Directions of prevailing political realities

The election of a new parliament, like the election of a new president, provides an opportunity for the nation to envision its future. One can trace the background to this election, link by link as it were, over a chain of circumstances. Each of us might choose a different ‘chain’, and make it go back as far or as near as we wish to. In my case, the chain is the issue of a Sri Lankan identity, and it stretches back to at least 1948.

There is no doubt in my mind that the ideology of identity played a role in the election just concluded – as it has in the past. Especially since the end of the separatist war, the spotlight has been thrown afresh on two strands of thought: one of ‘ethno-religious majoritarianism’, and the other, of ‘pluralism’. Since these terms can mean different things to different people, I need to define what I mean by each.

By majoritarianism I mean a “…political philosophy or agenda that asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism). And in the case of ethno-religious majoritarianism, its application is to the presumed primacy of the segment of society which identifies itself as ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’. In this view, those without this identity do not hold the same rights as Sinhala Buddhists, whether such differences are legislated or merely represent the de facto reality – if not at all times and situations, in SOME of them. Let me call this ‘Identity 1’ (or ID1 for short).

‘Pluralism’ is used in the sense that Sri Lankans are not only diverse across different dimensions such as ethnicity, mother tongue/first language, religion (and being areligious) and any other category; but that the particular label of identity one carries does not warrant special privileges (claimed on the grounds of being a bhoomi putthra) – therefore seeking to make all citizens equal partners in nation-building. It also includes a perception that we may carry a hybridity WITHIN our official categorization, given how our ancestors have intermingled across the centuries. I refer to pluralism as ‘Identity 2’ (or ID2).

If these two strands of thought, or ideologies, are considered to be two extremes, the realities of day-to-day life probably take place on a continuum between the two. However, they serve as useful signposts at the fork on the road we have now arrived at, to indicate the possible future which lies ahead for generations born and unborn.  

Arguably, ID1 has risen to centre stage in both the presidential and the parliamentary election. If stressing on the importance of ethnicity, and in particular the religion of the majority garners votes (of the majority), then one can claim that that particular view represents the feelings and aspirations of the electorate. And it is possible, of course to build the future of the nation giving special privileges to the majority segment of the population, as different countries have done at different times in their histories; however disagreeable it may be to those who are not a part of this segment.

It is worthwhile briefly considering a question that can be asked – and HAS been asked from time to time, sometimes in sarcasm, which is, what is the evidence for the existence of ID1? The weary answer would be that it is too numerous to keep recounting, but would include the areas of language policy (and practice), land settlement, State recruitment including to the Armed Forces, and so on; and the experience with rhetoric, not only of the ‘lunatic fringe’, but also of the establishment. In recent years this has taken the form of Islamophobia, most evidently in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. This was evident in the run-up to the elections, with candidates keen to establish where they stood in relation to this identity. It has also been displayed after the presidential election, both in the nature of the swearing-in ceremony, and in the apparent advisory role assigned to the Sangha.

Those who view Sri Lankans in terms of ID2 may do so for one or both of two reasons. One is (the perception) that our failure to progress economically since independence is a result of our inability to accept pluralism and build our nation on it; and that therefore our future is doomed if we do not rectify this. The other is that even if we could charter a new course of economic and social development built on ID1 (including perhaps a new constitution), we should not do so on ethical or moral grounds.

For those of us who grew up with daily experiences inculcating pluralism – at home, in school and in the segments of society we moved in – the term ‘Sri Lankan’ connoted an embracing of this pluralism. Over time we have seen the voice of pluralism and inclusivity wax and wane – sometimes submerged, but never drowned. And to those fellow-citizens who were privileged to have been exposed to this nature of diversity and acceptance, life after the election brings a challenge, and a time of decision: Which do we choose – differentiation, domination, primacy; or equality, unity, and sharing?

The ‘othering’ of particular groups is not a uniquely Sri Lankan phenomenon of course. It is ironic that close to 57 years, since the Rev. Martin Luther King’s stirring words “I have a dream”, there is a need for a ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement. In that historic moment, King spelled out his dream:

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”…I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm)

And it is this dream for the future of his children that we voters hold in our hands as we contemplate the future of OUR children and grandchildren; that it is the content of their character which matters, not what their ethnicity, or language or religion is; and not whether they are civilians or laity, or any other group.

There are public voices of pluralism in Sri Lanka, too, of course, which are relatively rare except in some political campaigns, albeit in ‘cautious language’. A clear and unambiguous voice is that of the much maligned Mangala Samaraweera, whose words have been selectively quoted in sometimes sensational fashion. Addressing party members, on May 12, 2019, in an emotive period after the Easter massacres, from within a group identity of Sinhala Buddhists (Sinhala Bauddha api), he spoke on the premise that all of Sri Lanka’s citizens are equal. In that context he is recorded as saying: Lankawa kiyanne Sinhala Baudhayange ratak nevei, Lankawa kiyanne Sri Laankikayange ratak; Sri Laankikayange ratay bahutharaya Sinhala Bauddha (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kzyox1Lfs), which may be translated as:

“Lanka is not a country of the Sinhala Buddhists, Lanka is a country of Sri Lankans; the majority in the country of the Sri Lankans are Sinhala Buddhist”.

These are statesman-like words (wisdom our majority of politicians have failed to pursue)! And yet, they have been used primarily to vilify Samaraweera, and thereby to engender caution in others who would pursue similar reasoning.

The clearest multi-cultural placing of oneself within a Sri Lankan identity is perhaps found in Kumar Sangakkara’s much-acclaimed ‘MCC Spirit of Cricket Lecture’ on July 4, 2011 in England. He drew on this identity in the motivation it gave him to represent his country at cricket: “I will do that keeping paramount in my mind my Sri Lankan identity…My loyalty will be to the ordinary Sri Lankan fan, their 20 million hearts beating collectively as one….Fans of different races, castes, ethnicities and religions who together celebrate their diversity by uniting for a common national cause….” And he ended his speech with the extraordinarily inspiring sentiments: “I am Tamil, Sinhalese, Muslim and Burgher. I am a Buddhist, a Hindu, a follower of Islam and Christianity. I am today, and always, proudly Sri Lankan.” (http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/522183.html).

And so I come back to the fork on our journey even as the dust of the election settles. Imagine the portrayal of a Sri Lankan identity in terms of the two extremes, ID1 – the ‘dominant ideology’ and ID2 – the ‘Sangakkara vision’. Where in the scale joining these extremes do each of us stand?

It is apt to conclude with lines from ‘The Call of Lanka’ by the Rev. W.S. Senior, whose remains were interred in his beloved Sri Lanka, at St. Andrew’s church, Haputale. (http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/4354/the-call-of-lanka.html).

“But most shall he sing of Lanka in the brave new days that come,

When the races all have blended and the voice of strife is dumb;

When we leap to a single bugle, march to a single drum,

March to a mighty purpose, one Man from shore to shore….” 

C. R. ABAYASEKARA