Features
Working at Rosmead Place
Although Mr Bandaranaike had a spacious office at Senate Square in the Fort he preferred to work from 65 Rosmead Place, his home. As fancy took him, we would attend to the papers either at the dining table or in the sitting room. It was all very informal with the household activity going on around us. Sometimes the children were at home and their conversations with each other or the mother would be an interesting break from our file work.
Once, Anura, who was about seven or eight and very keen on cricket, was batting on the lawn and being given a difficult time by a young lad brought in from the village to play with him. The lad, who was three or four years older, was constantly breaking Anura’s stumps with his fast bowling. Unable to bear this any longer, Anura shouted to his father that the boy was bowling him out all the time. Without saying a word and with a file in his hand, Mr Bandaranaike walked out and told the boy that he had been brought to Colombo to play with Anura and not to keep bowling him out. That considerably improved matters and Anura continued his love of the game.
I recall too at this time, Chandrika coming home after her ballet lessons and the father introducing her to some visitors with the words “and here comes my Pavlova”. The girls, Sunethra and Chandrika, went to St Bridget’s and Anura to Royal Prep in the same car with an ayah and the morning departure always seemed very rushed. Chandrika was usually the late one. It was a habit which ran in the family except in the case of Mrs Bandaranaike who, obviously, was of more disciplined stock.
Mr Bandaranaike was a master in the usage of English language and was very particular with the style and wording in the letters which he would sign. I was very confused in the early days regarding the first line of acknowledgment of a letter which I would draft for him. When should I use the rather common `I am in receipt of your letter of such and such’ and not `I have your letter of such and such’? If I used receipt, he would say “No, I have your letter.” It left me so traumatized that at times I thought I would just toss for it. But after a while I seemed to get it right.
There was once the use of the word circa which came up in a letter drafted by M N Jilla, assistant secretary of the ministry of defence indicating that the leases to Britain of the air base at Katunayake had been done in ‘circa 1946’. This elicited a classic retort. “Circa,” Mr Bandaranaike’s lips curled contemptuously over the word, “circa 1066 perhaps, but never circa 1946.”
Mr Bandaranaike’s public speeches were pure gems with sonorous cadences studded with classical allusions. The speech he delivered at the convocation at the University of Peradeniya in 1957 had a special appeal and profoundity. He was referring appropriately enough to the new times and his quotation that afternoon was from The Garden of the Hesperides.
And none may taste the golden fruit,
Till the golden new time come,
Many a tree shall spring from shoot,
Many a flower be withered at root,
And many a song shall be dumb,
Broken and still shall be many a lute,
Or ere the new times come.
It was magical stuff and a prelude to many other similar treats.
As to official conferences, I found his first chairing of the pre-budget estimate discussions in 1956 direct, informal and at times downright hilarious, with the famous Bandaranaike brand of humour coming to full flower in situations connected with the lower human anatomy. His earlier stints as a minister of government especially in the State Council days had given him a sharp eye for the cracks and fault-lines in government business.
The discussion that day was of the home affairs ministry on the item of maintenance of rest-houses and the urgency of money for repairs and improvements. While strongly endorsing the conversion of the old style bucket-toilets with water-seal systems he regaled the company with a story of what had happened to his good friend Abraham at the old Dompe rest-house.
Apparently Abraham, an agricultural instructor, on circuit, had gone to the loo on urgent business but had rushed out shouting that he had been bitten by a cobra who had been lurking inside the receptacle. The rest-house arachchi was summoned and after due search, soon disclosed that it was not a cobra at all, but a hen that was sitting on her eggs – the toilet not having had occupancy for some weeks. The hen had fluffed up and pecked what she thought was an object descending on her. Abraham clearly was not amused at the explanation. Bandaranaike’s full-blooded tales certainly kept the usually dull budget meetings alive and greatly lightened my minute-taking.
