Pluralism and Supremacy – I

[tharinda07]

Pluralism and Supremacy – I​

By Nalin de Silva
(22nd April 2009)The Island Article

I would have loved to comment on the antics of David Miliband and his French counterpart in trying to extend humanitarian ceasefire so that the LTTE can take full advantage of it. They claim that not many Tamils have left the so called no fire zone during the new year (we refer to our new year and not to the Anglo French (and other western) new year that has been imposed on us by western supremacy that is ignored by the so called moderate scholars and commentators who are engaged in a back scratching exercise in the opinion page of "The Island". Some of the westerners also claim that forty eight hours was too short and want more time for the trapped Tamils to leave. However, the Anglo French duo should have addressed the LTTE and their proxy TNA to demand that the terrorists allow the Tamils to leave the so called no fire area from which the terrorists continue to fire at the armed forces. Instead they want to twist the arms of the Sri Lankan government, and to make the people of their countries believe that the government is killing unarmed innocent Tamils. It is reported that the west wants to withdraw or withhold the IMF loan until a ceasefire is declared by the Sri Lankan government, so that they could supply the LTTE with more arms. Links between the Tamil terrorists or their front organizations and the British authorities have been revealed during a nine week trial at Kingston Crown Court. It is very likely the Jury however would not take a decision against the accused as it will expose the British MI5. The British government is responsible for the situation in Sri Lanka having given supremacy to the Tamils from the beginning of the nineteenth century. If not for the publicity given by Britain to the so called grievances of the Tamils, and for the arms supplied to the terrorists through various means there would not have been a so called Tamil problem in Sri Lanka. The British government continues to support terrorism through their usual underhand diplomacy for which they are notorious. Even in Sri Lanka, Britain is not exposed as the British know how to get things done by others when it suits them. Also they have trained Anglophile elite that refuse to see what is shown.

The Sri Lankan press and the politicians protested over the attack on the Sri Lankan embassy in Oslo but were almost silent on the closing down of one of the bridges over Thames by the Tamil racists. Norway is only a stooge in the hands of Britain when it comes to Tamil racism, separatism and terrorism (RST) but the force behind Tamil RST is none other than the bad old Britain. Who would believe that the Tamils in Britain are capable of closing one of the bridges over Thames, though not the London Bridge, without the support of the London metropolitan police? The British government bans the LTTE on one hand but allows front organizations of the terrorists to operate claiming that the front organizations are not the LTTE. This is nothing but British hypocrisy but there are people in Sri Lanka who can be taken for a ride by Britain as these people are the products of the British education in Sri Lanka. The London bridge may not have fallen down yet, but the LTTE has fallen down in spite of the support given by the British and the other westerners. However, the Sinhala nationalists should not think that everything is over and that peace will dawn on this land at last. I beg to defer and it is very likely that Prabhakaran has either escaped or about to escape with the help of the west of course, and the so called Tamil diaspora (it is interesting that we have been forced – conditioned- by the west to use this biblical term to describe these scattered people with the connotations associated with the word. It is better to use the term scattered Tamils or Burgher Tamils after the Burghers who migrated mainly to Australia when they began to lose their privileges after fifty six. A pundit in "foreign service" who thinks that he has a superb intellect but who cannot think abstractly and conceptually might say that Tamils cannot be Burghers! will now be used by the west as demonstrated in the case of the incidents at Sri Lankan embassy in Oslo and that bridge over the river Thames. The terrorist organization LTTE will now be replaced by the scattered Tamils in the west with the front organizations of the LTTE by the western powers. It is possible that with these scattered or Burgher Tamils, Britain will get Prabhakaran to declare an Elam in exile and the Rajapakse government will have to appoint a set of hard nosed diplomats as the "war" will be shifted to a space outside the boundaries of Sri Lanka.

