PLEASE DON’T USURP THE OLD CULTURE
Response to Hameed Abdul Karim:
Shenali Waduge
No nation with a clear majority in terms of race, religion and a
history that boasts over 2600 years of civilization held together by
Sinhalese Buddhist Kings would need to appeal to the world to understand
why they are beginning to feel alienated. That is the predicament that
has befallen the Buddhists of Sri Lanka. The debate with Hameed Abdul
Karim is being pursued to showcase that though Muslims and Sinhalese had
been living in peace it has to be acknowledged that it is a new wave of
incursions taking place upon the Buddhist space and territory which are
disturbing and infringing on the sensitivities of the Buddhist people
all of which post-independence politicians have conveniently
sidestepped. The apprehensions and the subconscious fears of the
Buddhists of this country now need to be raised and articulated
properly.
Why Sri Lanka fears it would be called a ‘Once Buddhist nation’
Given the present trends we foresee a future date where Sri Lanka
will be termed a ‘once Buddhist’ nation as Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Maldives, Malaysia, Indonesia and probably Thailand and Burma in time to
come will face. Yet, many Buddhists in Sri Lanka are not prepared to be
passive observers and watch in silence their religion and culture fade
away into the sunset without any resistance on their part. Assurances
have not qualified to allay our fears given the dramatic changes we see
happening round the world.
|
Thiriyaya |
Sri Lanka’s Buddhist status never discriminated against any religion
at any point in time as seen by the freedom Hindus, Christians and
Muslims enjoy freely. It is the Buddhists who are forced to always
compromise and sacrifice their vital interests to appease the
unrelenting demands of unreasonable ethnic and religious minorities.
It is sad to watch the historic status of Buddhism enshrined in
Article 9 of the Constitution been reduced to the status of a white
elephant and used only for ceremonial purposes. Buddhist tolerance has
been treated as a weakness and exploited to advance the political agenda
of other religious faiths.
False notions of Buddhist racism
In desperation when Buddhists vocalize their justifiable fears they
are called ‘racist’, ‘communal’, ‘extremist’ and in some cases
‘militant’ - just because they demand to know why Muslims were
encroaching on Buddhist temple lands, why they were bribing officials to
take sacred land areas, why historically non-existent mosques are
emerging in areas that are sacred to the Buddhists and why loudspeakers
from mosques were targeting largely non-Muslim residents? Buddhists are
also asking why politicians are permitting one minority community to
dictate how other communities should purchase their food as well as why
it is violating Article 9 of the Constitution that says it is only
Buddhism that has to be fostered and other religions only to be
protected which questions why a government should build non-Buddhist
places of worship?
Is there any Christian or Muslim country in the world where the State
has contributed to building a Buddhist Place of worship. I look forward
to Karims response!
Principle of Halal Certificate objected
People forget that it was the principle of the halal that was being
questioned. Why did the politicians not take note of how a private
institute not permitted according to its statute of incorporation to
issue certificates, were charging a fee to issue halal certificates on
all food items that are purchased by the population of Sri Lanka.
The principle behind this was that if Muslims ate food without halal
labels all this time why was there a need for a halal label now; if
export-import took place all this time why is there a sudden insistence
for halal labels? The argument also revolves around the fact that this
institute does not even have a state-of-the-art lab to test the
thousands of food for halal compliance whereas beverages like Coke/Pepsi
with 0.001 percent alcohol remain some of the most fast moving soft
drinks consumed by Muslims.
Moreover, the Koran does not say of a halal certificate for anyone to
be demanding that as a religious right since like loudspeakers it is
only a recent addition to the faith. In view of the how food was
consumed and the recent demands it appears to be a commercial leverage
based on a religion aimed to make a political statement to the rest of
the world “we are Muslim/Islam and every non-Muslim must comply with
what suits our religion”! The same applies to the dress as seen in all
areas where Muslims numerical numbers show a majority and whatever Karim
says the examples prove otherwise. Again we are told to be ‘tolerant’ as
Buddhists should be and virtually look the ‘other side’.
