Stories of the Wind

Retelling the country’s history objectively is an important step towards creating an ‘inclusive Sri Lankan’ identity (I say creating because an ‘inclusive Sri Lankan’ identity does not exist).

Let us take a detour to 18^th Century United States. At that time, most of the Whites held that the Blacks were of a lesser breed. Some were of the belief that blacks were, in essence, monkeys. Many theories were developed to explain the colour distinction and their everyday relevance. The ‘Good-White-Bad-Black’ concept – whites are closer to God in colour, physical appearance, and morality, thus are deserving of unquestionable supremacy – was perhaps the most popular one. This impression of legitimate supremacy kept the conscience of the ‘God fearing’ White at peace. All the heinous activities committed against the Blacks were justified.

We many also recall that Hitler’s entire political project was based on the idea of unquestionable ‘Aryan supremacy’.

Any notion of ‘legitimate’ supremacy, we may conclude, is intrinsically harmful; and the idea of Sinhala supremacy is no different. Once it is established that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala-Buddhist country, everything from land-grabs, militarization, denial of fundamental rights (of minorities) and the activities of Bodu Bala Sena are legitimised. Perhaps this is why the president, instead of apprehending Bodu Bala Sena leaders, entertained them at Temple Trees.

In an enlightening essay, aptly titled ‘History May Be Servitude or History May Be Freedom,’ late Mr Reggie Siriwardane provides some valuable insights into the contribution of school text books in the evolution of the Lankan ethnic conflict. He writes, ‘What is taught is more important than the medium in which it is taught, in determining schoolchildren’s ethnic perceptions. The exploitation of history as an instrument of divisive ethnic ideologies has long‑standing precedents in our schoolbooks.’ Little has changed.

Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Independence Day speech on Monday reflects this. Tisaranee Gunasekara in her analysis of the President’s speech has this to say:

“The President’s speech also contained a tacit acceptance of the anti-pluralist version of Lanka’s past and a coded endorsement of the Sinhala supremacist vision of Lanka’s future peddled by the JHU and the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS).

The President began his speech with a brief history of Trincomalee and it was a Sinhala-Buddhist history. It need not have been. Had he wanted to, he could have used proven historical facts to highlight the rich pluralist past of Trincomalee. For instance, when he said, “the monks who brought higher-ordination from the ancient land of Siam also arrived at Trincomalee”, he could have added that those monks came as a result of a mission sent to Siamby the non-Sinhala monarch Kirthi Sri Rajasinghe (the second Nayakkara ruler of the KandyanKingdom). He could have also mentioned that this momentous event could not have happened without the cooperation of the Dutch because Trincomalee harbour was under Dutch control during that period[i]. That one incident could have been used to showcase the rich pluralist history of Trincomalee and the momentous non-Sinhala contributions to the protection/promotion of Lankan Buddhism. Instead it was depicted as exclusively a Sinhala-Buddhist triumph. Alternatively he could have showcased the secular history of Trincomalee; such as its mention in Claudius Ptolemy’s Geographica; or its connections with the famed world-traveller Marco Polo.

The President’s needless endorsement of this divisive structure in his Independence Day speech is a coded-acceptance of the JHU/BBS vision of a Sinhala-supremacist Sri Lanka. It is also a symbol of Sinhala supremacism and of a Sinhala – as opposed to a Lankan – peace.

Sinhala supremacists, even at their most venomously anti-minority, do not think they are being racist. According to their worldview, the Sinhala-Buddhists can never be racists; racism is a malady which can affect only the minorities. Thus there is no cognitive-dissonance in the likes of BBS/JHU calling themselves anti-racists, while accusing their minority-victims of being racists. Or in the fact that the BBS’s Facebook page contains resounding rejections of racism, cheek-by-jowl with crude anti-minority ranting. Or that President Rajapaksa rejected racism in a speech dripping with Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist symbolism.”

Those who consider themselves as moderates or progressives, and advocate for a multi-ethnic, muti-religious Sri Lanka, must first challenge the Sinhala-Buddhist ideology. The hegemonic Sinhala Buddhist ideology – the notion that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist country – is at the very roots of the Sri Lankan ethnic problem(s). Proceeding to advocate for a multi-ethnic Sri Lankan identity without challenging the dominant discourse is a dangerous exercise. Retelling Lankan history objectively is a good place to start.

                 _____________________________________