Opinion
Superstition and early indoctrination
The two articles that appeared in the Midweek Review of The Island, November 10, titled, ‘Nice Racism’, based on Robin DiAngelo’s book, Nice Racism, by Prof. C.P. Sarvan and ‘World Science Day: Appraise nations to dispel pseudoscience’ by Prof. Kirthi Tennakone are timely, stimulating and also complementary. They question racism and pseudoscience, both of which flourish in a climate of superstition and conformism that feed on each other.
COVID-19 has laid bare the latent superstitious character of our collective mindset. Looking at the people, thronged to secure a vial of concoction many moons ago, one would have wondered whether they were feeling the presence of the concerned goddess, hovering above them, to protect all of them against sure infection by physical proximity. The potion received state patronage through ministerial intervention that incorporated a ceremonial swallowing of the brew by some VIPs inside the House; and the dropping of pots of ‘blessed’ water into waterways. It was an embarrassing period of augmenting and celebration of superstition.
Usually, belief in superstition is blamed on lack of education. However, even the educated are not always resistant to superstition. From early days, children start forming ideas that are etched into their undeveloped minds, and they, as a rule, remain undisturbed by cognition, which is a later attribute of our brain development. Before formal education, children begin to imbibe many things as a result of being a member of a family, which forces them to prematurely ‘learn’ some of the most complicated concepts that are well beyond their limited grasp. This process of ‘learning’ is, among other things, the inculcation of religious teachings in the unformed minds that cannot resist this intrusion, which amounts to a violation of their right to learn complex concepts at the right time, when their cognitive faculties are ready for the task. Religion is not different from the first language, in terms of the child’s method of ‘learning’, the only method available to undeveloped minds, which is acquisition. No child can help acquiring the language and the religion in her or his immediate environment.
If an adult tried to formally teach a kid either language or religion, in all their complexity, it would drive the latter insane. The child, in her or his defenselessness against the well-meaning indoctrination of religion, is thus denied her right to learn any religion or religions she would wish to as an adult. Like her first language, the specific religion to which she is exposed from her babyhood, becomes an essential part of herself. However, while the acquisition of language is quite natural, uniquely human and essential for socialising, that of religion is not only artificial but also injurious; in that it lays a firm foundation for the child to simply acquire any notion on the strength of familiarisation through repetition, in other words, continuous exposure to stories, ‘truths’ and rituals unique to that religion.
Here, the important question is not regarding the content per se, but the method of indoctrination, which later makes him or her justify the acceptance of unverifiable ideas under a veil of fake ‘intellectuality’. As such, it is not surprising that even among the educated, one may find those who believe in the ‘truth’ of certain views and explanations that are not testable, but have a ‘solemnity’ attributed to them by tradition or authority. Thus many superstitions may have a surprisingly long shelf-life. In his article, Prof. Tennakone says, “pseudoscience is a social malady akin to superstitions and ideologies, which advocate untested claims, most of them illogical or fake, as science.” He goes on to say that there are those who are rational in their professional life but have no quarrel with pseudoscience “in private matters dearer to” them.
Of course, many of us are hardly aware of, let alone embarrassed by this ‘dual-personality’, an integral element in us, which helps us to navigate smoothly in a world where we have to cohabit with reason and ‘unreason’, with equal ease of grace and conviction.
Come to think of it, we have, in fact, ‘multiple personalities’ one of which is racial identity, a fake label that we carry in our entire lifetime to no useful purpose, other than maintaining an unreal and insidious division. What’s worse, prolonged habituation has made us believe that there is something in us that makes us uniquely Sinhala or Tamil. What is called racial identity can go even deeper than religious identity because, while people can change their faith and assume a new religious identity, the former is almost immovable due to a ‘learned’ feeling that we have in us a ‘racial gene’, which we cannot get rid of at will. Perhaps, ironically, every time we try to entertain high-minded thoughts about ‘racial harmony’ we unconsciously get all the more convinced of our ‘racial uniqueness’. What a mess!
