TRADITIONS AND ALLIANCES - II
The Vidyalankara Declaration of 1946 has defined what came to be known as "Bhikku Politics" later. It is the politics of Bhikkus within the Sinhala Buddhist culture. In the Catholic tradition until the nineteenth century the Pope was the ruler of the entire Catholic world. The Pope was a ruler and the kings in the Catholic countries were subordinate to the former. However, in the Anglo Saxon world the new Christian tradition changed the order and the king became the leader of the Anglican Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not superior to the king/queen of England and this change came after a long drawn struggle between the Church and the king. One could say the tradition within the Catholic church was changed by the English queens and kings, and what emerged was a Christian tradition. The Christian tradition was created within the Greek Judaic Christian (GJC) "chinthanaya" that itself was a result of the amalgamation of the Greek, Judaic and Christian chinthanayas. The new "chinthanaya" that finally gave rise to western science and technology, capitalism, parliamentary democracy, political parties etc., first came into existence in Italy and the Southern and Eastern Europe, before it flourished in England and the other reformist countries. The pioneers of western science, such as Galileo and Copernicus were born in southern and Eastern Europe, but Newton had to be born in England.
The GJC "chinthanaya" separated formally the state and the religion. However, that does not mean that the western culture is independent of religion. The Europeans were able to create a new religion, though a breakaway from Catholicism, that was organically linked to the new culture. The new culture, replaced the holistic approach of the western medieval Catholic culture with an approach that emphasised separation into various components. Thus state was separated from religion and so was science from religion. Though they were separated from each other formally or superficially, they were all interconnected through the "chinthanaya". A "chinthanaya" that separates formally everything from everything else binds them together at least from the point of view of separation! The separation is only one property that binds them together as there are other aspects common to the separated parts. The Archbishop of Canterbury may be separated from the state, with the king ruling over the country but the king acquires so much power that he becomes the protector of the faith as well. The powers are separated only to create a new hierarchy.
There are some in the Sinhala Buddhist society who want to change the tradition of the Bhikkus advising the kings (presidents and ministers) and elect the Bhikkus themselves as Presidents and Ministers, as in the case of Mullahs. It is true that traditions are not static and could be changed. However what is the rationale behind this agitation for a change? It appears that the only argument for a change is that Bhikkus have ceased to be advisors as the politicians do not listen to them. Instead of analysing the reasons as to why the politicians do not listen to the Bhikkus, some power hungry politicians have got the Bhikkus to contest the elections and become politicians. The Bhikkus in the process have not only ceased to be advisors but they are now being advised by the lay politicians and politicians in robes. The Bhikkus would say that it was them who took the decision to contest the elections but they themselves know that they were dragged by those politicians in robes who up to now had managed to deceive the others by pretending to be Bhikkus who are merely interested in politics.
It is true that many politicians do not listen to the Bhikkus at present. They only pretend to do so. There are many reasons for this state of affairs. One reason is that there is no group of Bhikkus that could claim to be knowledgable in politics. Though there may be a few Bhikkus who are familiar with the present day politics the vast majority of Bhikkus do not know much about current affairs. Unlike the Vidyalankara group of Bhikkus in the forties and the Eksath Bhikku Peramuna in the fifties and the sixties there is no group of Bhikkus, that could command the respect of at least one political party. The Kotte Chapter of Bhikkus in the eighties and the nineties was the only group of Bhikkus that could be compared with the former groups but they offered themselves to be led by lay politicians and politicians in robes.
A monk who had appeared on a television channel that promotes the Jathika Hela Urumaya group of Bhikkus has apparently said that Prabhakaran - Karuna split is a result of them contesting the general elections. Though it is not clear the reasons as to the split of Prabhakaran and Karuna (some argue that it is only a staged drama similar to the so-called split between Prabhakaran and Pottu Amman during the previous elections) none of them would have had the Jathika Hela Urumaya in their minds when they found that they could not work together anymore. Mr. Ananda Sangari who has fought a battle with Prabhakaran has demonstrated that Prabhakaran is not the sole representative of the Tamils. Prabhakaran has not won anything for the Tamils except misery and he is not a strong force as of now. If not for the western Christian forces that maintain him, not only through direct support but through various NGOs and their peace companies popped by the Christian Churches, he would have been sent to rest in peace long time ago. Karuna had been challenging the "Sun God" for some time and it is clear that he is a better military strategist than Prabhakaran. Karuna who is from Batticaloa is in a way expressing the traditional rivalry between the Jaffna and Batticaloa Tamils. It is feasible that if Prabhakaran was a Vellala this challenge would have come much earlier.
