ACSLU Publication No. 27
Australian Centre for Sri Lankan Unity
P.O.Box 536, Toowong QLD 4066, AUSTRALIA
1. Introduction
2. The Five Resolutions
3. The Intervention of the Maha Sangha
First Published: March 1996
The Buddhist Maha Sangha of Sri Lanka has for a long time
been the object of derision by Eelamists and their supporters. Indeed
the terrorist wing of the Eelamist movement has gone much further
and murdered scores of members of the Maha Sangha. By contrast
the spiritual leaders of no other religion have been harmed (let alone
murdered) in the Sri Lankan conflict, despite the openly separatist
activities of many Tamil Christian priests.
The supporters of Eelam constantly portray the Maha Sangha
as hard-line Sinhala chauvinists, inciting the Sinhala people to oppose
the Tamils, and placing every obstacle in the way of the Sri Lankan
government conceding separatist demands. Like much of the
mythology connected with the Eelam cause this is a caricature of the
true situation, but one which unfortunately continues to have wide
currency in the West.
Buddhism has never been a highly centralised religion; it has
no Pope or Church Authority empowered to take official positions on
religious or secular matters. On the separatist question the Buddhist
Sangha have shown a wide range of views, some going so far as to
support the separatist demand. The vast majority of the Sangha have
shown a tolerance and compassion that is typical of the Buddhist
approach, but Sangha leaders have spoken out on political matters not
so much in their capacity as members of the Buddhist "clergy", but as
community leaders.
In an organisational sense the Sangha in Sri Lanka is divided
into a number of Chapters (or Nikayas). On 5 March 1996 a large
assembly of the Maha Sangha of Sri Lanka led by the chief Prelates
of the various Nikayas met at the Bandaranaike Conference Hall in
Colombo to discuss the crisis facing the country. They passed five
resolutions relating to the national crisis. These resolutions may be
considered as the response of the Maha Sangha to the devolution
proposals of the SL Government. All groups concerned with the Sri
Lankan crisis, including SL expatriates abroad, should examine these
resolutions. This article provides some ACSLU comments on these
resolutions.
The preamble to the resolutions states that "the Maha Sangha
has considered it their historic duty from ancient times to advise the
government of the country and the people in times of grave danger"
and points out that such a situation has now arisen. The Maha
Sangha thus justifies their intervention in terms of historical
precedent not in terms of Buddhist theory or practice. As a constituent
element of the polity they are entitled to give their opinion; it is up to
the Government to respond to these resolutions.
The first Resolution reads:
The views expressed here are impeccable. We may perhaps replace
the phrase "by peaceful means" in the first sentence with "by lawful
means" as no one has found a method of dealing with dedicated
suicidal terrorists "by peaceful means".
This Resolution reminds the Government of its basic obligation to
ensure peaceful conditions for ordinary citizens to go about their
legitimate activities.. This obligation has long been evaded by a
succession of SL Governments and terrorists have been allowed to run
rampant in the country. Furthermore the challenge to the Government
is to create the conditions for a peaceful existence within a unitary
state. There are many multi-ethnic unitary states in the world where
peaceful conditions prevail and there is no reason why this should not
be case in Sri Lanka.
The second resolution states:
The third resolution reads:
It is only after the existence of the Ethnic Problem has been
clearly demonstrated that the question whether devolution is the
proper remedy for this problem can be considered. The devolutionists
in fact have put the cart before the horse - they have identified a
"solution" without first identifying a problem which their solution is
supposed to rectify
[NOTE 2].
The fourth and fifth resolutions contain a common theme.
The fourth resolution reads: 1. Introduction
2. The Five Resolutions
"1. The efforts of the government over the last ten years by
peaceful means to put an end to the brutal murders and
destruction of property committed by the separatist Tamil
terrorists have been completely unsuccessful. The
establishment of peace, law and order in the country is the
responsibility solely of the government. This conference of
the Maha Sangha brings to the notice of the government the
necessity of completely eliminating terrorism in order to
create an environment in which all communities, Sinhala,
Tamil and Muslim, can live in peace and harmony in a
unitary state of Sri Lanka."
