SINHALA BUDDHIST TRADITION IN POLITICS
When the Vidyalankara Declaration was made in 1946, and the Bhikshuvage Urumaya by Ven. Walpola Rahula Thero was published soon after there had been an uproar in the political circles in Sri Lanka. The UNP had not been formerly established as a political party at that time but those who went on to become leaders of that party later, had in 1946 protested against politicising of the Bhikkus. Even in recent times books such as "The Work of the Kings" and "Buddhism Betrayed" have been written against the active participation of Bhikkus with a nationalist position, in politics, not as politicians but as advisors and "opinion makers". However, these "intellectuals" make it a point not to object to the politics of Rev. Baddegama Samitha and other NGO monks, as politicians. It is clear that they are only against the traditional role played by the Sinhala Bhikkus as it prevents the so called "civil society" leaders (or "porawal" in the language of the youth) associated with NGOs financed by western Christian countries, becoming "king makers".
The decision by the Jathika Sangha Sammelanaya to contest the elections has found supporters from quarters that normally do not sympathise with the Sinhala Buddhists. The Born Again Christians who are influential in media who had gone to town against Bhikkus taking up politics, only a few months ago, are now writing in favour of them contesting elections. Mr. Jayalath Jayawardhane who is not a Buddhist, though he could be seen in temples more often than some former Buddhist MPs, for obvious reasons, has welcomed the step taken towards the Parliament by the Bhikkus. I do not expect the Catholic Church or any other Christian Church to issue statements defending the decision of the Jathika Bhikshu Sammelanaya to contest the forthcoming elections, but going by the interviews and writings of influential lay Catholics and Christians, including Born Again types, I do not have to think hard to come to a conclusion as to where the Church stands on this issue.
The LSSP, on the other hand, which had been functioning as a political party in the thirties and the forties had supported the Vidyalankara Declaration in 1946, and most of the Bhikkus who were engaged in politics soon after had been supporters or sympathisers of the LSSP, or the CP that had been formed in the early forties. It has to be emphasised, that contrary to the picture H.L Seneviratne tries to paint in his book "The Work of Kings" the Vidyalankara Bhikkus took part in left oriented politics in the beginning, and not in "Chauvinist" politics. There was no SLFP then, though there was the Sinhala Maha Sabha that was formed following the "Thamil Mahajana Sabai" of Ponnambalam Arunachalam, and not the other way round. It is interesting to note that the Vidyalankara Bhikkus did not support Mr. Banadaranaike then. However, it does not mean that the Vidyalankara Bhikkus were not nationalistic but as far as they were concerned, at that time the LSSP with their anti imperialist slogans appeared to be more nationalistic than Mr. Bandaranaike who was not interested in kicking out the British. The stand taken by the LSSP on issues pertaining to the problems of the country, at present, do not matter and we would not go into details. Suffice is to mention that the JVP that would have welcomed the Bhikkus' decision to engage in politics then, are against Bhikkus contesting the elections this time.
It is clear, that in general, those who supported or would have supported the Vidyalankara Declaration in 1946, are against Bhikkus contesting the General Elections in 2004, while those who were against or would have opposed the Vidyalankara Declaration then, are in favour of the decision of the Jathika Sangha Sammelanaya today. There may be a few exceptions here and there but the trends are there to be observed. The role of the LSSP as a nationalist (anti imperialist) party then cannot be over emphasised. The LSSP in contrast to the CP was against the war and was not interested in forming an alliance with the UNP or its predecessors in the forties. If the LSSP was able to attract the Bhikku, the Physician and the Teacher (Sanga, Veda , Guru) in the late thirties, forties and the early fifties it was due to its national (in the sense of being anti non national, anti imperialist) character more than to its Marxist revolutionary ideology. Once the SLFP that was formed in 1951 became the party of Sinhalathva in the minds of the people around 1954, the LSSP began to lose its base among the Sanga Veda and Guru. After that, it was the various alliances that it made with the SLFP that has kept it going, though for all purposes it is now a spent force. The LSSP had to adopt a policy of alliances with the SLFP called the party of the national bourgeoisie among other such western imported concepts, simply because a Marxist part per se could not exist as a viable force in this country, after the SLFP became the party of Sinhalathva. Those who broke away from the LSSP over the issue of alliances with the SLFP, to form pure revolutionary parties should have learnt this lesson if not for the non national education they had received. The JVP though Marxist in words was never a Marxist party in essence, and the fact that the JVP, unlike the LSSP and the CP did not split when the party decided to form an alliance with the SLFP, also compels us to think on these alliances from a different angle. We should not forget that the JVP, unlike the LSSP and the CP was formed after the SLFP had been established as the party of Sinhalathva. The Mavubima Surekeeme Vyaparaya formed in the late eighties comprised of the SLFP and the JVP and some other parties and organisations. The Vyaparaya split into two movements when the SLFP and the JVP had different views on certain issues.
The politics of this country has always been centered around national and non national policies and was not based on a Capitalist - Proletariat axis. The so called working class politics has only been an aberration or "a reality" that existed only in the sterile minds of a few hard core Marxists who would have loved to call themselves Bolsheviks, Bolshevik Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Pabloists, Healites etc. Even "reality" is something that can be found only in the minds of those different types of Marxists mentioned above and some liberals again trained in the western tradition.
