THE WEST AND US
A reader referring to an article by me, where I had said that if not for the backing of the west Prabhakaran would have been destroyed a long time ago reminds me that the UNP and the PA governments rather than the west are responsible for the current situation in the country. It is true that the UNP and the PA not to mention some higher ups in the armed forces are responsible for the plight of the Sinhala people but we should not forget that it is the west that created and maintains Tamil racism and Tamil terrorism and that in the final analysis the UNP and the PA governments are nothing but agents of the western powers, though we the voters are supposed to elect them at "democratically" held elections. The west is controlling not only the government but the NGOs and the LTTE and the talks in Thailand which itself is influenced by the Americans would move according to the wish of the Norwegians who are only the agents of USA. Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe's visits to USA, ostensibly to attend the UN sessions this time, and the visits of high ranking officials in the USA to Sri Lanka only symbolise the control the USA has on us.
The west continues to rule us without their own governors and government agents. Instead of the white governors and white government agents and secretaries and white government treasurers now we have their (not ours) dark skinned Presidents, Prime Ministers, Secretaries and the "Disapathies". Long before Fannon wrote on the whites and the blacks Anagarika Dharmapala warned the Sinhala people in words equivalent to the following. " The Suddas (English/British) would leave the country one day leaving a set of Kalu Suddas (Black or dark coloured English) who would rule you." Fannon is regarded as an intellectual whereas Anagarika Dharmapala is condemned as a Sinhala Chauvinist. I think Sinhalas have one of the worst, if not the worst set of Kalu Suddas as their so-called leaders, and in general the so-called educated Sinhala people are the worst imitators of the whites and their culture that includes their knowledge.
Our so-called intellectuals are no better than the agents of food and of other commodities, who introduce and distribute these products to the Sri Lankan customers. These "intellectuals" are only agents of western universities and research institutes that produce knowledge, who "introduce" various western theories and concepts to the locals) had "convinced" us that nation building was possible only in capitalist societies. As there was no capitalism in Sri Lanka during the period of Pandukabhaya, our "intellectuals" did not consider the possibility of creating a Sinhala nation during that time! The problem in Sri Lanka is not the so called exclusive attitude of the Sinhalas but the arrogant attitude of Tamil racism backed by western powers not to recognise the Sinhala nation, Sinhala language and Sinhala culture that is already existing. It is not an ethnic problem. It is part of cultural colonialism. The west is using Tamil racism to deprive Sinhalathva its rightful place in the country. It was the Tamil racists who decided to stay outside the nation and demand a separate country and a nationhood for the Tamils. The west not only created Tamil racism but they maintain it through various means.
The September 11 myth has been now exploded and it is clear that the west is against only those terrorists who are anti Christian. In Sri Lanka they have not taken any steps to help the government to defeat Tamil terrorism and on the contrary they had insisted that the Sri Lankan government talk to the LTTE terrorists. They have started with culvert talks in Thailand and soon we would be witnessing attempts to use the 19th amendment to the constitution to legalise an interim administration that would be the forerunner of the Eelam. The "operation" to buy the opposition MPs has already started with the "jana bala meheyuma" and the government could postpone the debate on the 19th amendment ad indefinitely if they could not "buy" the required number of votes. There were two reasons to gazette the 19th amendment before the 18th amendment. One was to give an assurance to the LTTE, before they came to Thailand, most probably at the insistence of the west, that the government is hell bent on legalising the interim administration that would be agreed upon at some stage of the culvert talks later converted to development talks. The second reason is to give the "peace vendors" enough time to "buy" the MPs. It is not to be expected that the "peace vendors" would spend their money for this purpose and the only source one could think of in this case as well, is the west.
We are in this unfortunate situation mainly due to the education we have received. The British were fond of the products of our "public schools", the University College, Oxford, Cambridge and the various Inns in England and they knew that the latter were not a threat to them. The British had confidence in these "products", that they gave us universal franchise in 1931 before any other non white country in the empire had this right, knowing very well that the "leaders" elected by the people would not go against them. Formal education is very often brain washing. At present the Sri Lankan as well as other intellectuals in Asia and Africa are trained to "think" in terms of the western knowledge.
It is their knowledge and they use it to rule, control and manoeuvre us. While the culvert talks take place in Thailand we will try to understand some differences in their knowledge and our knowledge. We have to create our own knowledge and in the process we could and should absorb their knowledge also into our chinthanaya, where necessary. I am not proposing that we should discard the western knowledge and in fact, we have to do what they have done beginning in the fifteenth century, that is to absorb our knowledge into their chinthanaya. I do not believe in one system of knowledge that is "objective" and I do not agree with the likes of Dr. Susantha Gunathilake, who I presume introduced sociology of knowledge to Sri Lanka, that we should develop their knowledge absorbing our concepts into their system.