There was another great story which someone, who was at Horagolla on the day the prime minister set apart for meeting his constituents, told us. Apparently an old acquaintance was complaining about the inordinate increase in the rent he was paying. He was finding it difficult to make, as he put it, both ends meet. What was most unconscionable was that he was being charged, as he said, “450 rupees per annum” — with the stress on the a, as in aviation. Mr Bandaranaike had echoed him saying, “Good gracious! My poor man, per a num?” and continued, “My dear fellow, that must certainly have been much more painful than paying through the nose.” I can imagine that all this was way above the head of the constituent who would have walked away both relieved at the hearing afforded him and equally mystified at the prime minister’s extreme concern.
Mr Bandaranaike loved going to the Parliament and his speeches and repartee were much enjoyed in a chamber boasting a galaxy of brilliant English speakers. All of them, each in their own way were forceful and eloquent — Colvin R de Silva of the LSSP, Pieter Keuneman of the CP, J R Jayewardene of the UNP, the brothers Robert and Philip Gunewardene among the foremost. But Mr Bandaranaike rode above them all, imperious, commanding and sardonic, cutting especially the hapless UNP opposition speakers into shreds.
His Sinhala speeches, although he hardly wrote in the language and read it with difficulty, were no less ironic and forceful. Forged in the smithy of the public platform and assisted by a phenomenal memory — the essential stock in trade of the political leader — he would translate almost word for word a complicated cluster of sentences he had a moment earlier mouthed in English. I found this bilingual competency in public speaking staggering, especially since he did not often use Sinhala in normal daily speech. The language with officials, and at home in the drawing room and at the dining table was invariably, always English.
Giving effect to his chief election pledge of Sinhala Only in 24 hours was Mr Bandaranaike’s immediate concern. As he ingenuously put it, all it needed to fulfil this pledge was to begin the process early by introducing the necessary legislation. And he proceeded to do so with one of the shortest pieces of legislation the Parliament had seen. The draft `Sinhala Only’ bill was worked on at Rosmead Place and although Mr Bandaranaike tried hard to soften its impact by permitting English and Tamil to be used for a transition period and candidates for government service to sit for examinations in those languages, the hardliners had their way and key clauses were dropped.
The introduction of the Bill in the Parliament on June 5 satisfied those important constituencies who had campaigned for the change but triggered a convulsive reaction especially in the Tamil majority areas of the country. I was personally a witness to the Tamil reaction through the satyagraha the Federal Party launched on the northern end of Galle Face Green the day the Bill was introduced. About 150 satyagrahis dressed in white were seated on the grass that morning as I drove slowly by on my way to office.
Among them were some whom I recognized – Dr E M V Naganathan and my university colleague C S Navaratnam, later MP for Chavakacheri. Soon after I had passed I learnt that the peaceful protest had been broken up by armed thugs who chased the satyagrahis off the Green.. Some of them had sought refuge in the Galle Face Hotel. Later that morning when the House convened, I was in the officials box to see Dr Naganathan come in with his head swathed in a bloody bandage. It was sad to hear the usually gentlemanly prime minister taunt the wounded MP with the words “here he is with his wounds of war.”
Trouble erupted that morning with rampaging mobs in the Pettah looting boutiques. In the Eastern Province, especially in Trincomalee and Batticaloa, mob violence broke out with attack and counter-attack by both ethnic groups. In the Gal Oya valley, in Ampara – where I was to serve in the 1970s as government agent –rumours fanned the rioting and the Sinhalese colonists, many of them labourers from the development scheme who had been given land allotments, rose against the Tamils. It was reported that over a 100 were killed and thousands made homeless in three days of rioting. This was, up to then, the worst episode of ethnic strife the country had faced. The signs for the future were not propitious.
I am certain Mr Bandaranaike was acutely concerned at what had happened and the potential for the worsening of the ethnic problem. He never indulged in communal bigotry and strove throughout 1957 to lessen the impact of the official language legislation on the Tamil people and forwarded his proposal for the ‘reasonable use of Tamil’ in the conduct of the administration. He decided to link this with the work he had been doing preparing legislation on the concept of the regional councils.
