Opinion
Need we saddle religion with morality?
The first thoughts that come to our mind at the mention of religion is morality: good and bad, right and wrong. However, while ‘religion’ is rolling on the wheels of glitzy festivals, formalised rituals, vibrant sounds, flashy bulbs, repetitive processions of singing and dancing, those who are adept at using religion to their own advantage continue to wax eloquent on the wonderful benefits of drumming religion in to the heads of children from their early years. Meanwhile, morals, which should ideally refine and unite people, unwittingly divide them, as they are brand-named and spoon-fed to babes; hence the lasting misunderstandings and alienation.
Goolbai Gunasekara’s (GG) article on “Religion”, which appeared in The Island of May 10, is stimulating and also upfront in its claim that “religion has been the cause of the most appalling bloodshed and strife”. She goes on to assert, “so let us agree that religion DIVIDES and most certainly does not UNITE”. One might have dissimilar opinions of teaching religion so as to make it serve the purpose of uniting people. However, GG’s statement resonates with all those who are disheartened by the way societies are split along religious differences.
In a world in which religion is, for an overpowering majority, an inescapable legacy that prevents a conscious choice in adulthood, which would have resonated with the values of a more civilized society – a legacy with all its divisive seeds sown inexorably in unformed minds- GG’s bold statement would be annoying for many at the very least. It’s an irony that such claims appear unpalatable to those who are steeped in their own religions, each one of which is expected to make them more refined, open-minded and balanced. Instead, we who are supposed to be enlightened by a religion tend to be intolerant of criticism, which is a pity. It’s little wonder that religion is seen to have left us untouched by its intended pacifying mechanism.
History keeps providing enough proof of religion’s insignificant contribution to the refinement of society. Of course, persecutions rationalised by religious zeal, compounded by acquired ethnic identities and the unending power struggles continue to upset us from time to time. However, in most instances, reactions to them do not go beyond expressions of horror, sympathy for the victims and censure of the perpetrators. Hardly ever anyone asks whether religions have truly cultured us and to what extent. In such a context, it is encouraging to hear lone voices questioning the role being played by religion with no inhibitions.
It is universally accepted that religion is our essential moral guide. But during which phase of our life would this moral hectoring come to us through religion? It’s enough to think how custom has made us lose commonsense when we teach some ‘morals’ to toddlers when they can hardly appreciate the difference between six and sex. Can anyone who has read Madol Duwa forget how Martin Wickramasinghe relishes the discomfort of Mr. Dharmasinghe, the headmaster, when the latter tries to explain the third precept of pansil Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkha (refraining from unlawful sexual conduct / similar to “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, 7 th of the Ten Commandments), to little children including Upali and Jinna, with downcast eyes, avoiding the gaze of his own children, saying “Young as you are, you must make up your minds not to fall into it”. The readers can only sympathise with the predicament of the disciplinarian, when Wickramasinghe squeezes out the last drop of humour from the scene when he writes with a chuckle how Upali notices the way Mrs. Dharmasinghe discreetly left them if she happened to be there at that point. Mr. and Mrs. Dharmasinghe are not alone in this predicament.
Obviously, drilling morals into babies has its own complications. It’s time you let moral teaching be done more sensibly and elegantly under the continuous supervision of the experts. Such a non-religious and rational approach to teaching ethics would help rid the world of the forced marriage between religion and moral education. And, this leads to the more disturbing question of branding our kids with our own faith, even before they could properly articulate a couple of words, let alone know the basics of any religion. However, the unwitting separation of children based on religion continues and all are devoutly happy.
Socrates said that the “unexamined life is not worth living”, which seems to be applicable to morality and all value systems. The accustomed way in which religion comes to us, almost the same ideas of good and bad / right and wrong, come to us tightly sealed in different caskets that we happen to consider as consecrated due to pure chance. Whether we consider some edicts holy or not overwhelmingly depends on who our parents happened to be. As such, selecting which casket of morality is to be worthy of our devotion is not any cooler than, if you like, selecting our parents. Therefore, the long and the short of our proud religious inheritance is pathetically circumstantial, although some of us would be ready to die or kill for its sake. A religion wouldn’t be a religion any longer when every Tom, Dick and Harry began to be too nosy, although one may venture to say, “unexamined ethics would not be worth following” – if one were to take the liberty of fiddling with Socrates’ aphorism about the ‘unexamined life’, mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph.
It is meaningless that morality, the erosion of which is squarely blamed on religion or rather the lack of it, is always married to religion by history and tradition. This is superfluous because morality can be sensibly examined and discussed without religion – which can surely be studied by anyone for knowledge, without being a victim of an ‘unexamined custom’, which is revered.
Today, in our context, politicians would not be able to pose as saints to fool the credulous, if people could see that being publicly religious has nothing to do with avoiding sin, corruption, taking commissions, money laundering, bribery and living on a continuous diet of deceit and high protein.
Religions would remain as ‘religions’, as we have known them for donkey’s years, but the age- old religious disciplining would fail to produce intended results. Morality has to be disengaged from “religion” and taught as a discipline like any other branch of study. It will ensure the preservation of religion as a field of academic study and, also, a matter of common interest.
