Connect with us

Sat Mag

From the eagle’s backyard:



A brief account of US foreign policy

By Uditha Devapriya

Jenny Pearce titled her book on US intervention in Central America and the Caribbean “Under the Eagle.” Though there had been a vast literature on US intervention in the region, Pearce’s study would be one of the first to document its crippling impact on Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama in Central America, as well as Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Guyana, St Lucia, Grenada, St Vincent, Dominica, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Cuba in the Caribbean.

US foreign policy has generally been a softened down version of its policy towards its neighbours. The realities of the Cold War made it imperative for the richest country in the world to stabilise its backyard, even if it meant rigging elections, supporting coups, installing dictators, and funding counterinsurgents. And yet such interventions predate the Cold War: they began with the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which laid down in diplomatic argot the need to project US dominance over its immediate surroundings.

Between 1870 and 1916 the value of goods manufactured by US industry increased almost tenfold. By 1880 the US economy had become twice the size of Britain’s. Fareed Zakaria (“The Future of American Power”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008) sums up the reasons for this concomitant rise and decline on each side of the Atlantic, including the antiquated nature of British capitalism, bad labour relations, low investments in new equipment, and the feudalisation of British schools and universities; “the wonder,” writes Zakaria, “is not that it declined but that its dominance lasted as long as it did.” The reasons for this need not detain us here. What is relevant is that with these spurts in industry, the US government recognised that it had to match its economic superiority with military clout.

It went about the task slowly, cautiously. In 1892 it built its first battleship. The timing was right: two years earlier, Alfred Mahan’s book The Influence of Sea Power upon History, which contended that maritime power was the key to global supremacy, had come out.

Six years later the US defeated the Spanish and took control of Cuba. Following that it invaded the Puerto Rico and purchased the Philippines for $20 million. In 1902, after its annexation of the Philippines, it recognised Cuba as an independent republic, yet made a sham of it by inserting the Platt Amendment, which reserved to the Americans the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the country. It invoked this several times and went on to dominate Cuba’s political and economic life until 1959.

Gunboat diplomacy began with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize at around the same time he inserted a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine which justified “the intervention by some civilized nation” and “the exercise of an international police power” for the US. He was followed by William Howard Taft, who in 1912 argued that “the whole hemisphere will be ours… by virtue of our superiority of race.”

Taft and Woodrow Wilson substituted dollars for gunboats. The sugar plantations of the Caribbean and the banana plantations of Central America lured financiers and government officials alike. The US quickly moved in: it occupied Nicaragua in 1912 and stayed there until 1925. It returned two years later and withdrew in 1933, creating a rightwing National Guard headed by one of the first US allied military dictators, Anastasio Somoza. Somoza would be followed by Jorge Ubico in Guatemala, Tiburcio Andino in Honduras, Maximiliano Martinez in El Salvador, and Gerardo Machado (and Fulgencio Batista) in Cuba.

Gunboats and dollars gave way to Franklin Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbour Policy.” As with all previous policies, it was a convenient cover for the pursuit of national self-interest. The US made it clear to the British that their time in the region was over, and to this end penetrated the Commonwealth Caribbean. Soon it got to dominate these economies: between 1930 and 1944, its share of coffee exports from Central America rose from 20% to 87%. In such a state of affairs the colonial powers had to leave, making way for the new superpower. This was true of other regions as well; thus after nationalists took up arms against the Dutch in Indonesia in 1945, US diplomats chose to side against the colonial overlords.

When the D. S. Senanayake government chose to side with the nationalists, it was arguably affirming the fading away of Dutch and the rise of American power in South-East Asia. The distinction the government made between communists and non-communists involved in the uprising and its cautious emphasis on support for the former indicate where exactly its ideological preferences lay: certainly not in Moscow.