This led to opposition from extremists on both sides of the divide. Among the Sinhalese the extremists were joined by the UNP under J R Jayewardene who accused the prime minister of a colossal fraud’ and of giving in to the exaggerated claims of a small coterie of Tamils. This was ironically a complete reversal of roles of what had happened in 1955 in the run-up to the election where the SLFP had accused the UNP of betrayal of the Sinhala cause and giving in to the Tamils, through its then two-language policy.
This was another defining moment in our political history and an unfortunate phenomenon which was to recur in the future. The party in power in late 1957 – the SLFP (MEP) – was trying to foster accommodation. The party in opposition – the UNP – was parochially trying to wreck it. The equation was to be reversed many times over in my 50 years with the country’s political leaders.
In June 1957, discussions between Mr Bandaranaike and the Federal Party led by S J V Chelvanayakam commenced about the powers of the regional councils. The FP wanted regional control over land alienation, agriculture, fisheries, industries, education and health. The prime minister gave ground on Sinhalese colonization in predominantly Tamil areas and in the background of further Tamil agitation on July 25, a pact – the BC or Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact was signed. It was a historic moment and symbolized Mr Bandaranaike’s genuine commitment for accommodating the Tamil community, short of language parity and the abrogation of the `Sinhala Only’ Act which the FP had demanded.
The BC Pact had brought some important concessions to the Tamils, given the then rigidly centralist policies and practices of the state. Selection of settlers on state land was left to the regional council; the councils in Tamil areas would be permitted to amalgamate and collaborate; and, although still to be specified by the Parliament, the regional councils would have certain powers over agriculture, education, health and taxation.
I recall vividly the protest campaigns that followed the disclosure of the details of the pact which were fully reported especially in the Ceylon Daily News. The protests came both from the political opposition, the UNP as well as hardliners from the prime minister’s own party. J R Jayewardene termed it a ‘betrayal of the Sinhalese’ and even Dudley Senanyake called it an ‘act of treachery’. On the Tamil side, G G Ponnambalam (who had advocated 50:50 for allocation of seats in the Parliament between the Sinhalese and the minorities before the Soulbury commissioners in 1945) saw it as an ‘abject surrender’ to the Sinhalese. But the silent majority on both sides of the divide, I felt, were relieved at the positive initiative towards harmony and future peace.
Features
Buddhist Approach to Human Challenges
Life, by its very nature, invariably presents a myriad of challenges that are fundamental to the human experience. The various social ills that afflict humanity cannot be understood without recognizing the profound human dynamics at play. Navigating these challenges according to Buddhism involves shifting from attempting to control external circumstances to mastering one’s internal responses. Central to these challenges are certain detrimental drives stemming from pernicious distortions in the functioning of the human mind.
According to Buddhism, human suffering—both on a personal and societal level—arises from three unwholesome roots: greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. These roots manifest primarily as the unbridled proliferation of these negative states, serving as the foundation for our conduct. The Buddhist perspective offers profound insights for confronting these difficulties by emphasizing the nature of suffering, known as dukkha. Buddhism teaches that suffering (dukkha) is an inevitable part of life and is fueled by greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. This approach promotes mental transformation through mindfulness, ethical living, and the cultivation of wisdom, empowering individuals to confront their struggles with clarity and resilience.
Furthermore, accepting that suffering and difficulty are inherent parts of the human experience—while expecting life to be free of challenges—is, in itself, a cause of suffering. It is also important to recognize that all situations, whether good or bad, are temporary. This understanding helps reduce anxiety when facing difficult times, as these will eventually pass, and it prevents possessiveness during happy moments. Cultivating mindfulness (sati) and living in the present moment without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future is essential.