Let morality be an ongoing discussion devoid of religious claims. After all, morals are for the people who are living and constantly trying to move towards a better world. We had better be less bigoted and isolationist about them.
Susantha Hewa
Opinion
The Cream of the Earth: Why Sri Lanka needs a Fruit Consumers Movement
By Lalin I De Silva
Sri Lanka speaks constantly about hospitals, medicines, food imports, agricultural productivity and the rising cost of living. Yet there is one simple question we rarely ask:
Are we eating enough of the food that our own soil can naturally give us?
Fruit is perhaps one of the finest gifts of the earth to humankind. A ripe mango, banana, papaya, guava or avocado comes to us almost ready to eat. Sunlight, rain, soil, microorganisms, minerals and the labour of a farmer have already done most of the work.
That is why I like to describe fruit as the “cream of the earth.”
This is, of course, not an argument that fruit alone can prevent every disease, or guarantee longevity. Science does not support such exaggerated claims. But there is strong international evidence that regular consumption of fruits and vegetables forms an important part of a healthy diet and is associated with lower risks of several major non-communicable diseases.
Sri Lanka’s own dietary guidance encourages the daily consumption of fruit as part of a balanced diet.
The tragedy is that we live on an island capable of producing an extraordinary variety of fruits, while many families increasingly depend on highly processed foods, sugary drinks and imported snacks.
This deserves national attention.
We Produce — But Do We Connect?
Sri Lanka grows banana, mango, pineapple, papaya, avocado, rambutan, mangosteen, guava, woodapple, beli, pomegranate, durian and many lesser-known indigenous fruits.
Yet our fruit value chain remains fragmented.
The farmer often does not know the final consumer.
The consumer rarely knows the farmer.
Fruit travels through several intermediaries, sometimes suffering poor handling, unnecessary damage and price escalation along the way.
Consumers may not know where a fruit was grown, when it was harvested, whether it was naturally matured or what crop-protection practices were followed.
Meanwhile, a careful farmer, producing exceptional fruit, may receive almost the same farm-gate price as someone producing an inferior product.
That is not value-chain management.
It is precisely this disconnect that a new citizen-led initiative could begin to address.
25 Districts — 25 Consumer Societies
A proposal now emerging is to establish a Pure Sri Lankan Authentic Healthy Fruit Consumers Society in each of Sri Lanka’s 25 districts.
The concept should not become another organisation full of titles, meetings and ceremonial functions.
Its purpose must be practical.
Each district society could bring together consumers, growers, doctors, nutritionists, horticulturists, schools, universities, retailers, hotels, processors and young entrepreneurs.
The first task would be to understand the district itself.
What fruits are grown?
Where are they grown?
When are they available?
Which traditional varieties are disappearing?
Where can consumers purchase genuinely good fruits?
Where are the post-harvest losses?
What do farmers need?
What do consumers actually want?
From this information, each district could eventually develop its own Fruit Map.
Twenty-five district maps could then become a National Fruit Map of Sri Lanka.
From Anonymous Fruit to Traceable Fruit
Imagine buying a mango and scanning a QR code.
You could see the district, grower, variety, approximate harvest date and production information.
You could perhaps even provide feedback on taste.
That may sound futuristic, but the technology already exists.
The problem is not technology.
The problem is that our food system was never designed to connect the person who grows the fruit with the person who eats it.
Traceability could change that.
The principle is simple:
Know your farmer. Know your fruit.
Let the Consumer Lead
For decades, agriculture has largely been driven from the production side.
“How much can we produce?” has been the dominant question.
A healthier agricultural economy should begin with another question:
What does the consumer need, value and trust?
If thousands of consumers deliberately demand fresh, safe, flavorful and traceable Sri Lankan fruit, the message travels backwards through the entire value chain.
Retailers respond.
Farmers respond.
Nurseries respond.
Researchers respond.
Investors respond.
Government eventually has to respond.
That is the real power of an organised consumer movement.
Start With Children
Perhaps the most powerful campaign message could be remarkably simple:
Two Fruits a Day.
Imagine a Sri Lankan child coming home from school and asking:
“What are our fruits today?”
Imagine every school having a small fruit garden.
Imagine children being able to identify 10 Sri Lankan fruits, understand their seasons and know where they are grown.
Such behavioral change cannot be achieved merely by issuing circulars from Colombo.
It must become part of family culture.
Kandy Could Begin
Kandy would be a logical district in which to pilot the concept.
Its climatic diversity, surrounding agricultural communities, educational institutions, hotels, markets and strong plantation heritage provide an excellent testing ground.
A successful Kandy model could then be adapted—not blindly copied—across the other 24 districts.
The objective should ultimately be much larger than selling more fruit.
It is about reconnecting soil, farmer, food, consumer and health.
Sri Lanka does not need to invent every solution from outside.
Sometimes the answer may already be hanging from a tree beside us.
We simply have to recognise its value.
Know Your Farmer. Know Your Fruit. Live Well.
Opinion
‘Outpost of Empire’
Review
by Colleen Figg, Editor
and Reviewer – Amazon, New Voices Publishing
“Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing, that someone else will always pay the price.”