We will leave Miliband and company to discuss pluralism and supremacy in Sri Lanka, as the so called moderate boys and girls are busy praising each other on their moderate stand on supremacy. These people have now realized that there are Tamil supremacists as well though until recently they knew only of Sinhala supremacists. The moderates are for pluralism, unity in diversity, equality of races, equality of cultures and do not seem to recognize that in any given country with a history there is a culture that is either predominant, significant, foremost or more equal than the other cultures. They go by the principle that all human beings are equal in principle though they know that in practice it is not followed anywhere anytime in the history of the mankind. Surely these moderate boys and girls are more equal than most of the others in the country merely through the contacts that they have in the society. At the same time, of these moderate boys and girls those who live abroad at least know that in their adopted or the residing countries they cannot get their articles published in the newspapers as easy as they can get them published in Sri Lanka. They should also know that in those countries there are people more equal than them who can get their articles published in the newspapers often.

We have a moderate academic writing from USA, a person whom I believe pontificates that people are equal while implying that cultures are also equal. As a Sinhala Buddhist I have no inhibition to state that all human beings are equal. After all Buddha treated all people equally and in Buddhism there are no chosen children of God not only because there is no God to have (create) children but also because by birth people are not categorized into high and low casts or sets. However equality of people is an ideal we would like to practice but very difficult to achieve especially in the present western Christian modernity as it was in the Brahmin society of Bharath. Both these societies have or had more equal people even in theory through the concept of chosen people, and it is nothing but hypocrisy to talk of equality even on a theoretical plane. After all the Sri Lankan academics living in the western countries are nobodies outside their faculties and very often outside their departments, and would not be recognized in the local supermarket, whatever mart it could be, other than by the Sri Lankans living in the area and the few members of the department. They live a lonely life reading and writing to the Sri Lankan newspapers using the internet facilities. What is emphasized here is that individuals are not equal in the western societies even in theory but only in text books and research papers that have no value in the day to day life of the people. It is nothing but hypocrisy to highlight equality of people, a concept that cannot be derived from the basic premises of the western Judaic Christian culture. Equality in the west is only a rhetoric introduced by the French revolution but not a principle, and following the western academics we may call it a post French revolution rhetoric. (It should be remembered that the so called revolutions very often only introduce rhetoric.) The Sri Lankan academics in the west (how many concepts and theories, not "research papers" in "prestigious international journals" are associated with these academics who claim that they had to migrate in search of a "research culture"?) can afford to write rhetoric from their ivory towers as long as they do not visit the local supermarket that functions within, shall I say, the paradigm of western Christian modernity.

These moderate boys and girls for pluralism, variety, diversity and what not, do not realize that when it comes to knowledge (and global culture- In fact the so called global village is none other than a world with western Christian culture) there is no pluralism. In our universities and schools we teach only what we have been asked to teach by the west, and though there are many sciences, medicines and engineering in our faculties of science, medicine and engineering we teach only western science, western medicine and western engineering. Except for a few students at the University of Kelaniya, the overwhelming majority of the others in our universities are ignorant of non western sciences. Is not teaching one of the sciences as THE SCIENCE, a sign of supremacy, hegemony, etc., of the west? These boys and girls do not realize that when they talk of pluralism they are using a camouflaged western concept that makes the west very innocent while keeping their hegemony intact. The Barak Obama incident is played with full volume to inform us that in USA a black has been appointed the President. Obama is not a black who has been appointed the President but a black who has become somebody in the western Judaic Christian culture by accepting and immersing in that culture. The Sri Lankan "intellectuals" are at a very low level in thinking in terms of abstract concepts, as a pundit has decided to mock the concept of Obama that was defined in these pages recently. D. S. Senanayka as explained was not an Obama with respect to the Sinhalas. He was an Obama in the western Judaic Christian culture having become a somebody in that culture by accepting one of its varieties, namely the Anglo Saxon Christian culture. He was acceptable to the British as the head in the old state council, before Sri Lanka gained limited independence. It has to be emphasized that Obamas are created relative to cultures and that there are no absolute Obamas.

