ISGA, INDIA AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Has the President given her consent to the ISGA to the TNA MPs? If so how would the JVP respond to it? A columnist in a Sunday newspaper canvassing for a federal state for Sri Lanka has given publicity to a statement made apparently by the minister of external affairs in India, to the effect that India is for a federal state. There are some people who oppose the ISGA but favour a federal state. ISGA as well as a federal state are opposed by the majority of the Sinhala people and neither is a solution to the problem that Tamil racism has created in the country.
The Sandhanaya government is finding it difficult to move forward without a majority in the parliament. The JHU never had any idea of supporting the government and their statements on voting with the government on a case by case by basis was never to be fulfilled. They have now said that they would oppose the government as a constituent party of the joint opposition. The JHU would have supported a PA government but not a Sandhanaya government for the simple reason that the two principal constituent factions of the JHU, namely the Janatha Mithuro (JM) and the group of Bhikkus led by Rev. Kolonnawe Sumangala and Rev. Uduve Dhammaloka (there are Bhikkus other than those who belong to this group in the JHU) are opposed to the JVP. The JM leadership consists mainly of ex JVP members and they vehemently oppose the JVP. In fact the most important common factor of the two groups is their opposition to the JVP. On the other hand the JVP opposes these two groups while the two factions of the JHU and the JVP are competing among themselves to attract the Sinhala Buddhists.
The rhetoric of the JHU on supporting the Sandhanaya on a case by case basis was exposed on the very first day the thirteenth parliament met. (The western numerologists who believe that thirteen is unlucky may have something to say on the sittings of the parliament). The JHU decided to support the candidature of Mr. Lokubandara when they realised after the first round that without their support he would lose in the second (or the third) round. In spite of Ven. Aparakke Pannananda Thero informing Rev. Athreliye Rathana that the two bhikkus who sat with the government would vote for the government candidate the JHU leadership did not neutralize the two votes as they had believed that Mr. Lokubandara would receive 109 votes against 108 that they expected the candidate of the government to receive. They thought that they could pretend to be neutral and allow Mr. Lokubandara to win. However when one vote was spoilt and both candidates ended up each receiving 108 votes the "neutrality" of the JHU monks had to be done away with and they adopted the "neutralizing of votes" technique to make sure that Mr. Lokubandara was elected the speaker.
Subsequently the speaker Mr. Lokubandara entertained the resignation of Rev. Kathaluwe Rathanaseha amidst allegations of abductions and "neutralizing abductions" and the secretariat of the parliament acting very efficiently created the conditions for Rev. Akmeemana Indarathana to be named as an MP of the ill fated thirteenth parliament. Rev. Indarathana defying a restraining order which he was aware of, as the JHU had been represented in the courts when the order was given, came to the parliament on an invitation of the speaker. While we do not condone the behaviour of the MPs when Rev. Indarathana started his walk towards the speaker, we have to point out that Rev. Indarathana and especially the leadership of the JHU that was aware of the restraining order could have avoided the situation by deciding to wait for the final judgement of the courts before taking oaths. The Buddhist method is to remove causes rather than to respond to effects. After the events that preceded and followed the oath taking ceremony the JHU could no more pretend to be neutral and decided to join the opposition "officially".
However, the decision by the President to agree on the ISGA issue, even in principle, would again create problems within the Sandhanaya. TNA, the proxy party of the LTTE has reportedly informed the President before she left for her daughter's convocation, that they could even get the UNP to support the government. This is a possibility that we had anticipated and warned the JVP not to ignore. TNA would always welcome the unity of the SLFP and the UNP as, contrary to the thinking of some Sinhalas, these two parties would get together not in the interests of the Sinhala people but to fulfil the "aspirations" of Tamil racism. The President may have discussions with the British government who would want her to agree to the ISGA. The President for two reasons would give her consent for an ISGA. Firstly an ISGA is not against the policies of the Mahajana Party that she follows and secondly the support of the TNA is essential for the survival of her government.
The JVP and the MEP cannot agree with the ISGA proposal but what are the options available for them? If they quit the government would the UNP follow the TNA and join with the SLFP. It is a possibility that the JVP cannot ignore and a SLFP - UNP -TNA alliance is the last that the Sinhalas want. Even the JHU could split under such circumstances with the possibility of the group of monks headed by Rev. Kolonnawe Sumangala and Rev. Uduve Dhammaloka joining the UNP which they represent in the final analysis. Until six to seven months ago these monks were not seen in politics and they had been not interested in the Tamil racist problem. They took up politics only after the death of Rev. Soma who had expressed an interest in contesting the Presidential elections. An SLFP-UNP-TNA-JHU(SD faction) government would take drastic measures that would make the 1987-89 repression pale into insignificance.