Shavindra Fernando’s Outpost of Empire is a political novel set in the fictional country of Lackadasia. At its heart is a strong idea: an exploration of world politics, terrorism and the ways in which powerful countries manipulate smaller ones. Fernando is clearly writing about political issues that matter deeply to him.
The names immediately establish the book’s satirical character. Lackadasia, Burgherbugaria and the various Klowns suggest a world in which the people and places are exaggerated, but the issues beneath the exaggeration are recognisable. The playful language allows Fernando to approach terrorism, religious conflict and political corruption from an unusual angle.
Henry Stockwell is a central character: an ambassador who arrives in Lackadasia presenting himself as a friend of the country. He believes he understands how power works and treats the country, its politicians and its people as pawns on his personal chessboard. In his arrogance, he never doubts that he controls events rather than being controlled by them. This confidence makes him a compelling figure and in him, we explore the workings of political influence and the potential traps contained therein.
As the story develops, Fernando reveals a political world where causes are adopted when they are useful, people are exploited and discarded, and the truth becomes whatever those in power need it to be. Ordinary people suffer the consequences of decisions made far beyond their reach or knowledge, while those making those decisions continue to justify their actions. Even the people who help keep this world running may not be as important or as safe as they imagine.
Stockwell brings this idea into focus. He recognises corruption in others and willingly takes part in it himself, yet he cannot see that he might also suffer its consequences. Ultimately, he thinks his position will keep him safe. He is intelligent enough to understand the game, but not insightful enough to grasp the limits of his place within it. This blindness gives the novel a strong sense of irony.
The satirical approach gives Fernando room to criticise political hypocrisy without turning the novel into a direct political argument. By using fictional countries and exaggerated names, he creates some distance from specific governments and events while still making the larger targets of the book clear. The humour does not take away from the seriousness of the subject; instead, it makes the cruelty and self-interest beneath the political performance stand out more sharply.
Near the end, Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing that someone else will always pay the price.
I came away feeling that Outpost of Empire is a valuable and thought-provoking book, particularly in today’s political and social climate. It has a distinctive voice, and the questions it raises about power, responsibility and foreign interference remain relevant far beyond the fictional borders of Lackadasia.
About the Author
Shavindra Fernando has worked as a reporter. He read English & Classics at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, and took International Relations & Ethnic Politics as a Reuter Fellow at the University of Oxford in England. The Vague Poetess (1999)was his first novel.
Opinion
Speaker’s dilemma
The Opposition, in its wisdom (or perhaps stupidity), has submitted yet another No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against the Speaker of Parliament. Perhaps it hopes to score some brownie points in the eyes of the public, which is hardly indifferent to such developments. Yet, knowing full well that the motion is unlikely to succeed, the exercise may well prove futile — akin to banging one’s head against a solid rock.
Nevertheless, the nearly fifty allegations levelled against the Speaker, whether justified or mere mudslinging, cannot simply be brushed aside. Such allegations may well have a bearing on the individual concerned, particularly where it matters most — his conscience — and few would dispute that possibility.
From a protocol standpoint, the Speaker occupies one of the highest positions in the country, ranking third in the hierarchy of state. He consequently belongs to the uppermost echelons of public life, with acquaintances and associates extending across a wide spectrum of society, including diplomats and other distinguished personalities. Such a position carries with it not merely prestige and privilege, but also an onerous responsibility to uphold the dignity and integrity of the office.
As the guardian of Parliament, the Speaker is expected to maintain standards of conduct, impartiality and discipline that are beyond reproach.
Whether the allegations are justifiable or not may be of little consequence to members of the ruling party, who will undoubtedly defend their colleague to the hilt. Nevertheless, the stigma arising from such allegations may prove difficult to erase, particularly in the eyes of his family, close associates and, ultimately, the voters who placed their trust in him. Of course, it is common knowledge that politics can be a dirty game and that, as Lord Acton famously observed, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Yet, nothing could be more devastating than a person losing his own soul in the process. On the one hand, stepping down could be construed as an admission of responsibility for the allegations levelled against him. On the other, allowing the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) to proceed could expose him to further public scrutiny and potentially inflict lasting damage on his character, dignity and reputation. Thus, he finds himself caught between two unenviable choices, each carrying consequences that may extend far beyond the immediate political fallout.
The Speaker is therefore confronted with a classic Hobson’s choice, with neither option likely to be without consequences. After all, in politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies—only permanent interests.
WILLIAM
-
Features6 days agoThe Sri Lankan who made Scottish history
-
Sports6 days agoNissanka absence opens door for Sri Lanka’s young guns
-
News5 days agoNDB fraud Rs 60mn more than reported
-
News5 days agoRemoving monk’s robes matter for Sangha to decide: Mahanayake Theras
-
News6 days agoShiranthi R remanded until 13 Oct.
-
Features6 days agoFuture of Sri Lanka’s state university system: Should it be shut down and reopened?
-
News3 days agoSri Lanka escalates anti-graft drive with Shiranthi’s jailing
-
Latest News4 days agoFarhan, Sadaqat help Pakistan ace 183 chase to go 1-0 up
