IT'S NOT CRICKET - A RESPONSE TO RMBS II
Mr. R. M. B. Senanayaka is speaking for the so called minorities created by the western colonialists against the Sinhala Buddhists, even though many nationalist minded Catholics do not find a so called Sinhala Buddhist hegemony in this country. It is the Sinhala people, especially the Sinhala Buddhists who are discriminated in this country. When the JVP took up arms against the government during the period 1987-1990 there were check ups, midnight searches taking Sinhala youth into custody etc., but could any Sinhala person or organisation picket against those arrests opposite the Fort Railway Station or anywhere else for that matter. However, when there are check ups in Colombo today, and when it is an open secret that there are Tamil terrorists in Colombo having come mainly because of the relaxation of security measures by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe after the so called ceasefire agreement was signed, front organisations of the LTTE and others are allowed to picket anywhere in the country, except perhaps in the high security zones. It is clear that in this country so called human rights are mainly for the "minorities" and not for the Sinhala people. The western countries did not have any sympathy for the JVP then, and they were prepared to help the government to defeat the JVP through military means. Who wanted the government to have talks with the JVP then? What happened to the "well meaning" Bishops of the Catholic Church during 1987 - 1990 when Bhikkus were tortured and killed? Did anybody interpret these killings and tortures as those that the Sinhalas had to experience merely because they were Sinhalas? The Catholic Church which claims that the Church is concerned as there are Tamil Catholics did not want to express any concern for the Sinhala Catholics. Perhaps the Church was of the view that no Sinhala Catholics were tortured and killed by the state. Incidentally has the Catholic Church or Mr. Senanayaka or anybody else who has the time to write on Sinhala Buddhist hegemony done anything against the conscription of youth by the LTTE? Which film "director" (they are mere producers though they are called directors in this country) made a film on the atrocities by the LTTE? However, they are prepared to produce film after film on the Sinhala Buddhist hegemony, and of course win awards at the so called international film festivals.
People such as Mr. Senanayaka are very fond of calling this country a plural country. Could he or anybody else come up with an example for a non plural country? In the plural Britain (or UK if somebody wants that way) is there a state religion or not? What is Mrs. Elizabeth Windsor doing in that country? If she is the queen of all the people in that country how can she be the head of the Anglican Church and the defender of the faith? From whom is she defending the faith and whose faith is she defending? You see Mr. Senanayaka, that there may be plural countries merely because there are people of different ethnic groups, but in the countries in the west no two cultures are equal. It is one or the other of the Christian cultures which is dominant in those countries. In certain states such as Norway the state religion is Lutheran, and it is very unlikely that in that country, the Catholics enjoy all the rights that the people of the Lutheran religion are entitled to. In Germany can anybody become a citizen merely because his/her parents and grand parents had been living in that country? Plurality is one of those concepts that the western Christian intellectuals have coined to intimidate the people belonging to the majority non Christian culture in any non Christian country.
What happened in Sydney in Australia recently? There were racial riots whether one likes it or not. The Lebanese were shown their place in this "plural" country which boasts of multi cultures, though not many non white Christians are members of, say, the Australian cricket team. How the white Christians and Catholics massacred all those people who had been living in America, Australia New Zealand and parts of Africa is a different story, and to date how many elite Christians and Catholics have condemned those murders? In France black people of Algerian origin were shown their place after racial riots in Paris recently. How did Briton react recently after protests by some people of Asian origin? The cabinet ministers were talking of sending those who could not live like Britons, meaning those who could not adopt the Anglican Christian culture back home even if they had been born in Britain. The "minorities" in a Christian country are checked by the laws which appear to be democratic, and the Christian state has laws to keep the non Christian, especially the coloured people in those countries in their places. These Christian countries have the Christian symbols in their national flags, refer to the God in their national anthems, but nobody would remind their leaders that they are so called plural countries.
In the so called modern world that has been created by western Christian modernity there is freedom only for the Christians, and may be on limited occasions for the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Catholics who are being used by the President of the USA for propagating their culture. All the concepts are created by western Christian intellectuals, and they know how to use words in their formulations so as to give a democratic appearance to the concepts. It has to be reminded that the so called freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc., are for the Christian intellectuals and those who adopt Christian values. Could anybody explain why it is good for the Christian countries to have state religions, while others are forced in the name of democracy to become so called secular countries? It is dictatorship of Christian democracy that we have in our countries. People like Mr. Senanayaka are mere agents of this dictatorship who "sing baila" (baila kiyanawa) to us. If Mr. Senanayaka does not understand the expression singing baila he could consult an ordinary Catholic youth who speaks Sinhala at home and at work. The Christian intellectuals in the west formulate theories and concepts, and we are forced to accept and practise them, though the western countries do not adhere to them.
