TO KNOW WITHOUT SUFFERING
Mr. R.M.B. Senanayaka writing on the topic "Men must suffer to be wise", perhaps a theme familiar in the Catholic Chinthanaya, states that "the nationalist minded intellectuals cried eelam whenever our leaders made any concessions to the Tamils and sought to resolve the ethnic problem". He also says that "they even refused to see an ethnic problem merely because a lot of Tamils are settled in the south amongst the Sinhalese". Though I am nationalist minded (is Mr. Senanayaka nationalist minded or not? If not, is he internationally minded, and who creates the international mind?) I am not an intellectual, as in the Sinhala Buddhist tradition there are no intellectuals as such. However, I am compelled to respond to some of the ideas expressed in the article published on 28th December 2005, as otherwise he would think that his statements go uncontested.
It has to be stated at the outset, that the Sinhala Buddhists do not have to suffer to be wise, and they also have their own ways of looking at the world or constructing the world. It is clear that Mr. Senanayaka does not like the world the Sinhala Buddhists have created and he seems to be happy with the world created by the western Christians though that world is not what the Catholic Chinthanaya had created. The world and the international mind are not absolute objective truths or concepts, and have been created in what we call the Greek, Judaic Christian (GJC) Chinthanaya. For the information of Mr. Senanayaka, the Catholic Chinthanaya, and together with it the Catholic hegemony on the western world and on the Don Juan Dharmapalas of this part of the world, has been defeated by the GJC Chinthanaya and the associated western Christian (as opposed to Catholic} modernity. All that the Catholic intellectuals can do today is to go with the western Christian modernity, even for their nominal survival. In the twentieth century the Catholic Chinthanaya tried to challenge Christian Chinthanaya in the forms of Marxism and Fascism but was defeated in the end. In the case of Marxism, ironically it was the Pope and Catholics such as Welensa who led the fight against this form.
The Sinhala Buddhists as well as the other Sinhalas including Sinhala Catholics who are nationalist minded, who do not think that there is only the world created by the western Christian intellectuals, would contest the concepts and the theories that were hammered into their heads at schools and universities established in the tradition of the western Christian institutes. The Sinhala Buddhists do not cry "eelam" every time some concessions are given to the Tamils. There are two inaccuracies in this statement appearing to be innocent. These inaccuracies have been repeated in the world created by the western Christian intellectuals, and there are many people who would not notice the deliberate lapses. No concessions have to be given to Tamils as it is the Sinhalas, especially the Sinhala Buddhists who are trying to gain the due place to them after five hundred years of western Christian colonialism. What is happening is that every time the Sinhalas were to be given their due place, the Tamils and others, especially the elite Sinhala Christians and the Catholics, and not the ordinary people, interpreted these actions as injustices against the so called minorities, of course, with the support of the westerners. The Sinhala Buddhists do not cry eelam every time concessions are given to the Tamils. The former agitate when steps taken to give their due place are either withdrawn or when no steps are taken.
It has to be mentioned that even the Portuguese colonialism is branded as Christian colonialism, though it came to the east with the blessings of the Pope. The GJC Chinthanaya preceded the Christian religion of Luther, Calvin and others, and we argue that the Christian Reformation, just as much the Renaissance, was based on the GJC Chinthanaya. The GJC Chinthanaya, on the other hand, was the result of the Catholic Chinthanaya failing to absorb the knowledge that the west received from the east mainly through the Arabs. If these ideas are not taught in the western Christian universities in Sri Lanka or elsewhere, then it speaks for the hegemonic world created by the western Christian modernity. If Mr. Senanayaka or anybody else wants to challenge the above ideas we could organise a seminar so that they could speak on behalf of western Christian modernism.
