[Editors note: Sanjay Senanayake in a comment below raises a number of concerns regarding inflammatory statements made by Rev. Dambara Amila Thero in the past, which invariably inform the appreciation of the interview below. Sanjay also alleges that the thero had in the past assaulted journalists from Young Asia Television, which produced this video. We have asked them for a response.]

When first put online by Young Asia Television after it was broadcast on Sri Lankan TV, Groundviews requested the producers to sub-title this video in English to make more widely accessible what Rev. Dambara Amila Thero has to say about the practice of the Dhamma in Sri Lanka today, his views on political Buddhism and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka.

What he says is particularly important and resonant in light of the outrageous violence spearheaded by the Chief Prelate of the Dambulla temple a few weeks ago.

This interview is essential viewing for those who expressed their condemnation over the violence in Dambulla, and refreshing take on the Dhamma over what is today the popular fashion of publicly worshipping the Buddha to bestow blessings on even the most heinous of deeds and men. At around 18 minutes into the interview, Rev. Dambara Amila Thero also supports religious co-existence and comes out strongly against religious extremism – noting that anyone who is such, is not really a Buddhist.

• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero
• The middle finger to the middle-path in Sri Lanka
• The transformation of Buddhism in Sri Lanka
• Photo essay: Freedom, Religion, and Dambulla

Poster for the film Oh My God

I was born into a Malay family, where religion never seemed to play an important role. Most of the women in my family hardly covered their heads and the men usually consumed alcohol at every family gathering. There were a few who were staunch believers and prayed five times a day; some of them even covered their heads. But this was a rare instance and most often, it was looked upon as an act of extremism.

Growing up, religion was never imposed on me. Unlike most Muslim children I knew at the time, my parents never forced me to pray, never pressured me to cover or refrained me from doing things that were usually frowned upon in Islam. They did, however, teach me some aspects of Islam. I was taught the Kalimas, the six articles of Islamic faith, the stories of Prophet Muhammad, of Adam and Eve, and of Jesus. I was taught to be scared of the fiery depths of hell, to be aware of the wrongful path of non-believers and to believe that they were all doomed to Hell. I was told to not have doubts about God, to not question his will because it was a sin to do so.

At the age of 14, I transferred from a government school to an all-girls private Muslim school, where I was exposed to stringent Islamic beliefs. I was taught how to read and write Arabic, how to recite the Holy Quran and how to pray and worship God. I saw that teachers were using fear as a technique to help children stay away from what was deemed evil. I learned that the things I thought were acceptable were no longer right, yet I still watched movies, listened to music, and celebrated birthdays. I still drew figures with eyes, and collected photos for family albums. I experienced the stigma of being a “Modern Muslim”, a “Hypocrite”, a “Malay” in the midst of those who followed the words of the Quran. I listened to the stories of my friends, stories that echoed their difficulties in having heart-to-heart conversations with their parents or their inability to go out without adult supervision. I felt their resignation to their already-planned future and I remember the ominous sound of their acceptance ringing in my ears. I heard of the 14-year old girl who got engaged, about the 18-year old who got married, about the 20-year old who already had two children. Throughout all this, I hardly prayed, yet I still believed.

It became clear that there were two types of Islam being practiced. One considered to be the right path by the majority, the religious and the pious – those who stayed away from alcohol, who prayed five times a day and who covered – yet were victims of basic human errors, of lying, of slander, of selfishness and of greed. The other were moderate followers, who believed in the same – in God, in Heaven and Hell, in the Prophets, in marriage to your own kind – yet rarely covered, or prayed, or abstained from temptations. I saw the pious looking down upon the moderates, while the moderates looked down upon them.

Later when I grew older, I was given the freedom to make certain decisions for myself. I was then told that when the time came, I had to marry a Malay. “It is a sin to marry non-Muslims”, she said, “But the moors are too religious. They will not get along with our family. A Malay.. You need to get married to a Malay”. She did not need to say what would happen if I said no, if I by some chance married an outsider. It was a silent acknowledgment and I knew, I knew that I would lose her if I disobeyed her wishes.

Then, the day came when I had to go off to work and suddenly, the world was not black and white anymore. Perhaps it was the non-Muslim environment, or maybe a part-and-parcel of growing up, but suddenly I felt the need to question God. What is the purpose of life? I remember the confusion, the unanswered questions, the countless hours of research. Shouldn’t religion give us the answers we seek? Or maybe my teachers were right, maybe if you analyze Islam too much, you might find yourself going astray? I tried to stop myself from letting my thoughts wander, to ignore the incessant questions in my mind but with each day, the need to find answers became stronger.

I looked around and saw the Muslim world suffering – the innocents in the Middle East, the terrorists fighting in the name of God and the image of Islam tainted and I could not understand why there was no divine intervention. It seemed convenient for God to simply let us be after the death of the last Prophet, after years of guiding humanity since the beginning of time. Are we not worthy? Are we not your creation too? If you are so humble and modest, why is that our lives/actions are judged according to how much we worship you? Why put us in this world to test our devotion to you? Do our lives, the hardships, the victories, the people we love, the people you made mean nothing but a twisted game to show Satan that humans still follow what you have to say?

I suddenly could not understand why it was forbidden to fall in love with another who believed in something different. Why is it that we were to think we are much better than the non-believers? I have spoken to them, laughed with them, confided in them, shared my food with them and worked along with them. They do not seem bad at all. In fact, they were friendly, compassionate and engaging – just like us. The more I spent time with them, the more I felt the barrier between non-believers and myself begin to blur. I no longer saw them as Buddhist, Tamils, Moors or Christians – I saw them as individuals. There were no preconditioned thoughts anymore and I no longer saw any reason to judge anyone, or look down at anyone who was in a relationship with a person of another faith.

Soon, I found myself no longer understanding Islam. In fact, I no longer understood religion. It seemed pointless – the conflicts, the arguments, the wars – which at the end of the day was one person’s view of making sense of the world over another’s.

Yet, I understand the need for religion in our society. Although, I believe that the religion we see today is a system of man-made beliefs, I realize that religion serves as a moral compass and limits us from committing certain acts, thereby establishing social order. I understand that the world is a scary place and that looking up to God in times of hardship helps. I also know that death is frightening, and believing that everything you go through in this world will pay off after-death is comforting. I know that sharing the same beliefs with another brings about a deep connection, along with an identity and sense of belonging. I see that in this complex world, finding  meaning to your existence, a reason to live and a sense of purpose helps you get up every day. It makes people do good deeds, help those in need, to be selfless, to be kind, to accept one another and to be just.

But somewhere along the way, these harmless, good, and necessary elements of religion seems to have been forgotten. All I see now is conflict. I see people of a faith claiming to be far more superior than others. I see men oppressing women, women/men oppressing children, and children oppressing children of other faiths. I see men being killed and violence being carried out – all in the name of religion. I hear stories of couples eloping, their love for another rejected by their families, of children who think twice to confide in their parents in fear of being rebuffed and of homosexuals cowering in fear and committing suicide when society condemns them – all due to religious beliefs.

It is clear that rationality has become the enemy of organized religion, a force which drives wedges between people. It creates a mentality of “us vs them”, which refrains an individual from befriending others – breeding distance, suspicion and distrust – which leads to conflict, confrontation and warfare. It promotes the notion of “group thinking”, discourages individuality, encourages conformity and looks to “magical” answers rather than relying on science/technology. It fixates on storied past events, through which it derives social mores and beliefs – as if our understanding of the world has not expanded since then. It presumes that knowledge is static, and opposes anything that differs because it leads people away from God. It glorifies the concept of submissiveness, and advocates gullibility to believe on faith alone, regardless of seeking evidence.

Here’s what I think. I think, we need to start thinking rationally and question what we believe in. Its 2012, we have witnessed, learned, touched and experienced so much more (things deemed unimaginable a century ago) than those who compiled the holy books, who knew so little of the world, who probably would have come up with illogical reasonings to explain things that were beyond their comprehension. We need to take the good out of religion – its core values of peace, unity, tolerance, love, acceptance, selflessness, generosity, kindness and modesty and keep the bad out -  superstition, sexism, racism, extremism, homophobia and violence. We are all given a rational mind and its time to be open-minded, to think objectively and critically about things that matter and about things that affect our families, our communities, our society and our country.

• The Agnostics vs. The Believers regarding karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism being real aspects of this world
• The moderate Muslim: An endangered species?
• Osama, Prabhakaran and Me
• Interview with Ameena Hussein
• The Fear of Peace

Image courtesy Reuters

Two  Veask Poyas  have come and gone and three years  have  sped by since May 2009 when the prolonged war with the LTTE ended. And we Sri Lankans are yet trapped in post-war rhetoric and caught up in punches and counter-punches arising from different visions of what post-war Sri Lanka ought to be.  Debates on who is a patriot/nationalist and who is a traitor have raged. Some Sri Lankans, sadly, have  tended to the viewpoint that saving face is more important than national  self-preservation  and self-respect.  Is   one  who has a honest disagreement with the government in office, no matter how different and opposed to that of the establishment point of view his/her opinion may be, actually a traitor? No fair-minded Sri Lankan will think so. Conversely any citizen who uncritically agrees with everything the establishment says or does  is not ipso facto a patriot or a sensible nationalist.  Happily  most  Sri Lankans, not blinded by bigotry or misguided  by narrow political loyalties,  are fair-minded human beings.

We must not permit  propaganda from any quarter to colour our opinions. In all situations  where misperception and confusion seem to prevail,   and  seemingly powerful voices seek to fashion opinion and thereby lead us to indiscretion , we must fall back on our convictions and  the courage stemming from the latter to act independently.  To question dominant views, subject them to our intelligent scrutiny and then respond meaningfully to them is a duty we owe to our fellow-sufferers on life’s complex journey, as exhorted by the supreme human being whose birth, life and death we commemorate as we mark   another Vesak Poya  in a few days.

Way too many of us who subscribe to the tenets of Buddhist philosophy tend merely to pay lip service to them. If we truly believe in metta ,karuna  mudita and upekka,  the freedom of thought and enquiry as outlined in the  Kalama Sutta,  and above all for today’s purposes, the concept of equality  that Buddhism seeks to teach those of us willing and able to learn, then there is no basis whatsoever for the majority of Sri Lankans who are followers of the Buddha dhamma to behave the way we have done and are doing today. To be certain, the Buddha by means of his spiritual emphasis on equality, was opposing the iniquitous caste system and the social discrimination that prevailed in his time in India, but his teachings on equality of all human beings are  also equally applicable to discrimination on grounds of ethnicity. According to Buddhist philosophy then the rights of all human beings must be protected. No one community or group has special rights that others do not or cannot enjoy. All of us are afraid of punishment, moreso when such punishment is unjust and uncalled for.  Buddisht philosophy reminds us that this fear of unjust punishment stems from  our human determination to be free from dukka  during our samsarik existence:  Sabbetasanti  dandassa/ sabbe  bayanti  maccuno is how the dhamma explains this to us. The Sigalovada Sutta  similarly teaches us  to respect one another and points us in the direction of how to get on with our fellow citizens along life’s difficult journey towards nibbana.

It is my fervent hope that we Sri Lankans will begin from   2012 Vesak onwards to shed our irrational fears and animosities springing from inter- ethnic  or intra-ethnic differences and learn to live together in peace and harmony. We have gone through more than three decades of awful violence, deep pain and monumental tragedy. There is no Sri Lankan regardless of his or her ethnicity who has not been adversely affected one way or the other in the last several years. Some who are yet not aware what exactly has happened to certain of their loved ones who have disappeared continue to suffer even today long after the guns have fallen silent. Anger at what has happened is the emotion that comes easily to us and we must avoid this negative emotion at all costs. Samyutta Nikya (SN 1.71) reminds us that anger is the only thing that is good to kill and in verses 3.14 and 3.15 it notes that in war, there is no winning side. All who participate in war ultimately end up as losers.  Additionally  in the Dighavu-kumara Vatthu: The Story of Prince Dighavu (Mahavagga 10.2, 3-20 PTS: Horner  vol 4, pp.489- 498) we are told that only forbearance, never revenge, can bring an end to war.

Instead of creating fresh wounds in our fractured community, we must hasten to build bridges of human understanding in addition to building those urgently needed bridges to speedy economic development. Both building projects must go hand in hand as they are not mutually exclusive. Sri Lanka cannot hope to achieve economic prosperity without social contentment. One is reminded in this regard of Bhutan’s concept of   the Gross National Happiness Index(GNHI).  The fact that we may have more money in our pockets will not make us content. We will be nearer  contentment  when all of us citizens are made to feel we have a stake in our country regardless of our ethnicity and our social status, no matter how far we may be from the centre of political power. The fact that some citizens are not in agreement with our political masters of the day should not be a reason to label them as traitors and be made guilty of treason. It is when we are made free of the tentacles of the ‘national security state’ that Sri Lanka has slowly evolved into in the last four decades or so that we will begin to feel secure in our own country once more. The freedom to think and act responsibly without fear of unjust reprisals from the state or its law enforcement agencies will also contribute handsomely to the promotion of the kind of contentment referred to above.

And above all, we must mark the anniversary of the third year of the end of the war that falls on the 18^th of May by  re-doubling our efforts at achieving lasting peace and true reconciliation in Sri Lanka. I suggest that we do away with the ostentatious military parades and exhibitions  that are usually held at this time of year. They smack of triumphalism and seek to  divide us further rather than unite us. By all means, let us bear in mind lessons learnt and not forget what damage violent extra-parliamentary challenges can cause to democratically elected governments and the state in general. But to forgive those that have harmed us,  whether they  hail  from the north or south, and whether they are Tamil or Sinhala, is essential. As the old saying has it, to err is human, forgive divine.  Such forgiveness ideally ought to be accompanied by multi-religious observances and commemoration of the dead regardless of the fact that they died attacking or defending the state. It is our fellow citizens who died on either side of the conflict, not outside invaders. By our collective (politico-moral) sins of commission and omission, we caused the southern and northern insurgencies to materialise. Hence all of us are culpable for the violence and mayhem that have recently taken us and our country away from our true character and nature. It would be perfect if the President and the government take the lead in this regard and set the rest of the country an example. Let the 18^th of May, 2012 mark a new beginning for our battered state. We may be assailed on many a front, but through the demonstration of our true national resilience based on our wonderful religio-cultural values, let us prove that while we may be down we are far from out. We have it in ourselves to resurrect, resuscitate and revitalize our country.