The best example is the concept of a secular state. It is said that the state and religion should be dissociated from one another. However, in the western Christian countries it is never the case. As the dominant culture of the world is Christian, it is the culture by default of all the countries in the world. Though it is not called the western Christian hegemony by the western intellectuals and their cronies in the so called third world countries, what we experience today whether in the streets, the "super market", the schools, the universities, the work places, and even in the toilet, is nothing but western Christian hegemony. The western Christian countries had established themselves as Christian countries by the beginning of the twentieth century (incidentally it is the twentieth century after Christ, and why are we forced to use this terminology? The moment I refer to the year by Shaka or by Buddha I will be called a Chauvinist who tries to put the clock back or who is not prepared to adapt to the modern world or some such animal. Why are we forced to consider the 1st of January as the beginning of the new year, thus being forced to celebrate the birthday of the Christ as well, though it is really the birthday of god Mithra that the western Christian countries are celebrating on the Christmas day. Incidentally when I type Shaka the computer suggests shake! One could say I could customize and add Shaka also into the dictionary, but the point is that though I can do it in the personal computer I am being prevented from doing it on a large scale with respect to the society. There Shaka will become shake by default!) and made the Christian culture, the culture by default. The others in the world are expected to follow the Christian norms without resorting to following their own.
The postmodernists are fond of giving the example of the Disneyland to demonstrate that the Americans have created this "fantasy" in order to prevent the people from realising that the entire country is a Disneyland. The postmodernists think that this is due to postmodernism that prevails in the world after the fifties. However, what they do not understand is that there is no postmodernism as such and the world has not changed fundamentally since the beginning of western Christian modernity. Consider the phrase it's not cricket. This implies that in the game of cricket there are rules, which are obeyed, and certain "good" customs that are practised. Whenever there is some misdeed in other fields, say for politics, they would shout it's not cricket. However, what is implicitly said is that cricket being a gentlemen's there are no wrong doings in the game. However, is it the case in cricket? Is the ICC the democratic body that is portrayed to the world? Do the cricketers play like gentlemen? Are the commentators unbiased? One can come out with thousands of examples to show that there is foul play in the game of cricket. However, the game is portrayed as a gentlemen's game and an ideal for the youngsters to follow. After considering all these, one could make the following statement. It's not cricket to say it's not cricket as there is no cricket in cricket. The statement might appear to be a contradiction in Aristotelian logic, but then Aristotelian logic is an incomplete body of knowledge. The game of cricket invented by the English is the sort of anti Disneyland of the Americans. The Disneyland is portrayed as a "fantasy" in a so called real world which itself is a fantasy. Cricket portrayed as a "gentlemen's" game in an "ungentlemenly" world, is itself an ungentlemenly game. Then what about all those gentlemen? Are they gentlemen? These are only concepts that have been created by bourgeoisie which itself is a product of western Christian modernity, in order to cover up ungentlemenly behaviour. The husband who opens the car door for the wife in public, and assaults her at home, and who treats the chauffer as a slave is portrayed as a gentleman. The plural society is a similar concept used by the westerner Christian intellectuals and their cronies in the so called third world, to establish and maintain a Christian society in the non Christian world as such. The moment the significant culture in a given non Christian country is ridiculed (what are our so called award winning film "directors" up to?), downgraded, equated with the other cultures, a vacuum is created, and the western Christian culture by default becomes not only the significant culture but the dominant culture as well. Pluralism means dominance of the Christian culture finally, as is the case in the western "plural" society. The western intellectuals would work overtime to show that their countries are plural, though it is the Christian culture that dominates in the west, and force others to adapt their pluralistic model. The "third world" "intelligentsia" who have been brainwashed at schools and universities would easily echo the words of their masters in the west.
Democracy is another concept like cricket and gentleman. The vast majority of the Sinhala people and more than fifty percent of the country have voted for a unitary state. It is knowing that the "international community" is against a unitary state that we wanted and want such state in this country. I will come to this aspect in more detail later. What I would like to indicate at present is how the so called democracy is used the way the western Christian countries and their henchmen want in this country. On one hand they would shout about majority democracy. Is there a minority democracy in the western world? On the other hand people such as Mr. Dilan Perera who was anti unitary, are now dominating and dictating terms to the JVP and people of the calibre of Mr. Kotakadeniya. It has to be reminded that the President won against all odds because he stood for a unitary state. If he had stood for a federal state, like Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga he would have lost as in that case people would have elected Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, and Mr. Dilan Perera unless he crossed over to the UNP would have become a nobody having being a somebody. He is still a somebody because of the vote for the unitary state. Having maintained his position as somebody he is now dictating terms to the JVP and Mr. Kotakedeniya who campaigned for a unitary state. This is possible simply because there is no democracy of the majority in the country. The westerners and their cronies knowing that what prevails is the hegemony of the western Christian culture still want to make sure that Sinhala Buddhists will never raise their heads. Hence they go on preaching against majority democracy from their altars which have displaced the dharmasanas.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>