FRONT PAGE
 NEWS .
 CLASSIFIED .
 DHAMMAWEB .
 SANDUN UYANA .
 ANTENNA .
 EVENTS DIARY .
 LONDON DIARY .
 FEATURES .
 LETTERS .

Anthropologists Misreading Sinhalese-Buddhist Nationalism .......

By Dr. Shantha K. Hennayake and Dr. Nalani M. Hennayake, Department of Geography, University of Peradeniya

Introduction
Post -1980 Sri Lankan Social Science is overwhelmed by the crisis of ethno-nationalism. Irrespective of the particular disciplinary training and expertise, an increasing number of scholars have entered into this area of research. Within this context, one would actually expect a complex plethora of literature entailing multiple perspectives and interpretations. It should naturally bring forth the different dimensions of ethnonationalist crisis. But what has actually happened is that intellectual explanations of the present crisis has become fixated on ethnic lines, either Tamil or Sinhalese as characterized as ethnicism in the studies of ethnonationalism by Hennayake (1993).

The focus of this paper is precisely the new ethnicist Social Science tradition established after 1980s and specifically on the Sinhalese-Buddhist variant of it. As much the literature on Tamil nationalism grew rapidly, research on Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism has gained wider and popular interest and attention specifically of the anthropologists. This paper explains how the anthropologists have begun to analyse and reread Sinhalese -Buddhist nationlism in the context of the present ethnonationalist crisis. I will elucidate how Sinhalese- Buddhist nationalism is reasoned out to be a source for the ethnic crisis, rationality embedded within these explanations, the politics of such traditions focusing on the consequences that these produces.

1983 was not only a turning point in the ethnopolitical history of Sri Lanka, but also in the development of Sri Lankan social science. 1983 events who ever instigated them, compelled the scholars to respond to the situation, by trying to explain the crisis. Beginning from Tambiah's Ethnic Patricide and Dismantling of Democracy, one can identify a series of books and articles focusing on the ethnic crisis. In fact, Tambiah's call for a "new breed of imaginative, and liberated non-sectarian historians who will "deconstruct the histories which legitimate the present conflict" (140:1992) appears to have well follwed up. This task was taken up mostly by anthropologists and certain left wing intellectuals in Sri Lanka (see Spencer, 1992) . I think it is reasonable to say that it almost became fashionable to study and research about the ethnonationalism and specifically it became intellectually profitable to research into Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism within that context.

The most characteristic feature of this fairly substantial literature is that it has constructed a metanarrative of Sinhalese-Buddhsit nationalism in a vilified form. It produced a singular thesis that "strident", "zealot" Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism (these are the adjectives one can find very often in the literature) is the "source of the present crisis". This singular thesis was articulated in different discursive settings from colonial reading of the Sinhala national past via Anagarika Dharamapala's revivalist movement to recent celebrations of development. Scholarly endeavours are political and they produce intended as well as unintended cultural and political consequences. By 1990s, academic vilification of Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism inflected into a political discourse of Sinhalese-Buddhist chauvinism among certain sections of the civil society and specially among certain politicians even evading the significance of the literature on Tamil nationalism.

The metanarrative of vilified Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism is constructed through the specific strategy of "reading the past through the present". To a certain extent, the shadow of the present is always there when we read history, but the point I want to make here is that in the recent social science discourse, Sinhalese -Buddhist nationalism is read and reread to locate it as the root cause of the crisis. Tambiah's called for the deconstruction of the histories, but unfortunately only the Sinhalese-Buddhist history is being deconstructed as well as decontextualized. Probably, from a subaltern perspective, this may have appeared politically correct especially for those who are writing from elsewhere.

Anthropogists as well as other scholars have contributed to the construction of this metanarrative in different ways and degrees with different intentions (Moore, 1985; Spencer, 1992, Brows, 1989, 1992; Woost, 1992, Rogers, 1992; Tennakoon, 1992, Nissan and Stirrat, 1992; Roberts, 1997; Kapferer, 1997). I focus in this paper one of the most representative work of this metanarative, Spencer's edited volume. It is this volume that ties the propagation Sinhalese nationalism to the present crisis than any other work.