Interestingly enough, through all this, while US interventionism didn’t explicitly emulate European colonialism, the latter shaped it. The Europeans never pretended to be motivated by anything other than the lure of trade and theft. The British did establish an efficient bureaucracy extending into the fields of health, education, the legal system, and so on, yet it was the last, and arguably the first, European superpower to do so.

Scholars have observed that of all historical transitions between superpowers, the transition to the US from Britain proved to be the most peaceful. The reason, they conjecture, is that economic ties between these two countries were great, certainly greater than had been the case between previous contending powers. Against that backdrop the US absorbed British imperialism, and rather than abandoning it, it fine-tuned it.

The language it used differed little, initially, from the language the British had employed. As seen in its conquest of Cuba, the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary were put into effect to justify foreign interventions in terms of what it saw as the inability of “natives” to govern themselves. This was what the British had done in their colonies as well, having consistently denied them self-government. Thus Woodrow Wilson wrote of “our peculiar duty, as it is also England’s”, to teach the natives “order and self-control.”

Later with the onset of the Cold War, it changed its rhetoric: as James Peck argues in Ideal Illusions, “Washington predicated its war of ideas on a set of deep divisions.” Accordingly the world split into two for US political theorists: “between freedom and equality, reform and revolution, self-interest and collective interests, the free market and state planning, and pluralistic democracy and mass mobilization.” To legitimise that new rhetoric, theorists cloaked it under the cover of a commitment to a rights-based world order: what Mangala Samaraweera in a tweet on the foreign policy of the current government calls “the three pillars of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.”

This conception of rights paradoxically emphasised freedom from restraints of caste and other social fetters but not from economic subjugation, so much so that while attempts to nationalise corporations invited threats of withholding aid, growing inequalities in the Third World, particularly in Latin America, didn’t raise much concerns in Washington. The Alliance for Progress, established by the Kennedy administration, did recognise the need for reform in these countries, yet it too ended up enriching an oligarchy.

Despite its emphasis on agrarian reform, the Alliance did little to combat the dependence of the plantation sector on the export market. Between 1960 and 1965, per capita agricultural production in Central America grew by an inconsequential 2.2%. Between 1965 and 1970 it grew by a dismal 1.6%. Meanwhile, multinational companies gained ground, reversing any progress the Alliance might have made: rather than supporting agriculture, they processed junk food, promoting low nutrition among locals. Instead of preventing revolution, in other words, the Alliance succeeded in fermenting it.

Soon enough the backyard began to unravel: 20 years after Castro overthrew Batista, Daniel Ortega overthrew Somoza in Nicaragua. Then civil war broke out in El Salvador: the US gave the government there more than three billion dollars in aid to quell the rebellion. But as in Cuba, support from Washington couldn’t make up for popular hatred of the regime. After a decade of insurgency and counterinsurgency, El Salvador fell apart.

The lesson to be learnt here is that the US failed to pursue its foreign policy objectives to their logical conclusion because it couldn’t match intervention with aid. This proved to be true of its policies in the world beyond the Americas as well.

To give just one example, though every pro-Western government here distanced itself from Moscow and Beijing, the US failed to fill the gap. The Rubber-Rice Pact, for instance, was signed after Washington refused the D. S. Senanayake government’s request to buy rubber at premium prices, while not even a visit to Lyndon Johnson by Dudley Senanayake could persuade the US, then caught up in Vietnam, to resume aid years after it had invoked the Hickenlooper Amendment in response to the Sirimavo Bandaranaike government taking over several multinationals. J. R. Jayewardene expected the US to come to its support when India began to interfere two decades later, yet it explicitly refused to do so. The yahapalana government came to power on a tidal wave of Sinophobia (Humphrey Hawksley called Maithripala Sirisena “Sino-skeptical”), but when it turned to the US, it received neither aid nor investment. Barely two years later, it was crawling back to Beijing.