Understanding that all things—emotions, situations, relationships, and physical bodies—are constantly changing and in a state of flux helps reduce the fear of loss and provides comfort during difficult times, ensuring that we know pain will pass. Moreover, recognizing that the self, or ego, is not a fixed entity minimizes selfish grasping, arrogance, and the tendency to perceive challenges as personal attacks.
At the core of many human challenges lie the three unwholesome mental qualities identified by Buddhism: greed (raga), hatred (dovesa), and ignorance or delusion (avijja or moha). These states of mind serve as obstacles to spiritual progress and underlie a spectrum of harmful thoughts and actions. The Buddha employed powerful metaphors to illustrate these forces, referring to them as the three poisons or fires that ignite suffering and trap beings in the cycle of samsara.
Greed leads to insatiable desires that obscure our awareness of others’ needs, creating a cycle of frustration. Greed encompasses all forms of appetite, such as desire, lust, craving, and longing, manifesting in both physical and mental forms. It embodies the concept of grasping, leading to clinging and an inability to let go. As an unwholesome mental state, greed can become insatiable and inexhaustible. People are often drawn to pleasant things, and no amount of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or mental objects can satisfy their desires. In their intense thirst for possession or gratification of desire, individuals may become trapped in the wheel of samsara, overlooking the needs of marginalized groups based on religion and ethnicity (as noted by Piyadassi Thera). Those who overcome greed realize that all mundane pleasures are fleeting and transient. In a society driven by consumerism, people may find themselves endlessly chasing after things of little value, becoming enslaved by them.
Hatred is another unwholesome mental state that fosters division and conflict, distancing us from genuine relationships. It encompasses unwholesome mental states such as ill will, enmity, hostility, and prejudice. Hatred can be subtle, lying dormant in a person’s mind until it finds expression in unexpected moments. This destructive emotion can degenerate into mass-scale violence and bloodshed within society. Today, hatred and hostility against minorities based on religion and ethnicity are prevalent in many countries. People are often targeted by bigotry and hate, leading to a rise in antagonistic and derogatory behavior toward certain religious and ethnic groups. Hatred, enmity, and retaliation do not foster spiritual well-being; rather, they vitiate our own minds. Buddhists are encouraged to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). Greed and hatred, coupled with ignorance, are the chief causes of the evils that pervade this deluded world. As noted by Narada, “The enemy of the whole world is lust (greed), through which all evils come to living beings. This lust, when obstructed by some cause, transforms into wrath.”
The most profound of these afflictions, ignorance (avijja) or delusion (moha), clouds our judgment and obscures our capacity for understanding, causing us to harm ourselves and others through misguided actions. Addressing bhikkhus, the Buddha declared, ” I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which mankind is obstructed, and for so long as in samsara, it is indeed through the hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long time runs on, wanders in samsara. No other single thing exists like the hindrance of ignorance or delusion, which obstructs humankind and make wander forever. This unwholesome mindset generates negative speech, actions, and thoughts, perpetuating our own suffering. As stated in the Dhammapada, “All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; if one speaks or acts with an evil mind, suffering follows.”
Buddhism urges us to go beyond merely addressing the symptoms of our problems. Instead, it invites us to explore the roots of our suffering and examine how greed, hatred, and ignorance manifest in our lives. By uncovering these sources of distress, we can cultivate essential qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness (metta), and acceptance. These virtues are crucial for ethical engagement with significant societal issues, including environmental challenges and social inequality.
In a world marked by material prosperity and emotional chaos, many individuals may feel lost or overwhelmed. The teachings of the Buddha remain relevant today, reminding us that the origins of our struggles often reside within our own minds. By practising ethical self-discipline and steering clear of destructive emotions like jealousy, anger, and arrogance, we can transform our experiences and relationships.