This metanarrative is systematically constructed in the edited volume of Jonathan Spencer, "Sri Lanka: History and Roots of Conflict". Spencer begins with the verdict that the "crisis is caused by the failure of the successive governments to settle the grievances of minority Tamil population in a way that is nevertheless acceptable to the majority Sinhalese population." Therefore, it is paramount, in Spencer's words, "to shed fresh light on the sources of the political tragedy that has engulfed in Sri Lanka for the past decade." The volume has three distinctive but related themes weaving towards a metanarrative of Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism. It begins with colonialism, history and racism. Nissan and Stirrat argues that the "confrontation between the Sinhala and Tamils in Sri Lanka is the outcome processes set in motion during the colonial era" (39). Implicit argument here is that Sinhala national identity is relatively new inflected with European notions of racism as well as nation. Gunawardene's article spices the previous position by arguing for the short life span of Sinhalese identity. Rogers brings out the thesis that "the images of the past that developed in the British period were produced by the use of 19th century western historical ideas and methods." In simple terms, the notion of glorious past is constructed within the linear developmentalist ideology of rise and fall of civilization. While the British ascertain the decay of this great civilization, the local elites saw that the reiteration of the ancient past in fact provides cultural pride for the masses. Dagmar Hellman Rajanayagam argues that "The Tamil use of history to justify and defend their position shows decisive differences from that of the Sinhala. While the latter pursue an exclusive strategy, denying the standing of Tamils in the country per se, and labling them alien and foreign intruders, the Tamils followed an inclusive strategy until the 1930s." Most surprising is that, according to Hellman -Rajanayagam, the inclusive strategy that the Tamils followed was to argue that Sinahalese were not Aryan but Dravidian- in fact of an inferior sort of Dravidian. Therefore, the strategy of inclusion has been one of denial of the Sinhalese of their claimed ancestory. I will make no comment here, but will leave it for you to think further.

Within the nicely set above stage, Brow and Woost claims that the "national past" is cultivated through local development programs and thereby history is being used even at a moment of crisis. Brow argues that the current development projects have become vehicles of propagating of "mythological framework of Sinhalese nationalism in rural areas", of course within the hegemonic politics of the state. Brows indicates that Sinhalese nationalism continues to be expansionary to the point attempting to "Sinhalize even veddha villages in Sri Lanka". Woost goes along with Brow in arguing that, "In Sri Lanka today, grass roots development has become one the most prominent staging areas for ideological activities associated with nationalism, a fact underscored by recent analyses of agrarian change… it is equally apparent in grassroots activities sponsored by non-governmental organizations now operating in Sri Lanka. (The only example Woost gives is Sarvodaya!) The re-awakening generally refers to the effort to help peasants re-discover the traditional values and forms of social organization of their Sinhala-Buddhist ancestors….." (164). Both Brow and Woost rightly acknowledge that there is an element of "rhetorical overkill" to all these and this connecting the national past and present day developoment projects is completely informed by the hegemonic politics. Nevertherless, they decipher from these two case studies that evoking the sentiments of the national past and Sinhala identity indeed take place, and in fact villagers colloborate for what ever the reasons. Critical Anthropologists must be more careful of drawing such generalizations based on a single case study of a village or two, especially because of the political weigthage it carries. The theme generated between the lines is that cultivation of the Sinhala national past is continuing even in the context of crisis! It is worth noting here that crisis should not become a laboratory to carve out empirical evidence for new anthropological interpretations especially when these academics do not have to pay for the consequences.

The chapters of the third section show how "the representation of the past is melded into the politics of the present" (Kemper:203). While Kemper demonstrates this with the whole issue of President J.R. Jayawardene initiating the compilation of the Mahawamsaya-Nuthana Yugaya, Tennakoon focuses on three newspaper debates on Sinhala history, culture and identity to analyse, in Tennakoon's own words, " how the Sinhala have selectively appropriated their past in order to understand the present and shape the future". Tennakoon's analysis is quite enriching in highlighting the "dialectical engagement of politics and culture that nationalism is (re)generated. Thus, "a modern manifestation of Sinhala historical consciousness is enhanced through "newspaper nationalism" in the 1980s. As I mentioned earlier, Spencer's aim in this volume was to navigate towards searching for the sources of the conflict. This voyage has detected only the propagation of Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness in various fora and saw nothing beyond that. Absence of anthropological work on the propagation and articulation of Tamil identity and consciousness in this volume speaks out loudly. Why is it that anthropologists have kept away from manifestations and propagations of Tamil identity is a big queston? Tamil nationalism is reduced to a innocent reaction to the "strident" Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism which has manifested in different contexts undermining its own historical articulations even in a wider context of South Asia. Exclusivity and extremism of Tamil nationalism is seldom analysed and Hellmann-Rajanayagam's article situates Tamil nationalism as the innocent against the villain ob Sinhalese Nationalism.

In addition to these, Brows in 1989, in a separate article in the Journal of American Ethnologist, elaborates that "Massive and sustained dissemination of a strident Sinhalese nationalism has become the most prominent feature of ideological practice in contemporary Sri Lanka. Proclaiming the common destiny of the Sinhalese people….. this ideology constitutes a relatively coherent discourse that connects a highly selective construction of Sinhalese history to a broad for the nations future. It is vigorously propagated by the state and other agencies and has come to inform a vast range of government policies and programs. Its impact has been felt mostly tragically by the minorities it excludes, particularly the Hindu Tamils; thousands of whom have been slaughted in recent years….(1989:310) What needs to be emphasized here is that anthropologists such as Brows have substantiated the propagation of Sinhalese nationalism in the rural areas with their substantial anthropological field work, but, rather ironically provides no empirical evidence to claim how it has affected the Tamils. No Tamil person is interviewed to determine its effect. It is assumed that such propagation of Sinhalese nationalism invariably affect the Tamil community thus by holding it responsible. Through the empirical study Brows did, Brows understood the opportunistic politics involved with this propagation both from the politician's side as well as the villagers side. At times, these politics makes us suspicious even of the so-called nationalist effect (whether it is actually spurring an extremist Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness) in those villagers, especially as it appears that the villages understand the complexities and subtleties of hegemonic politics and the need to comply with it. Yet, Brows make the blanket argument that this propagation has really affected the Tamil community.