Dr. E.W. Adikaram wrote, “In truth, there is only one human race: what goes as Sinhalese, Tamil, English and a thousand other nationalities are only designations born out of belief and having no intrinsic significance whatsoever.” (Isn’t the nationalist a mental patient?) In fact, he used to say that many people talked about ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘racial harmony’ without realising that ‘race’ is a myth. In his article, Prof. Sarvan says, “…there’s no race but racism flourishes. There are no scientific grounds for believing in race. Race is a human construct…”
What is clear is that we, humans, have a significant capacity for entertaining myths and the inescapable early indoctrination, no matter how sanctified and well-intentioned it may have been all these centuries, can contribute in no small measure towards making us accommodate myths without examining them rationally. Of course, there may be other influential factors.
SUSANTHA HEWA
Plans to resurrect the Nanu Oya – Nuwara Eliya rail track are welcome. The magnificent views from the train have been described by H W Cave in his book The Ceylon Government Railway (1910):
‘The pass by which Nuwara Eliya is reached is one of the most exquisite things in Ceylon. In traversing its length, the line makes a further ascent of one thousand feet in six miles. The curves and windings necessary to accomplish this are the most intricate on the whole railway and frequently have a radius of only eighty feet. On the right side of the deep mountain gorge we ascend amongst the tea bushes of the Edinburgh estate, and at length emerge upon a road, which the line shares with the cart traffic for about a mile. In the depths of the defile flows the Nanuoya river, foaming amongst huge boulders of rock that have descended from the sides of the mountains, and bordered by tree ferns, innumerable and brilliant trees of the primeval forest which clothe the face of the heights. In this land of no seasons their stages of growth are denoted by the varying tints of scarlet, gold, crimson, sallow green, and most strikingly of all, a rich claret colour, the chief glory of the Keena tree’.
However, as in colonial times, the railway should be available for both tourists and locals so that splendid vista can be enjoyed by all.
Dr R P Fernando
Epsom,
UK
If the people of this country were asked whether they want elections to the local government, majority of them would say no! How many years have elapsed since the local councils became defunct? And did not the country function without these councils that were labelled as ‘white elephants’?
If the present government’s wish is to do the will of the people, they should reconsider having local government elections. This way the government will not only save a considerable amount of money on holding elections, but also save even a greater amount by not having to maintain these local councils, which have become a bane on the country’s economy.
One would hope that the country will be able to get rid of these local councils and revert back to the days of having competent Government Agents and a team of dedicated government officials been tasked with the responsibility of attending to the needs of the people in those areas.
M. Joseph A. Nihal Perera
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
It is immaterial whether you like him or not but one thing is crystal clear; Donald Trump has shown, very clearly, who is the boss. Surely, presidents of two countries are equal; perhaps, that is the impression Volodymyr Zelensky had when he went to the White House to meet Trump but the hard reality, otherwise, would have dawned on him with his inglorious exit! True, the behaviour of President Trump and VP Vance were hardly praiseworthy but Zelensky did what exactly he should not do. Afterall, he was on a begging mission and beggars cannot be choosers! He behaved like professional beggars in Colombo who throw money back when you give a small amount!!
Despite the risk of belonging to the minority, perhaps of non-Americans, I must say that I quite like Trump and admire him as a straight-talking politician. He keeps to his words; however atrocious they sound! Unfortunately, most critics overlook the fact that what Trump is doing is exactly what he pledged during his election campaign and that the American voters elected him decisively. When he lost to Biden, all political commentators wrote him off, more so because of his refusal to admit defeat and non-condemnation of his supporters who rioted. When he announced his intention to contest, it only evoked pundits’ laughter as they concluded that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Undaunted, Trump got the party to rally round him and won a non-consecutive second term; a feat achieved only once before, by Grover Cleveland around the end of the nineteenth century. His victory, against all predictions, was more decisive as he got more collegiate votes and, even though it does not matter, won the popular vote too which he did not get when he got elected the first term. Even his bitterest critics should accept this fact.