Buddhism teaches that cultivating wholesome mental qualities is essential for spiritual advancement. The positive counterparts to the three unwholesome states are non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa), and non-delusion (amoha). These virtues represent not merely the absence of negativity but also the active presence of beneficial qualities such as generosity (dana), loving kindness (metta), and wisdom (panna). Each of these six mental states serves as a foundation for both personal growth and societal harmony.
Human beings are often tempted by moral transgressions rooted in unwholesome qualities. Actions driven by greed, hatred and ignorance require wisdom and mindful awareness to overcome them, allowing us to see the interconnectedness of all beings and act accordingly.
As we strive to abandon these unwholesome states of mind and cultivate awareness, we contribute positively to our lives and the broader world. By embracing Buddhist teachings, we learn that transforming our minds can significantly impact our experiences and the lives of those around us. Through this mindful practice, we can aspire to create a more compassionate, harmonious existence, transcending the limitations of unwholesome mental states and fostering a deeper connection with ourselves and others.
by Dr. Chandradasa Nanayakkara
Features
How does the Buddha differ?
Buddhism, perhaps, is not a religion if the definition of religion is strictly applied. However, by an extension of that definition, as well as by consensus, Buddhism is considered a religion and is the fourth largest religion with about half a billion followers worldwide. Of the four great religions in the world, Christianity is still way ahead with 2.6 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.9 billion and Hinduism with 1.2 billion followers. In most Western Christian countries church attendances are on the decline whilst the numbers following Islam are increasing with Islamic youth displaying signs of increasing religious ardour. There are recent reports that Buddhism has also joined the ranks of shrinking religions. Is this cause for concern? Is this happening by the very nature of Buddhism?
Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion rooted in the Indus Valley Civilization and dating back at least four millennia, is considered to have evolved from ancient cultural and religious practices than being founded by a single individual, unlike the other three religions. The Buddha differs from Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed in many ways, the most important being that there is no higher power involved in what the Buddha discovered.
Jesus Christ is considered the ‘Son of God’ and Christianity is built on the life, resurrection and teachings of Christ with emphasis on the belief in one God expressed through the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no room for questioning the words of the Almighty passed through the Son.
Islam, with its Five Pillars of faith, frequent daily prayers, charity, fasting during Ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca, is founded on revelations made by Almighty God, Allah, to Mohammed, the last of his Prophets, which are recorded in verse in the Holy Book, Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be verbatim words of God and the unaltered, final revelation. This leaves even less room for questioning.
In contrast, the Buddha achieved everything by himself with no help from any higher source. Rebelling against some of the practices in the religion to which he was born and seeking a solution to the ever-pervading sense of dissatisfaction, Prince Siddhartha embarked on a journey of discovery that culminated in Enlightenment, under the Bodhi tree on the full moon day of the month of Vesak.
Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma as traditionally referred to by followers, encompasses the concepts of Karma, Samsara, Moksha and Dharma with a creator Brahma, preserver Vishnu and destroyer Shiva. In addition, there are multitudes of gods serving various functions and there are ritual practices of Puja (worship), Bhakti (devotion), Yajna (sacrificial rites) in addition to meditation and Yoga. The one thing that has blighted Hinduism, on top of sacrifices, is the caste system. The uncompromising attitude of Brahmins led to the formation Sikhism as well, long after the establishment of Buddhism.
Prince Siddhartha studied under eminent teachers of the day, of which there were many, but realised the limitations of their knowledge. Having already given up the extreme of luxury, he went to the other extreme of self-deprivation which after a search for six years, he realised also was not the solution to the problem. Exploring through his mind he realised the truth and came up with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. He shunned extremes and proposed the Middle Path which seems to hold sway in many spheres of life, even today.
Buddha’s greatest achievement was the analysis of the mind and scientists are only now establishing the accuracy of the concepts the Buddha elucidated, not with the help of supernatural powers or sophisticated machinery at the disposal of modern-day scientists but by the exploration of the mind by turning the searchlight inwards.
