That ‘Halal Controversy’
Malinda Seneviratne
Certain sections of the Sinhala Buddhist population are up in arms against what they call ‘Islaamikaranaya’ (Islamization) or ‘Halalkaranaya’ (Halal-ism). The more virulent elements of this group have indulged in the most distasteful of anti-Islam hatemongering especially in social media sites such as Facebook.
The initial objection has been to non-Muslims being forced to play participant to a Muslim religious dictate pertaining to meat, i.e. the slaughtering of animals as per Islamic doctrine. One can argue that if it’s meat that is desired then the ‘how’ of slaughter should not really matter. It is not that non-Buddhists consuming Halal meat are automatically converted to Islam, after all. On the other hand, perceived intrusions (there have been instances, we note, of Muslims legitimately and systematically purchasing properties to turn formerly ‘Sinhala’ villages into Muslim-dominated entities) can act as cultural trigger where those who talk the religion but may not practice it preying on natural social fears.
The Buddhist response would be to treat things with compassion, which would require Buddhists to draw on the principles of tolerance and empathy. If wisdom is also employed, as is required according to Buddhism, then the wise thing would be stop eating meat altogether. Consumption of meat is not necessarily forbidden, but since animal turns to mean only consequent to slaughter, and since slaughter does not sit with the Buddha Vacana (May All Beings Be Happy), then abstinence is a choice that takes a culturally unpalatable situation and turns it into a reason for walking closer to prescribed path.
The attacks on Muslims and Islam, and especially the vilification on sites such as Facebook are quite antithetical to Buddhist teachings of tolerance and equanimity. They have been quite rightly condemned. Some of the condemnation of course comes from those who have an axe to grind with Buddhism and Buddhists, ever ready to vilify but extremely reluctant to point error in other religions, their churches or followers. Such people use the erroneous and misleading blanket descriptive ‘Sinhala Buddhists’ which is as bad as conflating Tamils and the LTTE. The criticism, however, remains valid.
If these so-called ‘Buddhist’ groups are in error in their vilifying thrusts, so too, sadly, are some of their detractors, many of whom believe that only the majority community needs to be rebuked fearing perhaps that if other communities are found fault with (as collectives or partial entities or individuals) it amounts to being racist, chauvinistic, religiously intolerant etc.
A classic case is that of the furor over allegation of Tamil versions of the Law College Examination being leaked. Now this is a competitive examination and the facts certainly raise questions that compromise the integrity of the examination in ways that are far more serious than a leaking of an Ordinary Level examination. And yet, this has been a touch-me-not issue for almost all commentators who have intervened in the ‘Halal Controversy’.
If Sri Lanka is to be a nation of less paranoid communities it is imperative that each individual and each community looks within. Sinhalese and Buddhists have shown exemplary tolerance in years gone by. In Europe the only ‘religious’ holidays are Christian and in countries dominated by Muslims there is even less recognition of other faiths. The intolerance of the Swiss is a well concealed fact that came out when a referendum was held about mosques. There’s nothing in Sri Lanka akin to the issuance of Fatwas as are common in Muslim countries. These are good things to think about.
In the end though, deeper reflection on faith and an abiding by the relevant doctrine would make for better engagement with religious others. In the end all human beings, regardless of faith, share the same will to live and the same apprehension about death. If a symbol of co-existence is required, take any mosque in any part of the island and the chances are there is a Bo sapling coming out of some crevice. It doesn’t say anything about either faith, but the togetherness is a lesson that can be learnt.
*Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com .
**************************************************************************
Sunday Leader, Unpublished Right Of Reply And Lazy Journalism
By Arjuna Ranawana -
Arjuna Ranawana
I decided to go public with the following story because all our efforts to get a right of reply or a comment published on a story that appeared in the Sunday Leader of December 23, 2012 has failed.
In the last weeks of December a story appeared in the Leader headlined Bodhu Bala Sena To Rebel Against “Muslim Extremists” by-lined Raisa Wickrematunga and Niranjala Ariyawansha.
The report described a meeting that is purported to have been held on November 30 at the Navinna Raja Maha Viharaya, where Sinhala Buddhists opposed to Muslims had gathered to launch a “rebellion” against a Muslim “conspiracy.”