The battle for peace and reconciliation must be fought and won in and though the hearts and minds of the people of Sri Lanka, Tamil, Muslim, Malay, Burgher and Sinhala. Let us discard all false   labels that, at the end of the day, do not hold any meaning. Let us stop squandering   our national energies on frivolous debates on traitors and patriots. Let us cease shooting our  messengers  and instead seek to heed their messages. Let us not seek to make enemies of our friends the world over and instead extend our hand of friendship to them once again as we have traditionally done. A Sri Lankan welcome is something   visitors to our shores treasure forever. A few days ago, I bumped into a British couple at a bookshop who told me that this was the 21^st year running that they have visited Sri Lanka and how much they love the island.  And, this expression of appreciation for our island home  is by no means an isolated phenomenon. A significant number of Sri Lanka’s admirers  feel the same way. There is much goodwill out there which could so easily be harnessed for our collective well being. There are thus very good and cogent reasons why we should think anew as the Veask Poya of 2012 dawns on us. We should endeavour  to marshal our thoughts and energies along these reasons, avoid the dangers emanating from the extreme diasporic Tamils and ultra-nationalists alike at home and engage with Sri Lanka’s moderate middle to achieve a national renaissance that will carry us into the kind of future Sri Lanka and all Sri Lankans deserve.

• Discrimination in Law college entrance?
• Vesak and Violence Against Women
• How high is our Social Esteem in Sri Lanka?
• A Matter of faith
• Cutting off telecoms in Sri Lanka redux…

Original photograph REUTERS/Damir Sagolj

It is always a curious and odd little matter, to witness how even Buddhists become so obsessively attached to ‘sacred’ lands and in protecting them, commit acts seemingly prompted by hatred, delusion and ill-will.

Ideally, lands should not become ‘sacred’ for simple reasons. The Buddha, in attacking the rigid and unethical caste-system during his time, placed great stress on the importance of deeds or action. That was why it was said (in the Vasala sutta) that one did not become a Brahman (or an outcast) by birth, but by deed. That wonderful message ought to have taught us a very valuable lesson, which, to rephrase the Buddha, could be stated as follows: that a land becomes a ‘sacred’ (or Buddhist) land not by anything else but only by the words and deeds of those inhabiting that land. Even a place of religious worship would lose its sacredness if, in the guise of religion, all manner of nefarious activities are carried out therein. In such cases, your virtuous neighbour’s backyard becomes more sacred than the ‘sacred’ land or place of worship.

However, these are not ideal times and ideal societies. Laws and regulations can be enacted empowering ministers and other officials to declare a particular territorial area a sacred land. And of course, this is not a practice limited to Buddhists alone. But when mob violence is seen to be propagated, as was done in Dambulla on the 20th of April – when a number of Buddhist monks and laymen stormed a mosque in Dambulla and demanded the dismantling of that mosque – we know, very well, that something is not quite right; not only in the ‘sacred’ land of Dambulla, but also in this supposedly Buddhist-country.

Dambulla mob attack: some concerns

The immediate concerns arising from the unfortunate vulgarity exhibited by some Buddhist monks and their lay followers have been already highlighted. In what was said by some of the protesting monks, there are the obvious traces of violence, racism, religious extremism and that burning desire, if necessary, to cleanse the territory concerned of the ‘other’ (the ‘other’, in this case, being the follower of the Islamic religion). How this plays out politically – domestically and internationally, both against the country and against Buddhism – is easy to understand.

But there are other concerns too.

Firstly, the demeanour of such monks – who seem to be going against some of the fundamental precepts of the Dhamma, one being indriya samvara sila (morality concerning sense-restraint), which is one form of sila or morality a monk (a bhikkhu) is expected to follow – contributes greatly to the doubt and skepticism that is generated in the minds of the lay Buddhist follower today. The sangha community (or the community of Buddhist monks) has been traditionally, and principally, looked upon as a community which guides the layman in the path of the Dhamma and morality.

And given that it is the members of this community who ultimately preach and propagate the Dhamma and since they play the principal role of the ‘guardian’ of the Dhamma in the eyes of the ordinary layman (even though the politician is seen to be playing this role too), acts as were witnessed in Dambulla can have the obvious and natural effect of generating a great sense of doubt (vicikiccha) about, and ill-will (vyapada) towards all aspects concerning Buddhism, its fundamental teachings, the community of monks, etc. Doubt and ill-will are factors hindering the path to emancipation. Doubt, of course, can be eradicated through, for example, the knowledge of the Dhamma, confidence, discussion and questioning. But the question is: can a community of monks (of the Dambulla-type) be of any assistance to the layman in this regard when what one witnesses is a community of monks engaged even in, inter alia, ‘animism’? (as Dr. Laksiri Fernando put it, in ‘The government must apologize to the Muslim community’, The Island, 30 April 2012).

Secondly, viewed from a critical legal perspective, the Dambulla incident throws up significant questions about the turn to law, by which I mean a turn towards the laws contained in statutes, ordinances and the like to resolve the Dambulla-incident. Now, resolving a dispute through the law is acceptable and if all parties agree to respect the verdict, the legal-approach naturally turns into a useful mode of dispute resolution. It will soften tensions, calm your nerves.

But this legal-turn has its weaknesses too. By reducing this entire problem to a simple legal dispute, which the law books and laws will now resolve and one which then will be left in the hands of lawyers and judges, the legal profession can also act as a smokescreen which hides or shoves under the carpet some of the underlying moral and ethical concerns relating to the Dambulla-incident. The legal profession, under these circumstances, becomes a profession of irresponsibility, if some provision or the other decides the fate of the entire controversy. Laws, law books and judgments are (as we know) towards which fingers are pointed as a convenient excuse to evade moral responsibility for one’s words and actions: ‘Look, it is not my fault; it is that law, that judgment, which says so.’ Such legal formalism hinders political discussion and the resolution of political or other social problems and controversies through greater public participation and debate. The root causes go unaddressed, and they erupt in numerous other forms and manifestations elsewhere, some other day. And one such problem that law courts don’t discuss is one which is fundamental to the recent controversy: ‘political-Buddhism’.

Buddha and the fundamental problem of ‘political-Buddhism’

The Buddha, undoubtedly, is the most influential and admirable philosophical teacher I have come across.

And, I do not view the Buddha very simply as one who had nice things to say about non-violence, peace and harmony, or as an extraordinary person who, from birth to death, carried out fantastic and unbelievable acts.

But also, thanks to the excellent work of numerous Buddhist scholars (ranging from the likes of Ven. Walpola Rahula to Prof KN Jayatillaka, but more importantly, scholars such as Prof. David J. Kalupahana, et al.) I read the Buddha more as: a philosopher who, unlike any other, stressed the importance of understanding the concept of radical impermanence which runs through all our activities and lives (a concept which is far more complex than what is narrowly and inaccurately defined as one which means that ‘all things that are born end in death’); a critic who went against the traditions of his time and valued critical reflection and inquiry at all possible times (e.g. the Kalama sutta; also note the advice given to millionaire Upali when the latter expressed willingness to follow the Buddha: ‘Of a truth, Upali, make a thorough investigation’); a brilliant social reformer who made timely use of ideas and concepts that ordinary men and women believed in, to introduce the notion of morality as a counter response to the dangerous nihilism promoted during that time by the likes of Ajita Kesakambali (e.g. the Buddha’s deft use of the concept of ‘god’ to narrate the different destinies confronting human beings, stressed in a way that makes ordinary people believe in that concept and thereby are inevitably influenced to do good to reach the world of gods, devaloka); a master linguist who developed words to bring out the nuances of meaning which were not captured in the language during his time and which still baffle the traditional Eastern and Western mind (e.g. the coining of the term paccuppanna meaning ‘arisen with a background’, which expresses the meaning that the present is conditioned by the immediate past; which was in contrast to the strict manner in which ‘time’ was categorized during the Buddha’s day as belonging to the past, present and future, a categorization which did not make allowance for the complex and nuanced connection of the past and present, for instance); and a teacher who employed similes which had an extremely sarcastic bite, to drive home a point which could be somewhat discomforting to a traditional, conservative, mind (e.g. in explaining the futility of praying for salvation and the end of suffering, the Buddha tells Vasettha that such praying is similar in effect to a man who, having approached the river desiring to get to the other bank, calls out: ‘Come here, other bank, come here!’).

But how, one may wonder, could this noble message of a profound philosophical teacher go so wrong in the hands of those preaching that teaching? The seeds lie in the very notion that the Buddha had advised his followers to be extremely mindful of: excessive attachment. From that springs all problems, and when that clashes with other ulterior objectives and motives of various groups (reasons pertaining to history, tradition, race, ethnicity, nationhood, politics, culture, ideology, etc.), Buddhism ends up being another tool in the hands of the politically-motivated. Promoting Buddhism becomes political, and in the process, Buddhism ends up being another political language.

Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the practice of preserving and promoting Buddhism. In fact, Buddhism should definitely be protected and promoted. What is problematic here, however, is the way in which it has been promoted and is sought to be promoted and preserved. The noble teaching of the Buddha becomes a problematic form of political-Buddhism when under the guise of promoting the teaching, various other ethnic, political and similar agendas begin to be nurtured and promoted to the detriment of those believing and following different other teachings or religions [This is perhaps the significant problem shared by those following Christianity and Islam, in particular. While all these teachings and religions are a great source of inspiration to the individual, they become extremely problematic when brought into the public realm of politics and governance where people respond differently to different teachings and faiths].

And more seriously, it is very easy and convenient for bigoted and narrow-minded followers with ulterior political motives to intentionally misinterpret and misunderstand the teachings if necessary. To take one example: in the case of Buddhism, it was once the late Ven. Soma Thero (a priest I admired, but critically) who pointed out that getting hold of the wrong end of the Dhamma could cause unimaginable disaster. For instance, wrongly interpreting the meaning of impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and no-self (anatma) could end up in promoting violence and terrorism – because if everything is impermanent, suffering and without a ‘self’, then causing harm to anyone doesn’t mean much! So, one can imagine how dangerous even these fundamental notions of Buddhism can become in the hands of those who are more interested in politicizing Buddhism.

Responding to Dambulla’s ugly political-Buddhism

It is another version of this kind of political-Buddhism that we witnessed in Dambulla, in the face of which the question arises over and over again: how should one respond to such acts and events? Three broad responses have come to be suggested during recent times. One, the need for a government-apology; two, secularism; three, citizen-initiatives condemning the acts as being not committed in their name.

One: the suggestion has been made that the government needs to apologize for what happened (as usefully made by Dr. Laksiri Fernando, et al). This argument, in general terms, lays much of the blame squarely on the government for being responsible for creating the conditions for inter-religious disharmony. A different version of this ‘government-is-the-culprit’ form of argument has been also raised by those who would not agree with some of the views expressed by the above mentioned authors. So, for instance, even Janaka Perera usefully points out that the real culprits for the present crisis are successive governments and that in the present case, the “ball is now in the government’s court” (Janaka Perera, ‘Dambulla Crisis: Who are the Real Culprits’ in Sinhale Hot News, 3 May 2012).

The suggestion, in principle, is a very valuable one. As regards the Dambulla incident, certain reports suggest that a politician is behind the instigation of the mob-attack; and if so, the government definitely should apologize. But, over-stressing the need of this demand for an apology from the government has the (unintended, but at times even intended) consequence of shifting the blame away from others who ought to be held equally responsible. The government becomes the main culprit, sometimes the only culprit, whereas others go unchecked.

Two: the above form of critique of political-Buddhism and the politicization of any religion leads to the famous argument which demands for a secular state and secular constitution. It makes perfect logic to demand so, and in principle, is a demand that one who is seriously concerned about inter-religious harmony cannot easily dismiss. But one of the nagging problems concerning the demand for secularism (through legal and constitutional means in particular) is that it often has the effect of reducing a complex problem (concerning religion) to a matter that can be addressed through law. Principally, ‘secularism’, when viewed as a term representing a particular mindset, is an immensely difficult destination to reach.

Generally, it calls for: an entire rethinking of the place of religion in life and society, its role in the matter of politics and governance, to what extent religion should be a guide in such matters, and more fundamentally, about how education of religion should be conducted from school-level upwards, etc. In the case of Sri Lanka to argue, for example, that Article 9 of the Constitution is what leads to religious fundamentalism is based on the inaccurate assumption that taking away the provision leads to a better, harmonious and peaceful society. And for the secular argument to be accepted by a majority of the people, it cannot be seen to be made by those who are rabid opponents of Buddhism and Buddhists; which, in other words, calls for a politics of persuasion which has to be undertaken from within.

Three: one of the prominent initiatives undertaken by citizens nowadays, given the advancement of information technology, is the mode of online-petitions. A very useful and important recent initiative concerning the Dambulla mob attack was undertaken in the form of a petition titled ‘Not in our name’ (see http://notinournamesl.wordpress.com). It is yet another important way of expressing the thought that the kind of violence witnessed in Dambulla is not acceptable, is condemned, and is not undertaken in our name. This is, to reiterate, not only an immensely useful form of public protest but also one which has today gained much support. It has, most usefully, generated greater awareness of the incident.

However, what is hoped in the case of such forms of protest is that one is not deluded into imagining that this form of protest could be very effective at the end of the day. While supporting such initiatives, one still needs to be quite skeptical about them. Firstly, it just could be the case that it is precisely this form of protest (online-petitions, etc) that those who instigate and promote religious extremism are comfortable with. And in a sense, the very form of online-protest carries the image of our helplessness in the face of such violence and extremism. Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, the problem with the ‘not-in-our-name’ kind of language is this: contrary to our imagination, the kind of mob attacks seen in Dambulla could be acts which are not carried out in our name in the first place. They may be acts carried out in the name of those who are anyway having very rigid and fixed views about the place of religion in politics. And given the polarization that exists in contemporary society (NGO – anti-NGO, peace activists-war mongers, anti-Buddhist – Sinhala-Buddhist, etc), it is generally understood that those who resort to such violence/silently approve of such violence (group A) and those who say such violence is not in their name (group B) are anyway not on the same page ideologically and politically. Politically, then, group B’s resistance in the present case doesn’t shock group A into adopting a markedly different attitude. In other words: group A has to be critiqued, first and foremost, from within.

Common inadequacy: where are the monks?

This then brings us to the principal question: who constitutes this group within group A? I believe this is none other than the sangha community: the community of Buddhist monks. In all of the above responses, what is essentially missing is the role of the Buddhist monk.

At the end of the day, it needs to be reiterated – not once, twice but a hundred times if necessary – that it is the community of Buddhist monks which can most effectively and significantly end this madness that is being carried out by some in the name of Buddhism. When Buddhist monks are seen to be acting in the way they did, no amount of criticism can prove effective unless those from within that community itself come forward and respond adequately. And it is this glaring absence of a critical response from the community of Buddhist monks which has been the most unfortunate absence in the overall responses that followed. It is this that all of us (especially those who are admirers of the Buddhist philosophy) must perhaps resolve to remind the monks, lay followers, and ourselves, whenever possible.

However, while not abandoning the forms of protest and critique so far adopted, it is also necessary to call for a further nuanced critique and also the adoption of a skeptical (not dismissive) approach to certain comforting arguments which are made concerning the matter of religious harmony in Sri Lanka. The two are inter-connected.