Having discovered the cause of universal dissatisfaction and the path to overcome it, the Buddha walked across vast swathes of India, most likely barefoot, preaching to many, in terms they could understand, as evidenced by the different suttas illustrating the same fact in different ways; to the intelligent it was a short explanation but for others it was a more detailed discussion.
In sharp contrast to all other religious leaders, the Buddha encouraged discussion and challenge before acceptance. What the Buddha stated in the Kalama Sutta, acceptance only after conviction, laid the foundation for scientific thinking.
The Buddha, being a human not supernatural, never claimed infallibility as evidenced by his agreement with his father King Suddhodana that ordaining his son Rahula without permission was a mistake and took steps to ensure that this did not happen again. In fact, the entire Vinaya Pitaka is not an arbitrary rule book laid down by the Buddha, but are the rules the Buddha laid down for the Sangha, based on errant actions by Bhikkhus. Long before the legal concept of retroactive justice was established, the Buddha implemented it in the Vinaya Pitaka.
In an interesting video on YouTube titled “Nature of Buddhism”, Bhante Dhammika of Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8WfGJq2FI) discusses some unique aspects of Buddhism. Some religions are ‘high demand’ religions where the followers are required to strictly adhere to certain rules which is not the case in Buddhism and he opines that this has led to the gentleness of Buddhists, at times leading to even being lackadaisical! Interestingly, as a widely travelled person, he describes his personal experience of the change of people’s attitudes on going from places with Buddhist influence to others. Speaking of Sri Lanka, where he spent many years, he commends the traditional hospitality as well as lack of cruelty to animals. He refers to “Law based religions” where some things are compulsory whereas in Buddhism there is no compulsion. Buddha was not a lawgiver but recommended good behaviour, giving reasons why and encouraged thinking. Some religions are exclusivist, claiming that there is nothing in other religions. Buddhism is not and Bhante Dhammika refers to an incident where the Buddha encouraged a disciple who converted from Jainism to continue to give alms to his former Jain colleagues.
Have all these strengths of Buddhism become its weakness and the reason for the shrinking number of followers? Had Buddhism demanded more from followers would it have flourished better? Is the numbers game that important? These are interesting questions to ponder over and I am sure, in time, researchers would write theses on these.
Whilst total numbers may diminish in traditional Buddhist areas, more people in the West are recognising the value of the philosophy of Buddhism. Mindfulness, a concept the Buddha introduced is gaining wide acceptance and is increasingly applied in many spheres of modern life. Perhaps, what is important is not the numbers that practise Buddhism as a religion but the lasting influence of the Buddha’s concepts and foundations he laid for modern scientific thinking and analysis of the mind!
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Political violence stalking Trump administration
It would not be particularly revelatory to say that the US is plagued by ‘gun violence’. It is a deeply entrenched and widespread malaise that has come in tandem with the relative ease with which firearms could be acquired and owned by sections of the US public, besides other causes.
However, a third apparent attempt on the life of US President Donald Trump in around two and a half years is both thought-provoking and unsettling for the defenders of democracy. After all, whatever its short comings the US remains the world’s most vibrant democracy and in fact the ‘mightiest’ one. And the US must remain a foremost democracy for the purpose of balancing and offsetting the growing power of authoritarian states in the global power system, who are no friends of genuine representational governance.
Therefore, the recent breaching of the security cordon surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington at which President Trump and his inner Cabinet were present, by an apparently ‘Lone Wolf’ gunman, besides raising issues relating to the reliability of the security measures deployed for the President, indicates a notable spike in anti-VVIP political violence in particular in the US. It is a pointer to a strong and widespread emergence of anti-democratic forces which seem to be gaining in virulence and destructiveness.
The issues raised by the attack are in the main for the US’ political Right and its supporters. They have smugly and complacently stood by while the extremists in their midst have taken centre stage and begun to dictate the course of Right wing politics. It is the political culture bred by them that leads to ‘Lone Wolf’ gunmen, for instance, who see themselves as being repressed or victimized, taking the law into their own hands, so to speak, and perpetrating ‘revenge attacks’ on the state and society.
