MYANMAR AND SRI LANKA: BHIKKUS AND OTHERS
When Bishops speak in support of Buddhist Bhikkus who are demonstrating against governments then one has to consider very carefully the reason for the worthy Bishops to do so. It appears that the so called international community is also very concerned with the plight of the Bhikkus who are demonstrating against the military government in Myanmar. Even in Sri Lanka there is a sympathy for these Bhikkus as expressed by some media people who not many moon ago were devoting pages in their "esteemed" newspapers to criticize the Sri Lankan Bhikkus who demonstrated or expressed opinion against federalism, separatism and of course the fascist LTTE and their mentors the "international community".
The award winning journalists in these newspapers question as to why Sri Lankan Bhikkus do not come in support of the Myanmar Bhikkus who are demonstrating against the military government. These journalists who objected to demonstrations by the Sri Lankan (Sinhala) Bhikkus against the LTTE want the Bhikkus to take to streets against the military government in Myanmar. Perhaps these journalists are of the opinion that the LTTE is better than the Myanmar military government. It is not only these journalists who prefer the LTTE to the military government in Myanmar but the international community as well.
There are number of matters we have to consider with respect to the decision by some of the Bhikkus in Myanmar to demonstrate against the military regime and the decision by most of the Bhikkus in Sri Lanka not to take to streets in spite of questioning by award winning journalists. Unlike in Sri Lanka where the total number of Bhikkus does not probably exceed twenty five thousand there are large number of Bhikkus in Myanmar and we do not know the percentage of Myanmar Bhikkus who have taken the path of demonstrations. We also do not hear of any military regime leader who has said anything on the path of demonstration to Nibbana by the Myanmar Bhikkus.
The "international community" that tolerates people such as Pinochet and Prabhakaran is very keen to topple the Myanmar military government, in the name of democracy. We do not consider this as double standards as the so called international community has only one policy. The policy of the "international community" is the propagation and establishment of their culture, politics and economy in each of the countries by hook or crook. Some might call it neo colonialism, but we prefer to consider it as the continuation of the policy of the westerners that began in the fifteenth century. The western Christian modernity has only one item in their agenda and it is nothing but colonialism that is spelled out above. Anything that is done by the "international community" whether in the name of democracy or not can be finally reduced to political, cultural and economic colonialism, and in Myanmar too it is not democracy that is in their minds when they want to topple the military government.
The military government in Myanmar, whatever its drawbacks and weaknesses may be has been trying to maintain the sovereignty of the country without obeying the so called international community. The agent of "international community" in Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi may or may not be leading the current protests. However, it is she who will be benefited if the military government were to fall and it would not be very much different from Chandrika Kumaratunga coming to power in Sri Lanka, to pave the way for Ranil Wickremesinghe despite the "policy change" of the UNP from federal to something else that is not defined. The so called policy change is only a mask as the direct agent of the "international community" or western Christian modernity in Sri Lanka would change from federal to anything other than federal. The "international community" in Sri Lanka wants a federal state just as much as the Tamil elite (we would continue with the discussion on the topic "Why the Tamil elite insist on a federal state" the moment we could get back to it) and would not give it up under any circumstances as a federal state would weaken Sinhalathva in the country. The UNP has found that the present situation is such that they would not be able to win votes among the Sinhala people by clinging on to federalism and they have to drop federal at least to hoodwink the Sinhala people. What the "international community" wants the UNP to do is to change from federalism to something undefined but to spell out federal structure in the constitution without claiming that the constitution is federal. They think it would help the UNP to muster votes among the Sinhala people without in effect dropping federalism. It is very unlikely the Sinhala people would fall into the trap and as long as the present government continues with the humanitarian operations to liberate the Tamils from the clutches of the LTTE, the majority of the Sinhala people would not vote against the SLFP.
After the seventeen year rule of the UNP government the Sinhala people fell into the trap and voted for Chandrika Kumaratunga who like Aung San Suu Kyi is a daughter of a charismatic leader, and who was more at home with western Christian modernity than with Theravada Buddhist culture. Chandrika Kumaratunga was the agent of "international community" who wanted to impose a federal constitution after changing the policies of the SLFP almost overnight. The Sinhala people who were fed up with the UNP chose Chandrika Kumaratunga though the MEP at that time warned the people of the danger of giving her an absolute majority. Chandrika Kumaratunga having come into power could only pave the way to Ranil Wickremesinghe's UNP which is the out and out agent of western Christian modernity. The Sinhala people were soon able to correct the mistake by first removing Ranil Wickremesinghe, who wanted to celebrate five hundredth anniversary of the arrival of the Portuguese in Sri Lanka in grand style, and then Chandrika Kumaratunga. Of course a pundit would say that Chandrika Kumaratunga was not removed from power by the Sinhala people but she left because her term expired. However, we know how even today she is involved in politics, though she is not entitled to the privileges as an ex President, if she continues to meddle in Politics, and it can be said that she was removed from active open politics by the Sinhala people.
In Myanmar what they have today is not a government of a party like the UNP which is the agent of non national powers but a national government that has stood up to the pressures of the western powers admirably. It is not stated here that the military government of Myanmar is an ideal government that has to be kept in power at any cost. Though the Sinhala people in 1994 opted to elect Chandrika Kumaratunga instead of the UNP thinking that she was a nationalist leader, the Myanmar people do not have to worry even over that aspect. In any event compared to a UNP government an SLFP government even under Chandrika Kumaratunga would have been preferred by the Sinhala people, though the MEP warned the people not to give her a direct majority in the Parliament. In Myanmar the military government may be corrupt but it is not against Myanmar being an agent of western Christian modernity. If Myanmar people suffer today the so called international community is also to be blamed for imposing economic sanctions against Myanmar. Imposing economic sanctions only punish the people and it is a crime to punish innocent people even if the government is at fault. The "international community" wants to topple the military government not because it is undemocratic and/or it has not solved the problems of the people of Myanmar, but simply because the military government is not for western Christian modernity. The protesting Bhikkus in Myanmar may not be direct agents of western Christian modernity but they are playing into the hands of the "international community". That is the reason for the concern of the "international community" as well as the Bishops over the plight of the demonstrating Bhikkus in Myanmar.
Myanmar like Sri Lanka is one of the few Theravada countries in the world. The western Christian modernity has its agents operating in all the Theravada countries and they are interested in wiping out the Theravada culture from their global village. Theravada countries are only second to Muslim countries in the order of "priority" of the "international community". Aung San Suu Kyi could be used only as a stop gap and if she fails to deliver the goods as in the case of Chandrika Kumaratunga, the western Christian modernity must be having Ranil Wickremesinghe of Myanmar lined up. The day that that person comes to power would mark the beginning of the end of Theravada culture in Myanmar.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>