Firstly, the kind of critique necessary is not that which pins the blame entirely on a single monk: in this case, Ven Inamaluwe Sumangala. Rather, it has to be pointed out that this is a problem not limited to the attitude of Ven. Sumangala alone but could be shared by many others in the sangha community who not only directly support him but also do so indirectly, by maintaining a studied silence (and that too, in the name of ‘tolerance’!). Secondly, one needs to be somewhat more skeptical (but not dismissive) of the ‘reservoir of goodwill’ argument that we often raise (see Javed Yusuf, ‘Dambulla: A challenge for all communities’, The Sunday Times, 29 April, 2012). While one can broadly agree with the sentiment expressed, our continued reference to this sentiment could even have the indirect effect of making us utterly complacent and even irresponsible. A probing examination should remind us that while Dambulla-type incidents are somewhat rare, the Dambulla-type mindset may be a more prevalent and rooted one, given the silence of many in the ‘Buddhist-camp’.

In short, the critical intervention of monks in particular is quintessential if they are serious about protecting and preserving Buddhism (and not the grotesque and dangerous aspects of political Buddhism). This is their duty, their responsibility. And this critical intervention, to be sure, is not one which calls for the spewing of hatred and malice directed at monks by monks. Certainly not. As the monks would well know, one can condemn certain practices and policies without hatred or ill-will (ujjhana).

Therefore, before people cry out that Buddhism is too serious a problem to be left in the hands of the contemporary Buddhist monks, or that Buddhism should be protected not from politicians but from Buddhist monks, it is necessary for the monks to come out more openly and critically in expressing their views about the incidents, attitudes, policies and practices that the Dambulla-incident represents. This is also a vital task that critical Buddhist scholars (far more than laymen and women like us) should be mindful about.

Conclusion

It is the Vesak season, and one often remembers that moment which has traditionally been considered the most poignant in the story of the Buddha; the moment the Buddha passed away, the moment of parinirvana. There is great silence that envelops the moment. The Buddha, who is now physically weak, addresses the monks surrounding him and inquires whether there is any doubt in their minds about any aspect of the Dhamma. Venerable Ananda, who is deeply attached to the Buddha, musters up all courage in the face of the great and noble light that now flickers before him, and informs that he has confidence that there is not one bhikkhu gathered there with any doubt or problem. And yet, the Buddha, the ever-mindful, declares: “All conditioned states are impermanent. Strive on with diligence.”

But when witnessing the manner in which the words and teachings of the Buddha have been misused, I, perhaps like many others, tend to consider a different moment to have been the most poignant and moving in the entire life-time of the Buddha. That moment comes soon after the Buddha gains enlightenment, and just before Brahma Sahampathi invites the Buddha to preach the Dhamma.

In this moment, the Buddha, with great compassion, wonders (quite unexpectedly, to our minds) as to whether he should or should not go out into the world and preach the Dhamma. It is this moment, this picture of the contemplating Buddha, which captures that poignancy. For, it is a moment when the Buddha, now surveying the world, realizes that the decision to go out and preach the Dhamma contains enormous risks and challenges, that there are many in the world who have a lot of dust in their eyes, that they are deluded by wrong concepts, ideas and beliefs.

In other words, that moment contains the very fundamentals of the philosophy the Buddha thereafter preached: that element of radical impermanence; that blend of the good and the bad; the happiness and sadness that enwraps a single moment and event; the great opportunity that was before the Buddha on the one hand and the tremendous risks that very opportunity carried with it on the other; the incomparable message of freedom that now had to be spread, and the glaring possibility of a restriction of the freedom of others that very message of freedom, if improperly and wrongly understood, could bring to others.

It was perhaps a moment in which the Buddha saw hundreds of men and women cross the metaphorical river with the aid of the raft named the Dhamma and put an end to their suffering, while a thousand others failed, and failed miserably, and in the process, did all manner of things to the raft, the river and all around them. To strive on with diligence is what is required. And those words contain a very valuable lesson to the socially-engaged monk, in particular, who is genuinely and sincerely interested in preserving and promoting the noble teachings of the Buddha.

• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• The transformation of Buddhism in Sri Lanka
• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• Monks of War – Al-Jazeera on the JHU
• The Mind of Compassion: Buddhism and Violence

This Koran is tattered because Buddhist monks had been tearing the pages out of it. Asked if the monks had tried burning a Koran, I was told no – Caption and photograph by Navin Weeraratne

This is in response to the comments to my previous post – Dambulla Mosque Attack: Is there a hidden hand? At the time of writing this, there were nearly 50 comments displaying a variety of stands taken by commentators. The very positive ones are the ones seeking introspection invoking to put the Buddhist house in order to commensurate with their civilised principles and precepts. This identifies the remorseful feelings of the silent majority of the Buddhist who vehemently deplore the mosque attack as an uncivilized act whilst taking a principled stand on the miscarriage of justice by Senior Political leaders at the highest echelons, law enforcement authorities and other wheeler dealers. This is a positive sign indicating that that the majority are not chauvinistic but inclusive. Their comments were also testifying that on the other side, the extremists too are hijacking the silent majority in their name. This is evidently clear in the modus operandi employed where a mob assembled of hooligans from elsewhere is coordinated to cause trouble in Dambulla. Clear evidence of premeditated trouble making that surprised the people of Dambulla.

Peace loving people in this country should be alert to the machination of extremists who work in collusion with bankrupt politicians wishing to create religious, ethnic and other strife in society so that they can emerge as ethnic/religious saviours creating a new voter bank by taking advantage of an artificially created trouble.

Apart from these, there were also negative and irresponsible comments bordering on naivety and foolishness wishing to fish in troubled waters and sensitise the issue to cause more division in society by citing irrelevant and alien factors that has nothing to do with Dambulla. Drawing cues from these hints, the following negative trend settings are evident in the comments:

Failed State Phenomenon

There were complacent comments trying to disprove the emerging failed state phenomenon. The following are some of the distinct feature of failed state phenomenon as evidenced by this incident.

1. Failure of Law Enforcement: Failure of the executive to bring law and order. Dambulla attack is a result of premeditated plan to attack, illegal assembly, organised mob, assault on a public/community asset, taking law to their hands under the gaze of the police/army in broad daylight. Now it is almost two weeks, the violators are yet to be booked.
2. Failure of Justice: Rights, feelings and peace of the peaceful place (Dambulla) its community and the sanctity of the Mosque and the Kovil is violated and yet the perpetrators are deemed above law. A clear evidence of inoperability of the justice system in this case. Though there are rules in the statute, application is evidently discriminatory.
3. Failure to protect the Constitution: Buddhism is the state religion and it is protected by the state as enshrined in the constitution. The non Buddhists in the country accepts this without reservation on the understanding that Buddhism being a philosophy of humanity would not be discriminatory upon them and therefore their religion and their institutions will have protection under Buddhism as a state religion. The state’s failure to protect Buddhism is evident by their incredulous silence to condemn this un-Buddhist act done in the name of Buddhism violating all principles of moral and legal limits. This silence possibly tarnishes the image of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and abroad by implicitly condoning a wrongful act by failing to be just and the failure to protect the interests of all citizens without discrimination.
4. Failure of the state to assert and allowing non state actors to dominate: In this incidence, the state organs miserably failed to prove their credibility as institutions upon which the citizens can repose their trust. The police failed to prevent wrong doings, the sacred land statute/AGA Office failed to define the physical boundaries of the sacred land, the AGA Office/Pradeshya Sabha calls the Mosque an unauthorised structure for a building pre existing Local Government Planning and Building Regulations which effectively came into practice in the region only since 1978. How many buildings in Dambulla have plans approved by the Local Council and how many are built according to the plan as required by the statute? Why did the AGA/Local Council take a discriminatory stand than find a way to regularise and bring such structures within the statute and diffuse social tension. The state authorities are yet to define their stand based on the available statutes, this shows the extent to which the state is equipped to respond to the suffering of the people. This apathy on the part of state rewards ‘non state actors’ and weakens the state supremacy in administration.
5. Rule of Law versus Rulers’ Law: Though Sri Lanka is a modern state, the strains of feudalism and neo colonial Brown Sahib mentality is still prevalent. The highest and the sacrosanct entity in a nation state is its constitution where the sovereignty of its people is enshrined.   In the day to day life of a citizen one is administered by the rules that govern and not the rulers who govern. The government only governs the people through the constitution and not otherwise.  The constitutional ruler is impersonal and everlasting. The failings of modern Sri Lanka is that we are yet to be governed by rules, instead we are still ruled by rulers who  yet decide outside the framework of law, like the Prime Minister’s decision to relocate the mosque to diffuse tension without giving time for the  possibility of judicial intervention.
6. Failure of the state to protect its image: The role and responsibility of the GOSL is questioned by the people, the parliamentarians, and the International Community about this incident. Incredibly the GOSL is silent and not taking any remedial measures to solve this lawlessness. The frailty of the GOSL to protect the image and credibility of the country and doing nothing undermines credibility both within and without.
7. Threat to the Government of Sri Lanka: Should this incident go unsolved, the extremist forces that unleashed this attack would potentially snowball to capture more grounds in their turf war. This would make situations worse for the GoSL . Such a situation would require more power and resources by the GOSL to quell and would render this contagion to spill over. It is wise to nip this violent extremism in the bud.

Allegiance Elsewhere

There were also comments hinting against my Sri Lankan posture and trying to paint me as a Rajapakse sycophant and ‘West’ basher. It is a citizen’s responsibility to protect the state whilst fighting within it to correct it to deliver the rights of its citizens. One’s allegiance should not go outside the state just because the state is wrong, as when such allegiance goes outside the state, there is propensity for one to turn anti-state and play into external factors inimical to a state.

Today Sri Lanka is a fractured society however unified it pretends to be. The reality is that as noted above, there are blatant violations by many actors (state and non state) and failure to uphold justice, and fair play. This has marginalized many both within and without and hence there are resentments, grudges and ill will against many such actors which makes the allegiance of some eccentric to state. This unwittingly makes the resentful citizens to be bought over by foreign players and use to espouse their goals. The state inaction to rein in law and order is implicitly undermining sovereignty by spawning dissenters and creating conducive conditions to turn to be perfidious.

Conflict Resolution

Emergence of conflict in any society is natural and it is part and parcel of humanity. Therefore no conflict is unique except how such conflict is caused. In a civilised society too conflicts do emerge and the responsibility of the citizens and the state is to diffuse conflicts and reinstate justice, fair play and bring normalcy and cordiality to seek peace amongst its peoples.  Disquiet, conflict and violence does no good to either to the state or the citizens and therefore it is a right and a duty of responsibility to diffuse conflict and ease tensions in society.

When conflicts emerge the first victim is the truth. During such times even the paragons of virtue ally with falsehood as was seen in Dambulla. Therefore saner and responsible citizens do have a duty to mankind to speak the truth even if such truth is against their own interest. This is how civilised nations are built upon and not on the basis of ‘might is right’ and take advantage of opportunities. Any capitalization of the opportunity for short term and parochial gains would cause long term damages to society as have happened before. These challenges are opportunities to prove how civilized one is in the way in which truth, justice and fair play are administered in society and not to boast of history but to be correct now in flesh and blood.

Deplorably, some of the comments advocated ‘a pot calling the kettle black’ paradigm and was fuelling exacerbation of this conflict by citing irrelevantly. These clearly display their ignorance and  insidious intents.

The way this crisis in Dambulla is handled is a test to see how credibly the Sri Lankan state and its people depart from chauvinism to a more inclusive and just society.

Unfortunately, Sri Lankans are yet to come out of their ‘mind set created by others for them’ and discover their ‘own by pooling all the positives from all religions and communities’ to build this nation as a model for others as an astute and sustainable nation.

• Dambulla Mosque attack: Is there a hidden hand?
• Photo essay: Freedom, Religion, and Dambulla
• Is Dambulla, Babri Masjid Redux?
• Deeds of mosque in Dambulla and photos of damage: How is this structure illegal? (UPDATED)
• Bigoted monks and militant mobs: Is this Buddhism in Sri Lanka today?

After the email update reproduced below was sent on 2nd May, less than a week after the Not In Our Name initiative was launched, Deshabandhu Jezima Ismail, senior lawyer and HR activist JC Weliamuna, two-time Secretary to Presidential Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances MCM Iqbal, well-known economist Muttukrishna Sarvananthan, Prof. Michael Roberts and Ranjini Obeyesekere, both leading academics, Tamil activist, poet and academic Cheran, Channa Daswatta, one of Sri Lanka’s best known architects and Harsha de Silva, Member of Parliament, along with dozens of others, have signed up to the initiative.

“I put my name here just to give evidence to my children that at some point in the future, if they happen to suffer from communal violence as a result of what happens under president Rajapakse Government, their father did his bit to condemn his silence.” – Thrishantha Nanayakkara

“The conduct of some of the Buddhist monks at Dambulla was disgraceful. It was an insult to the Buddha.” – Mangala Moonesinghe

“Sri Lankan; not Parsi, not Burgher, not Eurasian, not Sinhalese, all to which I have claim. Not in our name.” - Hans Billimoria

“All Buddhists, especially the prominent members of the Buddhist clergy, should hang their heads in shame at this racist, mediaeval and un-Buddhist act. The government should institute legal proceedings for treasonous public statements undermining the authority of the duly elected President of the country.” – Prof. H.L. Seneviratne

“Certainly not in my name. The Dambulla violence and intolerance can provoke another cycle of mindless chauvinism unless the silent majority voice their unanimous condemnation compelling the Government to act decisively and speedily. The true Sri Lankan patriot, anchored in a rich past of tolerance and co-existence, is a not a racist or religious bigot.” – Jayantha Dhanapala

“This attack and the clumsy, unacceptable handling of it by the authorities has quite certainly not been done in my name.” – Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

These are excerpts from longer comments in response to the online campaign Not In My Name. In just under a week after it was launched and at the time of sending this email, around 940 have signed up to the campaign. It has been shared over 1,000 times on Facebook alone. The campaign, and why it was established, has been featured on TV in Sri Lanka.

Hundreds have tweeted about it, some have written their own blog posts encouraging more to sign up and many more have emailed all their email contacts the campaign and shared it with professional colleagues on networks like LinkedIn. Those who have signed up to date include,

• Deshamanya Bradman Weerakoon, one of Sri Lanka’s most senior and respected civil servants
• Popular TV personalities, actors and singers: Ranjan Ramanayake, Narada Bakmeewewa, Kasun Kalhara
• Popular theatre personalities and directors: Steve de la Zilwa, Tracy Holsinger, Ruwanthie de Chickera, Nadie Kammallaweera, Shanuki de Alwis
• Gratiaen Prize winners Shehan Karunatilaka and Senaka Abeyratne
• Leading authors: V.V. Ganeshananthan, Shyam Selvadurai, David Blacker, Pradeep Jeganathan
• Former Sri Lankan of the Year Chandra Jayaratne
• Leading journalists, Editors, media personalities and media owners: Hana Ibrahim, Dilrukshi Handunetti, Dharisha Bastian, Easwaran Rutnam, Anoma Rajakaruna, Savithri Rodrio, Lal Wickrematunge, Hilmy Ahamed, Sharmini Boyle
• Human rights activists: Kumudini Samuel, Ruki Fernando, Dayapala Thiranagama, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
• Gifted cartoonists like Gihan de Chickera
• Well-known photographers like Deshan Tennekoon and Asanka Brendon Ratnayake
• Prominent artists like Chandraguptha Thenuwara, Nelun Harasgama and Jagath Weerasinghe
• Former Secretary General of the JVP, Lionel Bopage
• Prominent bloggers like Jehan Mendis and Subha Wijesiriwardena

From a 73 year old grandmother to leading academics, from atheists to Hindus, Saivites and Christians, from Burghers and Sinhalese to Tamils and Muslims (and fascinating combinations of these beliefs and groups), the sheer diversity of those who have signed up to Not In Our Name unequivocally condemning the violence in Dambulla is incredible to read, both for what has been written and by whom.