A disproportionate degree of attention has been paid particularly internationally to Donald Trump’s personality and his eccentricities but such political persons cannot be divorced from the political culture in which they originate and have their being. That is, “structural” questions matter. Put simply, Donald Trump is a ‘true son’ of the Far Right, his principal support base. The issues raised are therefore for the President as well as his supporters of the Right.
We are obliged to respect the choices of the voting public but in the case of Trump’s election to the highest public position in the US, this columnist is inclined to see in those sections that voted for Trump blind followers of the latter who cared not for their candidate’s suitability, in every relevant respect, and therefore acted irrationally. It would seem that the Right in the US wanted their candidate to win by ‘hook or by crook’ and exercise power on their behalf.
By making the above observations this columnist does not intend to imply that voting publics everywhere in the world of democracy cast their vote sensibly. In the case of Sri Lanka, for example, the question could be raised whether the voters of the country used their vote sensibly when voting into office the majority of Executive Presidents and other persons holding high public office. The obvious answer is ‘no’ and this should lead to a wider public discussion on the dire need for thoroughgoing voter education. The issue is a ‘huge’ one that needs to be addressed in the appropriate forums and is beyond the scope of this column.
Looking back it could be said that the actions of Trump and his die-hard support base led to the Rule of Law in the US being undermined as perhaps never before in modern times. A shaming moment in this connection was the protest march, virtually motivated by Trump, of his supporters to the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021, with the aim of scuttling the presidential poll result of that year. Much violence and unruly behaviour, as known, was let loose. This amounted to denigrating the democratic process and encouraging the violent take over of the state.
In a public address, prior to the unruly conduct of his supporters, Trump is on record as blaring forth the following: ‘We won this election and we won by a landslide’, ‘We will stop the steal’, ‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’, ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’
It is plain to see that such inflammatory utterances could lead impressionable minds in particular to revolt violently. Besides, they should have led the more rationally inclined to wonder whether their candidate was the most suitable person to hold the office of President.
Unfortunately, the latter process was not to be and the question could be raised whether the US is in the ‘safest pair of hands’. Needless to say, as events have revealed, Donald Trump is proving to be one of the most erratic heads of state the US has ever had.
However, the latest attempt on the life of President Trump suggests that considerable damage has been done to the democratic integrity of the US and none other than the President himself has to take on himself a considerable proportion of the blame for such degeneration, besides the US’ Far Right. They could be said to be ‘reaping the whirlwind.’
It is a time for soul-searching by the US Right. The political Right has the right to exist, so the speak, in a functional democracy but it needs to take cognizance of how its political culture is affecting the democratic integrity or health of the US. Ironically, the repressive and chauvinistic politics advocated by it is having the effect of activating counter-violence of the most murderous kind, as was witnessed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Continued repressive politics could only produce more such incidents that could be self-defeating for the US.
Some past US Presidents were assassinated but the present political violence in the country brings into focus as perhaps never before the role that an anti-democratic political culture could play in unraveling the gains that the US has made over the decades. A duty is cast on pro-democracy forces to work collectively towards protecting the democratic integrity and strength of the US.
-
News3 days agoTreasury chief’s citizenship details sought from Australia
-
News5 days agoBIA drug bust: 25 monks including three masterminds arrested
-
Business6 days agoNestlé Lanka Announces Change in Leadership
-
News6 days agoHackers steal $3.2 Mn from Finance Ministry
-
News5 days agoBanks alert customers to phishing attacks
-
News2 days agoRooftop Solar at Crossroads as Sri Lanka Shifts to Distributed Energy Future
-
News4 days agoGovt. assures UN of readiness to introduce ‘vetting process’ for troops on overseas missions
-
Business4 days agoADB-backed grid upgrade tender signals next phase of Sri Lanka’s energy transition