GOSL must declare Sri Lanka a Buddhist nation
What post-independence governments have failed to do was to clearly
articulate that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation - no one can argue
against this and historical proof prevails to justify and with good
reason why Sri Lanka should remain a Buddhist nation.
The country’s leaders certainly need to redefine the nation
reaffirming the status given to Buddhism. It is too important a function
to be left exclusively in the hands of highly vocal minorities.
The multi-religious, multi-cultural norms have turned Western nations
upside down. People do not know their country’s history. It is a
country’s history that holds countries together because people want to
preserve what their ancestors fought hard to achieve and which had been
protected and passed down through posterity.
Wealth and political influence cannot sacrifice the ancient past.
Karim does not seem to realize that when the Buddhists say the country’s
majority Buddhist population is feeling alienated in their own
hinterland it is because of a new wave of demands and aggressive
behavioural patterns now pursued by a community that came far later. Is
it so difficult to understand why it is wrong to be demanding the
country adjust to suit the religious beliefs of the Muslim people when
it may be violating the beliefs of the other cultures? Is it not the
community that came later that must adjust itself to be in harmony with
the ethos of the older culture i.e. Buddhist ethos?
Can Karim deny that it is having reached beyond the level of
tolerance that the Buddhists are now coming to say enough is enough and
even finding fault with the political establishments for not demarcating
the boundaries so that people do not cross them.
It is when boundaries are crossed, incursions take place and these
incursions have been clearly defined to Karim. What was needed was for
Karim and others to realize that these new practices, behaviours and
actions was what had upset the Buddhists and it had nothing to do with
any dislike for Muslims because the way Muslims had lived in the past is
what everyone expected them to continue with, not the new changes which
reflect the conflicts taking place round the world.
Buddhist fears are confirmed
Whatever Karim says the recent article by M B M Zubair - Retired
Registrar High Court Kandy has let the cat out of the bag. When he says
“the fact that Islam is spreading fast all over the world must be
admitted by everyone.
It is a prophecy of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that Islam will spread”,
he has spelled out what is in store for Sri Lanka as well and which is
what our fears are all about.
Do we as an older Buddhist culture not have the right to be alarmed
and to address these factors?
No matter what reasons are given by Karim or others it cannot change
the fact that Maldives was once a Buddhist nation. The Dhanbidhnu copper
plates in Maldives dating to 1193AD relate how Buddhist monuments were
destroyed and Buddhist monks were beheaded and mosques were built on top
of the destroyed Buddhist temples and monasteries.
Destruction of ancient history and idols is part of what Islam’s
‘iconoclasm’ is all about and we know how through all conquests Islamic
rulers destroyed churches, kovils and Buddhist temples and recent events
have not shown that Muslims have changed their behaviours. Is that not
good enough reasons for our fears, Karim?
Effects of Islam’s Iconoclasm
Bamiyan Buddha was not destroyed by a ‘lunatic fringe’ as Karim
claims. Many attempts had been made to destroy the Buddha statue because
idol worship is against Islam. From the time of Aurangzeb in the 17th
century till finally in 2001 attempts had been made to destroy the face
of the Buddha. Mullah Moh. Omar stated “Muslims should be proud of
smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them”
while the Afghan Foreign Minister stated that “We are destroying the
statues in accordance with Islamic law and it is purely a religious
issue”.
If destroying statues is part of being Islam as seen by the recent
attacks on Buddhist statues in Bangladesh and Maldives where steps are
afoot to remove every piece of evidence that ties their country’s
history to Buddhism, we can but wonder whether if after the insistence
of halal, mosques and other such Muslim demands whether Sri Lanka will
also be targeted for the removal of its historical Buddha statues and
history one day?
Apologies after attacks will never bring back history that is being
calculatedly destroyed and no one has a right to remove history from
being preserved.