This rift between the reality of intervention, the promises of aid, and the failure to make good on those promises led to the defeat of successive West-friendly regimes in Sri Lanka. John Kotelawala’s government fell despite its McCarthyist tactics against the Left; Dudley Senanayake’s third government fell despite, or rather because of, its ambivalent attitude to Vietnam; and J. R. Jayewardene’s government gave way to Ranasinghe Premadasa, who proved himself to be far less deferential to Washington. As for the yahapalana regime, the results of the 2019 presidential and the 2020 parliamentary election should put to rest any notion that its pro-US tilt ever received the support of the local population.

Today foreign aid has largely replaced military intervention in the race for superpower status. China vies with the US to prop up development in the Global South, and since 2017 Beijing has outpaced Washington. Xi Jinping’s coming to power has accelerated this trend, while Donald Trump’s isolationism has pushed China to almost every corner of the Third World. The election of nationalists and populists, meanwhile, has both supplemented and contradicted China’s rise: hence the Philippines under Duterte allied with China, while Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan continues to play on anti-China sentiment.

The difference between these two superpowers lies in how they seek to shape the world. The US projects its version of European-style intervention, imposing sanctions on unfriendly states while failing to reward friendly states with aid and investments. China, on the other hand, prioritises development over outright intervention. Its actions in the South China Sea notwithstanding, its record as a driver of growth in South Asia and Africa has bolstered its image among countries like ours that have listened to the rhetoric of rules and rights from the capitals of the West without receiving any money.

Here we see an almost primeval difference in how each views the needs of the Third World: while the US emphasises fidelity to norms such as democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, which in its interactions with the world have been more honoured in the breach than the observance, China delivers development without questioning whether the governments it supports are committed to such norms. The latter is viewed, justifiably, as sign of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country; the former is viewed, and resented, as an infringement of these values. Hence China’s rising influence in the Indo-Pacific, and the US’s waning popularity. Things may change with a Joe Biden presidency or remain as they are with a second Trump presidency, but as of now, that’s only conjecture.

The writer can be reached at

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sat Mag

‘Deal with the Devil’ and our victuals



Oxidation is a chemical reaction that happens when a substance is exposed to oxygen. For instance, when some foods, like apples and bananas, have their peels removed and are exposed to oxygen, they turn brown. Or, a bicycle rusts.

Oxygen is sometimes referred as “Deal with the Devil” because the same oxygen that helps in the process of producing energy and fighting bacteria also creates substances in the process that may be dangerous to life.

The oxygen that we breathe helps to break down the molecules in the food so that they produce energy. This happens through a process called oxidation of food. Oxidation also takes place when our immune system is fighting bacteria and creates inflammation. It happens when our bodies try to detoxify pollutants, like cigarette smoke. There are many processes like this in which oxidation occurs.

In this process, the oxygen molecules split up into single atoms with unpaired electrons. Electrons like to be in pairs, so these single atoms are called free radicals and these roam around like smash and grab artists trying to grab electrons from other molecules in the body. When these electrons are stolen, the cell is damaged.

Free radicals, which are the end-products of oxidation, are not absorbed by the body and they damage cells, proteins and DNA.  Once free radicals are formed, a chain reaction occurs. The first free radical pulls an electron from a molecule. This destabilizes the molecule and turns it into a free radical. That molecule then takes an electron from another molecule, destabilizing it and turning it into a free radical. This domino effect can eventually disrupt and damage the whole cell.

Oxidative stress occurs when there are too many free radicals and too much cellular damage. Oxidative stress refers to cell and tissue damage and has been linked to heart diseases, cancer, stroke, respiratory diseases, immune deficiency, Parkinson’s disease and other inflammatory conditions.

But nature has provided an answer to free radicals: Antioxidants.

Antioxidants keep free radicals in check. They are molecules in cells that prevent free radicals from taking electrons and causing damage. Antioxidants are able to give an electron to a free radical without becoming destabilized themselves, thus stopping the free radical chain reaction. Just like fibre cleans up waste products in the intestines, antioxidants clean up the free radical waste in the cells. Our body produces some antioxidants on its own, but we need to eat them in order to reduce or eliminate the effect of free radicals.