As noted on the blog, after a month, the names and comments of those who signed up will be printed out and sent to the Presidential Secretariat, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Religious Affairs & Moral Upliftment, along with the Department of Buddhist Affairs, Department of Christian Religious Affairs, Department of Hindu Religious and Cultural Affairs and the Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs.

Already, this campaign is a unique collection of comments opposed to violence and extremism. Please read them, and consider adding your own name today.

Young Asia Television asked the following questions about the Not In our Name initiative for their weekly Connections TV digest, broadcast over public TV this week.

1. Not in Our Name: Is it focusing just only on the incident in Dambulla or is it looking broadly at religious extremism in Sri Lanka ?
2. Judging from the responses so far , what do you feel is the general pulse on the role of the State in addressing religious extremism in Sri Lanka ?
3. How will such incidents impact on communal relations and attempts at bringing about ‘National Reconciliation’?
4. In the end what purpose will this initiative serve?

• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• The middle finger to the middle-path in Sri Lanka
• Bigoted monks and militant mobs: Is this Buddhism in Sri Lanka today?
• “There is a right way and a wrong way to use violence”: Interview with Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

A lion carries a dead wild boar in his mouth. He is walking through the grasslands, victorious after the hunt. On the dead boar is a crudely imprinted crescent moon and star.  This is an image found in a Sinhala Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/මාගේ-හෘද-සාක්ෂිය/351343628228268) that among other things compares Sri Lankan Muslims to wild boar, puppies (the Sinhala wording is cruder) and crows. The Facebook page has more than 5,000 likes and increases daily. It is only one of many that stalks cyberspace. This is Sri Lanka in 2012!

We are recovering from 26 years of war but it seems like some of the citizens of this country want to be at perpetual war. The latest fracas is the ‘Dambulla incident’  where a mob led by Buddhist monks of the area are agitating for what they call an illegal structure masquerading as a mosque to be torn down as it contaminates the sacred Buddhist area of the Dambulla temple. It is news to me that other places of religious worship can be considered as less sacred or contamination to a sacred area. But such is their complaint. Soon after this incident was made public, I had a conversation on the topic with a good and close friend of mine who is Buddhist. She is a decent woman, a devout woman. She is charitable and generous and kind but, and here is the surprise: she sees nothing wrong with the incidents of violence involving Buddhist monks. Regrettably she is not alone. Much as we would like to think that those who perpetrate Buddhist chauvinism are in the minority, it is not so. Increasingly, I see Buddhists who believe and engage in violence and un-Buddhistic behavior, trumpeting their achievement as champions of Buddhism.

Let us start with our constitution. I have often wondered how a country can claim to be Buddhist. In my mind it is technically impossible to apply Buddhist values  and survive as a nation in the world as it is. It would be an ideal world indeed to look forward to the time when all countries will be able to say they implement the values of Buddhism and the world will be a much better place for it. But for now, in todays time and place a country may need an army, may  need to engage in battle if  required to do so – both instances that we have experienced. But isn’t that against true Buddhist principles? Then I have wondered how Buddhist monks  who have been charged with drug possession, sexual misconduct, rape, treasure hunting, temple pillaging, murder, violence… the list of offences goes on and on which in itself is astounding,  continue to wear the robes, manage temples and call themselves Buddhist monks. Is there no authority that can expel disgraceful Buddhist monks? In addition, I am astonished that citizens who call themselves Buddhist, who are devout, pray, meditate and do pooja, attend sil, listen to bana and pirith, continue to condone  violence in the name of Buddhism by agreement or staying silent. I just don’t understand.

In my mind, Buddhism is one of the supreme non-violent movements of the world. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path (right vision, right emotion, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right awareness, and right meditation) the Five Precepts (do not kill, do not steal, do not engage in false speech, do not engage in sexual misconduct, do not take intoxicants) and the Threefold Way (ethics, meditation, wisdom) are meant to be applied in daily life. How is this in any way possible or compatible with the violence and injustice committed in the name of Buddhism? Bernard Faure, Professor of Religious Studies of the University of Stanford, has this to say:

Which brings me to the question: What are the Chief Prelates of all the Nikayas doing? What is the state doing? If silence is acquiescence, then it appears that the powers that be – both religious and state, endorse the violence, the persecuting of minority communities and sending them the clear message of being second class citizens.

But let us go back to Dambulla. In  disputed cases there are legal avenues to pursue  to rectify the situation. If the mosque is illegal and needs to be demolished, there is a legal mechanism in place that will achieve it. Why the need for violence? For the destruction? For the barbaric and shocking behavior of both monks and men?

War is not unknown in the Buddhist world. In history, there has been what is termed  ‘Buddhist wars’ especially in China, Tibet and Japan. Most of them were begun as a cleansing process to rid threats to its very existence and fought in the name of liberation. Yet, of all the great religions and ideologies Buddhism remains the most pacific – a trait that is increasingly rare in the violent world of today. There are a number of verses from the Buddha’s sermons that support this:

In times of war
give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings,
abandon the will to fight. Kutadanta Sutta, (Digha Nikaya V)

Another is:

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching. Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya 1 – 28-29

I am not a Buddhist, but I appreciate the Buddhist ethos. And I wonder: if the behavior of violent Buddhism is puzzling to me, why isn’t it to you? One of the advantages Sri Lanka has is its multi-religious, multi-ethnic population. It is proof that for thousands of years the people of this country, whatever their religion and beliefs, have been open and welcoming , even embracing different cultures and people. It has made our country vibrant, rich in traditions and a truly wonderful place to live in. So we should be concerned when some elements in our modern history want to change that feature. In fact I have noticed intolerance apparent in all our communities not only the Sinhala Buddhist community. Perhaps it is a reflection of the times we live in but this is something we need to avoid. And if it happens we have to speak out.

I leave you with a favourite modern story that to me  embodies the quintessence of Buddhism:

A Vietnam veteran was baffled by Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh’s unswerving dedication to non-violence. The veteran in an attempt to question the monk, asked him if someone wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and if the monk was the last one left would he not try to kill the person who was trying to kill him and in doing so save Buddhism. Thicht Nhat Hanh answered: It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it. In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.

• The transformation of Buddhism in Sri Lanka
• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka: A Response to Bhikkhu K. Tanchangya
• Monks of War – Al-Jazeera on the JHU

Photo courtesy Hemant Buch via JDS

In a piece published on Groundviews on 29 April, Ms. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge (CBK) makes many pertinent observations on religion and society in South Asia. Underlying all her arguments however, is a certain reading of secularism that warrants contestation, which is the aim of this piece.

Every time we fail to articulate the specificities and diversities in the history of secularism and allied Constitutional practices, and use ‘western’ in an unqualified and uncritical manner to mark it, as CBK does, we not only err factually but also succumb to the binaries of either an exclusivist or inclusivist approach to religion. Contrary to what CBK implies there is no ‘western’ idea of secularism in the sense of a single coherent approach to the separation of religion and state.

As Charles Taylor points out, the two paradigmatic cases of secularism in the West, that of France and the USA have very different historical trajectories and characteristics. In the former, the origins of laïcité, commonly used as analogous to secularism, lies in the opposition of the Republican left to the right-wing aristocratic classes with whom the Catholic Church was seen to be allied. The legacy of the Revolution, which continues to hold significant sway in France today, was thus to ensure that the Church and religious authorities remained under the control of a Republican state. This lead to what is referred to as a case of one-sided exclusion i.e. the state may and does intervene in religious affairs of communities when Republican values maybe infringed but religious institutions or religious affairs can exercise no such hold on civic Republicanism. In the USA, on the other hand, the idea, to begin with, was less a separation of church and state and more about ensuring that no single Protestant denomination gained control of the hard won new political entity. This would later on develop, as religious diversity deepened, into a more broader demarcation that is often termed as a case of mutual exclusion i.e. the state does not interfere in anyway in religious institutions or affairs and vice versa. At the same time, careful scrutiny can reveal what appear to be contradictions or tensions in the practices of both states.

The key point is that political goals of the secular project have not always been the same and have certainly never been limited to the classic religion-state separation even in the west. This is further underlined by the diversity of practices on the question of separation of church and state in other western states. In the United Kingdom, the Constitutional Head of State, Her Majesty The Queen (at the moment) is also designated the ‘Defender of the Faith’ and the ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’; Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister; and, the ‘Lords Spiritual’ (consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 diocesan bishops) sit in the House of Lords. Even Parish priests take an oath of allegiance to The Queen. Yet, despite the institutional alignment of the political authority, the Monarchy and the Church of England at this level, the UK has a secular Constitutional doctrine. Similar diversities are also evident in the political, institutional and Constitutional doctrines of other Western states such as Switzerland and Italy, for example. Western secularism, including the state-religion relationship, is therefore actually rather diverse in its history, institutional form and arrangement.

Secularism as a Constitutional doctrine, in the context of rights, can be understood as the attempt to protect diversity of thought and belief by removing itself from overt allegiance to any particular religious conviction. ^[1] India’s Constitutional doctrine interprets secularism as including “the responsibility to ensure the protection and equality of all religions and provide for regulation and reform.”[2] Rather than strict separation as such, let alone the disestablishment of religion, the Constitutional doctrine lays down a series of duties on the state ranging from ensuring freedom of conscience to non-discrimination (including but not only on grounds of religion) to regulation of religious bodies and legislative reform.[3]

Secularism is an evolving and dynamic concept, in Europe as much as in South Asia, and elsewhere for that matter. For example, over 2010-2011 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights witnessed the most intense debate on the meaning and nature of secularism in the context of the Lautsi case—pertaining to the display of the Crucifix in public school classrooms in Italy—in which several states and non-state actors intervened.

In fact, positions on the place of religion in the public sphere can no longer be neatly divided into exclusivist and inclusivist. Some have argued that more ‘open forms’ of secularism tend towards “protection of freedom of conscience and religion and a more flexible conception of State neutrality” as contrasted with more rigid forms of secularism.[4] However, as Abdullahi An-Na’im has argued, while its forms are inherently historical and contextual, secularism is, in fact, a pre-condition for the full exercise by all of their freedom of religion and beliefs.[5]

The challenge then for political secularism, as Rajeev Bhargava argues, is to conceive of the terms under which the state engages and interferes in religious affairs “depending on which of the two [interference or non-interference] better promotes religious liberty and equality of citizenship. If this is so the state may not be able to relate to every religion in exactly the same way, intervene to the same degree or in the same manner. All it must ensure is that the inclusion or exclusion of religion into politics be guided by non-sectarian principles consistent with a set of values constitutive of a life of equal dignity for all.”[6]

What does this mean?

To begin with, acknowledge the difference between religious communities and between religious and non-religious communities; look beyond liberal individualism and adopt an attitude of critical respect (as opposed to hostility or passive respect) towards religion. Moreover, under certain conditions, certain communities may be granted “immunities, privileges and guarantees”[7], which however cannot undermine equality of citizenship.

Viewed in this light, the problem in South Asia is the lack of such a principled engagement by the state, especially by its political leaders, with religion and in religious affairs, with serious adverse repercussions but short-term political gain. The recent events in Dambulla and the Sri Lankan Government’s willing capitulation to the Sinhala-Buddhist communal forces is only the latest step in a journey that gained great impetus when SWRD courted the same forces to help him come to power in the 1950s, uncorking a genie that went on to eventually claim his life.

Speaking about secularism only in terms of separation rather than a principled engagement between religion and politics/state is less messy but unreal and alienating.  It is also dangerous because it can provide a liberal cloak for the most illiberal practices, of which there are many examples in South Asia, including in Sri Lanka.

As Taylor reminds us, the case of secularism and religion is a classic case of an internal dyad becoming an external dyad—when one cannot be used without at least an implied reference to the other, independent of context—and hence its polemical character. Ultimately, in a plural polity the question of secularism is connected to the question of justice rather than just the question of religion alone or its separation from the state. In addition to freedom of conscience and expression, justice in a plural context demands both inter and intra-group equality through appropriate social recognition, economic redistribution and political participation, the lack of which are in plain evidence not just in Sri Lanka but across South Asia.

• The questions unanswered by Ass. Sec. Robert Blake: Mapping US engagement in and concerns over Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• The State and Religion in South Asia
• The Anti-Conversion Bill violates the freedom of Conscience and the freedom of expression
• A Matter of faith
• Forging a Culture of Mutual Tolerance among Sri Lankans: A Path to Reconciliation?

When going through the album, make sure to read the captions.

• Groundviews on Twitter and Facebook
• Launch of Groundviews Facebook Fan Page
• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero
• Like Slaves In Jaffna
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)

Photo by Massimiliano Clausi, courtesy SAJA

Secularism implies the relationship between Religion and Politics, more specifically between Religion and the State.

The concept of secularism has drawn its sources from the philosophy that Humans can order their lives and their societies without recourse to transcendant or supra natural powers, and hence they could also organize and manage the State and its government , without direct connections with the religious establishment. Thus evolved the concept of Secularism and the separation of the Sate from Religion, taking root in Europe and spreading its message across the globe.

In South Asia, the concept was popularized in the 20th century, mainly during the anti-colonial struggles and the consequent formation of new, independent States in the 2nd half of the century.

Until this period, in South Asia, as in the West and other parts of Asia, the State and Religion were closely intertwined. Religion played an important role in legitimizing the State and rulers, the degree of its significance, varying in accordance with different historical contexts.

Institutions, practices, myths were created to effectively weave Religion with the persona of the monarch or ruler and the State.

The relationship between the State and Religion has been mutually supportive, even beneficial. The State employed Religion to legitimize itself and to entrench rulers and their dynasties in power. The Religious establishment in turn, secured for themselves many advantages, such as material endowments, patronage, increased authority over affairs of government and State, from this relationship.

The Western notion of Secularism deeply influenced political leaders from many parts of the world especially South Asian leaders educated in Europe.

I must emphasize at this point, that five out of eight South Asian States, and a substantial portion of the sixth were part of ancient India, then called Bharat ,comprising numerous states and principalities governed by kings, satraps and princes. Bharat was never unified under a single ruler until the British unified the disparate States of India. Only the two island nations – Sri Lanka and the Maldives were independent and separate nations.