(To be continued)​

 

[tharinda07]

PLURALISM AND SUPREMACY - II


Is there any country, with a history, in the world where all cultures are treated equally? This is a question that H L Seneviratne, Shanie and others should answer before pontificating on pluralism. I presume that H. L. Seneviratne has been living in USA for some time now. Does he as a western sociologist, albeit without any concept or theory to his credit after all these years in the west, or as a plain human being aware of a culture in USA even on par with the American Christian culture? When one thinks that there had been many cultures in the Americas before the whites and Seneviratnes went there one has to wonder what happened to all those cultures. They are there for western Anthropologists such as Redfield to speculate on great tradition and little tradition but not for Bush or Obama and others to treat them equally.

So many foreign ministers have been visiting Sri Lanka in the past few days and they too perhaps preach pluralism. Among the countries they represent France, Britain and Australia have been very tough on Muslims. The Prime Ministers, the judiciary of these countries are on record, though not in the same words, effectively asking the Muslims to leave the respective countries if they could not live according to the Christian culture respecting the Christian law. Pluralism in these countries means that though there may be people of different cultures living, one culture is more significant than the other cultures. The cultures are never treated equally and when Obama took his oaths as the President of USA he did so as a Christian according to Christian culture. Leave alone the Presidency and the associated ceremony in USA. In Sri Lanka in Universities the convocations are conducted according to the Christian tradition with the Vice Chancellors, Deans, other officers, graduands and those who receive so called honorary degrees wearing the cloaks which represent nothing but the cloaks of the Christian clergy. Even Universities of Kelaniya and Sri Jayawardhanapura which were made so called universities fifty years ago by imposing a Christian university structure on them have to follow these western Christian traditions.

Where do we find pluralism in the western Christian world? We have repeated the above umpteen times without any response from Seneviratnes and Shanies who only repeat the word pluralism as if it was a panacea to all the problems. The national flag of United Kingdom represents the history of the country and one can see only the Christian crosses and not any other symbol of any other culture. Westminster abbey will not accommodate any Bhikkus if and when Charles Windsor becomes the king of Britain or UK. (Will the Irish accept him? I also wonder why they do not have a Duke of Ulster or a Prince of Ireland resembling the Duke of Edinburgh or the Prince of Wales.) English may not be the official language of Britain officially, meaning there is no official language act, but for all purposes English occupies a supreme place in the government and other institutions. USA supposed to be the most powerful country made English or American English the official language of the country a few years ago to undercut Spanish which the Anglo Saxon Americans thought would become a threat to English.

As we have said even individuals are not equal in the west or in any part of the world under western Christian hegemony. Surely H. L. Seneviratne enjoys more access to the press in Sri Lanka than an average Sri Lankan living in the country but on the other hand does not enjoy the same "equality" vis- a- vis the American press though he lives there as an academic. We do not hold DPL passports and we are not treated equal by the police. Equality and such concepts are only rhetoric introduced by the French revolution, and western Christian modernity with its hypocrisy has been happy to adopt them into the western Judaic Christian culture.

The British treat the Sri Lankan Tamils or the scattered Tamils living in that country more equal than most of the other communities. Which other community would be allowed to block a bridge over Thames disrupting traffic? Certainly the Tamils of Sri Lankan origin are more equal than the Sinhalas or the Arabs. Imaging what would have happened if an association of the Arabs attempted to block a bridge not over Thames but over some brook in the country demanding that bin Laden be allowed to travel freely. Poor Sadam Hussein, if he was born a Sri Lankan Tamil he would not have died, the mistake he or somebody else did was to make him an Arab. Let us face it. The Sri Lankan Tamils in Britain are a privileged group. They can block bridges, attack Sri Lankan and Indian High Commissions and still roam freely in London. There are some people who think when the Sri Lankan police is not taking any action against certain politicos or political groups it is due to corruption that prevails in the police service. Everybody should now understand that it is because the Sri Lankan police is following the traditions of the British police which is the parent body of the former.

The British and the other westerners want the Sri Lankan Tamils, who were created by them in order to attack the Sinhala Buddhist culture. Prabhakaran and the LTTE were only the instruments of the Sri Lankan or scattered Tamils, and unfortunately it was the ordinary Tamils such as those now trapped by the LTTE in Mullativu who had to sacrifice their lives on behalf of the scattered Tamils and the British. Now the suicide squad or the "billyboys" in local parlance have been defeated, it is back to the politics of the late nineteenth century and the first six decades of the twentieth century where the "educated Tamils" had to work for the British to weaken if not to destroy the Sinhala Buddhist culture. The west would not have allowed Prabhakaran to die and he would now lead the scattered Tamils from abroad forming an Eelam in exile with the help of the British. The scattered Tamils are the darlings of the British and they will never be treated the way the Muslims are treated in Australia, Britain and France.