Thousands of studies have shown that consuming fruits and vegetables is linked to a lower rate of chronic diseases. In a research study published by the European Respiratory Journal, scientists examined the combined association of meat consumption, vegetable and fruits consumption and compared the total antioxidant capacity with lung function. The study was conducted among 1551 males and 1391 females in the UK. The study found that lung function deteriorated in those who consumed mainly meat with very low fruit and vegetable consumption. Lung function was found to improve with an increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, showing the effect of antioxidants on breathing ability.


But why is that?

The ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) is a method developed by scientists at the National Institute of Health and Aging (NIH) to measures the antioxidant capacity of different foods. Foods with higher ORAC scores have greater antioxidant capacity, and more effectively neutralise harmful free radicals. Scientists state that the body can effectively use 3000-5000 antioxidant or ORAC units per day. Any more than this (i.e. mega-dosing in supplement form) seems to be of no added benefit and “excess” is most likely excreted by the kidneys. I quote Dr Ronald Prior of the US Department of Agriculture Research Service at Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, “A significant increase in antioxidants of 15-20% is possible by increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables, particularly those high in ORAC value. However, in order to have a significant impact on plasma and tissue antioxidant capacity one can only meaningfully increase one’s daily intake by 3000-5000 ORAC units. Any greater amount is probably redundant. That is because the antioxidant capacity of the blood is tightly regulated. Thus there is an upper limit to the benefit that can be derived from antioxidants. Taking in 25000 ORAC units at one time would be no more beneficial than taking in a fifth of that amount: the excess is simply excreted by the kidneys”.

The ORAC value of a food is determined by a lab test that quantifies the “total antioxidant capacity” (TAC) of a food. The food is put in a test tube, along with molecules that generate free radical activity and molecules that are vulnerable to oxidation. The food is measured on how well it protected the vulnerable molecules from oxidation by the free radicals. The less free radical damage there is, the higher the antioxidant capacity of the test substance.

Research, published in Nutritional Journal 2010, categorised 3100 different foods into 24 categories to measure for ORAC value. Here are the meat , egg and milk ORAC values You can see that ORAC values of eggs, meat , fish are at abysmally low levels. Pork has the lowest ORAC value. Fish, which is recommended as a healthy meal, range from 30-90 in ORAC values. Even Iceburg Lettuce was found to have 1,400% more antioxidants than salmon.


These are the ORAC values of fruits and vegetables:

In this COVID age, your immunity depends solely on the oxygen carrying capacity of your blood and lungs. The higher your ORAC values in your food, the higher the capacity.

Natural food, such as spices, fruits and vegetables – even just a teaspoon of Ginger, Tulsi, Turmeric- have very high ORAC Values. The higher ORAC value foods increase your immunity and prevent cancers, neuro-degenerative disorders, diabetes and so many chronic conditions. 

High ORAC foods also have nutrients such as iron, vitamin C, Zinc, omega 3, Magnesium and Vitamin D.


Herbs like Brahmi, Ashwagandha, Shatavari, Mulethi, Arjunarishtam, Peppermint, coriander seeds, cumin black seeds are now being tested for their ORAC values.

Milk not only has a really low ORAC value but it goes one step further in destroying your health: it actively blocks antioxidants. Several studies have been conducted to find whether milk decreases the antioxidant capacity of other food substances. Research shows that adding milk to tea decreases the antioxidant capacity of tea (Source: Effect of milk-alpha-casein on tea polyphenols, PubMed). The milk protein, casein, reduces the ability of antioxidant substances to fight free radicals. One study found that milk reduced the antioxidant capacity of chocolate by approximately 30%, while another study found that milk negated the antioxidant effects of chocolate altogether. (Source: Plasma antioxidants from chocolate, PubMed).  Eating blueberries with milk reduced the absorption of their polyphenols and blocked their antioxidant effects. (Source: Antioxidant activity impaired by milk, PubMed)

