STATEMENTS AND WESTERN STATESMEN
Kebithigollewa is neither the first nor the last. What is next? A school attended largely by Sinhala Buddhist children? There are many people who think that the LTTE is all out to do something to create a backlash from the Sinhala people, and then demand that the west should help them to create a confederation and a separate state. If there is a backlash, the Sinhalas, the so-called Sinhala Buddhist hegemony castigated for killing the innocent Tamils, could be blamed, and finally treat it as an act of violence that could have been avoided if the government acted fast and arrested the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists.
After Kebithigollewa the usual statements condemning the dastardly act were issued by western statesmen and others. While some referred to the LTTE by name others mentioned the word terrorists. At least one local religious dignitary referred to them in Sinhala as satankamies or militants, the term used by the BBC. Of course this particular religious dignitary by referring to them as militants identified the group as the LTTE. He could have taken a leaf out of the Book of the BBC that simply said that the LTTE denies responsibility for the Kebithigollewa murders. Apparently, as reported in The Island, the BBC has tried to give the impression that had the LTTE committed the act it would have accepted responsibility. Thus, according to the wisdom of the BBC it could be the government that is responsible for the murderous act, and if not the government then it has to be "omnipresent" Karuna. In any event, are the thoththa babas on BBC aware of at least one barbarous act for which the LTTE is responsible but has denied their involvement in the act?
Are these statements of any use? Is there a punishment meted out to the LTTE? Will asking the LTTE to behave well next time achieve anything? Not only would they not listen to these statements but ignore them, especially if they contain some kind of reference to them. The statements usually end up by requesting both the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE to go back to the negotiating table. There is no need to request the government to return to the negotiating table as it has not deviated from the so-called peace path. The army is engaged only in "limited retaliating attacks" at present, which is the least that any conventional government in the world would do under such circumstances. However, it has to be remembered that the "governments" of Ranil Wickremesinghe and Chandrika Kumaratunga did not even take that limited step. They were unconventional "governments" that were not interested in protecting the sovereignty of the country.
Even the government of Mahinda Rajapakse is somewhat unconventional as it provides helicopters and other facilities for the terrorists to travel about. Although some may not agree, providing such facilities to terrorists who fight against the government perhaps stems from Sinhala Buddhist attitudes. In this regard we are reminded of the dignified manner in which King Dutugemunu treated the King Elara. (Whether Elara came from South India or Persia he has no connection to the Thamils living presently in Sri Lanka.) I do not know of any other government in the world that provides so much facilities to a group of terrorists or otherwise, which has taken up arms against the government. It was only a few days ago that the Russians gunned down the terrorist leader in Chechnya. I do not think the Russian government of Putin would go to the extent of providing helicopters for Chechnyan terrorists to roam about in Russia. For that matter, Bush would not even think of providing any facility to the Al Qaeda organisation.
Coming back to the statements issued by the west, one wonders why they do not at least threaten the LTTE members for bad behaviour. The LTTE is always allowed to escape, and they continue with their barbarous killings of innocent people whether in villages or urban areas. There is no need to issue separate statements every time the LTTE terrorists kill innocent people. The west could easily issue one general statement and ask the world to refer to that whenever the terrorists attack a particular set of innocent people. To add insult to injury the west would ask the government also to stop violence and recommence the so-called peace process. The impression given by the west is that the government is also engaged in terrorist activities.