How can peaceful co-existence be argued when what is dear and
precious to another community with a history that dates far beyond its
own is targeted to be destroyed? Given the historical and contemporary
status quo of things, Karim cannot accuse Buddhists of being
unnecessarily alarmed. Thus, we are conveying fears that are likely to
take place many years from now if the Buddhist people keep dormant and
behave like ostriches simply because the world demands that they be
‘tolerant’ while for Muslim’s being tolerant appears to imply that the
older culture must keep silent about halal labels, halal certificates,
proliferation of mosques, incursions on sacred land areas, encroachment
of temple lands, destruction of sacred sites and undermining of Lanka’s
historic legacy of an animal friendly cultural heritage - all leading to
a possible soft usurping of Sri Lanka’s Buddhist civilization.
What Karim and others must realize is that we see a stark difference
in the attitude, behaviours and practices of the Muslims and these very
practices taking place in other parts of the world have led to far
serious issues which we do not want to see replicated in Sri Lanka.
The wake up call is realistically for the entire population
especially the policy makers and those that govern the country and
questions them about why they have not been alert to these changes that
correspond with similar issues abroad.
The basic issue is that we are feeling exactly what Western society
is now feeling when numerically the numbers of Muslims increase and the
older cultures in these countries are asking the same questions that the
Buddhists of Sri Lanka are asking. Like the West we are being subject to
demands that politicians have fallen prey to because they have failed to
endorse the rightful place of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Had this clearly
been articulated people would not intrude as they now do. So we know the
fault lines.
In countries where Muslims have significant numbers they are
demanding for Sharia Islamic laws based on the Qu’ran and Hadith these
laws related to women, dress and non-Muslims are what we feel do not
conform to the type of governance that the Sinhala Buddhist kings had
passed down over centuries and nothing of which Tamils or Muslims felt
discriminated against. It is the parliamentary statutes that followed
after colonial rule that have led to a series of breaches because of the
policy of divide and rule.
The facts are very clear and it is opportune for people to take note.
Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation - it has a proud history that covers
2600 years.
Buddhist rule in ancient times
The Sinhala Buddhist kings that ruled Sri Lanka on the basis of the
Laws of Manu and customary Buddhist laws which upheld the Buddhist
precepts that all living beings are to be protected with reverence for
life was promoted being the basis of advice given by Arahat Mahinda
Thera to King Dewanampiyatissa.
The governing rules of law were clearly articulated, boundaries
defined and drawn so that the people knew how to respect and live in
peaceful co-existence.
The place of Buddhism in the country’s landscape was inviolable and
that place was also guaranteed in the Kandyan Convention of 1815 - the
religion of the Buddha professed by the chief and inhabitants of these
provinces is declared inviolable and its rites, ministers (monks), and
places of worship are to be maintained and protected.
Sri Lanka is the birthright of the Sinhala Buddhists - it is their
heritage and their place of refuge. Karim’s claims that Muslims want to
live in peaceful co-existence is not seen in the manner the Muslim
Congress issued the Oluvil Declaration seeking autonomy, or in the
manner Muslims insist on halal labels, or that Muslims view tolerance as
a one-way street because when people oppose loudspeakers that even the
Supreme Court has issued an interim order that the noise must be
directed inward and not outward and the government has even dedicated a
separate channel to listen to Azan, that is a flagrant violation of a
fundamental right of every citizen i.e. the Right to Silence? This is by
any definition unacceptable. Respect for the neighbour’s rights is the
hallmark of decency. Use of loudspeakers constitute an abuse of freedom
of religion and trespass of the rights of neighbours.
We are bringing these issues to the forefront because we view the
Oluvil Declaration similar to the Vaddukoddai Resolution and we are also
well aware that our politicians react late and by that time the damage
has been done and we have already attracted unwanted elements that lead
the situation to far worse corners.