(To join the animal welfare movement contact,

Continue Reading

Sat Mag

Thanuja: Preserving water, preserving life



By Uditha Devapriya

Water was the cornerstone of ancient Sri Lanka, and for that reason water conservation remained a foremost priority for our rulers. Because of its scarcity, the Mahavamsa-Tika tells us, the earliest immigrants from India who migrated to the island settled in areas where water was available in abundance, in close proximity to the main rivers. Taken together these rivers formed the bedrock of Asia’s greatest hydraulic civilisation. Centuries later, they would lead Emerson Tennent to remark, “No people in country had so great practice and experience in the construction of works for irrigation.”

Prof. K. M. de Silva notes that because of the huge cost of maintaining the tanks and canals that underlay their irrigation schemes, most rulers were content with operating them “at a reasonable level of efficiency” rather than at full capacity. Yet the achievements of Sinhalese civilisation despite this, and despite the inevitable pressure of foreign invasions and changes in the climate, cannot be denied, whichever way you look at it.

It was probably more than a careless blunder that made Karl Wittfogel overlook Sinhalese civilisation in his study of hydraulic wate based civilisations. Still, as de Silva (rightly) observes, the model of such civilisations, Wittfogel came up with, hardly matched Sri Lanka since, inter alia, the Sinhala State, unlike the State in other Asian societies, did not “take over” the tanks and canals; once they were completed they were ceded to individuals and monasteries. In other words, long before the advent of colonialism and laissez-faire, the rulers of the country were ceding public works to private hands.

At a time when much of Western Europe was facing a water crisis (“Whole towns,” Fernand Braudel writes in Civilization and Capitalism, “were poorly supplied”), Sinhala society went on to flourish, notwithstanding the onslaughts of imperialism. European colonialism would change all that, particularly British colonialism. Colonial officials in the British era neglected the trinity which had made up life here, the wewa, ketha, and dagaba. Henry Ward’s efforts at resuscitating tanks, canals, and village tribunals faltered, so much so that by the late 19th century the ideal of conservation, deeply embedded in our people until then, had morphed into the ideal of preservation: the reservoirs now existed to be studied, as artefacts of a long but vanished past. Never to be revived, they soon languished.

The healthy relationship which had thrived before, between the State and individuals and monasteries, had at this stage disappeared, since colonial officials seemed more interested in the plantation economy than in peasant agriculture. With that came about a discontinuity from the past, so much so that when it comes to conservation today we tend to rely on government and CSR projects. Yet individual initiative is far from lacking. The State, instead of neglecting such initiative, should be recognising it for what it is.

Non-assuming, ever smiling, Thanuja Samarawickrama strongly embodies that kind of go-getting initiative. The founder of Lineja Enterprises, she is well known for her invention: a mobile car washer that has been installed and operated in supermarkets across the country. How such a product can help us conserve water and at the same time make one of the more onerous routines of the vehicle owning middle class of Sri Lanka convenient is summed up in the tagline for the washing machine: “Save Water in the Earth and Save Time in your Life.” Given that vehicle growth has outstripped population growth, saving water and saving time seem to have become two mutually exclusive objectives. Thanuja’s initiative has succeeded in that sense in bringing them together.

“I served as an Accounts Executive at several leading local companies before I left for Dubai to take up that position in a multinational firm,” she began her story. Apparently it was at Dubai that she had come across the inventiveness with which people, including immigrants, tackled water scarcity. “I was struck by how much they valued water. They value it so much that they impute a price to its use, be it drinking or toilet water. I realised then, right there, how ignorant Sri Lankans had become when it came to conservation.” She had particularly been fascinated by how people there were getting around an issue which typically ails dust-choked countries: the washing of vehicles. “Sri Lankans usually require three of four buckets of water; in Dubai, the ratio was about one bucket to three or four cars.”