In ancient India, the State and Religion were intrinsically allied. The Hindu Religion and briefly Buddhism, were patronized and appropriated by the States, to legitimize the existing order of things and underpin its hierarchical, stratified structure.

The leaders of India’s independence movement realized full well that it was essential to weld together the myriad groups of Indians divided by caste, ethnicity and religion, as well as allegiance to different rulers, into one Nation in which everyone enjoyed equal rights and privileges and the right to free expression of individual and collective identities of each community. Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Jawaharlal Nehru were the principal advocates of the secular ideology.

Their task was not an easy one, as for several millennia, India was not governed under the authority of a centralized State. Northern India adopted the concept of a Federal State. The Motilal Nehru Committee Report – 1928 recommended this solution.

Gandhi and Nehru realized that religious, caste, ethnic communalism posed a grave threat to the creation of their vision of transforming the complex, division ridden ancient / colonial Bharat to a modern, dynamic State. “Religion is alright when applied to ethics and morals, but it is not good mixed up with politics”, Nehru once said. He therefore advocated “a national State which includes people of all religions and shades of opinion and is essentially secular as a State”. He objected to a society that has “religious sanction and authority”, favouring a State that “protects all religions, but does not favour one at the expense of others and does not adopt any religion as the State Religion”.

Gandhi felt that “a political association based exclusively on adherence to a particular religion was worse than undemocratic”. Thus, the vision of the two great leaders of independent India resulted in a Federal Secular Constitution and the creation of the Republic of India.

The Constitution guaranteed :

• Freedom of Conscience,
• Freedom to practice and promote any religion
• That religious instruction shall not be provided in State educational institutions, but there is freedom to do so in private or semi private schools. Students are accorded the option of choosing to receive religious instruction, without being compelled to do so. In addition to guarantees given to all religions, the Indian Constitution guarantees equality to citizens of all other communities – ethnic and tribal, caste and so on.

Despite various political disturbances, the continuing political stability of modern India for over 60 years owes a great deal to the Federal and Secular nature of its State. She continues to function as a modern democracy, in the face of many challenges and no doubt shortcomings, due to the strength of its Unity in diversity obtained from the effective operation of federalism and its inclusivity flowing from Secularism as well as federalism.

However, during the past few decades, the Secular State has been assailed by the rise of the Hindutva ideology, whose core belief is that the Hindu religion represents the Indian national identity. This implies intrinsically that all “others” are inferior and should subjugate themselves to the authority of the superior majority.

The political party that has embraced this ideology – the BJP, has drawn considerable political benefits from their anti secular stance. As always, religion has been co-opted by politics, in order to provide an advantage to a political group, at the expense of the national interest. In India – this led to widespread communal violence. The destruction of the Babri Masjid Mosque in Ayodhya and killings of Muslims in Bhagalpur in 1989 and Gujarat in 2002 mark the apogee of communal violence in recent times.

Although the Congress Party – the Party of Gandhi and Nehru, has been at the helm of government for many years now, decisive action has not yet been taken against the perpetrators of communal violence in the incidents I speak of, nor in so many others. Commissions were appointed, investigations done, reports obtained, but their recommendations have not implemented.

The sectarian, extremist ideology of Hindutva seems to have penetrated sufficiently deep into the social and emotive fabric of the Indian polity to deter the non-extremist majority and their governments from undertaking positive action and programmes to prevent extremist violence and to strengthen inclusivity and thereby the stability of the Nation.

This trend could prove dangerous, in every way, for the socio-political stability and continued economic growth of India.

I need hardly, emphasize, the crucial importance of unity between all the diverse communities living in this enormous country, covering the expanse of a sub-continent. Such unity, could only be achieved within a State that abides – by law and in practice, by the rules of a Secular State.

The Indian State that was erected by weaving together a large number of Nations of diverse ethnic, linguistic, religious communities, which comprised Ancient India, faces a grave threat to its survival, if the assault on the foundations of its integrity are not met effectively and with conviction.

Pakistan

In this context, a study of the present situation in Pakistan demonstrates that defining a State within the boundaries of a single ethnic, religious or ethno-religious entity can prove to be hugely limiting. The philosophy of excluding the “other”, even at times ,with the use of violence, has become the accepted norm. Governance has been rendered difficult and anarchy reigns.

The Constitution of Pakistan created a Religious State from its inception, except for a brief period, when General Ayub Khan’s government removed the word “Islamic” from the country’s title and sought to liberalize the politico-legal systems. Pakistan has established Islam as a State Religion.

The government of President Zia ul Haque brought amendments to the Constitution to entrench the concept of Islamization. The controversial Hudood Ordinance and Shariat Court legalized various types of discrimination of non-Muslim women and anyone holding views that appear or are interpreted as being contrary to Islam. Even the electoral system was given a bizarre twist – where non-Muslims did not have the right to vote for a Muslim and had to vote for a non-Muslim ! Some have called this “political apartheid”. Although these laws were partially abolished in 1999, the intention of excluding non-Muslims from the body politic has effectively taken root.

The Islamization process has transformed the education system to accord primacy to religious education. The Madraasa schools impart mainly Religious Knowledge and an absolute commitment to Islam . The degree of the loyalty demanded, depends on the personal ideology of the teacher – the Imam, who at times, demands the physical destruction of the other – the non – believer, or even oneself, justified in the name of Islam.

Is it then surprising that a large number of suicide killers have studied at these institutions ?

We now witness a flourishing of Madraasas in other South Asian countries – a potential problem not yet addressed by relevant governments.

Bangladesh

Bangladesh gave itself a secular Constitution at its inception. But this was amended, transforming Bangladesh into a Religious State in the 1980’s, bringing Islamization of State and Society. One year ago, the Constitution reversed this situation, paving the way for a secular State. The government is due to take action to implement this.

The independence struggle for the creation of Bangladesh was based on language and to some extent ethnicity rather than Religion, as the conflict occurred between two Muslim groups – Bengali and Pakistan! This could explain the absence of strong religious rhetoric in the process of State formation in Bangladesh. It is of interest to note that Bangladesh has experienced little ethnic / religious conflict, of the sort pertaining in Pakistan , and has built a more stable political super structure.

Adoption of a secular State appears to have spared Bangladesh, the travails undergone by Pakistan.

Nepal

Nepal too has charted a new course in its turbulent history, abolishing a 250 year old monarchy and declaring Nepal a “secular, federal, democratic Republic”, in May 2010.

It is hoped that power sharing arrangements within federal State, together with equal rights and freedoms for all communities, will lay the foundation for stability, peace and growth in this Nation wracked by conflict, violence, extreme poverty and continuing political instability and mal-governance.

Sri Lanka

From ancient times, for 25 Centuries and more, Lanka has traversed a fairly different path during its State formation. We witness the formal adoption of the Buddhist Religion by the State from around the 2nd Century B.C.

The ideology of the State was centred around a Sinhala – Buddhist identity, where being Buddhist was intrinsically linked with being Sinhala. Ethnicity and Religion formed an integral part of the National identity, with the monarch / ruler considered the protector of Buddhism. The Buddhist establishment reciprocated by creating institutions, practices, myths to weave in religion closely with the monarch and thereby the State. The State and its rulers were consistently legitimised by religion, while the formal adoption of religion and its institutions by the State encouraged the people to adopt and accept the discipline and edicts of the religion and as a consequence the ruler, sanctioned by the religious establishment.

The tendency towards entrenching a Religious State in Lanka was probably established and then enhanced due to the challenges posed by the constant and numerous invasions by South Indian Kingdoms – 52 in about 14 Centuries. (2nd Century B.C. to 14 Century A.D.)
Religion was employed to strengthen the ethnic national identity, as against the invader – the “enemy”, who happened to belong to “other” ethnic and Religious communities.

The Sinhala Buddhist State of Lanka continued until the advent of colonial rule in the 16th Century. Thereafter this identity disintegrated and lost its position of prestige and its dominance in the political and economic spheres,while the religion of the colonial rulers received pride of place from early 16th Century to mid 20th Century for 4½ centuries.

During the independence struggle and after independence, movements for the reassertion of the Sinhala Buddhist identity were born.
These were all essentially exclusivist, marginalizing the groups that did not belong to the dominant, majority of Sinhala Buddhists.

Although the Constitution is Secular, giving guarantees to minorities and does not contain clauses discriminating against other ethnic or religious communities, the practice of most governments has been calculated to exclude and marginalize “the other” in various ways – mainly in the fields of education employment and by the use of the official language.
This has resulted in fomenting frustration and anger among minority groups, leading to violence and the use of terrorism.

Governments have employed extremist Sinhala Buddhist discourse, from time to time – in the 50’s to reestablish national identity after many centuries of colonial subjugation. It was thought that the assertion of the Sinhala Buddhist identity would strengthen the new State, rather than building a Nation in which the unity of all communities was forged through power sharing, by means of giving equal rights to all in the political,social nd economic spheres and ensuring their effective implementation.

In the past few years,the end of the civil war and the victory of the State over the separatists has been immersed in Sinhala Buddhist discourse. Anti terrorist emotions have been successfully linked with anti-Tamil and now anti-foreigner and anti-everybody else concept, by means of a massive State-led publicity campaign. The Sinhala Buddhist identity is projected as supreme and the exclusively legitimate one comprising the right to dominance over the State and body politic of Lanka. The present leaders seem to dig deep into the Sinhala Buddhist psyche, searching out the fears and concerns of the populace of a small, weak country to turn them against various types of “enemies”.

At the moment of Independence, Sri Lanka experienced much less internecine conflicts than India, for instance. We were also economically stronger, experiencing much less poverty.

It is then pertinent to consider how India comprised of ethnic groups, speaking languages, practicing religions, with a population which is 60 times bigger than Lanka, has successfully erected a modern democratic State, that is progressing firmly towards economic prosperity and reducing its massive numbers of poor, without being devastated by serious conflicts. India, no doubt, has and still does experience numerous ethnic and religious conflicts. But they have all been managed temporarily or resolved, without seriously impairing the country’s political and economic stability.

Why has Sri Lanka, though much smaller and with less potential cause for conflict experienced 25 years of one of the most bloody and destructive conflicts the world has seen in the last century?

I daresay that the establishment of a secular and federal State may be the magic potion that has made the difference between the two countries.

Efforts by a few governments and leaders to build a united, federal and secular State has been thwarted, by opposition from extremist groups or the interplay of political strategies employed to gain narrow advantage for one political group over another.

At this point, I would like to describe my personal experience as Head of State. I was personally committed to the concept that Federalism and inclusivity were the solutions to Sri Lanka’s minorities’ question. I had also ascertained that the majority of adherents to the exclusivist Sinhala Buddhist concept of the State belong to a small minority of the elite ruling class- politicians and clergy closely linked to them, professionals and business men. The masses, in their vast majority were not committed to extremist political views of any type.

Hence we adopted a strategy of honest, public discourse to inform the people that the only viable solution was to choose the part of dialogue, negotiations and peace achieved by means of a federal constitution and by building a cohesive nation and an inclusivist State. We won 3 major elections within 18 months, with an increased majority vote at each one.

A Gallup poll we conducted at the time my government came to power in 1994 showed that only 23 per cent of the Sinhala people opted for a negotiated settlement of the conflict. We undertook programs to take the message of peace to the entire country. We held seminars, workshops, street theaters, and we used the media widely. At the end of 2 years another survey showed that the number of people opting not only for peace, but this time also for devolution of power had increased to 68 per cent.

The vision and actions of leaders of government have been instrumental in defining the choices made by the Sri Lankan people. The present government has determinedly followed a policy of Sinhala Buddhist exclusivism, making no difference between Tamil civilians and the terrorists LTTE. This particular vision of the ethnic conflict has given the government the space to justify the horrendous violations of HR during the conduct of the war and the subsequent refusal to offer an acceptable and durable solution to the Tamil question. The Sinhala Buddhist ideology is extensively employed today to justify and support the use of religion and the Buddhist clergy to continue the policy of exclusivism practiced by the Government.

The State that believes it could seek legitimacy by incorporating Religion into the State structures, does not realize that the very legitimacy it seeks may be destroyed by the frustrations and anger caused among those excluded from the privilege of belonging to the State religion. The authority of such a State is placed in jeopardy by the very existence of a religious State.

I would maintain that secularism, as well as pluralism are essential prerequisites for stability and peace in multi –ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religious and multi-cultural States. They form the cement that binds together peoples of diverse communities as equal citizens of one Nation, living in unity within diversity. The appreciation of the richness of diversity, rather than the refusal of difference in the “other”, is the foundation on which is constructed the federal state and a pluralist society.

The root causes of most conflicts in South Asia have proved to be poverty and exclusion. We do not know of solutions other than those we find in Federalism, Pluralism and Inclusive development to forge a socially cohesive, stable and prosperous State.

###

The author was the 5th President of Sri Lanka serving from November, 1994 to November, 2005. In light of the recent unrest in Dambulla, she sent this to Groundviews having first delivered it as a speech at the Master of Public Affairs Graduation Day at Sciences Po Paris, France.

• Does cricket have a citizenship?
• Living Secular in the ‘Sinhala Buddhist Republic’ of Sri Lanka
• Some Critical Reflections on the Silences on Secularism: A Response to Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge
• A Search for Identity: Tomorrow’s Sri Lankan!
• Seeing it comin’: Reforming the Sri Lankan State

A week ago, we disgraced ourselves. Racist louts, some in the garb of Buddhist monks, engaged openly in speech and behaviour so violent, even those who led it were forced to suggest later the footage broadcast on TV and now globally viewed on YouTube was doctored.

This was, of course, not the case.

Sri Lanka’s tryst with militant Buddhism is not new. It is the fundamental basis of the JHU, which is today deeply embedded in government. As much as the telegenics of last week’s outrageous violence shocked many, it is this very behaviour that most temple-going Buddhists in Sri Lanka have nurtured over decades, and continue to unquestioningly venerate when they support, through silence, word or deed, this violence.

Much remains to be said by the President, government and media on Dambulla. Not so long ago, a journalist – J.S. Tissainayagam – was jailed, tortured and humiliated for writing the government thought incited communal hatred. No such action will even be contemplated against the Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero.  The Ven. Thero joins the ranks of good Buddhists like Mervyn Silva, openly protected, supported and championed by the Rajapaksa regime. Sadly, it is not over Dambulla’s priapic priests that we must be most ashamed about, but our President, his family and government.

There is some hope. On Thursday, fearing more violence, I created a simple blog for people to register their opposition to the soi-disant Buddhism on display in Dambulla. The responses, available online, are a humbling counterfoil to a saffron rage, and showcase a Sri Lanka that’s extremely diverse and refreshingly different. Excerpts from a few I reproduce below. There are literally hundreds more online.

Read them, and I urge you, add to them.

