Posted by: Raashid Riza Tags: Buddhist,Burma,extremism,muslims,sri lanka Posted date: October 4, 2012 | 8 Comments
Buddhist
extremism has been on the rise in Sri Lanka and the way that Sri Lankan
Muslims react in politically difficult times such as these will
determine how they are perceived in the future
The last few months have seen a rapid increase in anti-Muslim sentiment
amongst sections of the political class in Sri Lankan society. The
situation has yet to deteriorate to the extent that the default image of
a Sri Lankan Muslim is one represented by an anti- Sri Lankan or
anti-Buddhist element. But the trend that is developing is truly
alarming and surely points towards such an inaccurate mental image.
The rise of extremist Buddhists in Sri Lanka is truly disturbing and
does not bode well to the sense of national resilience that the
government is trying to foster, at least in its rhetoric.
There is to be a
protest march in
Colombo today that is supposedly against ‘Islamic Extremism’. The
leaflet however, unable to find tangible examples of Islamic extremism
in Sri Lanka, instead highlights international examples. The leaflet was
first
tweeted by
Groundviews and
was then picked up by other bloggers. The language used in the leaflet
is particularly confrontational and is written in jargon generously
peppered with phrases such as ‘enough of being silent’ as a precursor to
the more confrontational language that follows.
The leaflet speaks of numerous instances where it alleges that Islamic
extremism has acted malevolently towards Buddhists and Buddhist holy
sites in many parts of world, including in Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan
and even the eastern parts of Sri Lanka. The leaflet is clearly designed
to fuel the ignorance of the apolitical (usually innocent) Buddhists
against the Muslims and is therefore composed of materials that are
innate historical inaccuracies at best and factually vacuous at worst.
It specifically refers to the
recent incidents in the south of Bangladesh where there have been attacks on Buddhists by groups of Muslims. Of course nowhere is the
ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims by Buddhist extremists in adjacent Burma mentioned.
The last paragraph of this leaflet quite explicitly states something on the lines of; it is time to show that this (Sri Lanka) is a Buddhist country by
word and deed; many have forgotten that this is a Buddhist country,
this notion should be reawakened. Extremists should be struck down as
they flee. When cruel Islamic extremists prey on other innocent
Buddhists, and when the entire world remains silent in the wake of it,
it is time that we reawaken our race (Sinhala Buddhists) to respond to
this.
The implications of the call to “reawaken” invoked in this context is particularly disturbing.
Sri Lankan Muslims have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged crimes
against Buddhists or Buddhist interests in Bangladesh. Similarly Sri
Lankan Sinhalese and Buddhists have absolutely nothing to do with the
heinous crimes committed against the Muslims of Burma. What these
Buddhist extremists seek to achieve for the alleged benefit of their
Buddhist compatriots abroad remains to be seen. For Buddhists who feel
that they are persecuted in other parts of the world, this exercise by
minute sections of the Sri Lankan Buddhist community will be futile.
Surely the Buddhist leadership in Sri Lanka is intelligent enough to
grasp this fact. What exactly then does this exercise seek to achieve?
The result of these sorts of protests (yes, plural, this is to be one of a series of protests) are multiple.
Sinhala – Muslim relations have always been cordial and strong. The
current generation of Sri Lankans cannot easily be buoyed into buying an
argument that Sri Lankan Muslims are a bane on the nation’s social
fabric. Buddhism as a faith has thus far survived the vulture-esque
assault by sections of a largely secular media that paints most
religious faiths as violent, something that protests such as these
threaten to undo. Moreover, Sri Lanka is rebuilding itself as a nation
after decades of conflict that not only curtailed and stunted growth but
also damaged it. Creating an environment that will marginalise Muslims
can sow the seeds of future conflict.
Yesterday, the All Ceylon Jamiyathul Ulema (ACJU), the main decision-making theological body for Sri Lankan Muslims, released a
media communiqué condemning
the attacks on Bangladeshi Buddhists. The wisdom of releasing this
communiqué is certainly questionable. Whether the ACJU has released
statements for similar causes previously is anybody’s guess. There is no
doubt that the body acted in the best interests of Sri Lankan Muslims
and of Sri Lanka as a whole. Yet the timing or indeed decision to make
such an overture seems hasty.
The despicable acts on Bangladeshi Buddhists have absolutely nothing to
do with Sri Lankan Muslims. However, such a press release can create the
impression amongst wider Sri Lankans of a sense of guilt amongst Sri
Lankan Muslims when there is none due to there being no grounds for
guilt. Additionally, the release of such a statement can
institutionalise the necessity to release communiqués almost every time a
Buddhist place of worship is attacked anywhere in the World, thereby
creating an undue burden of responsibility.
Elie Appelbaum of York University comments in her
research paper,
Extremism as a Strategic Tool in Conflicts –
“as
a country becomes wealthier, more powerful, or more democratic, its
level of extremism decreases, but at the same time, its rival’s level of
extremism increases. Similarly, higher stakes in the conflict tend to
increase the level of extremism in the relatively poorer, weaker, and
less democratic country, but decrease the level of extremism in the
other country. The countries can use extremism as a strategic tool in
the conflict. The use of extremism is a double-edged sword: extremism
provides a credible threat, but it also involves a risk. Similarly, when
the countries are sufficiently asymmetric, higher stakes in the
conflict tend to increase extremism in the country that is relatively
poorer, weaker, or less democratic.”
Now, replace the word ‘countries’ with ‘communities’ in the paragraph
above, and see how it reads. The roots of extremism rest in vested
interests of various interest groups as much as it does on the absence
of law & order and the socio-economic state of the parties in
conflict. The Sri Lankan economy at the grassroots is in turmoil and the
Sinhalese community, as the larger ethnic group, is the most affected.
An economically weak nation with near bankrupt sections of the public
can foster groups that are represented by intellectually bankrupt
individuals who posture as leaders at a local or national level
patriotism for their ends. As
Samuel Johnson wrote,
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. One only need observe
a group of scoundrels against a group of self-confessed patriots to
realise that there is too often much in common.
The 1915 riots are commonly known as the ‘Sinhala – Muslim’ riots, not
by the name of individuals. The way in which the Sri Lankan Muslims
react now will determine how history will testify for or against them.
In the future, no matter what the political situation in Sri Lanka, the
Muslim community will continue to exist in every strata of society.
Muslims in Sri Lanka are living in politically perilous times; they
reside amongst a largely accommodative Sinhalese and Tamil population,
apart from the odd elements that opportunistically seeks to whip up
racial tensions. In the short term the Muslims should act prudently and
actively within the framework of Sri Lankan law. They would do well to
deal indifferently towards bankrupt extremism and not dignify it by
seeking to confront it, except with a pragmatism that respects legal and
constitutional norms. In the long term they should be conscious that
Sri Lankan Muslims are more tangible as a constituent element of Sri
Lankan nationhood than a transient
Buddhist extremism. The latter not only misrepresents Sri Lankan Buddhists at large but is against a unified vision of Sri Lankan nationhood.
Case dismissed: death threats not persecution
Leader of the Tamil National Alliance R.Sambanthan stated by
supporting the Divineguma bill SriLanka Muslim Congress as betrayed the Tamil
people of this country.
.jpg){kind=small}
UNP
parliamentarian Harsha de Silva today insisted that the government was facing a
major crisis because it has got its priorities mixed up.