She hadn’t planned on coming back, but when circumstances beyond her choosing compelled her to return, she decided once and for all that she was going to teach her people how to save water. In a context where vehicle growth rate had risen considerably, and a significant proportion of the country had graduated to the ranks of a consumerist middle class in peripheral urban areas, Thanuja had to find a way to strike a balance between her conservationist ideals and changing socioeconomic realities.

The ride didn’t turn out to be easy. “I was thinking furiously about what I could do when I met a classmate who had been in touch with me for over 25 years. She was more aware of the latest strides in technology. She proposed that we build a machine. She even came up with the blueprint. With that we set about building what she had designed.”

Their “first draft”, however, had not been perfect: “The machine broke down thrice. Each time we made it more compact, more ‘portable’ and ‘mobile’ so to speak. It took several months for us to fine-tune it to our satisfaction.” Having perfected it, the two of them built a workshop in Meegoda to train a group of workers. Befitting her expertise, her friend was appointed as the Technical Manager there.

Naturally, this was the easy part. As Thanuja found out for herself, convincing her intended clientele of the benefits of their machine was easier said than done. “We went to a retail outlet in Ja-Ela. We talked with the managers. They were interested in using our machine and installing it in their premises for their customers. We explained that their customers could use it to wash their cars while they went out shopping. However, the managers didn’t agree to our proposal straight away. They were worried, more than anything else, by the possibility of water leakages to neighbouring homes.”

To pacify the sceptics, Thanuja pleaded for a 14-day test run. They agreed, to her relief. If the machine worked and became a success during the test run, they would take it in. “Those 14 days were the busiest in my life. We had to be at the supermarket early every morning; we had to attend to every vehicle; we had to ensure our staff knew what they were doing; and we had to guarantee there were no water leakages whatsoever.”

Needless to say their efforts paid off, and the once sceptical managers “took it in.” Around three months later, moreover, Thanuja realised that contrary to what she had once thought, “our machine was becoming so popular we needed a good marketing campaign and a strong publicity boost.” That publicity boost came around a year later, in 2018, when she presented her machine to the judge panel at Ath Pavura, the first ever reality TV show in Sri Lanka for social entrepreneurs. Given that its scope went beyond the parameters of CSR projects, Ath Pavura instantly recognised and applauded Thanuja’s product.

Thanuja got a resounding standing ovation from the judges, who agreed to her request for an investment for Rs. 20 million and in fact raised it to Rs. 25 million. It was the publicity boost she had been waiting for, and it helped her so much that “we ended up installing the machine at several supermarket outlets.” She has plans to expand it to other chain stores and go beyond the country, though as she puts it confidently, “It’s only when my machine succeeds in my country that I will take it abroad.”

The significance of what Thanuja did cannot be overemphasised. Water shortages in Sri Lanka may not be as acute as they are in other parts of the world, but in times of drought and of high aridity, particularly in regions which centuries ago had flourished as agricultural and irrigational enclaves, our conscience ought to be piqued by how much this resource is being taken for granted in affluent cities and suburbs. We have a rich history of water and water conservation. Thanuja Samarawickrama, in that sense, has done her part. It’s time we sat down and listened to her, especially given that the country and the world are mired up in an overwhelming humanitarian crisis, in the form of a pandemic.


The writer can be reached at

Continue Reading

Sat Mag

Fighting over the dead!



By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

I wonder where we wander once shuffle off this mortal coil. Maybe nowhere. The only certainty is that we have no say, at all, over what is left behind; leaving it to relations or friends and, if there aren’t any, for the state to get rid of the decomposing body before it starts to stink. Some may leave specific instructions, even stipulate in the last-will, as to how the remains should be disposed of but there is no guarantee and there is absolutely no way of checking! Well, looking at it from a different perspective, perhaps more positive, one can die in the knowledge that it is a problem for others! But it is difficult to die in complete peace as disposal sometimes arouses controversy, as has happened recently. Though this is about the disposal, in my working life I have seen relatives fighting over the ‘ownership’ of a dead body and have had to mediate sometimes. Who said death is peaceful?