Much of the report relied on a document and an interview with the Coordinator of the Bodhu Bala Sena the Ven Aluthweva Ananda thero.
The article described inflammatory speeches made at the meeting by several leading lights in the movement against Muslims .
While I cannot speak to the authenticity of the meeting or the speeches that are purported to have been made, where the report goes terribly wrong is that it says this this document was “circulated by one Anupama Ranawana”….and mentions that the aforementioned “Ranawana [who] was present at the meeting.”
The document itself was circulated by an unnamed source. My daughter – Anupama Ranawana – also received it. She is a doctoral student resident in the United Kingdom and as the material in the document carries some relevance to her research, she passed it on to an activist and researcher colleague in Colombo in order to verify the events described within and also to gather information on the group Rebellion ‘12 . As it was unsigned and did not have the name of an organization on the forwarding list, verification of the facts was important.
Anupama was not the original source for the document, its circulation nor did she “attend the meeting” as reported by the Leader.
On reading the article my daughter sent the Editor of the Leader newspaper a Right of Reply, which was not published in the next issue of the newspaper. She then posted her Right of Reply as a comment to the article, which too went unpublished. All her efforts to get a correction published in the Leader have failed.
It is doubly galling because both Anupama and I have been contributors to the Leader. In fact there is one article co-authored by the two of us published by the Leader that remains in its archives. It would have been so simple for the reporters on this story to send an email to Anupama and check with her directly as to whether she was the source of the document and also request her permission to use her name if she was, in fact, the author of the document.
Also, knowing the nature of the people involved in these extremist organizations, lazy journalism that incorrectly infers that Anupama is some sort of “mole” reporting on the activities of these bodies and “circulating” that information places her directly in harm’s way.
More significantly, this incident highlights a very serious case of falling standards at the Leader, a paper which has always had a reputation for forthright and serious journalism.
In the past several months, we have seen the paper issue apologies to government ministers, and publish edited versions of articles that would throw members of the government in a bad light. As many in the media now yield to the severity of the Rajapaksa oligarchy, I am sad to see the Leader also drop its head in meek acquiescence.
For the year ahead, Sri Lanka faces many battles. True processes of reconciliation and reform must be put in place that acknowledge the immense suffering of marginalized, and the slow eradication of minority rights and representation in post-war Sri Lanka. As the attack on University students in Jaffna shows, even peaceful protest is inadmissible in the face of an army and a government acting with absolute impunity.
In such a situation, the media is often looked to as a check against the force of the state. It is not the time for lazy, opportunistic or sycophantic journalism. People at the Leader should know the consequences of such reporting. When my friend and former colleague, Lasantha Wickrematunge was the Editor of the Leader, certain sections of the State Media painted him a “traitor.” Lasantha was many things, but traitor he wasn’t. He found immense courage to expose the wrongdoings of the highest of the land because he truly loved Sri Lanka. But by painting him a traitor, those who wanted him out of the scene were able to justify his killing.
Also during Lasantha’s time responses to his stories, both positive and negative were published.
In failing to verify its facts, and denying my daughter a Right of Reply the Leader has shown how woefully low it has fallen.
Here’s hoping that the current staff at the Leader will have the courage to revive the spirit of that newspaper to its original independent self; until then, its motto, “unbowed and unafraid” remains meaningless.
Copied below is the Right of Reply which my daughter emailed to the Editor of the Leader, and later posted as a comment to the article; it was never published.
With regards to the above article I wish to make the following comment.Assuming that the Anupama Ranawana that you are referring to in your publication is me, I wish to state that while I was in receipt of this document describing the Rebellion ’12 event, I am not the original source of its circulation. I did notify a fellow activist/researcher about its existence whilst attempting to find some information for my Doctoral Thesis. When I received this document it had no author and it was unsourced. It was sent on by myself out of academic interest. As I do not reside in Sri Lanka, I neither attended the meeting at Navinna, nor am I the author of the document in question. It may have been best practice for your reporters to have contacted me to verify its source. I am posting this response here as my original email to the Editor seems to have gone unheeded. It is sad to see that the Leader, a newspaper that used to boast very high standards, is losing them.