In his last reply Karim states that Sri Lanka was taken to the world
by the Muslims. It is a canard and can easily be nullified because Sri
Lanka was having links to all corners of the world encompassing trade,
diplomatic deals and spread of Buddhism far before the Prophet was even
born and the writings of Prof. Sirima Kiribamuna, Prof. Tikiri
Abeysinghe, Prof. Wimala Wijesuriya will prove so. Moreover, the
architectural, man-made irrigational marvels of Anuradhapura that no
other civilization has matched were built long before Islam even
originated.
First Arabs in Sri Lanka not Muslims
History must be corrected to clarify that the Arabs that arrived in
Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean were initially not Muslims nor did they
follow Islam. Arabs and even Persians converted to Islam only after the
Islamic conquests though there are millions of Christian Arabs too.
Similarly that Sri Lanka’s Muslims do not speak Arabic will show that
most of them actually came from the Islamized Arabs who went to South
India married South Indian women and thereafter travelled to Sri Lanka.
That is why a large number are dark-skinned and their original dress
reflected South Indian rather than Sinhala influence. All Muslims in Sri
Lanka do not speak Arabic, they speak in Tamil and even the Koran is
written in Tamil. There is no Sinhala blood or lineage of an appreciable
number those that disagree should prove so.
The Yonas that Karim referred to during the time of King Pandukabaya
were not Islam. King Pandukabaya did offer Yonaka sabhagawattu (areas
set aside for Yonaka people). But, these Yonakas were NOT MUSLIMS
because Islam had not come into existence in this period. Islam came
about 350 years after Christ. Christianity appeared as a religion only
200 years after the birth of Christ and during Constantine’s reign in
the 4th century.
Muslims could own land only after 1832
The Muslims never owned land (thus called hulanbadda) during the
times of the Buddhist kings nor during the times of the colonials until
1832 when the British legally allowed them to own land. The writings of
Robert Knox and Queiroz http://www.sinhalaheritage.org/De_Queyroz.html
gives these details to precision. Besides the Dutch who possess, as I
judge, about one fourth of the Island, there are Malabars, that are free
Denizons and pay duty to the King for the Land they enjoy, as the Kings
natural Subjects do; there are also Moors, who are like Strangers, and
hold no Land, but live by carrying goods to the Sea-Ports, which now are
in the Hollanders hands.(Robert Knox)
Its difficult to see evidence of Muslim tolerance when in the West
demands have forced towns to not have Christmas decorations, banks do
not give ‘piggy banks’, ‘Sharia Zones’ and in Switzerland there are
demands to change its national anthem because it does not include other
faiths!
No animal slaughter during ancient times
In Sri Lanka, it is noteworthy to remember that during the time of
the Sinhala Buddhist Kings slaughter of animals were forbidden because
the Royalty and the public followed the doctrine of no harm to all
living beings and encapsulated in the Buddhist First Precept and several
other Buddhist injunctions. Prior to the arrival of colonials even
Muslims were prohibited from slaughtering animals or indulging in animal
sacrifice. The Muslims of this time adjusted themselves to prevailing
Buddhist ethos and the ‘Governing law’.
Kirti Sri Nissankamalla, promulgated a remarkable decree, which he
publicized in six of his famous inscriptions, forbidding the killing of
all living beings in the irrigation lakes of the entire country.
Mahavansa also records how King Elara (200BC) had punished his own son
for running over a calf!
John Doyly’s Book ‘Sketch of the Constitution of the Kandyan Kingdom’
confirms that under Sinhala Law hunting and killing of animals was
declared unlawful.
Animal killing first started with the arrival of the Portuguese. They
were the first to introduce liquor too. It was the British that
legalized slaughter of cattle and now Muslims as stated by Zubair says
that animal sacrifice will continue whatever others say - no Muslim
would have disagreed in times of the Sinhala Buddhist Kings!