"2. The proposed constitutional amendments will pave the way
for the creation of an independent state of Eelam, which is the
sole objective of all Tamil separatists. In the circumstances this
conference of the Maha Sangha while expressing its
dissatisfaction at the proposed constitutional amendments,
demands that these proposals be not implemented."
The view of the Maha Sangha given here coincides with the scenario
that ACSLU has portrayed as resulting from the adoption of
devolution. It will only be a matter of time before the Chief Minister
of the Eelam Region is a member of the LTTE. Then such a Chief
Minister could engineer the rupture of the Region from the Union and
proclaim unilaterally the independence of "Tamil Eelam". As the
ACSLU analysis of the Devolution Law has shown the provisions of
the Constitution are firstly incapable of preventing this from
happening, and secondly from reversing it once it has happened. The
demand of the Maha Sangha that the devolution proposals "not be
implemented" must be stated more strongly. They should be
withdrawn unconditionally.
"3. Whereas the government declares that the constitutional
amendments are aimed to solve the Tamil problem and to
correct the historical injustices caused to the Tamils, this
conference of the Maha Sangha demands that the government
declares in what ways the Tamils have suffered any injustices
purely because they have been members of that community
and in what ways the Sinhalese who constitute 74 percent of
the population have special privileges by virtue of being
Sinhala. Furthermore in regard to the question of alternative
solutions this conference requests the government to state the
problems for which alternative solutions are required."
This resolution contains a very vital question avoided both by
Eelamists and by devolutionists. This amounts to nothing more than
the demand that those who claim that an "Ethnic Problem" exists in
Sri Lanka should define this problem and establish its existence in
unambiguous ways. ACSLU has shown that there has been no
systematic discrimination against Tamils in Sri Lanka
[NOTE 1].
It mis now time for those who argue the contrary to state their claims. It
also involves, as the Maha Sangha has stated clearly, the obligation to
identify the "special privileges" allegedly given to the Sinhala people,
privileges which are in excess of those enjoyed by the majority
linguistic group in most countries in the world.
"4. Sri Lanka is the sole Sinhala Buddhist country in the
World. Hence this conference of the Maha Sangha emphasises
that in solving the political, social and economic problems of
the country the Sinhala Buddhist identity should be
safeguarded. "
The fifth reads:
"5. For an unbroken period of almost 2500 years the Maha
Sangha, the rulers and the people have protected and
safeguarded the Buddha Sasana and the Buddhist Culture in
Sri Lanka and propagated the sublime message of the Buddha
to the rest of the world. Today the Buddha Sasana in Sri
Lanka is faced with numerous threats both internal and
external. Hence, this Conference of the Maha Sangha requests
the co-operation of the International Buddhist community in
protecting the Buddha Sasana and the Buddhist heritage in Sri
Lanka.''
This is the Dhamma-Dveepa ("Island of the Dhamma") Principle
against which Eelamist theorists have long riled, calling it the
"Mahavamsa mind-set" of the Sinhalese.
Central to this is the place to be accorded to Buddhism in the
unitary state of Sri Lanka. Matters like this cannot be determined in
the abstract but in terms of accepted international practice. That
practice is that in almost every country the religion of the majority is
conceded a special place. This is true of all Islamic countries where in
fact no religious tolerance is shown to other religions except in a
limited way to Christians and Jews (often referred to as the "people of
the Book")
[NOTE 3].
The same is also true by and large of Christian countries. In most of these countries one or the other of the Christian sects is the established religion. This is the case in the U.K. and most other European countries.
This is also true of the United States concerning which the mistaken notion prevails that no religion is established by the State. What the American Constitution implies is that no one Christian sect is "established" in preference to other sects. But Christianity in general is given a privileged position as is seen in the proliferation of Christian statements like "God Bless America" in inscriptions in currency, utterances by the President, and the like. Recently the principle has been extended to other theistic religions, but non-theistic religions like Buddhism and secularism in general is under increasing threat.