As I am neither an academic nor an intellectual and I have no intention of keeping to the "genre" of academic writing, many people "brought up" within the system would not consider my writings to be analytical or academic. I do not want to use the third person "author" or "columnist" to refer to me giving a false sense of objectivity. As far as they are concerned I am only a popular writer and I do not wish to disclaim that. I am definitely not a western academic writer and I try to follow the "genre" of the Daharma Desana or Bana of the Sinhala Bhikkus and my logic is not that of Aristotle. However, that does not mean that I am inconsistent or not analytical. I am a vibhajjavadi (analyst) in the Theravada tradition and I know that the average Sinhala Buddhist understands what I write especially in Sinhala. I follow the four fold logic (catuskoti) and try to be consistent within that logic, which is cyclic and not linear. Prof. K. N. Jayathilake tried to reduce catuskoti to two valued logic and following him Dr. R. D. Gunaratne has attempted to present Catuskoti in the two valued logic of set theory in Mathematics. Both these attempts are examples of "squaring the circle" though Dr. Asanga Tilakeratne describes the latter as the best explanation of Catuskoti. I only hope that when Dr. Tilakeratne made this particular comment he had studied at least the elements of set theory.
The theory of sets is applicable only to what are known as well defined objects (it has to be emphasised that well defined objects are not defined! How does one define definition? One cannot define definition for the simple reason that definition has to be defined without resorting to definition. There is a (Aristotelian linear) logical contradiction in this and it is not very much different from one becoming his/her father/mother. When my fourth form Chemistry teacher having not received a satisfactory response when he wanted us to define an acid, asked the class to define explanation and explain definition, as I realised later in my life, he had in effect given me a lesson on the limitations of linear logic. The good Christian he was, probably did not know the effect it would have on one of his students going back to Sinhala Buddhism after a training in western Mathematics and Physics. (Dr. Carlo Fonseka has failed to realise this and he in an attempted review of "Mage Lokaya" seems to believe that I became a Sinhala Buddhist first and then tried to justify it using Quantum Physics!) My Chemistry teacher was such a good teacher that he made me interested in many subjects other than Chemistry! I owe him a lot for planting the seeds of circular logic very early in my life.
In Catuskoti it is not possible to have what are known as well defined objects. When Arhat Mahinda asked King Devanampiya Tissa whether there are any people who are neither relatives nor non relatives of the king the latter answered in the affirmative. This implies that one is neither a relative nor a non relative of oneself, according to Sinhala (and later Sinhala Buddhist) logic. Thus one does not belong to the set of one's relatives nor to the set of non relatives. In Mathematics a set of elements (well defined of course!) can be divided into what are known as disjoint subsets with respect to what are known as equivalence relations. These are relations that are reflexive, symmetric and transitive. They are not difficult concepts and most students in year six could understand them. Consider the set of straight lines. If the straight line "a" is parallel to the straight line "b" then we know that "b" is parallel to "a". This is an example for a symmetric relation. Parallelism is a symmetric relation. If a is parallel to b and if b is parallel to c then it is known that a is parallel to c. This means that parallelism is a transitive relation. With respect to relatives among people the relation of "a relative" is also symmetric and transitive. For example if A is related to B then B is related to A. (If A is an uncle of B then B is a nephew or a niece of A.). Also if A is related to B and if B is related to C then A is related to C. If A is the mother of B and B is the mother of C then A is the grand mother of C. It is the concept of relative that is involved here and not the particular relationship. For example if A is the uncle of B then B is not the uncle of A though A and B are related.
Now the question is whether parallelism is a reflexive relation. Is the line a parallel to itself. If it is so then parallelism is said to be reflexive. In western mathematics when parallel straight lines are defined, by definition a is said to be parallel to a. Thus parallelism is a reflexive, symmetric and transitive relation in western Mathematics and this means that the set of straight lines could be divided into disjoint subsets where in each subset all the straight lines are parallel to each other but none of them being parallel to any other line in any other subset. What about the relation "A is a relative of B"? Is A a relative of A? Though the line a is defined to be parallel to a in western Mathematics, according to Sinhala (Buddhist) logic as revealed in the answers given by King Devanampiya Tissa, A is not a relative of A. In this case it so happens that A is neither a non relative of A. In any event as the relation "A is a relative of B" is not reflexive the set of people cannot be divided into disjoint subsets where in any given subset all the members are related, none of them being related to any other member in any other subset, according to Sinhala (Buddhist) logic. So Sinhala people consider all the other Sinhalayas to be related and all in the Sinhale are relatives (Api okkoma rajavaru, okkoma vasiyo, thun Sinhalayama nedeyo!) .Very often we refer to the husband of the second cousin of the wife of the third cousin, as a close relative. (Kavuruvath nevey apey langama neyek!).
The Sinhalas do not follow an exclusive policy and throughout history have absorbed various immigrants (mainly from India) into their culture and casts which are mainly guilds, unlike in the case of Hindu caste system, and they have all become relatives in due course. In fact the Sinhalas not only with respect to immigrant populations but with respect to immigrant cultures have been very inclusive and as a result when we lost our capability to absorb we have become the worst imitators. It is the Tamils brought by the Dutch and the British who have under the influence of their masters decided to stay outside the nation without becoming relatives of the Sinhalas. Having listened to Anton Balasingham speaking on Tamil and Muslim homelands in the eastern and the northern provinces at the ceremonial opening of the culvert talks in Thailand, after a talk of mere high sounding words by Dr. G. L. Peiris, I am convinced that the Sinhala people are not going to accept the outcome of the talks that would make them non entities and outsiders in those two provinces. It is the Tamil racists who practice an exclusive policy trying to keep the Sinhalas away from the northern and the eastern provinces. A solution to the Tamil racist problem could be found only if we look at the problem without using the concepts and theories formulated in the west.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>