I am Mohamed Niyas, a Sri Lankan Muslim, professionally a Teacher. I respect all religions and beliefs in this country and teach the same to all my students of all ethnic groups. I was shocked how can the monks who always preach saamaya, maithriya, karunaawa like great philosophies could lead such a racist mob in Dambulla. I feel relieved to know many of Buddhist people in Sri Lanka condemned this violence.

fahima7s: This is the first time the violence towards other faiths has been filmed so vividly. Many churches and kovils have also been bombed and burnt in the past. What do these Buddhist monks want? Don’t they know that our culture is enriched with other faiths? We have already lost a lot of our Burghers and Tamils and we are impoverished by it. Even if we build highways and prosper economically, we will still be poor. Cannot Buddhism flourish without the Buddhist monks protecting it?

Iranganie H. Fernando: Have these perpetrators of this incident of shameful violence learnt nothing from the terrible experiences of the past 30 years? All religions teach love & compassion to all beings and respect for each other… there must be action & strategies to prevent such abominable behaviour. I am a 73-year-old woman who grew up in a mainly peaceful society in pre & post independent Sri Lanka… Certainly these horrific acts of violence are not in my name!

Maithri: During the war, the government tried to show the world and the country that SL is a nation of cultural and religious diversity. And I believed in it, and to an extent that is still true. But this whole thing has just gone to show that the government don’t care about that unless it is in their own interest. Shameful behaviour from them, and members of the sangha who should really know better.

My name is Chhimi Tenduf-La. I am not Sri Lankan but I am embarrassed. I am proud to live in this amazing country and, for the most part, I think you would be hard pressed to find nicer people than Sri Lankans anywhere in the world. Most foreigners would say this (except, to be honest, when driving). The actions of this mob, and the official response which as good as sanctioned it, is very sad indeed. We can only be proud of the brave woman in the video who stood up to these bullies. She is a Sri Lankan. Not really sure what the other people are.

David Blacker: Some of us fought, killed, died, were crippled, and watched our friends die beside us so that this country would remain united and free. We did not do it so that another bunch of violent extremists could divide our country again in the name of religion; nor for you, the government, to support it.

###

Published first in the print edition of The Nation, 29 April 2012.

• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• Monks of War – Al-Jazeera on the JHU
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero
• The Mind of Compassion: Buddhism and Violence

A week ago, a violent a mob of about 2,000 Sinhalese, including a group of Buddhist monks led by the Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero, stormed and vandalised a mosque in Dambulla. The mosque was declared an illegal structure, but it is unclear how this far this is accurate.

The shameful behaviour and expression employed by the Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero, along with the monks he led and the crowd of thugs is not remotely associated with or reflective of the philosophy of the Dhamma, the teachings of the Buddha, or the way in which a Buddhist monk is supposed to behave and speak. Many online have already expressed their dismay and deep concern over the actions of a few, placing Sri Lanka in the media spotlight again for all the wrong reasons.

We have a choice, but time is running out. Speak up. Sign up to this online statement and say that this violence was not in your name, and that more calls to violence are futile. Renounce a fringe lunacy and resist extremism. By putting your name below, you are opposing mob violence and bigotry as ways to resolve disputes.

If we have to fight, let’s fight to keep Sri Lanka free of extremists who threaten not only what they seek to destroy, but also who and what they claim to represent. Add your name, and please pass the message on.

Read the full statement and sign up in English here, in Tamil here and in Sinhala here.

• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero
• The middle finger to the middle-path in Sri Lanka
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• Bigoted monks and militant mobs: Is this Buddhism in Sri Lanka today?
• Monks of War – Al-Jazeera on the JHU

In more ways than one, a sleeping Buddha in Dambulla Rock Cave Temple. Courtesy University of Peradeniya

Whilst the country awaits the decision of the regime regarding which recommendations, if any, of the LLRC report it will implement, human rights and reconciliation continue to be challenged, by disappearances and now, the ugly spectre of religious intolerance.

From October 2011 to March 2012, there have been some 56 cases of disappearances and abduction recorded.  Some 29 of these have been in February and March of this year and 19 happened whilst the UNHRC was in session.  Of the 29 cases, 16 have been reported from Colombo and 08 from the Northern Province.  Five of the cases reported from the north are said to be ex-LTTE cadre who had been detained, released and then abducted. Egregious cases include that of

1. Mr Ramasamy Prabhakaran who was abducted in Colombo two days before his fundamental rights petition was to come up before the Supreme Court. He had been held for 28 months and tortured.
2. Mr Sagara Senaratne, an in – law of Minister Jeevan Kumaratunga, who alleges that he was released once the President and Defence Secretary were informed of his abduction.
3. Mr Ravindra Udayashantha, the UPFA chairperson of the Kolonnawa Pradeshiya Council who alleged that the attempt to abduct him was foiled by his supporters surrounding the white van sent for this purpose only to discover that it contained army personnel. The latter were later released and the officer in charge of the police station transferred according to authorities on grounds unrelated to the incident.
4. The Gunaratnam and Atygalle cases, which were preceded by the disappearance of Lalith Weeraraj and Kugan Murugananthan in Jaffna – nothing being heard of the last two since they were disappeared.

The issue is as to what the regime is willing and able to do about disappearances and abductions and increasingly, to dispel the perception that in some of these cases at least, it is complicit – a perception that is lent credence to by the Senaratne and Kolonnawa cases.   Were this to be entirely erroneous a perception or accurate to the extent that there could be rogue elements in the law and order and security establishment at lower levels who operate without the knowledge and to the detriment of the hierarchy, it begs the question of the extent to which the hierarchy knows what is going on.  Assuming that none of this has anything to do with persons in the law and order and security establishment, the question still remains as to what credible steps they are willing and able to take to stop the institutionalization of an egregious human rights violation as a common place occurrence in the country.

It is not clear as to the seriousness and priority with which the regime treats this. The sensitivities of being seen to bow to international opinion on human rights post –Geneva notwithstanding, there is the danger of this becoming a political issue that could haunt the regime and erode its standing nationally.   There was a time when the questions -who is this man? what is he doing?- came to be catch phrases for a dark phase in our recent history. As a columnist put with regard to the Senaratne case – how did they know whom to call? Will that question be the catchphrase of today, tomorrow and tomorrow……..?

Dangerous and frightening is what is going on in Dambulla – the most recent example of religious intolerance but certainly not the only one in recent times.   The legality of both the Hindu and Muslim places of worship aside, the key question, given the need of the hour being reconciliation is as to why the issue was allowed to be dealt with, with violence, intimidation, gross contempt and insensitivity to religious coexistence and tolerance which the peoples of this country have upheld through decades of war and before.

Did anyone know that this incident was being planned? Why was it allowed to proceed and result in the cancellation of prayers at the mosque on Friday?  Questions are constantly asked and accusations hurled at those who have spoken out post –war at majoritarian triumphalism and the muscular assertion of the majority Sinhala- Buddhist identity.  All of this was on display in Dambulla, with the threat to expand the space for it throughout the island.  Particularly tragic, is that the area in which this demonstration of thuggery was enacted in the name of historic religious rights, with its Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu places of worship, has been a testament to religious tolerance and coexistence – not for over a century as the monk sarcastically inquires of the girl who says she worshiped at the Hindu shrine when she was a child – but for decades.

Available evidence suggests that the regime will resolve the issue in favour of the majority.  One can only hope and pray that whatever the resolution of the issue, that it will not lead to further violence and spread. Most importantly, that it will not sow the seeds of religious conflict.  Reconciliation requires that the seeds of conflict along any axis are not sustained or reproduced.

Dambulla is also telling for the deafening silence of those who feel the patriotic compulsion to regularly mouth off on the indignities and subversion of traitors and conspirators within and without.  I have yet to see an editorial in the media on this, denunciation of this blatant violation of the tenets of Buddhism by leading prelates, monks, members of civil society and politicians, except for a handful of the latter and those of us who have been labeled as traitors for upholding basic human rights.  Is criticism of members of the Sangha taboo even when it focuses on blatant violations of the teachings of the Lord Buddha and the overarching imperative of reconciliation to which these teachings are so integral and pivotal a part of?  What of the discipline of the priesthood?  Was the behavior of the monks in Dambulla in keeping with it?

It is time for civil society, its religious and lay components, to step up to the plate of their responsibilities to rid this country of ugly and altogether unnecessary tension and conflict.  It is highly likely that if they do, a populist regime will in turn take the lead from its followers, as populist regimes are wont to, to stay in power.

It would seem that as criticism of members of the Sangha is taboo, so does the minister who threatened to break my legs, enjoy impunity.   We are told by First Brother Basil that he has done good deeds in Kelaniya and that only His Excellency the President can remove him – from the party- that is.  His Excellency appears to be unmoved.

Would it have been any different if he carried out his threat, in this country and regime like no other?

• Horrible rise of disappearances in post-war Sri Lanka continues unabated
• Is Dambulla, Babri Masjid Redux?
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• Photo essay: Freedom, Religion, and Dambulla
• Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka

A Buddhist monk flashes a mosque in Dambulla. Screen grab from News 1st TV footage. 

The events in Dambulla over the past week, when Buddhist monks led the storming of a mosque, bear chilling resemblance to events in Ayodhya, India, on and around the 6^th December 1992, when mobs lead by Hindu fundamentalist clergy demolished the Babri Masjid. The consequences of the events in the run-up to the demolition and its aftermath are still being felt across India today.

The similarities between Ayodhya 1992 and Dambulla 2012 go well beyond frenzied crowds trying to storm a mosque egged on by saffron clad clergy. The reference to this act as shramadaanya sounds disturbingly akin to kar seva, a euphemism coined by Hindu fundamentalists for an otherwise unholy act. Images of a monk apparently exposing himself to the mosque in a vulgar frenzy underlines the same deeply macho, misogynist militancy that Hindu fundamentalism has embodied in India, paving the way for the brutal sexual violence against hundreds of Muslim women in Gujarat in 2002.

The arguments that the mosque in question was illegal, that it stood on sacred grounds, that it was not new or not used regularly etc., are all well rehearsed and nor will this be the last time they will be heard, with respect to a mosque, a kovil, or a church for that matter, as past and present are rewritten. The call to Sinhala race and blood, the brazen defiance of rule of law and the eventual capitulation of the government also bear ominous similarities.

Needless to say, one can point to many differences between Ayodhya and Dambulla. The former was central to a massive nation-wide mobilisation while the latter was far more localized, though arguably reflective of a larger nation-wide trend. No doubt the Sri Lankan government will claim that the mosque is being ‘relocated’ not ‘demolished’. And there are many others too but all that apart, there is no mistaking the basic message and nor should anyone be under the illusion as to which side the Sri Lankan state stands with. The events in Dambulla, especially the alacrity with which the state consented to a chauvinist clergy, will no doubt further embolden militant Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalists, already well fed by the Rajapakse regime on a heady cultural-nationalist diet.

The rising tide of Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism in a society already brutalised by war and ethnic cleavages, coupled with a resurgent militarisation that is undermining democratic institutions and restricting political freedoms, poses huge challenges to Sri Lanka. In a post-war context, this will leave nascent social movements, progressive political forces and a section of politically engaged NGOs, all already hounded by the state, struggling more than ever to build precariat and proletariat solidarities across ethnic and religious divides.  A fractured Tamil and Muslim political society, long hostage to identity politics from the inside, will possibly dig deeper still and render no favours. Precious little can be expected from the middle and upper classes anyway, already well on their way to being wooed by the cleaner streets and well-trimmed parks of Colombo, all thanks to the military of course, and lop-sided economic development.

If the recent history in India is anything to go by, events in Dambulla are a cause for alarm. Ayodhya 1992 came to pass, despite Indian civil society continuing to harbour hope (alongside deep fears) that the Babri Masjid would survive, that India’s institutions were strong enough to withstand that test. However, civil society could do little of significance to even stop what followed the demolition. Worse, ten years later Gujarat happened. The events in Dambulla may not have cost lives, like the many still unaccounted for tragedies in the final stages of the war. Yet, the consequences of what it portends are likely to be as far-reaching and as damaging to the wider polity and social fabric.

• Photo essay: Freedom, Religion, and Dambulla
• Deeds of mosque in Dambulla and photos of damage: How is this structure illegal? (UPDATED)
• Bigoted monks and militant mobs: Is this Buddhism in Sri Lanka today?
• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero

The Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero, one of the key figures in the on-going tensions in Dambulla over the presence of a mosque and kovil near his Temple, perhaps in response to the public outcry against the violence instigated by him, has told the BBC that TV footage that showed monks engaged in violence – including one monk disrobing and exposing himself to the mosque – were fake.

The Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero told BBC Sandeshaya that he only led a ‘peaceful and democratic protest against illegal constructions’.

He maintained that no violence was used.

“Videos that portrayed the protest as violent were technically manipulated,” said the Mahanayaka thero who also heads a media outlet.

Let us for the sake of argument not disbelieve or dismiss what Inamaluwe Sumangala thero says. Musāvāda veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi, or refraining from incorrect or false speech, is after all one of the five Noble Precepts. Let us believe that TV broadcasts of the violent mob were doctored.

There is however, a slight problem. Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero is the Director General of the private radio station Rangiri Radio.

Rangiri Radio also has a Facebook fan page. As it notes, “Rangiri Sri Lanka is a radio channel that has been inaugurated with the intention of promoting the Buddhist cultural values and development of personality including aeasthetics values.”

On both the homepage of the Rangiri Radio website, and prominently, at the time of writing, on the Facebook page of Rangiri Radio, the following video appears. The well crafted introduction and end credits suggest that this is a professional production, featured on Rangiri Radio with the awareness if not also the blessings of Inamaluwe Sumangala thero, who also appears in it.

If one glosses over the racist chants, the video footage fully supports Inamaluwe Sumangala thero’s submissions that he only led a peaceful and democratic protest. Up until, that is, around a minute and twenty seconds into the video. 1.27 to around 2.20 showcase the most violent moments of the mob, where you don’t need to understand the derogatory, racist expressions in Sinhala to observe just how far the monks and the mob are from being peaceful, democratic or indeed, Buddhist in expression and behaviour.

In light of the divide between Inamaluwe Sumangala thero’s submission to the BBC and what really was said and done, we wonder if there is a more righteous sangha in Sri Lanka or abroad who can urgently remind the monks in Dambulla about the first and fourth Noble Precepts in particular?

• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• The middle finger to the middle-path in Sri Lanka
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• The Mind of Compassion: Buddhism and Violence
• Monks of War – Al-Jazeera on the JHU

Groundviews was sent a copy of what we were told was the deed of the mosque at the centre of an on-going controversy in Dambulla, Sri Lanka. We were also sent photos of the damage and vandalism wrought by the mob violence a few days ago.

We’ve uploaded the document to Scribd as a PDF, and the high resolution, original scanned images of the deed to Flickr. Both are embedded below, along with four photos of vandalism to copies of the Quran and the cupboards in which they were stored.