Many people would subscribe to the principle that the State should be completely separate from religion, and there is much to commend such a position. But there is no reason why Sri Lanka should lead the way. After all it is the so-called arbiters of democracy who have to set the example. Not only have they not done so but are actually going backwards. The Sri Lankan pseudo-intellectuals who are propagating the myth of the "Mahavamsa mind-set" should first examine the practices in those countries who are their patrons and endow them with ample funds to carry on their activity before they denigrate Sri Lanka and its unrivalled chronicle the Mahawamsa, the like of which few countries can boast of [NOTE 4].
It is a sad fact that while the Sri Lanka slides into racism and
the disintegration which this corrosive doctrine has produced
everywhere, the majority of the people of Sri Lanka appears to be
unperturbed at the fate that awaits the nation and is continuing in their
own mercenary ways. The support for devolution from the leaders of
racial minorities is readily comprehensible, but the acquiescence of
the Sinhala leaders is less easily explained. Yet the incapability of
political leaders to discharge their responsibility as identified in the
first Resolution we have considered is something that needs
explanation. A part of this explanation must lie in the factor which
ACSLU had identified. viz. the rise of the "neo- Sinhalas". They
have turned their back on the tradition of the classic Sinhalas and
have shown a readiness to compromise with racially minded
separatists for purposes of personal, political and financial gain. In
effect the Sinhala supporters of devolution constitute a
"lumpen-Sinhala" dross unworthy of Sri Lanka's great heritage.
What will be the response to the Resolutions of the Maha
Sangha? It is unlikely that the Government, to whom most of the
Resolutions are addressed, will abandon the path they have set for
themselves. But they should at least answer the call made in the third
Resolution and justify their claims of the existence of "Discrimination
against Tamils" and that devolution will address this problem. They
should substantiate their claims about the existence of discrimination
and compare what they see as discriminatory actions with the
practices in other countries usually considered enlightened in these
matters.
The Maha Sangha has stepped out its normal bounds to deliver
a message to the nation in clear and unequivocal terms. It would be
interesting to note what the response to this message will be.
[1] See the ACSLU document "The Myth of Discrimination against
Tamils in Sri Lanka". [Return]
[2] According to SL Press reports shortly after the passage of these
resolutions the Mahanayake Thera of Malwatte Chapter was
met by a delegation consisting of the leader of the EPDP, the
secretary general of TELO, the secretary of EPRLF, and the
secretary of EROS. According to the Press reports these Tamil
leaders claimed that "Tamil people in this country had been
subjected to injustices under successive governments".
However only two injustices are mentioned in the Press
Report, the "worst being to make Sinhala the only official
language in 1956" and the other "the government sponsored
colonisation schemes". As ACSLU has shown both these are
not valid. The practice of making the language of the majority
the official language of a country is universal practice, and
even Western countries in which Tamils have sought sanctuary
adopt the principle behind the language law of 1956. The
argument about colonisation schemes imply that the areas
concerned constitute the "Tamil homeland" which is
historically absurd. Injustice in land settlement can only be
claimed if Tamils are not given a percentage of land in the
colonisation schemes commensurate with their proportion in
the population. The fact that these high-powered Tamil
leaders could not produce any other credible evidence of
discrimination shows that the position of the Mahanayaka
Theras was fundamentally correct. All that the delegation
could ask for was "meaningful devolution", which ultimately
means the apartheid principle contrary not only to the
principles of Buddhism but also to every decent and humane
code. [Return]
[3] Indonesia if often considered the least fundamentalist of the
Muslim countries. But even here the first principle of state
ideology (the "panchaseela") affirms belief in a single God
which is contrary to Buddhism and some other religions.
[Return]
[4] Tamil separatist theoreticians never cease to claim that they were
the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka. But it is curious that
such an enterprising and industrious people never thought of
writing down their deeds and exploits in Sri Lanka which they
claim to be their homeland. The first history of Tamils in Sri
Lanka written by a Tamil was composed at the request of the
Dutch Governor in the eighteenth century and displays a
monumental ignorance of real historical fact.
[Return]
3. The Intervention of the Maha Sangha
It may be pertinent to inquire why the Maha Sangha had to
break its traditional aloofness from politics and intervene in the
political debate in this manner. After all it should be the task of the
ordinary lay people to take the initiative on the matters on which the
Maha Sangha has spoken. NOTES