The underlining theme in this metanarrative is that Sinhalese-Buddhist nationlism has been all along exclusivist of the other ethnic groups. Dagmar Hellman Rajanayagam invariably highlights the point that "Tamil use of history is inclusive unlike the Sinhala people." (Inclusivity and exclusivity of nationalism is a very interesting subject to argue on. The very moment one puts a label in front of the term "nationalism," the nationalist space is delineated naturally excluding what is not Tamil or Sinhalese. The Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism spanning from Anagarika Dharampala's revivalist movement through 1956 "silent revolution to Jathika Chinthanaya and Sinhala Urumaya in the 1990s is interpreted as a teleological linear history, at the end, intending the ethnic crisis at present. This generalization makes the post-colonial political developments in which both Tamil and Sinhalese have actively been part of, unjustifiably absent. This is tragic politics of acedemia. In terms of trying to understand the sources of the crisis, resoning moves from the political space to cultural space. The anthropologists thus argue that the Sinhalese-dominated governments in post colonial Sri Lanka, through its hegemonic politics, condition the rural society with extreme nationalism. Implication of this is that Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist consciousness prevails in the culture of the masses. Gam Udawa , other reawakening projects, and rural organizations such as Sarvodaya movement becomes planned subtexts of chauvinist Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism according to these anthropological interpretations. The larger issue emanating form this is that whence we move the reasoning from the political to the cultural, it camaflouged the intricacies of Tamil nationalism as well the national political historiography.

What is most fascinating is that this vilification continues. Roberts (1997) fundamentally accepts that Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism of the pre-colonial era was, in fact, a reaction to the colonial subjugation and suppression of the Sinhalese culture and tradition. But, then why Roberts place Dharmapala as an entry point to Sinhalese-Buddhist chauvinism is not clear.at all. The evidence Roberts provides to justify this connection is that Anagarika Dharmapala has considered and used certain ethnic groups as "parayas" in his personal diaries. Deconstructing Dharmapala's revivalist movement in the 1990s in the light of ethnic crisis and vilifying his movement as one of racist does not take us anywhere. Bruce Kapferer's analogy of 1983 riots to gigantic exorcism and associating their passions with the practices of sorcery which is pointed out in his 1988 work and reiterated in the recent work by making a further analogy between the dynamics of power inculcated in the chronicles and the present day dynamics of power represents an attempt to demonize Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism (1997: 287,295) further.

Conclusion:

More to the point, these works construct the impression that source of the conflict is unquestionably the nationalism of Sinhalese people. This intended impression bears upon a specific political stance that it is to cultivate a feeling of guilt among the majority Sinhalese that they have done something "historically wrong". Class and caste constitution of the ethnic societies and the growth of Sinhalese nationalism in varying contexts of constructing a post colonial identity never arise as important components. Reading the past through the present is a very political act, not an innocent anthropologival work especially when that reading stops where one wants to stop. At the end, the determining factor for everything has become Sinhalese nationalism. This is where the anthropologists have misread.

Brow, James (1990) "Nationalist rhetoric and local practice: the fate of the village community in Kukulewa," in Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Brow, James (1989) "In pursuit of hegemony: Representations of Authority and Justice in a Sri Lanka Village," American Ethnologist, vol. 15 (2), 310-327.
Hellmann- Rajanayagam (1990) "The Politics of the Past" in Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Hennayake, Shantha, (1993) Ethnicism in the studies of ethnonationalist Politics in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Studies Seminar, University of Peradeniya, 1993.
Kapferer, Bruce (1997) The Feast of the Sorcerer: Practices of Consciousness and Power, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kemper, Steven (1991) The Presence of the Past: Chronicles, Politics, and Culture in Sinhala Life, Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
Nissan, E and R.L. Stirrat (1990) "The Generation of Communal Identities" in Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) (1990) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Roberts, Michael (1997) "For Humanity. For the Sinhalese: Dharmapala as Crusading Bosat" The Journal of Asian Studies 56, no.4, 1006-1032.
Rogers, John (1990) "Historical Images in the British Period" in Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) (1990) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Tennakoon, Serena (1990) "Newspaper nationalism: Sinhala Identity as Historical Discourse"
Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) (1990) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Woost, Michael (1990) "Rural awakenings: grassroots development and the cultivation of a national past in rural Sri Lanka", Spencer, Jonathan (ed.) Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, London and NewYork: Routledge.

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

Copyright © 1997-2000 www.lankaweb.Com Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reproduction In Whole Or In Part Without Express Permission is Prohibited.