Groundviews has already flagged that the basis upon which the PM, in a televised submission, said that the mosque was an illegal construction is hugely suspect.

In a video of a community meeting uploaded to YouTube two days ago, in the presence of Senior Minister for Urban Affairs A H M Fowzie and the Assistant Government Agent, there is a discussion in Sinhala about, inter alia, the legality of the mosque. The discussion on the mosque’s location and legality starts around 6.20 into the video. at around 7.50, the AGA is directly asked whether she thinks the mosque is an unauthorised structure. Seconds before, the discussion was about the fact the mosque had been there for decades. The AGA unequivocally notes that the structure is unauthorised. When asked why she thinks so, she says nowhere in the AGA’s office is the structure recorded as a mosque. When the crowd informs her that this is not necessary given the law in Sri Lanka, she responds that she doesn’t even have a copy of the records that some in the crowd say have been for years with the central government.

From around 8.40 to around 9.30, a lawyer present at the meeting politely and patiently runs through the relevant laws around registering a mosque, reiterating that the AGA’s office is not the location, under the law, that it should be registered with. The AGA persist and says that her office has no record of a mosque or kovil in the area. A person from the crowd retorts that while this may be the case, it is irrelevant under the applicable laws. In response however, the AGA simply notes that there is no record of a mosque or kovil in her records.

Given the exchange above, we publish the deeds for wider public scrutiny in the hope that informed persons, including lawyers more familiar with the registration of places of worship, and in particular, mosques, are able to shed light on why a structure that has, by multiple accounts of residents in the area, been present and used for decades, and ostensibly for which the deeds are also available, is now considered illegal and unauthorised.

5:53pm: Pursuant to the vibrant debate on Twitter (follow on @groundviews) over the original post, Groundviews has just been forwarded copies of what we are told is the original deed, and other relevant documentation over the land for the extension of the mosque. This documentation was kindly sent to us from the office of Reyyaz Salley.

• Sharing a common god: The Sivasubramaniam Kovil in Slave Island
• A bizarre polling card: Evidence of a flawed election?
• What must it be like to live behind these Kovil gates?
• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero

Image courtesy BBC

The storming of the Dambulla Mosque on Friday the 20^th April and chasing away of the Muslim worshippers attending Friday prayers by a mob led by Buddhist priests is epoch making in modern Sri Lankan history. The majority of the people of all communities are shocked and incensed by the way Buddhist priests lead this violent and destructive mob against the Dambulla Mosque.

According to authorities this mosque has been in existence since 1964 and built with the support of the people of the area and the Viharadhipathy, the Chief Incumbent of the historic Dambulla Rajamahavihara. Deplorably the pretext used by the mob led by the Monk is that this mosque is built on sacred land. This casts aspersion upon the goodwill of the people and the then Chief Incumbent of the Dambulla Rajamavihara as lesser Buddhists than the latter to permit the Muslim countrymen to worship in the place they domicile/work.  This raises several questions about the authenticity of the Buddhist Monks who participated in this about their true Buddhist credentials.

The Buddhist –Muslim relation in Sri Lanka is more than ten centuries old and this bond has hitherto been not broken despite the 500 years of colonial rule, the post colonial period and beyond. The Muslims did not succumb to the divide and rule politics of the colonial powers and they distinctly identified those that are alien from those that are their countrymen. This is the reason why Muslims did not become surrogate of the colonial masters and therefore bore the brunt of suffering with the majority Buddhists during the colonial period. This is because Buddhist –Muslim relationship is not built on opportunities or marriages of convenience but of sincere understanding and goodwill, time tested by centuries of coexistence. This is the reason why Muslims stood as a buffer against the division of the country inspite of the bulk of them being Tamil speaking, therefore they got battered and butchered when they were praying in the mosques by the LTTE and still, more than 100,000 Muslim IDPs are living in squalid conditions and are deprived of their livelihood and domicile in spite of the end of war, which, neither the GOSL nor the International community shows pity on them. The reason why this bond is stronger is because both these communities strongly believe in the unhindered sovereignty of the Sri Lanka state. A cursory glance at the history of Sri Lanka would testify why the colonial invaders found the Buddhists and Sri Lankan Muslims as their enemy and not otherwise.

Dambulla mosque attack is not a yardstick to measure the strength of the Muslim-Buddhist bond and it is not going to be broken just because some believe that few frictions here and there would weaken both communities by polarization. This attack is not against the Muslims, this is an attack against the sovereignty of the state judging by the way these are emerging. Since Buddhists cannot be taken head-on, the strategy is possibly to polarize the Muslims and the Buddhists so that would create justifications to paint the majority Buddhist community as racist to achieve the grand plans of those who are pulling strings.

Prelude to Geneva Resolution

With the end of the war and elimination of the LTTE, India and the western powers lost leverage in Sri Lanka. India lost its geopolitical spindle and so has the West. Ever since both entities were on the lookout for regaining leverage in Sri Lankan affairs and the hype created by the Channel 4 and the lackadaisical response of the GOSL to the suffering of the Tamil community gave them the opening. In the prelude to the Geneva Resolutions too, the Muslims played a distinct role to safeguard the sovereignty of the state from interference and interventions.  The Muslims staunchly sided with the GOSL not because they were against their Tamil brethren but because the sovereignty of Sri Lanka is a shared responsibility.  The ministers, deputy ministers and their bandwagon went with fanfare and squabbled upon their return. This shrouded the catalytic role played by the Muslims. Sheik Rizvi Mufthi and Sheik A.C.Agar Mohammed, both senior Islamic scholars from the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulema toured Geneva and influenced and invoked Muslim country representatives to vote for Sri Lanka at the resolution. These are unofficial ambassadors who volunteered to save the sovereignty of Sri Lanka from being tarnished.

Those who harbour ill will against our country know that Buddhist-Muslim bond is formidable and would be a deterrent to their schemes and therefore polarizing both these communities would be the first step. Attack against the Muslims should be viewed in this light. The more we are divided external interventions would become stronger.

Nuwara Eliya Mosque opening by the President

President Mahinda Rajapakshe set a precedent in modern Sri Lanka by opening a Mosque in Nuwara Eliya on the 11^th April 2012 . This is the first time in Sri Lanka’s modern history that the Head of the Nation a devout Buddhist inaugarated the opening a Mosque for the Muslims. It is also noteworthy in the President’s speech, that he pointedly mentioned that   “the Muslims have always been friends of the Sinhalese historically as well as today and that they have been defending the country together with the Sinhalese”. This is a testimony to the Buddhist – Muslim bond which some can feel disturbed about. Definitely this visible emerging bonding relation between two communities is an eyesore to those who harbour ill will against Sri Lanka and they would go to all means to polarize its people.

Extremism

Extremism is not a part of the religion of the Muslims or Buddhists in Sri Lanka or the world over. Widespread extremism in modern societies is a modern phenomenon. Extremism is a by product of seeking change at an accelerated pace with emotional overdrive or is an intelligent manipulation of the gullible. Studies indicate that in post colonial Muslim countries, extremism is identified as the product of the Western or proxy intelligence agencies’ manipulations.  This was done to hinder gradual transition from post colonialism to nation building in their own terms and choice. So that nation building would take a rational and evolutionary process and result in formulating a peaceful and stable society. Such a stable and peaceful society would effectively discard colonial vestiges and build nations based on their values and ethos. Extremism is an anathema to progress and hinders stable growth of a society. The post colonial societies are not immune from this scourge and in particular Muslim countries are the most spawned to keep them divided. Extremism does no good to a society. It breeds conflict and violence and acts as a barrier to gradual progress and inhibits sustainable development in society. It makes society unstable and contributes to failed state conditions. Religious extremism of any hue or colour is not a positive contributor; instead it destroys the very religion it represents and polarises societies. Such societies will be unstable and vulnerable to external interventions.

Fortunately in Sri Lanka religious extremism from all religious groups is a rare commodity and violent extremism was non-existent. It was only chauvinism that had notoriety in Sri Lanka. The debilitating three decades separatist war brought sense to our leaders about the need for nation building which we should have embarked upon immediate to the British exit from the shores of Sri Lanka and which we didn’t. With the end of the war and decimation of the LTTE, time was ripe for nation building. This includes physical building of the state as a sustainable and stable system and mending hearts and minds of all people across the country and building a single nation of diverse cultures, beliefs and values. Unfortunately at this stage Sri Lanka as a majority Buddhist country is experiencing emergence of Buddhist extremism. The timing of this emergence raises many questions of why it did not emerge during the war and why not immediately after independence from Britain in 1948? Why should it emerge now and who are behind such an emergence?

What national benefits does the country get by Buddhists destroying mosques?  Are they going to increase our GDP or Gross Domestic Happiness? Are we not driving our motherland to another abyss? It is very doubtful that any sane Buddhist would embark on such a suicidal mission at a time the sovereignty of the state is questioned and with a partner community that has an asymmetrical advantage to grant to the Sinhalese. This creates suspicions about genuineness of the group that attacked the Dambulla Mosque. Whether they are for a parochial gain or are mercenaries working for agents of a foreign master should be probed into.

Failed State Phenomenon

Sri Lanka is turning out to be a lawless country and a failed state phenomenon. The  Dambulla Mosque and similar incidences where mobs led or instigated by Buddhist monks goes unpunished for violating all the legal norms and public decency and the victims are victimised by the state by not providing legitimate protection a state ought to provide its citizens. This is a distinct failure on the part of the state to protect its citizens and their assets from these marauding mobs. If the state continuously fails to provide security to its citizens and their assets, where can the citizens seek protection from?

The Government is caving into extremism; in this case of Dambulla Mosque which is existing since 1964, the GOSL seems weak and has approved the relocation of the mosque to a new site. Is this the right answer, aren’t they setting precedent which would drive score of mosques to seek new sites and create commotion all over the country? Such a move would certainly play into the hands of those who are fomenting trouble in the country using the mobs as their mercenaries to cause division amongst the people and open the country for external interventions.

Would this be a threat to the GOSL?

In the post 9/11 world, the West is in the process of restructuring the architecture of power and global controls. This revivification and realignments are today achieved through some NGOs and Dissenting Groups (DGs) in societies amongst other tools. Therefore the West and regional powers are strengthening DGs & NGOs and surrogating them. At times they provoke the surrogates to foment conflicts within societies and use such artificially generated conflicts as pretexts to intervene in nation states in the guise of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). There are ample evidences in Egypt, Libya and Syria proving the fact of how DGs were used as de-stabilizing forces in countries followed up by Western intervention of some sort. In this scenario, GOSL impotence to uphold law and order and failure to bring quick and effective control of mob pressure and violence at the incipient stage is very dangerous. Such mob pressure if let loose would possibly snowball into a mammoth mob almost threatening the GOSL and swarm and immobilize them as happened in Egypt and other countries.

In light of this, it is recognised how spurious the claim of those who attacked the Dambulla Mosque. Sri Lanka as a historically Buddhist country, any part at any time can become ‘Sacred Land’ and conflict can emerge anytime anywhere. These spurious claims do not help the living to live as peaceful citizens but disturb the stability of the country eternally. This inhibits nation building and peaceful co-existence.

Taking note of these facts, the GOSL should never allow anyone to take law into their hands.  Maintaining law and order and civil administration should be the prime prerogative of the GOSL and the state machinery unless the GOSL wishes to abdicate their authorities to the mobs and stamp Sri Lanka as a failed state.

• Is Dambulla, Babri Masjid Redux?
• Dambulla Mosque Attack: A Litmus Test of a Nation in Transition from Chauvinism to Civility
• TMVP in same dustbin as LTTE in the past?
• Not In Our Name: Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
• Photo essay: Freedom, Religion, and Dambulla

As noted by Raashid Riza, the Multimedia Editor of The Platform,

Last Friday a mob of about 2,000 Sinhalese, led by a group of Buddhist monks, stormed into a mosque in the historical city of Dambulla. They caused disturbances so severe that Friday prayers had to be cancelled. Reports suggest that the mosque had been hurled at with petrol bombs the night before, causing minor damage, and security forces were deployed to control the situation. The targeting of the Muslim community was instigated by a group of racist Sinhalese individuals, consisting largely of hooligans, who were motivated by the uproar and attention such an act would create, rather than by any identifiable ideology.

News channels have since broadcast footage from the incident. It is extremely disturbing, and warrants attention. Since the content is in Sinhala, we offer rough translations of the most disquieting sentiments.

00:47: Buddhist monk in orange robe: “The Divisional Secretary promised that on Monday, which is to say in two days, there will be a meeting at 3pm to take a decision on this matter.”

1:15: Buddhist monk in brown robe: “This is how the written promise came. Listen carefully. 2011.4.20. This is a historic day for us. In the Kingdom of Dambulla, in the absence of a Sinhala King, when there was no King… the Head Prelate, led by Ven. Jayaratana in front of the Buddhist clergy we will come to a verdict. This verdict is not just for Dambulla, but all of Sri Lanka… We are number one in self-governance. Because of this, against the courts, without the President, this written promise is a first, a victory for those who love the race (hela), have Sinhala blood, and are Buddhists. This is what it says. There are reports of an illegal Muslim mosque near the Rangiri Dambulu Temple. That a huge swathe of people were part of a protest is also reported. After 1.11pm no Muslim, for whatever reason – you can’t even go to the toilet – (derisive laughter from crowd) I promise to the Sinhala Buddhist people who love the country. Signed – is he Muslim? (derisive laughter from crowd) Senior Police Superintendent… With this victory, we temporarily depart. To be continued with your pooja”.

3.20 to 6.20 features Sri Lanka’s Prime MInister speaking about the incident, which he said he first got to know about from the newspapers. He notes that for around 500 Muslims in the Dambulla area, the contested mosque is the closest place of worship they have. What’s quite bizarre about the PM’s statement is that he notes (3.19 to around 3.36) that the Dambulla Temple grounds have been declared a sacred area by the Town and Country Planning Ordinance. But as Namini Wijedasa notes in Lakbima News,

The government last week withdrew an amendment to the Town and Country Planning Ordinance that if passed would have given the Minister of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs vast powers over any private property in the country.

The Town and Country Planning (Amendment), a copy of which was obtained by LAKBIMAnEWS, consists of just eight clauses. Legal practitioners described the bill as ‘bizarre.’ It was presented to parliament close on the heels of another controversial law–the Revival of Underperforming and Underutilised Assets bill–under which the government acquired overnight the assets of 37 private sector companies.

Thus, the illegality of the mosque, going by the PM’s definition on TV, is very suspect. In fact, Deputy Minister of Women’s Affairs A.L.M. Hizbullah notes that the mosque is over 50 years old,

..If there is any dispute, it must be discussed and seen to. Surrounding the mosque and staging a protest only disturbs the harmony in this country that has been restored after a 30 year war… I have prayed at this mosque as early as 1985 when I was still in university. There have been no issues in the past. Only recently have there been problems when the number of people coming into the mosque on Fridays for Jummah prayers increased.

