted Christianity and Catholicism. Anagarika Dharmapala led this struggle ant it was only a continuation of the major freedom struggles of the Sinhalas against the British in 1817-18 and 1848. If the latter were in the arena of politics mainly, the Buddhist revival of the nineteenth century was a struggle mainly in the field of culture. The western colonialism has three components mainly the political, cultural and economical and the Buddhist revival was nothing but the continuation of the former struggles however concentrating on the cultural component. It was mainly the culture that mattered though on occasions it took a more religious flavour. RMBS would have been happy if there was no Buddhist revival as the British could have continued with the discrimination against the Buddhists. There is still discrimination by the westerners against the Sinhala Buddhists as exemplified by the use of the knowledge created in the west against the latter.
The Buddhist revival was resented by some elite Catholics and Christians and some clergy but fortunately not so by the ordinary Catholics and Christians. The latter had been basically Sinhala Buddhist in culture though Catholics and Christians in religion unlike the elite who were either Christians or Catholics in religion and Christian in culture. The ordinary Christians and Catholics had soon realised that the Sinhala Buddhist culture has a significant place in the country and they could be agitated by the elite only during the time of schools take over. Even then they realised that nothing would happen to their religion in spite of claims to the contrary by the elite some conspiring to topple the government using their dominance in the armed forces and the police at that time (Could RMBS explain how the percentage of Catholic and Christian officers in the armed forces and the police was much more than the national percentage even as late as 1962?), and the protest movement could not be sustained. It is to the credit of the ordinary Sinhala Christians and Catholics that they could not be aroused against the Buddhist revival, especially after 1948. It is the elite Sinhala Christians and Catholics both lay and clergy who acted against the Buddhist revival and even today attack it for the simple reason that they cannot come to terms with the loss of some of their privileges in education and employment and in general social "status".
The Sinhala Buddhist revival though incomplete has redressed some of the grievances raised by the Buddhists in this country. The fact that the Sinhala Buddhists have been forced to struggle to redress their grievances is itself a discrimination against the Sinhalas. If the Anglican Christians in England had to fight to gain recognition in England what would they do? I mentioned that the Christians and the Catholics held more than their share of positions in the armed forces and the police. If not for people such as late Mr. L. H. Mettananda former Principle of Ananda College who was ridiculed by some of the other Principals and cartoonists such as Collette who migrated to Australia for not wanting to lose some of the privileges he enjoyed, and Mr. N. Q. Dias, the armed forces could have been still dominated by the elite Christians and Catholics, and if they were of the same brand as RMBS, then most likely the latter would not have written his article on Sri Lankan identity, as Prabhakaran would not have got the beating he deserved in the Eastern Province and the Northern Province.
RMBS then says that SWRD found an additional enemy in the Tamils. He further says that an appeal was made to the baser instincts of human beings directed at rousing social jealousy. RMBS tries to interpret fighting against social injustices as that due to social jealousy. If that was the case the French revolution, Cromwellian revolution in England also will have to be interpreted as due to social jealousy. Would RMBS, who I think upholds these revolutions as products of western Christian modernity agree with that interpretation? This myth that everything started after fifty six has been exploded by Mr. Rasalingam in a few articles that appeared in "The Island". In the next installment I will briefly deal with this aspect, which I have described in "An Analysis of Tamil Racism in Sri Lanka".
(To be continued)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
 Pandukabhaya was able to unite all the gothras except the gothra of Vyadha o...){kind=link}
Post a Comment