Right to sovereignty

| by Nalin de Silva

( August 13, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In Sri Lanka there are so many rights groups very often, if not always, financed by the western countries led by the US and England, though funds may be directed through other nations in the west. These groups are interested in various issues such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to demonstrate on certain issues, right to protect the human rights, the rights of the minorities, but never in the right to sovereignty. It is almost a tautology that these groups would not be in interested in right to sovereignty and the western countries would not finance any group to stand for right to sovereignty. They who pretend to have secular states with the aid of so-called intellectuals in those countries who make stories (so-called theories) on ‘secular states’, would go to town demanding that the other countries separate religion from the state, when not only their states but even knowledge is linked with a culture based on a religion. The imitators in Sri Lanka and other countries such as ours, who obtain their qualifications from the western universities and other institutes in the West as well in other countries that disseminate Christian knowledge, and who cannot think, would only repeat what their masters create as knowledge.

The west is only interested in maintaining the hegemony of western Judaic Christian culture, and uses its education (and media) to attain their objective. They would undermine even the limited sovereignty of their former colonial countries, and all their policies whether cultural, economic or political are formulated with that objective in mind. In Sri Lanka the western countries would finance only the organisations that work against the sovereignty of the country. The colonial policies have taken a different format but in essence they have not changed. It is not neocolonialism in operation as stated by western ‘intellectuals’ and repeated by our imitators but nothing other than colonialism.

The western countries were behind the so-called peace negotiations. The peace lovers, whether Buddhists or not, who claim now that they are happy that the LTTE was defeated militarily may be telling the truth. However, at the time of the humanitarian operations they were against any type of military involvement and wanted peace talks to continue. If the peace talks continued and succeeded what would have happened? The 13th amendment that was forced on us by Rajiv Gandhi, and not by BJP, would have paved the way for Eelam, undermining our limited sovereignty. The peace lovers were effectively campaigning to undermine our limited sovereignty and it was essentially the Sinhala organisations, especially the Buddhist organisations that wanted the LTTE to be defeated militarily without getting involved in bogus peace talks. However, it is unfortunate that none of us in the Jathika Vyaparaya (Nationalist Movement) wanted the government to abolish the 13th amendment soon after the Nandikadal victory. It is pointless blaming the government for not doing so then as the Jathika Vyaparaya itself was basking in the glory of the victory without planning for the future.

In any event the pundits would say that sovereignty itself is a western concept and without the concept we would not have been able to talk of even limited sovereignty. Sovereignty as a concept in that form would not have been there in the time of Vijayabahu or Mayadunne. However, throughout history the Sinhala people had fought against foreign invasions of Chola Cholas, Kalinga Maghas, Portuguese and other Europeans and are now fighting against the west led by the US and England.

As we have said often the western governmental organisations (WGOs) are fighting on behalf of the western countries to undermine the limited sovereignty that the country enjoys. Though the west was forced to give limited political independence to Asian and African countries in the forties and sixties respectively, they did not give up control of these countries economically, politically and culturally. The WGOs were established by the west in the sixties in order to propagate western ideology in the Asian and African countries, not satisfied with the instruments they already had. If scrutinised one would see that these organisations are working against the limited sovereignty of the Asian and African countries.

Recently Ven. Galaboda Atte Gnasara Thera, who has earned the wrath of the non Buddhists as well as some enlightened Buddhists, made a very important observation. He said that Buddhists were poor and nobody would give any aid to Buddhist organisation. There may be some WGOs that preach Buddhist values but in essence they work against the limited sovereignty of the country. One of the oldest WGOs in the country fits into this category and at one time the Head of this particular WGO had aspirations of becoming the President of the country! The western countries probably thought that a person clad in white national dress would be able to fool the Sinhala Buddhists. There are allegations that the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) itself is financed by the west and if that is the case then Sena is also working against the limited sovereignty of the country. However, it has not yet been established that BBS is financed by a western country.

In any event what is important is to note that the west would never assist any Sinhala organisation that is fighting for the right to sovereignty. The most important right is the right to sovereignty and it is the very right neglected by the western countries as far as the Asian and African countries are concerned. Two embassies have issued notices to expatriates to be watchful of anti western sentiments emerging in Sri Lanka.

The Deans Road episode is understood by the majority of Buddhists as an exercise against the right to sovereignty and the Bhikkus who have fought for independence of the country at least since the time Mahavamsa was written know when to stand for right to sovereignty. If the action of the Bhikkus is seen as disruption of freedom to assemble etc., then there is a section of the Sinhala people, especially Buddhists who would argue that the assembly was nothing but an attempt to undermine the limited sovereignty of the country and that they had the right to go there and express their opposition to the gathering that included officials from embassies. What right these officers have to join hands with the WGOs against the limited sovereignty of the country? In fact it could be said that it was the embassies that were employing the WGOs to work against the limited sovereignty of the country. Navi Pillai committee is supposed to be a committee of UN and not of any western country, and there was no necessity for representatives of embassies to be present at the Deans road episode. In fact, even the representatives of the UN should not have been there let alone representatives of some western countries.

The Sinhala people in the country are not anti western per se but they are anti-colonialist. If the western countries continue to follow colonial policies there is no alternative for the majority of the Sinhala people who could not be brainwashed by the western education but to identify the west with colonialism and be anti western in the process of being anti colonialist.