Zelensky was elected the president of Ukraine after the elected pro-Soviet president was deposed by a ‘peoples revolution’ engineered by the EU with the support of USA. After this, the EU attempted to bring Ukraine to NATO, disregarding the Munich agreement which precipitated the Russian invasion. He should have realised that, if not for the air-defence system which Trump authorised for Ukraine during his first term, Russian invasion would have been complete. It may well be that he was not aware as when this happened Zelensky may still have been the comedian acting the part of the president! Very likely, Trump was referring to this when he accused Zelensky of being ungrateful.
Zelensky also should have remembered that he disregarded requests from Trump, after his defeat by Biden, to implicate Biden’s son in some shady deals in Ukraine and that one of the last acts of Biden was to pardon his son and grant immunity to cover the alleged period. Perhaps, actions of the European leaders who embrace him every time they see him, as a long-lost brother, and invitations to address their parliaments has induced an element of the superiority complex in Zelensky that he behaved so combative.
Trump wanted to be the mediator to stop the war and spoke to Putin first. Instead of waiting for Trump to speak to him, egged on by EU leaders Zelensky started criticising Trump for not involving him in the talks. His remark “He should be on our side” demonstrated clearly that Zelensky had not understood the role of a mediator. His lack of political experience was the major reason for the fiasco in the White House and the subsequent actions of Trump clearly showed Zelensky where he stands! PM Starmer and President Macron seem to have given some sensible advice and he seems to be eating humble pie. In the process Trump has ensured that the European nations pay for their defence than piggy-backing on the US, which I am sure would please the American voter. By the way, though Macron talks big about defence France spends less than 2% of GDP. Trump seems vindicated. Of course, Trump could be blamed for being undiplomatic but he can afford to be as he has the upper hand!
Ranil on Al Jazeera
Zelensky has shown what not to do: instead of being diplomatic being aggressive when you need favours! Meanwhile, Ranil has shown what not to do when it comes to TV interviews. God only knows who advised him, and why, for him to go ‘Head to Head’ with Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera. Perhaps, he wanted to broadcast to the world that he was the saviour of Sri Lanka! The experienced politician he is, one would have expected Ranil to realise that he would be questioned about his role in making Sri Lanka bankrupt as well, in addition to raising other issues.
The interview itself was far from head to head; more likely heads to head! It turned out to be an inquisition by Tiger supporters and the only person who spoke sense being Niraj Deva, who demonstrated his maturity by being involved in British and EU politics. The worst was the compere who seems keen to listen his own voice, reminding me of a Sinhala interviewer on a YouTube channel whose interviews I have stopped watching!
Ranil claims, after the interview was broadcast, that it had been heavily edited reduced from a two-hour recording. Surely, despite whatever reason he agreed to, he should have laid ground rules. He could have insisted on unedited broadcast or his approval before broadcast, if it was edited. It was very naïve of Ranil to have walked in to a trap for no gain. Though his performance was not as bad as widely reported, he should have been more composed at the beginning as he turned out to be later. Overall, he gave another opportunity for the Tiger rump and its supporters to bash Sri Lanka, unfortunately.
Medhi Hasan should watch some of David Frost interviews, especially the one with Richard Nixon, and learn how to elicit crucial information in a gentle exploratory manner than shouting with repeated interruptions. He does not seem to think it is necessary to give time for the interviewee to respond to his questions. I will never watch Al-Jazeera’s “Head to Head” again!
Ranil’s best was his parting shot; when asked by Hasan whether he would contest the next presidential election, he said “No, I will retire and watch Al-Jazeera and hope to see you better mannered”!
-
Foreign News1 day agoSearch continues in Dominican Republic for missing student Sudiksha Konanki
-
News5 days agoAlfred Duraiappa’s relative killed in Canada shooting
-
Opinion7 days agoInsulting SL armed forces
-
Features4 days agoRichard de Zoysa at 67
-
Editorial6 days agoGhosts refusing to fade away
-
Features4 days agoSL Navy helping save kidneys
-
Midweek Review5 days agoRanil in Head-to-Head controversy
-
Features6 days agoThe Gypsies…one year at a time