The Sinhala Buddhists do not talk of an Eelam for nothing. Dr. A. J. Wilson spilt beans when he wrote the biography of his father-in-law late Mr. S. J. V. Chelvanayakam. He revealed many "facts" that the Sinhala Buddhists had known for some time. For example the Sinhala Buddhists knew that the Tamil name for the so called Federal Party was Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi which meant Lanka Tamil State Party. However, they did not know certain others, such as the little now latter policy of Mr. Chelvanayakam. It was clear that the Tamil racists were agitating for a federal state in order to establish a confederation and then an Eelam. The idea of an Eelam or Eylom as he spelt it was first introduced by Mr. C. Suntharalingam, and it had been in the air even in the early forties when the Sinhala Act had not been even thought of. We have shown that Tamil racism had been in operation even in the nineteenth century with the connivance of the British. The Tamil racists began their agitation for an eelam not after they were denied of the so-called concessions, but after they realised that it was not possible to dominate the centre with a majority of Tamil legislators either appointed or elected. It was a question of dominating the Sinhalas with, yes, majoritarianism at the central legislature, and when they failed to do so after all the manoeuvrings by the British governors, they wanted a separate state in the Northern and the Eastern provinces as demarcated by the British only as late as 1889! Majoritarianism is bad for some, if it is to be practised by the Sinhala Buddhists. However, when the Tamil racists in the Legislative Assembly, State Council and the Parliament tried to create an artificial majority with the connivance of the British, or when it is practised in the British Parliament, USA Congress and other such bodies not a word is spoken against it by the intellectuals perhaps with an international mind. We all know the deficiencies of the western democracy with rule by the majority and such other concepts, but would Mr. Senanayaka agree with us on mahasammathavadaya of the ancient Sinhalas. If Mr. Senanayaka is not familiar with mahasammathavadaya then it is not the fault of the Sinhala Buddhists.
There are no Buddhist monks, though Mr. Senanayaka refers to such category. Monks were found in Christian Europe and when the Europeans came into contact with the Bhikkus they used the concepts known to them to identify the Bhikkus. This again is an example of looking at the world (or creating a world) through Christian eyes. Do not the Catholic and other elites when they refer to the Bhikkus as Buddhist monks a category not found in the Sasana, tell the Buddhists that the world has to be created the way they want and no other way? This is not even majoritarianism but the hegemony of the minority. In Sri Lanka what prevails is a hegemony of the "minorities" with the generous help of the westerners. The Sinhala Buddhists are only challenging this hegemony.
The B-C pact was opposed by the Bhikkus and others simply because had rata sabas been given then to the Tamil racists in the Federal Party, they would have used them as a stepping stone for eelam. The rata sabas had the power to join with each other to form what could have been called provincial councils. Further the rata sabas had the power to distribute land, and there were certain provisions that had to be followed in allocating land. It was clear that the land in the Northern and the Eastern provinces were to be given finally to the Tamils (and the Muslims) but not to the Sinhalas.
Had the B-C pact been implemented then there wouldn't have been a necessity for Prabhakarans and Solheims as the Eelam could have been established without much delay, working onwards from rata sabas. The Bhikkus had advised Mr. Bandaranaike with foresight. Mr. Senanayaka wants to know whether the Bhikkus are knowledgeable in western Christian Political Science and other western Christian Social Sciences. If they are not familiar with the western Christian world created by the western Christian intellectuals based on GJC Chinthanaya then so much the better for them and the country. Even without the "knowledge" from the western "Christian Social Sciences", the Bhikkus who are grounded in the Sinhala Buddhist Chinthanaya know by intuition what is good for the country.
The "intellectuals" who are not familiar with creation of knowledge, how could they be when all they have done is to "understand" and "memorise" what is in the western Christian text books and "research papers", would not know anything about intuition in the process of creating knowledge. Suffice to say that Thomas Alva Edison "invented" the electric bulb without any knowledge of the Ohm's Law in Physics. It was because Edison knew by intuition what was in his culture as he was grounded in that culture. Professor Keerthi Tennakone in an article published in the Midweek Review of 28th December 2005 had raised the question why hardly any creation of knowledge takes place in this part of the world. To create knowledge one has to be grounded in the relevant Chinthanaya. However, the intellectuals of our countries are not grounded in the GJC Chinthanaya in which western knowledge is created, though they think that it is their Chinthanaya, and they could pass examinations, obtain paper qualifications, and do paper work like drafting circulars, interpreting FRs and ARs prepared by the British, and look down on Bhikkus and others who are familiar with the Sinhala Buddhist Chinthanaya.
The western Christian hegemony is something that was not unknown to us before the Presidential elections. We did not agitate for unitary state without knowing what was in store for the nationalists by the western Christian countries. It is not a so called reality dawn on us after the elections. We wanted to send Solheim home and we still want it. We know that Solheim is merely the agent of western Christian countries, and that they have appointed him also as the Norwegian minister for Sri Lankan affairs. This clearly shows the attitude of the Lutheran Norwegians. They must be thinking that Sri Lanka is their colony. The problem before us is how to defeat these western Christian colonialists, and not to kneel down before the colonialists as if it were a so called reality that cannot be defeated. People like Mr. Senanayaka during the British period would have said it was the reality that we had to be their servants whether civil or not. An international mind is nothing but a mind subservient to the western Christian colonialists.
(To be continued)
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>