It could be that Karuna is being promoted by the westerners who find that Prabhakaran is no more effective. They could ditch Prabhakaran in no time and promote Karuna as the "leader" if it is in their interests. It is unfortunate that the "leaders" of the Sinhalas as well as the Tamils are "appointed" and maintained by the west. In any event the episode involving Prabhakaran and Karuna has shown once again that the present Eastern province is very much different from the present Northern province not only in Geography and demography but in politics as well. There is no ground for merging the two provinces and the President who has the power to demerge the provinces should think hard on the split between Prabhakaran and Karuna. There may be pundits who would argue that a demerger would only bring Prabhakaran and Karuna together. However, if the split is not a staged drama it is unlikely that such an eventuality would be the result of a demerger.
Coming back to Bhikku politics, a second reason for the ineffectiveness of Bhikkus as advisors is a kind of Bhikku politics. The Vidyalankara Declaration never insisted on Bhikkus contesting elections. The "Kalaya" newspaper of 14th March 1946 quoting Ven. Kiriwattuduwe Pannasara Thero has specifically mentioned that the Vidyalankara Bhikkus had no intention of going to the Parliament. The Ven. Thero had said that politics as far as they were concerned was involving Bhikkus in welfare activities of the general public but in achieving that objective the Vidyalankara Bhikkus did not have to go to the Parliament. The lay leaders of Jathika Hela Urumaya quote "Kalaya" without reference to the statement by Ven. Kiriwattuduwe Pannasara Thero on Parliamentary politics. It is not difficult to understand the lay politician who pretends be a former university lecturer who sacrificed his job for the cause of the Sinhala nation, but who does not have the basic qualifications to become even a temporary assistant lecturer in a university, misquoting the Ven. Thero opportunistically for political gains. However, it is regrettable that a former professor and a former Bhikku has resorted to same tactics to promote the group of Bhikkus contesting elections.
As a result of the Vidyalankara Declaration there emerged a group of Bhikkus who went on to become members of political parties without understanding the spirit of the Declaration. These monks did not understand the role of Bhikkus in politics in Sinhala Buddhist society and ended up as members of political parties whose leaders were lay people. The middle position that the Vidyalankara Declaration took between Bhikkus not participating in politics and Bhikkus involving in party and parliamentary politics was not for these monks. As a result immediately the position of the Bhikkus as advisors to the presidents and ministers was compromised as the monks now got instructions from the lay politicians. Most of these monks were politicians in robes. They had to look up to the lay politicians who became the "leaders" of the politicians in robes as well. Thereafter gradually the respect that the politicians had for the Bhikkus in politics was lost and the politicians could not be blamed, if by the seventies, they did not listen to the Bhikkus. (It has to be emphasised that Bhikkus in politics are different from politicians in robes.)
If the politicians including the president and the ministers do not take advise from the Bhikkus then the remedy for that is not for Bhikkus to become politicians themselves. A leader of the Jathika Hela Urumaya had argued in a weekend newspaper that the traditions can be changed and Bhikkus could contest elections. It is also asked by a few if monks have already contested and sometimes got themselves elected why we object only after Jathika Hela Urumaya Bhikkus decided to contest elections. As far as we are concerned monks such as Rev. Baddegama Samitha are politicians in robes and they were known as such. They should not have become members of political parties and come under the leadership of the lay politicians.
It is true that traditions can be changed. However, they should be changed without compromising the very existence of the nation and the "sasana". If the politicians do not listen to the Bhikkus then the reasons for such behaviour by the politicians should be understood and measures should be taken to eliminate the causes. Instead, if the monks become members of the parliament, then they would become another set of politicians, resulting in losing further the respect for the Bhikkus by the lay politicians. The traditions should be changed for the welfare of the nation and the "sasana" and not the other way around.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>