What is done, or wished to be done, after death, is dictated mostly by views held regarding what happens after death. When we have a problem, we often turn to science for answers but, unfortunately, in this instance science cannot provide a positive answer. All that science can tell us is that there is no proof for the existence of an afterlife. It can easily be argued that science is a continuing process of discovery and afterlife is one of those things yet to be discovered. Rationalists may disagree with this but it is not easy to counter this argument. Therefore, the best option may be to keep an open mind.

At times, I have wondered whether, when the Buddha referred to Nirvana, what He meant was that there is nothing beyond. If that is the case, rebirth would refer to being reborn every second of one’s life, perhaps with improvements, but not to any births after death. For the human mind, driven by the never-ending attachment to one’s own self and the craving for something better next, the concept of nothing beyond is alien and maybe that is why Nirvana is so difficult to attain. It is a thought, which I am sure many experts in Buddhism would condemn me for.

Before the various sciences were born, it was religion that gave answers to questions and when we cannot find answers, even now, instinctively we turn to religion. Unfortunately, there is a lot in religion that could be questioned because religions depend more on belief and dogma than proven facts, the views on the afterlife being the best example.

Some religions believe in resurrection. For one to be resurrected one has to be buried intact as resurrection from ashes is, of course, an impossibility. However, those who believe in this fail to realise that the buried body does not remain stable for resurrection but it decays. Another question: “Does one want to be resurrected as a grey-haired, wrinkled, toothless individual or one in the prime of youth?” The super-rich, with the help of some scientists, have started their own version of resurrection, freezing their bodies and keeping in store till medicine advances enough for them to be thawed! Would a body, sans mind, wake up? Worse still, would one be waking up with the mind of someone else!

Reincarnation also faces the same questions as resurrection, rebirth being the only concept that faces the least number of problems. In rebirth the body after death does not come into the picture, the only thing transferred being the mind ‘Chuti Citta’. If anything is there after death, perhaps this is it.

For those who believe in resurrection, burial is the preferred mode of disposal of the dead but, interestingly and increasingly, many Christians are opting for cremation. Judaism considers cremation to be an implied statement of rejection of the concept of resurrection but some born to that religion, too, opt for cremation even though their ashes may not be allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Most resistant to cremation are those following Islam and this has become a big problem during the current Covid-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka.

I am no authority to go into the scientific aspects of this debate but as an ardent admirer of the Buddha and His philosophy, I am saddened and shocked by the behaviour of some Buddhist monks regarding this issue. The Buddha spread tolerance towards other religions and other views and expected His followers to show due respect to other religions. In this situation, Buddhist priests shouting out against burials, rather than allowing scientists and experts to decide what is suited to conditions in our country, is abhorrent, to say the least. The demand that all funeral rites be performed, regardless of health concerns, is equally foolish.

We are facing a pandemic, which is far from over. Though there seems some light at the end of the tunnel due to many vaccines reportedly proving efficacious, no one can predict when this nightmare would end. Super natural forces, some of us believe in, have not been able to put a stop to this epidemic. Whatever it may be, it has become a problem for us humans to get together and solve. Though things appear to be pretty bad in Sri Lanka, from a global perspective what is happening is very mild. In Sri Lanka deaths average around four or five a day, even in this worst part of the epidemic, but in the UK, which has a population thrice that of Sri Lanka, the average this week is around 600 a day! Those who shout that Sri Lanka is failing in its efforts to control the epidemic should take these facts into consideration.

If experts do decide that cremation is the safer option, let all Sri Lankans accept this for the sake of survival in an unprecedent epidemic. Perhaps, the government should bear the cost of cremations of all who, unfortunately, succumb to the invisible enemy, Covid-19; cremating all similarly in simple but safe coffins. This will show, at last, that we are all equal in one thing—death!

Continue Reading