Food For Thought For The Drafters Of New Constitution!
By Afreeha Jawad –December 8, 2016
Afreeha Jawad
Constitutional drafting warrants an extra ordinarily unique mindset where personal prejudices, narrow chauvinistic outlook and playing to the gallery for electoral benefits are cast aside. A broader vision based on egalitarianism, justice and social development needs prioritization – of which was neatly avoided in past constitutional engagements. Towards this end the grassroots need to be educated – ideal benchmark for this being historical inspiration where people’s awareness is directed to a socio/ political history that once was in pre-colonial times when an all-inclusive system prevailed until the britisher’s unitary state. The study of history is to learn of the past, look at where we are in the present and locate ourselves in the future.
With all the complexities prevalent in pre-independence times of ethnic groups, and the multitude of castes ( discreetly operative now), there was a binding factor that glued these differences and brought about a complete, composite whole. The system’s restrictions in upward social mobility where the inheritance of cast based jobs is not writer concern in this article but despite that glaring social misgiving social diversity was upheld. None rose against the northern Tamil kingdom nor the sinhala kings that married Tamil women – the binding factor being royalty on both sides of the social dichotomy giving parity of status.
Nor was there any constitutional insistence that Buddhism should be prioritized over all other religions. Constitutions in fact were non – existent. What followed was absolute peace. The western sensitivity to Post-colonial systemic flaws of majority hegemony has led them into ground-breaking areas of sublime concepts such as egalitarianism or equality social justice and societal development directed at parity of status to efface high degree polarization.
However, Buddhism needs to be prioritized for the survival of socio/economic/ political / religious elite. Same applies to Islamic states – all of whom will be marooned if not for religious identity. It is the height of irony when national characteristics are lying, cunning, deceit, opportunism, hatred ,revenge and jealousy among other vices, how come that country calls itself a Buddhist, Muslim or Christian country? National characteristics contradict religious principles yet the ridiculous insistence on prioritizing religion! This proves that identity politics is the name of the game. Religion and politics are twin brothers and its dependence on one another is mutual that sustains the system. The essence of all religions is to bring out the best in man instead we see the worst. What remains is political Buddhism, political Islam and so be it with Christianity.
The Buddha is an embodiment of truth who preferred the beast infested wilderness over the palatial luxury and worldly kingdom of Dambadiva. He no doubt aligned himself with a higher purpose for the greater good of mankind sacrificing even family, kith and kin. Regrettably, politicization of this great personage consolidates him as being representative of only the Sinhalese! This was very much present during the infamous Rajapaksa era when the Buddha and the temple were played around with for racial stimulation and power consolidation. If ever Wigneswaran opposed to the Buddha statues in Jaffna, it is not because he loves the Buddha less but for certain his hate towards those statues being made use of as representative of Sinhala colonization in the north which in historical fact was a Tamil kingdom under kings like Pararajasingham and Sankili, which history risks effacement under Sinhala nationalism. So apart from the exposure of a cast based society ,the clarion call to relieve history from the school curriculum as was once done only to be re-introduced much sooner than later.
The tendency towards emotionally driven arguments overlooking rationality on the subject of northern Tamil rule of the past and even Tamil kings that governed this country may not sit well on the Sinhala palate. Yet, fact over fiction prevails. Moreover, the pluralistic mindset and the graciousness of the ancient Sinhalese in accepting diversity is amply displayed. Federalism itself was nothing new to them. This very liberal mental elasticity, fast shrinking, is still an undying factor to this day in localities not very urban and a continuation of the Rajapaksa regime may have transformed this into a negative, racist, homogenous social whole. It is up to the present government to use this grand period in history for reconciliation – an attempt so far overlooked by those in power. Talking of reconciliatory measures, it brings to mind a prudent presidential pronouncement.
Sirisena once asked, “how would we feel if our lands were taken over by the military and we had no home to call our own?” This unfortunately was not repeated though it is a strong point in reconciliation. President himself may have been unaware of reaching out to the hermeneutical experience inculcated into this writer’s mind during her post graduate studies at the Colombo university. To view the experience of the aggrieved party as being one’s own was philosopher Hermenes’ trusted ideal. If the Sinhalese were a minority under Tamil hegemony batting a reversal, a replica of Wigeneswaran in the sinhala camp is to be expected.