Most of the names of the Bhikkus who have come forward to contest in the April elections, were not known in the "Jathika Vyaparaya" two years ago. They would have been popular "Dharma Deshakas" (not preachers please) but were not heard in the "Jathika Vyaparaya". Most of them had not been against the MoU that Ranil Wikramasinghe signed first and Prabhakaran signed afterwards, at the insistence of the Norwegians who are backed by the American led Christian west. Do these Bhikkus who were silent when the MoU was signed could eradicate "dooshanaya" (corruption) and other "qualities" associated with politics? Rev. Uduwe Dhammaloka in interviews given to media has been vague on the issue of the Bhikkus continuing to occupy seats in the Parliament IF they are elected. He has said that they would nominate others, implying lay people, to the Parliament, once they succeed in cleaning the politics of the country. Who would nominate these worthy ladies and gentlemen to the Parliament once the Bhikkus complete their cleaning job? The secretary of the political party under which they contest has the power to nominate and he does not happen to be a Bhikku. Are we to believe that the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) that has "leased" the party to the Bhikkus according to some apologists of the party who pretend to be independent, has sacrificed the Parliamentary seats they "could" have won at the forthcoming elections? The people have not forgotten how the leaders of the Sihala Urumaya, the predecessor of JHU behaved when the party had the opportunity of selecting a member on the national list. These leaders became "Buddhists" in order to oust Mr. S. L. Gunasekera claiming that he was a Christian. (Our opposition is to western Christian colonialism based on western Christian culture and not to Christians as such.) However the self same leaders, less than two years ago, refused to sign a MoU with Bhoomi Puthra Party when the leaders of the latter party insisted on the establishment of a Sinhala Buddhist Rajya. However, after the death of Ven. Soma Thera they have been enlightened and they have begun to speak in favour of a Bauddha Rajya!
In any event is it true that only the politicians have had their share in ruining the country? Are they alone in that respect? If the civil and the police administrations have been politicised who is responsible for it? Who created an opportunity for the politicians to interfere with the general administration? Aren't the "intellectuals" as well responsible for the present state of affairs in the country? Are the Monks who have been silent all these years whether with respect to Tamil racism, selling of national institutes, erosion of cultural values, conversions whether ethical nor non ethical, and other issues, puritans who have the magic power to clean the political stables and then hand over to their so called nominees?
In the Sinhala Buddhist tradition the Bhikkus had never played this so called cleaning role in politics and then appointing kings. This appears to be a new stand taken by the Monks who have decided to contest the elections, when it was pointed out that the Sinhala Bhikkus, contrary to the opinion that has been created by western "political" social scientists and social anthropologists, had never played the role of kings as in the case of Khomenies. The cleaning of not only politics but even of the Sanga Sasana was a duty of the king in the Sinhala Buddhist tradition. The "Kathikavathas" and the "Sangayanas" had been the work of kings and not of Bhikkus. Some Bhikkus may have advised the kings on "Kathikavathas" but the cleaning of even the Sanga Sasana was undertaken by the kings and not by the Bhikkus.
The Sinhala Buddhist tradition is very clear on these matters. It is the Anthropologists and Social Scientists commissioned by the Christian west, and the power hungry politicians who try to exploit the "Sinhalathva" who confuse the issues. It has to be admitted that even the Bhikkus have made a mistake in joining the political parties after the Vidyalankara Declaration was issued. The Declaration had only emphasised the traditional role of the Sinhala Bhikkus in politics. There had been no political parties before the English invented and forced them on the other people and as such the Declaration is silent on the role of Bhikkus vis a vis political parties. The mistake that some Bhikkus made was to join the political parties that were invariably led by lay people. This made the Bhikkus come under the leadership of lay politicians, when the Bhikkus should have stood above the politicians and advised them. Joining the political parties that consisted of men and women who had state power or who aspired to have state power was akin to Bhikkus joining the Royal families in the past. The Sinhala Bhikkus had not behaved in that manner while being Bhikkus, in general, and on the one or two occasions where a Bhikku had tried to "join" the Royal family, the episode had only ended up in disaster.
It is true that the Sinhala Buddhists are getting a raw deal in the present set up where we have nothing but a western Christian state. Our education, political structure, education, economics are all based on western Christian ethic, which Max Weber called the Protestant Ethic and which is in essence a part of Judaic Christian culture based on Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya. Undoubtedly this has to be changed. However, there are no short cuts to this and one or two power hungry politicians who want to become the President and the Sangharaja should not be allowed to make use of Bhikkus to fulfill their ambitions. These people are supported by non national forces, as evidenced from the writings and interviews mentioned at the outset in the column, who want to discredit and undermine the strength of the Bhikkus. The new Sandhanaya is different from the PA of 1994 which was supported by the leaders of the Janatha Mithuro who later became leaders of the Sinhala Urumaya as well. They supported Chandrika Kumaratunga when it was clear to us that she was the agent of non national forces. The Sandhanaya has a nationalist component unlike the PA of 1994 and it is up to the nationalist elements in the Sandhanaya to push it to more and more nationalist positions. However, it will take some time and those who aspire to be Presidents and Sangharajas overnight do not have the patience to embark on such a course of action.
One has to realise that as long as the SLFP continues to function there is no scope for any other political party based on Sinhalathva. The situation in Sri Lanka is different from that in India where the BJP was able to come to power on the slogan of Hinduthva. The BJP was formed in a political vacuum as far as Hinduthva was concerned, as the Congress for all purposes has been the party of Indian liberals following the western model. In Sri Lanka even when the nationalists oppose the SLFP they cannot afford not to have some "link" with that party, such as controlling it, and unless the aspiring Presidents and Sangarajas realise this fact it would spell disaster not only to them but to the country as a whole.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>