In the clip above, at around 4.47 the PM says that there is no provision for the erection of temples belonging to other religions within the land owned by Buddhist temples. Smiling, he wonders aloud why there was a sudden inflammation of disharmony around the mosque in Dambulla. Noting the government’s foremost responsibility to protect Buddhism, at around 5.36 the PM notes that the government’s responsibility is also to ensure that people of other religions can fairly observe their own religious practices. He ends by stressing the need for religious harmony and peaceful co-habitation, and flags the need to follow the tenets of each religion.

However, a longer clip of the segment first broadcast on TV suggests that some leading members of the Buddhist clergy in Dambulla are, clearly, not even remotely Buddhist in thought, expression and action.

There are members of the Sangha engaged in mob violence. There is a member of the Sangha who disrobes, jumps up and down and exposes himself, in public, against the mosque. Others break down the entrance of the mosque. A Chief Prelate from the Dambulla Temple suggests that the mob is a shramadaanaya, and that destroying the mosque is something that they should in fact be helped by the government.

At around 3.47 in this video, there is a particularly chilling exchange between one of the Chief Prelates of the Dambulla Temple and a Hindu resident of the area. The female resident, who is not once dis-respectful in her submissions to the Prelate, says that from when she was small, she had worshipped at a Kovil in the area. The Prelate’s immediate answer is whether she is referring to the 1800′s. In a menacing Sinhala idiom that loses a lot of its original violence in translation, the Chief Prelate threatens to either remove the Kovil, or have it removed along with the homes of the Hindu residents, noting that they are all there illegally. The Chief Prelate notes, through a Sinhala adage, that not only are the crows attempting to fly over their heads, they are now attempting to enter the nest as well – a clear reference to the Hindus and Muslims in the areas. The woman assures the Chief Prelate, in a very deferent expression, that there is nothing for him to fear about their worship. However, the Prelate’s answer is again menacing in Sinhala, noting that she can take her gods wherever they want to, but away from the sacred ground of the Temple.

The whole exchange and clip is sickening.

As Concerned Citizen in Spirtuality, Religion and Human Conflict avers,

In Sri Lanka, we can also see the negative impact of nationalizing Buddhism as a state religion and the obligation of the state to give it primacy of place over all other religions and foster its practice as required by the Constitution. The politicization of Buddhism favours the majority Sinhalese as it happens to be practiced only by Sinhalese in Sri Lanka and therefore marginalizes all other ethnic/religious minorities, particularly the largest minority group, the Tamils which has contributed to the ethnic conflict. Although the conflict culminated in a war resulting in the successful decimation of the extremist terrorist movement by the state, it has given rise to fanatical Buddhist supremacy which is intolerant of other creeds.

In a Twitter conversation with Dinouk Colombage (@Dinoukc), a journalist with the Sunday Leader newspaper, he notes that according to reports he has received, people of the Dambulla area are ashamed at the behaviour of the Buddhist clergy.

tweeted:

Forgetting and moving on, however, is easier said than done when mob violence, outright racism and violent expression are so closely associated with the practice of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Late last year, a similar mob also led by Buddhist monks destroyed another Muslim place of worship. Photos of the incident show Police just standing by, and a green flag with Islamic iconography being burnt. Mervyn Silva, a senior government Minister whose public record of violence is well documented and is protected by no less than the ruling family, openly threatens to maim and kill human rights defenders and, literally, in the same breath says he is a good Sinhala Buddhist. Some of these statements were made in a leading temple in Colombo, with members of the Buddhist clergy present, who went on to bless the Minister.

Positively frightening Facebook groups that go unnoticed in mainstream discourse because the content is completely in Sinhala demonstrate the fringe lunacy that drives Sinhala-Buddhist extremism. Each of these group have over 4,000 fans, and by the looks of it, are extremely active and influential. Both feature incredibly inflammatory content over the Dambulla incident.

From https://www.facebook.com/pages/මාගේ-හෘද-සාක්ෂිය/351343628228268

From https://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Buddhism-බුදු-දහම-ආරක්ෂාකරමු/318576704821497

Though the denigration of Islam and Muslims in these respective Facebook pages is too outrageous and maniacal to translate, in every single instance, it is justified by way of protecting Buddhism and the motherland (a violently reductionist conflation of maathru and punya bhoomi).

As Raashid Riza’s article goes on to note,

I have seen Facebook and Twitter updates of Muslims visibly upset, as they should be. But the actions of the Muslims should be based on rational thought, accountability and logic, otherwise they will play into the ploys of those who seek to have them driven by their emotions. These communities should be patient and understand that, despite the odds, their interests will be best served in acting within the confines of ethics, morality and legal jurisdiction.

Muslim politicians have to realise these matters and work with the government and the opposition in consolidating their status as a community that has always acted in the best interests of the Sri Lankan state, and continue to enjoy their status as fully integrated Sri Lankan citizens bar none.

Conversely, given damning silence of the Chief Prelates of all the Nikayas over the violence in Dambulla and hate speech in the name of Buddhism, how do you think the Buddha, were he present, would have responded to this frothing chauvinism?

• Ask Ass. Sec. Robert Blake a question on Sri Lanka over Twitter
• A different take from the Sangha: The dhamma and religious co-existence in Sri Lanka (UPDATED)
• Photo essay: Freedom, Religion, and Dambulla
• Groundviews on Twitter and Facebook
• Fake video and lies: The strange case of Dambulla’s Inamaluwe Sumangala thero

[Editors note: Also listen to podcast by author here.]

The end of the war is certainly not the end of the conflict that led to the military confrontation between the military forces of Sri Lanka state and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This conflict surfaces in different guises, the military episode being only one. It is well-known that conflicting interpretations of the past of the island by conflicting parties is a major factor in the conflict.[1] When the military confrontation was the dominant form of the conflict, the importance of other forms were less evident. With the military episode completely over, non military aspects of the conflict are again coming to the fore. It is in this context that the renewed role of “history” in the Sri Lanka ethnic conflict has to be discussed.

In the collective imagination of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist South’, the ‘Tamil North’ occupies a very special place. In short, it is a place to be conquered and occupied. To the Sinhala-Buddhist mind the “North” is very much part of the Sinhala-Buddhist territory. This territory has long been illegitimately occupied by Tamils, or, according to more sophisticated versions, occupied mostly by former Sinhalese who have metamorphosed into Tamils following some maneuvering by elite groups and European colonial rulers. Sinhala nationalist propagandists such as Nalin de Silva and Suriya Gunasekera have been the most vocal and strident proponents of this view.[2] Although this explanation is restricted to a limited group who are very well familiar with their literature, there is a general consensus among ordinary Sinhala-Buddhists about the Sinhala-Buddhist ownership of the North.

This Sinhala-Buddhist perception towards the Tamil North is very much part of the ideology of the Post-Colonial Sri Lanka state. In this ideology, the territorial integrity of the state is articulated in a very special way. In the minds of the Sinhala-Buddhist, “Lankawe ekeeyabhwaya” (Unity/unitariness of Sri Lanka) is not a notion of modern territorially based statehood or constitutionalism, but a historically constituted notion that is well represented in the Sinhala-Buddhist parlance “dedahas pansiya wasarak tisse pevethi ekeeya rajjaya” (United state that existed for the last 2500 years).

The notion of island (dvϊpa) formed part of the ruling ideology of Anuradhapura, at least at the time of the compilation of the Mahawamsa in the 6^th century CE. Apparently there were two sources of this ideology of ‘islandness’. One is the outsiders’ perception where the geographical entity was identified as a social entity as well. For reasons that are not clear, a powerful group of inhabitants in the island, at least a section of which formed the ruling elite of Anuradhapura, came to be known as sīhala and the island was named by many outsiders as the ‘Island of sīhalas (sīhaladīpa or its variant serendib as pronounced by Arabians). The other source of this ideology is the world view of the bikkhus (community of Buddhist monks) who were a decisive social group in the pre-modern historical development of the island. The idea that the ‘island’ is the place destined to preserve Buddhism in its pure form for five thousand years was central to the world view that was propagated by a dominant section of the bikkhu community, who were probably close to the ruling elite. The notion dammadϊpa perfectly encompassed this world view. Attempts were made through mythical traditions to link this world view with the wishes of living Buddha himself, where he prepared the island for the ordained task by visiting the island three times and asking the god sakra to protect Wijaya and his retinue.[3]

Through the articulation of this ideology, the post-colonial ruling elite sanctified the existing territoriality of the state. In the context that the existing territoriality is being constantly put into question by the Tamils not only though alternative ideology but also politico-military means, upholding this sanctified tradition is immensely significant.

Although the comprehensive military victory over the LTTE was celebrated on a massive scale and the entire Sinhala-Buddhist populace responded to it as if they achieved the ultimate victory over the Tamil North, there is also wider acceptance, at the same time, that the mission is not fully accomplished.[4] There are a number of fronts to fight in: taming and de-nationalizing Tamil politics, discrediting the Tamil Diaspora, changing the demography in the North, etc. In addition, the reconstitution of the “historic” Sinhala-Buddhist North (and East) is also recognized as a prominent task.

Post-war politico-ideological interventions in relation to the North are fascinating and quite significant. Apart from continued military presence and “development process” as defined by the Sinhala state in line with neo-liberalism, there are other ideologically driven interventions. Pilgrimage has become one such phenomenon. Sinhala-Buddhist pilgrims who are flocking into Jaffna peninsula in large numbers I will argue are engaged in a politico-ideological act rather than a religious act. Beneath the official rhetoric of bringing about ethnic harmony through North-South people to people encounters, these pilgrimages reproduce conflicting interests between Sinhala and Tamil ethno-nationalist identity politics. Although pilgrimage has provided much needed economic benefits for the North, they have at the same time created a sense of anxiety among politically and ideologically conscious Tamils.

The major ideological inspiration for these Sinhala-Buddhist pilgrims is arguably the discourse of “Sinhala-Buddhist heritage in the North and East” (uturu negenahira Sinhala bauddha urumaya). The most vigorous propagators of this ideology, with the moral, institutional, material and political support of the state and, particularly unofficial backing of the military, became very active in the post-war context. In their point of view the most important task of the post-war reconstitution of the North (and East) is to re-establish the historical rights of the Sinhala-Buddhists in this territory.[5]

Photo courtesy Transcurrents

As permanent residents of the North territory are unlikely to be converted to the Sinhala-Buddhist ideology, the strategy that propagators of the Sinhala-Buddhist ideology have adopted is to create an alternative and parallel space of social relations in competition with that of Tamils. It is possible to compare this strategy with the one that Sinhala-Buddhists have adopted in relation to Buddhist sites in India.

Buddhist sites in North India and Nepal, for which Sinhala-Buddhists use the name dambadiva form a part of the imaginary Sinhala-Buddhist territory. Dambadiva, as found in the Sinhala Buddhist imagination, is not a location of the geography of South Asia. Therefore dambadiva vandanava is a pilgrimage to the imagined part of the Sinhala-Buddhist territory. Moreover, this is not a visit to a foreign land either. The usual term rata yanava (going abroad) would not be used for this journey. It would simply be referred to as dambadiva yanava (going to dambadiva, not even ‘going to India’).

If the ultimate realization of the Sinhala-Buddhist territoriality in relation to dambadiva is the pilgrimage, the case of North-bound pilgrimage is different. As mentioned at the beginning, the North, unlike dambadiva, is, in the mind of the Sinhala-Buddhist, a place to be conquered and occupied. If they are satisfied, in the case of dambadiva, only with preserving Buddhist sites in India as pilgrim destinations, something more has to be achieved in the North. As a religious act of ordinary devotees, pilgrimage to the North is of course an end in itself. For the politically and ideologically conscious pilgrims, this is more than that. They are quite conscious of the broader significance of their journey. They share the view that the historical sequence that linked the modern Sinhala-Buddhist with early Buddhist affairs in the island has been broken in the North by way of de-buddhisization and de-sinhalization and its Sinhala-Buddhist heritage has to be re-established.

The decisive feature of this post-war Sinhala-Buddhist imagination of the North is that it is solely based on the historical consciousness of Sinhala-Buddhists and runs completely against the Tamil nationalist and Southern non-nationalist political imaginations of the post-war North. In particular, it runs against the notion of ‘traditional Tamil homelands’ which is the political core of the Tamil historical consciousness.

There is an important factor that gives an extra advantage to the Sinhala-Buddhist historical consciousness. The historical narrative that is linked with the latter is generally compatible with the dominant paradigm of the modern historical scholarship in Sri Lanka. That is the reason why dominant figures in the Sri Lankan historical scholarship such as K.M. de Silva have questioned the ‘traditional Tamil homeland’ theory as mythical and grounded in political interests of Tamil nationalism, without trying to question the mythical basis of the dominant paradigm, which supports the Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness and the political interests of the Sinhala-Buddhist ruling elite.[6]

Conclusion

From the point of view of a post-war reconciliation that should accommodate the legitimate demands of Tamils in the North and East, the renewed importance of ‘history’ in shaping the post-war dynamics of the ethno-political conflict will certainly pose a major challenge to those who wish to overcome the horizons of nationalist imaginations in a new post-war rethinking of politics. In a context where extreme Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism is unprecedentedly strong and ideologically aggressive, providing the ideological support for the political system that excludes Tamils, the need to build an alternative discourse of history becomes more than a naïve academic pursuit. It is a profound political and ideological task that has to be given a high priority.

###

This essay is part of a series on the theme of post war reconciliation, justice and development initiated by the International Center for Ethnic Studies, (ICES). Colombo. The views expressed are the author’s own and does not necessarily represent the views of the ICES.

• History after the War: Challenges for Post War Reconciliation (Podcast)
• Dr. Devanesan Nesiah on post-war / post-LTTE Sri Lanka
• Politics of Sinhala Nationalism: Underpinning of the UPFA Victory and Undermining of the Sri Lankan Nationhood
• Sri Lankan Post-War Cinema and Reconciliation
• The ‘post-LTTE’ misnomer

This podcast is based on History after the War: Challenges for Post War Reconciliation penned by the author. As noted in the article,

From the point of view of a post-war reconciliation that should accommodate the legitimate demands of Tamils in the North and East, the renewed importance of ‘history’ in shaping the post-war dynamics of the ethno-political conflict will certainly pose a major challenge to those who wish to overcome the horizons of nationalist imaginations in a new post-war rethinking of politics. In a context where extreme Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism is unprecedentedly strong and ideologically aggressive, providing the ideological support for the political system that excludes Tamils, the need to build an alternative discourse of history becomes more than a naïve academic pursuit. It is a profound political and ideological task that has to be given a high priority.

Nirmal Ranjith 2012 Feb 21(1)

• History after the War: Challenges for Post War Reconciliation
• Politics of Sinhala Nationalism: Underpinning of the UPFA Victory and Undermining of the Sri Lankan Nationhood
• Tamil Diaspora in Post-War Sri Lanka
• Sri Lankan Post-War Cinema and Reconciliation
• The Third Option