| by Raashid Riza
Buddhist extremism has been on the
rise in Sri Lanka. The way that Sri Lankan Muslims react in politically
difficult times such as these will determine how they are perceived in the
future.
( October 4, 2012, London,
Sri Lanka Guardian) The last few months have seen a rapid increase in
anti-Muslim sentiment amongst sections of the political class in Sri Lankan
society. The situation has yet to deteriorate to the extent that the default
image of a Sri Lankan Muslim is one represented by an anti- Sri Lankan or
anti-Buddhist element. But the trend that is developing is truly alarming and
surely points towards such an inaccurate mental image.
The rise of extremist
Buddhists in Sri Lanka is truly disturbing and does not bode well to the sense
of national resilience that the government is trying to foster, at least in its
rhetoric.
There is to be a protest march in
Colombo today that is supposedly against ‘Islamic Extremism’. The leaflet
however, unable to find tangible examples of Islamic extremism in Sri Lanka,
instead highlights international examples. The leaflet was first tweeted by Groundviews and was then picked up by other bloggers. The
language used in the leaflet is particularly confrontational and is written in
jargon generously peppered with phrases such as ‘enough of being silent’ as a
precursor to the more confrontational language that follows.
The leaflet speaks of
numerous instances where it alleges that Islamic extremism has acted
malevolently towards Buddhists and Buddhist holy sites in many parts of world,
including in Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan and even the eastern parts of Sri
Lanka. The leaflet is clearly designed to fuel the ignorance of the apolitical
(usually innocent) Buddhists against the Muslims and is therefore composed of
materials that are innate historical inaccuracies at best and factually vacuous
at worst. It specifically refers to the recent incidents in the south of Bangladesh where there
have been attacks on Buddhists by groups of Muslims. Of course nowhere is the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims by Buddhist
extremists in adjacent Burma mentioned.
The last paragraph of this
leaflet quite explicitly states something on the lines of; it is time to show
that this (Sri Lanka) is a Buddhist country by word and
deed; many have forgotten that this is a Buddhist country, this notion should
be reawakened. Extremists should be struck down as they flee. When cruel
Islamic extremists prey on other innocent Buddhists, and when the entire world
remains silent in the wake of it, it is time that we reawaken our race (Sinhala
Buddhists) to respond to this.
The implications of the
call to “reawaken” invoked in this context is particularly disturbing.
Sri Lankan Muslims have
absolutely nothing to do with the alleged crimes against Buddhists or Buddhist
interests in Bangladesh. Similarly Sri Lankan Sinhalese and Buddhists have
absolutely nothing to do with the heinous crimes committed against the Muslims
of Burma. What these Buddhist extremists seek to achieve for the alleged
benefit of their Buddhist compatriots abroad remains to be seen. For Buddhists
who feel that they are persecuted in other parts of the world, this exercise by
minute sections of the Sri Lankan Buddhist community will be futile. Surely the
Buddhist leadership in Sri Lanka is intelligent enough to grasp this fact. What
exactly then does this exercise seek to achieve?
The result of these sorts
of protests (yes, plural, this is to be one of a series of protests) are
multiple.
Sinhala – Muslim relations
have always been cordial and strong. The current generation of Sri Lankans
cannot easily be buoyed into buying an argument that Sri Lankan Muslims are a
bane on the nation’s social fabric. Buddhism as a faith has thus far survived
the vulture-esque assault by sections of a largely secular media that paints
most religious faiths as violent, something that protests such as these
threaten to undo. Moreover, Sri Lanka is rebuilding itself as a nation after
decades of conflict that not only curtailed and stunted growth but also damaged
it. Creating an environment that will marginalise Muslims can sow the seeds of
future conflict.
Yesterday, the All Ceylon
Jamiyathul Ulema (ACJU), the main decision-making theological body for Sri
Lankan Muslims, released a media communiqué condemning the attacks on Bangladeshi
Buddhists. The wisdom of releasing this communiqué is certainly questionable.
Whether the ACJU has released statements for similar causes previously is
anybody’s guess. There is no doubt that the body acted in the best interests of
Sri Lankan Muslims and of Sri Lanka as a whole. Yet the timing or indeed
decision to make such an overture seems hasty.
The despicable acts on
Bangladeshi Buddhists have absolutely nothing to do with Sri Lankan Muslims.
However, such a press release can create the impression amongst wider Sri
Lankans of a sense of guilt amongst Sri Lankan Muslims when there is none due
to there being no grounds for guilt. Additionally, the release of such a
statement can institutionalise the necessity to release communiqués almost
every time a Buddhist place of worship is attacked anywhere in the World,
thereby creating an undue burden of responsibility.
Elie Appelbaum of the York
University in her research paper Extremism as a Strategic Tool
in Conflicts argues –
“as a country becomes
wealthier, more powerful, or more democratic, its level of extremism decreases,
but at the same time, its rival’s level of extremism increases. Similarly,
higher stakes in the conflict tend to increase the level of extremism in the
relatively poorer, weaker, and less democratic country, but decrease the level
of extremism in the other country. The countries can use extremism as a
strategic tool in the conflict. The use of extremism is a double-edged sword:
extremism provides a credible threat, but it also involves a risk. Similarly,
when the countries are sufficiently asymmetric, higher stakes in the conflict
tend to increase extremism in the country that is relatively poorer, weaker, or
less democratic.”
Now, replace the word
‘countries’ with ‘communities’ in the paragraph above, and see how it reads.
The roots of extremism rest in vested interests of various interest groups as
much as it does on the absence of law & order and the socio-economic state
of the parties in conflict. The Sri Lankan economy at the grassroots is in
turmoil and the Sinhalese community, as the larger ethnic group, is the most
affected. An economically weak nation with near bankrupt sections of the public
can foster groups that are represented by intellectually bankrupt individuals
who posture as leaders at a local or national level patriotism for their ends.
As Samuel Johnson wrote, “Patriotism is the last refuge of
the scoundrel”. One only need observe a group of scoundrels against a group of
self-confessed patriots to realise that there is too often much in common.
The 1915 riots are commonly
known as the ‘Sinhala – Muslim’ riots, not by the name of individuals. The way
in which the Sri Lankan Muslims react now will determine how history will
testify for or against them. In the future, no matter what the political
situation in Sri Lanka, the Muslim community will continue to exist in every
strata of society.
Muslims in Sri Lanka are
living in politically perilous times; they reside amongst a largely
accommodative Sinhalese and Tamil population, apart from the odd elements that
opportunistically seeks to whip up racial tensions. In the short term the
Muslims should act prudently and actively within the framework of Sri Lankan
law. They would do well to deal indifferently towards bankrupt extremism and
not dignify it by seeking to confront it, except with a pragmatism that
respects legal and constitutional norms. In the long term they should be
conscious that Sri Lankan Muslims are more tangible as a constituent element of
Sri Lankan nationhood than a transient Buddhist extremism. The latter not only misrepresents Sri
Lankan Buddhists at large but is against a unified vision of Sri Lankan
nationhood. - The Platform