However, this does not mean that the UNP joining the government is a certainty even if the TNA joins it after the President agreeing to have "peace talks" with the LTTE, based on the ISGA proposals. There are other factors, some of which meed not be political, that have to be taken into consideration before one comes to a conclusion on this matter. What is important for the Sinhalas, however, is to remember that an alliance of the SLFP and the UNP would not be in their interests.
Another misconception of the Sinhalas is in respect of the role of India. Many Sinhalas, especially the Sinhala Buddhists consider India to be Dambadiva. India is a state whereas Dambadiva was not, and moreover Dambadiva was not even a country in any sense of the word. There were various states Rajagaha, Lichchavi, Vaisala, Asokan (Maurya), Vanga, Kalinga in the north in the early periods and Pandya, Chola, Chera, Vijayanagar, Pallava in the South in the latter periods but there was no Dambadiva state at any time. Kalinga had been in contact with Sinhale from the early periods to the latter periods but even Kalinga is no substitute for Dambadiva. (There is a school of thought with the opinion that Prince Siddhartha was born in Kalinga or modern Orissa and not in Nepal.) It is true that semi Vedic people have come to Sri Lanka from Kalinga and Vanga in the early periods and gone into the formation of the Sinhala nation after mixing with the pre Vedic people who lived in the island. It is also true that Buddhism was officially introduced to Sinhale during the time of the king Asoka and that the Sinhala Buddhists were given their most sacred objects the Sri Maha Bodhi by the Mauriyans and the Dalada Vahanse by the Kalingas. Nobody would deny that the Sinhalas and their culture have been "influenced" by various people in various states in what is known today as India. The Sinhalas were able to absorb various aspects of different cultures in Dambadiva into their culture without destroying the identity of the Sinhala culture. We also know that after Ven. Buddhagosha Thero, the Sinhala texts were translated into Pali and since then up to the present period nothing much has been contributed to conceptual and theoretical understanding ("shasthra") of the world by the Sinhala intellectuals. They have been at best translators from Pali, Sanskrit and English in the main. In spite of that thanks to the Sinhala artist and the "naide" (engineer) who were competent with "shilpa" more than the "shasthra" Sinhala culture remains independent of any Indian culture and Sinhala culture is not a so called little tradition of the Bharat great tradition. Sinhala culture is essentially a culture based on "Shilpa" and not on "Shasthra". (However, in order to survive in the modern world - there is no postmodernity and Jathika Chinthanaya has nothing to with postmodernism contrary to the opinion of Mr. RMB Senannayake, to which I will come back leisurely - we have to re build a "Shasthra" tradition and in a sense that is what the Jathika Chinthanaya School is all about.) We have to be thankful to Mr. Martin Wickremesinghe for demonstrating that the Sinhala culture is independent of any of the Indian cultures although he may not have used some of the concepts mentioned above.
The Sinhala people should realise that even the present day Kalingas and the Vangas would not consider the Sinhalas as their distant relatives. The matrix of relationships between various people in India and the Sinhalas is very complex and not as simple as that between the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Tamils in Tamil Nadu, demonstrating that the Sri Lankan Tamils have been branched off from the latter only recently. There was never an umbilical cord between the Sinhala people and the Bharats though descendants of many people from North Dambadiva including Kalinga have contributed to the formation of the Sinhala nation and those from South Dambadiva and Kalinga to its protection after having being absorbed into it especially during the Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya and Kotte periods.
The Sinhalas should not be in the dark with respect to the attitude of India towards Sri Lanka. India today is guided by the Panikkar policy and the Indian leaders look at Sri Lanka through their experience. India was never a single country or a state before the British came to this part of the world and federalism or quasi federalism in India is a necessary pre condition to the formation of the Indian nation state following the European model. As far as Europe is concerned nation is a myth and is merely a group of people living in a country that accepts the authority of a state. In Sri Lanka the situation is different. The Sinhalas have been a nation since the time of the king Pandukabhaya and the very fact that the Mahavnsa in its Vijaya story seeks an answer to the question as to who the Sinhalas are reveals that the notion of a nation has been there with the Sinhalas at least from the fifth century. What is important to us is not the answer that has been given but the question. Since the formation of the Sinhala nation it has been a case of absorbing people from Kalinga to Pandya states and others to an already existing Sinhala nation. This process was stopped mainly by the western colonialists, the Dutch and the British who imported people from South India for their cultivations.
Moreover, the present day demography of Sri Lanka is different from that in India. In India say for example, in the case of the Tamils it could be said that more than 90% of the Tamils in India live in Tamil Nadu and that more than 90% of the people living in Tamil Nadu are Tamils. In Sri Lanka more than 60% of the Tamils live outside the northern and the eastern provinces and only about 60% of the people living in those two provinces are Tamils. Thus there is no basis even demographically to identify the two provinces as a Tamil region linguistic or otherwise. There is no basis whatsoever for a federal state in Sri Lanka and if the other countries stop looking at the problem through their experiences then a solution could be found to the Tamil racist problem in Sri Lanka.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>