British who do not treat all the cultures equally and who would do everything to make sure that the Anglo Saxon Christian culture the dominant culture in the whole world including the academia want Sri Lanka to treat all cultures equally. They have their theoreticians as well as the "commentators" such as Seneviratnes and Shanies to work for them. Invariably the latter are products of the imitative western education with its rotten core (incidentally Gunadasa Amarasekera in his writings has criticized only the outer shell dealing with phenomena such as the tennis playing undergraduate from the central schools and not the knowledge system based on western Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya) we have in Sri Lanka, whether in Peradeniya or Vayamba, and they know only to repeat what their masters and mistresses want them to tell the world.

It is to protect this set of scattered Tamils and their cousins in Sri Lanka that Britain and its friends are interested in pluralism in Sri Lanka while not caring two hoots for the concept in Britain, and practicing supremacy. Their intention now as then is not to give the Sinhala Buddhist culture its due place in the country. They do not want the non Sinhala Buddhist communities living in Sri Lanka to accept the significance of the Sinhala Buddhist culture while maintaining the supremacy of the Anglo Saxon Christian culture not only in Britain but in the other parts of the world including Sri Lanka. There are some of my friends who want to know the reason as to why the British want to destroy the Sinhala Buddhist culture. I only request them to read the Vidusara series of articles available in www.kalaya.org. Of course it is not an academic website with "research papers" written in the jargon of the academics, and some third rate engineers turned third rate sociologists will consider the articles childish. The Sinhala Theravada Buddhist Chinthanaya is the most prominent Chinthanaya not based on a God or an objective reality and those intellectuals in the west and not those Sri Lankans in the western universities, who serve the west, know the strength of that Chinthanaya.

When Sri Lanka or Sinhale as it was known then entered into an agreement with Britain in 1815, the British promised to rule the country according to the Sinhale law or tradition and protect Buddhism. This may be the only occasion a Christian country undertook to protect a non Christian religion and a culture, and it speaks volumes for the strength of the Sinhala Bhikkus and of the leaders at that time. The British had no choice but to accept the significance of the Sinhala Buddhist culture and the Sinhala "law" even if it was done with the intention of deceiving the Sinhala leaders. The British parliament naturally did not approve what Brownrigg had done and there was protest in England against the so called Kandyan convention. The British did not want to protect or promote Buddhism, and they did not know that Brownrigg was to rig the convention. The British promised to uphold the significance of the Sinhala Buddhist culture in Sinhale but had no intention of doing so. With the so called educated Vellala Tamils they maintained the dominance of the western Christian culture by not giving the due place to the Sinhala Buddhist culture.

It is significant that no European colonial power entered into a similar agreement with the Tamils in the country. One could say that the so called Jaffna kingdom was defeated in the seventeenth century by the Portuguese and after that there was no need of an agreement. However according to late Mr. Gamini Iriyagolla there was an agreement between the Portuguese and the Arya Chakravarthins that was in Sinhala and Portuguese which did not recognize Tamil culture as a significant culture in the country. In any event it is easy to demonstrate that the present day Tamils in Jaffna are descendants of the Sinhala inhabitants, Velakkaras and the Tamils, especially the Vellalas who were brought by the Dutch for their tobacco cultivation.

If the Tamil racists and "academics" such as Seneviratne are hell bent on preaching unconditional pluralism without accepting the significance of the Sinhala Buddhist culture in the country, then I am afraid they are only serving the British and the other westerners. There is no unconditional or absolute pluralism anywhere else in the world and Sri Lanka does not need to be unique in practicing such pluralism playing into the hands of the British who have ulterior motives.


Professor Nalin de Silva
​

* This article has been edited when it publishing in the news paper. This is the unedited version of that article.