What would happen if there is a backlash from the Sinhala people? The western media led by BBC, would go on repeating, as they please, the "black days" and blaming the Sinhala Buddhists. Black July is still highlighted by these apologists for the LTTE, forgetting deliberately that Prabhakaran and the LTTE have made almost everyday of the year a black day. They would condemn the Sinhala people, write theses on avihinsa that should be practised by the Buddhists, ad nauseum. They would forget all the terrorist acts of LTTE terrorists and concentrate on the media attack on the Sinhalas. Why does the west protect the LTTE terrorists while it does not practise at home what is preached to the Sinhala people and government of Sri Lanka? Britain would not hesitate to kill even a Brazilian if he is (mis)identified as a Muslim. However Sinhala Buddhists and the government are supposed to extend maithree to the terrorists even while the former are being killed by the latter. It has to be pointed out that in certain lives the Bodhisattva himself had retaliated against those who attacked his clan or species. The "Baka Jathaka" illustrates the point I wish to make. The Mahusada Pandithuma did not refrain from advising the king on how to conduct war. It is only those rational Buddhists in the west and their followers here who think of the Shanthideva type of behaviour from Buddhists at all times. Though I have not gone into a detailed study my gut feeling is that Bodhisattva did not retaliate with violence when somebody attacked him personally but had no inhibition about destroying the enemy if the attack was on the clan or state, which he led or which he advised through the king. There are some jokers who pretend to be intellectuals on obtaining degrees from foreign universities (some of them could not even enter the local universities even after attending elite schools with facilities and teachers) who come up with statements such as that Buddhists who are not supposed to kill are being advised to wage war in order to protect the religion. These pseudo-intellectuals have to be reminded that Buddhists do not take to war to protect the religion as such, but the country, the nation and may be the sasuna, which is not the same as the religion. We do not expect these "failed intellectuals" (asamath buddhimatun) to be sharp enough to analyse a concept and grasp the finer points.
However, at least now, though late, the Anglophiles and other admirers of the west among the Sinhalas, should start thinking of the support given by the west to terrorism in particular. If questioned the western politicians and "intellectuals" would say that the grievances of Thamils have to be solved without giving into Sinhala Chauvinism. If that is the case then they should spell out those grievances. However they will never do that, as the moment they attempt such exercise, it would be realised that the so-called grievances are nothing but loss of the privileges that the Thamils (and others, especially the Catholics and Christians) were given, mainly by the British. It is to the credit of the ordinary Sinhala Catholics who are not an affluent community in general, that they have realised that the colonial privileges had to go, and that the Sinhala Buddhists are not beasts.
Sivakumaran whom I do not consider a Thamil racist objects to my "doctrines" like "dominant ethnicity", "Sinhala Buddhists", "Thamil racists" etc. At the outset I must say that I admire his spelling, Thamil and not Tamil, and have decided to use the same spelling when I have to use the word Thamil. We do not have to use the spelling of the British when we refer to our races and ethnic communities at least. Sivakumaran refers to my "doctrines". Epistemologically I do not distinguish between doctrines, theories and even narratives when it comes to statements that are supposed to explain phenomena and I am not offended by his use of the word doctrine, though it has other connotations. In any event I have not used the concept "dominant ethnicity" though I have referred to dominant cultures. The Sinhala Buddhists as far as I am concerned are those who follow Sinhala Buddhism that has been practised in this country from the time of King Devanampiya Tissa. Of course it does not mean that Sinhala Buddhism has remained static over the years, and pseudo-intellectuals and failed intellectuals (I am not referring to Sivakumaran) do not have to remind the Sinhala Buddhists including me of anicca. The term Thamil racists is used to refer to a particular section of the Thamils and not to the entire Thamil community (Even Elankesan objected to the use of Thamil racists.) The Thamil racists are those who would not recognise the prominence (not dominance unlike in the case of westerners in respect of their cultures) to Sinhalathva. When the west, failed intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals and of course Thamil racists and others use terms such as Sinhala Chauvinist, Sinhala extremists, Sivakumaran does not object. I suppose he does not think that the entire Sinhala nation (failed intellectuals and others should not come with the theories of their masters and mistresses on dilution of the nation state etc. The United States of America has not only become the strongest nation in the history, but its strength continues to grow) is implied by the term Sinhala Chauvinist. Similarly Thamil racists do not include all the Thamils and if I may use a term I am familiar with the Thamil racists form a proper subset of the set of Thamils.
Regarding Thamil culture and Thamil literature in Sri Lanka all that I had to say in essence was that there was no Thamil literature in Sri Lanka before the Dutch period. Of course there was a rich Thamil literature in Southern Bharat before the westerners arrived in that part of the world but we are here referring to Thamil literature in Sri Lanka. I admire Prof. Kailasapathy and others for their literary work but they all belonged to the post-Dutch period. I have not said that the Thamil culture in Sri Lanka is not different from the Thamil culture in South India today but that the differences are not deep. I would be happy on the day when we could be proud of a truly Sri Lankan Thamil culture that we would have created in this country, independent of South India. The Sinhalas would naturally help the Thamils in such an exercise.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>