In spite of the high place given to man, flora and fauna by
successive Sinhala Kings, Sri Lanka’s Parliament has failed to enact the
Animal Welfare Bill and still allows a 1907 British colonial statute
i.e. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance to be the governing
legislation with a ridiculous low amount of Rs. 100 as the maximum
penalty for the most heinous crime committed against an animal. If the
world were to judge our commitment to rule of law on the basis of
effectiveness of our animal welfare laws we will be taken to the
cleaners. In this respect we are very close to many Muslim countries
which do not provide legislative protection to animals.
This is another good example of the waning of the place of Buddhism
since colonial times to present ceremonial only status.
However, we realize things are today far different. We are not living
in times of history but that does not mean we need to turn our back on
the good that prevailed in our country’s past. Currently the world is in
turmoil because of incursions taking place and since those that govern
the nations have failed to clearly demarcate boundaries and define what
is right and wrong where the older culture and its traditions do not get
compromised or pushed into the background.
Accusations of racism
What we see happening in the world and the subtle incursions take in
place in Sri Lanka makes us compare, analyze and evaluate nations and we
see frightening comparisons - non-Muslims in Muslim nations are fast
declining (look at the Christian statistics in the Middle East, Iraq,
Syria, Bangladesh and in Maldives all the Buddhists were converted to
Islam around 1153AD, their places of worship are falling to ruin because
Muslim laws dictate no new construction and non-Muslim statues are
destroyed because it runs against Muslim belief to worship any God other
than Allah. Karim and Zubair if they continue to insist there is
equality can in their next reply give names of Churches, Synagogues,
Kovils and Buddhist temples built in Muslim majority nations in the last
100 years! The kovil Karim mentioned no longer exists as it was razed to
the ground in 2005.
Buddhism does not define non-Buddhists, nor define how to treat
non-Buddhists yet we are defined as Infidels and further divided as
Zimmis (Christians and Jews) and Kafirs (Buddhists, Hindus, Jains) and
Kafirs are the worst of the two.
We have arrived at a critical juncture in our history. To be able to
live in peace it is important to realize that there is and has been an
older culture in existence over the past 2600 years.
It is not healthy for newer cultures to be demanding how the older
culture should function or dictate or define how the older culture must
conduct itself.
The new incursions of halal certificates/labels, usage of
loudspeakers inspite of Azan being relayed over the radio, animal
sacrifice which many regard as brutal, alarming increase of mosques
which even Muslims do not agree to and the encroachment of sacred lands
and areas need to be reviewed and those that want to live in peaceful
co-existence must realize that it is these incursions that have upset
the older culture and has awoken the Buddhists into realizing that the
other nations who have faced these obstacles have at extreme levels
ended up becoming totally Islamized - Maldives is an example that
continues to keep the Buddhists awake.
I am not going to be unsettled by accusations of racism. I am
engaging in this debate because countries are beholden to protect the
older culture - Sri Lanka should be no different. It is countries that
do not have such a rich culture to protect that always push liberal
theories through multiculturalism.
The gradual diminution of the place held by Buddhism is what has
finally awoken the Buddhists of Sri Lanka.
The politicians have chosen to side with the vociferous demands made
by minorities because it comes with various tags that lure politicians
towards appeasing their wishes ignoring the silent majority and taking
them for granted as well as ignoring their own duty towards preserving
the Buddhist history of Sri Lanka. We now need the injustices to be
addressed and rectified because since colonial times and for 508 years
now a 2600 year Buddhist civilization has been put into the background
and it is time to restore the status quo of Buddhism and Buddhist
culture as it existed in the pre-colonial era.
Buddhist ethos stresses the need to establish a compassionate society
where both man and animal exist side by side in peaceful co-existence.
In such a society violence is eschewed and non-violence and Ahimsa is
promoted towards all living beings. Ideally this should be the moral aim
of Sri Lanka. It is a perfect way for all the people in Sri Lanka to
move forward.
The Buddhist moral community embraces all living beings. This is the
message of the Buddha. Our forefathers embraced it. We are morally bound
to follow this noble tradition. All that we now ask is for people to
reflect and conclude that this path is the best path to follow which
ensures lasting peace and peaceful co-existence. |