By  Rohana R. Wasala

The polity consisting of the majority community (Sinhalese) cannot behave like this. In any country, it is normal for the majority community to be unconsciously undermined by a false sense of security vis-a-vis the minorities, whereas the latter feel a bit too paranoid with or without reason. The Sinhalese voting public are always divided into rival parties, and at parliamentary elections, under the existing electoral system, it is extremely rare that a major party is able to  form a viable government without the assistance of one or more minority parties, a situation where the latter become kingmakers despite the insignificance of their numerical strength. The slightest movement towards redressing the balance in favour of the disadvantaged majority Sinhalese in any anomalous situation would invariably earn the label racist or extremist or chauvinist for the individual Sinhalese or the group behind that initiative. So, the Sinhalese (Buddhists, particularly) get criticised and condemned as racists, tribalists, etc., while in reality being victims of the racism, fanaticism, and extremism of others. This applies to Ven. Gnanasara as well in the performance of the duty that has historically devolved on him as a Buddhist monk.  

Ven. Gnanasara Thera approached the Ven. Mahanayakes in Kandy and pleaded with them beseechingly, not once, but several times, and explained to them this problem with video evidence of outrageous Buddhism-bashing speeches of Wahhabist fanatics, to no avail. Once the monk led a large procession of well behaved young activists (more than 2000 strong) from Getambe to the Sri Dalada Maligawa, and then they proceeded to the Malwatu Vihara, the monastery of the Ven. Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter. The Mahanayake, at first, very unfairly, refused him an audience. Later, having found that they were not ready to leave without seeing him, he allowed Ven. Gnanasara and a few of his companions to come before him. Nothing resulted from that meeting.  

The BBS leader wants the Maha Sangha to play their historic role as Buddhist monks without stooping to politics, and is determined to resolve the Islamic extremist problem through rational dialogue with the participation of the clergy of other religious groups (which is what he always wanted to do from 2013 onwards, because even groups of traditional Muslims, he claims with evidence, approached him and pleaded with him to rescue them from Wahhabist and Salabist extremism). Unlike him  the UNP national list MP Ven. Athuraliye Ratana Thera is engaged in a one man political show (an ostensible crusade against Islamist extremists, though it is). Unless he is decent enough to call it off in time, and join with the mainstream Sangha who are being galvanized into action in response to the watershed of April 21 Easter Sunday terrorist bombings, Ven. Ratana’s maverick intervention is bound to undermine the emerging unity among the clergy of different religions in the face of ISIS terror.  The activism of Buddhist organizations including the Ven. Gnanasara Thera’s BBS facilitated this awakening among the Buddhist clergy and now it can help form a united Sanga community that speaks with one voice on matters that come within their purview. But Hon MP Ven. Ratana, most probably, wants to edge out the leaders of that movement and assume control of it, with a view to playing an important role in the corresponding political power structure that will evolve. 

Thus, Ven. Ratana seems to be trying to play a two-in-one function combining both those roles. However, the role traditionally assigned to the Maha Sangha has been above that of the king or, in modern times, the government. The ruler assigns a higher seat to the monk and pays him obeisance. The monks didn’t dabble in policy making or in governing, but advised the ruler on how to rule in the righteous way according to the Dasa Raja Dharma or the Ten Duties of the King. The question of a problematic religion state relationship did not arise. Buddhism is not a political religion. The only politics it advocates is democracy. The Maha Sangha or the Community (of Monks) is a perfectly democratic social entity. In the modern world it is considered essential to keep religion and state separate from each other in order to ensure secular democratic rule. So every secular democracy should be regarded as consistent with Buddhist principles. 

(The principle of secularism in governance is not a bad thing, and Buddhism is quite comfortable with it. Secularism in government simply means keeping religion and state separate from each other so that the former does not dictate government policies; yet it does not prevent religious institutions from offering ethical guidance to the rulers and the citizens at large. The Sinhala translation of the term ‘secular’ as ‘anaagamika’ is bound to be misleading because of its inherent ambiguity, for ‘anaagamika’ can mean ‘irreligious’, ‘areligious’ { i.e., without religion} or even ‘of a different religion’. Probably, most ordinary citizens remain unaware of the real meaning of ‘secular’ in this context, which is ‘areligious’ as suggested above, not anti-religion, or irreligious in the sense of immoral. Honoring the practical conventional definition of Buddhism as a religion (in essence it is not), we might say that it is a religion that is most compatible with secular democracy, like Hinduism in India, definitely more so than Christianity. If America and Britain with their white Christian majorities are recognized as exemplary secular democracies, while being priding themselves on being Christian nations, why can’t Sri Lanka with its conspicuous Sinhalese Buddhist cultural identity be allowed to enjoy similar recognition as a Buddhist nation    

Ven. Ratana cannot provide the political leadership that the country needs, nor can he provide any spiritual leadership either, because of his attempted dabbling in statecraft and priestcraft simultaneously. Common to both is ‘craft’, but what one can achieve by craft doesn’t endure. A Buddhist monk is not likely to make a good president or prime minister. The impression among political analysts is that  Ven. Ratana is a typical politician and a pragmatic political strategist (Pragmatism is amoral, or rather immoral, but it is part and parcel of realpolitik.) That he is clever at dissembling was evident to the less gullible onlookers during his fake ‘fast unto death’ before the Sri Dalada Maligawa (He took care not to die by drinking water, as the Catholic priest who joined the fast probably inadvertently revealed). It is obvious that he was not alone in staging the show. The Ven. Mahanayake Theras severely criticised him after the event. He had approached them beforehand and told them about his intention, but cunningly he did not reveal the venue to them. Had they been told that he was going to have his fast in the hallowed precincts of the Maligawa, they would not have permitted him to do so; that would have been a serious setback for him. It is doubtful whether his later exploit of forcibly entering the alleged Sharia University campus currently under construction in Baticaloa for inspection as an MP will serve a useful purpose. His actions will only serve to unnecessarily politicize this deadly issue. 

Because of Ven. Gnanasara’s exertions, unprecedented prospects of different religious communities standing up to the common enemy of murderous religious extremism are brightening. It is only now that we are witnessing the first stirrings of a spring in the Sangha Sasana, that is potentially freed from abominable Nikaya divisions, which are based on caste in stark contradiction of the compassionate Buddha’s teaching. Ven. Gnanasara has made the largest contribution to this most positive development.

The monks do not relish the idea of establishing a Buddhist theocracy, which is, in any case,  inconceivable, considering the spirit of absolute democracy that characterizes the Maha Sangha. Buddha praised the system of government followed by the Licchavis of Vesali of his time, who were his relations, being of a martial race like himself: it was a form of republican system of government by common consent, an ancient version of what we call democracy today. However, the monks’ staying above mundane politics doesn’t mean that they don’t have anything to do with secular politics (or how the country is run). Buddhist monks in the majority Buddhist Sri Lanka have been the custodians of the country’s Buddhist cultural heritage for two thousand two hundred and fifty-five years according to written records. By the way, which other country in the world can boast of such a long unbroken singular religious tradition? Shouldn’t the United Nations Organization make special recognition of this fact in the name of human civilization, which is currently being threatened with annihilation by murderous religious extremism? 

By the influence of its humane spiritual values, Buddhism ensures, not only the peaceful coexistence of the various communities who live there, but also the unhindered enjoyment and protection of their freedom of belief, including especially their religious beliefs and observances, except the alleged divine right of believers of any religion to kill or persecute those who don’t share their beliefs, or to discriminate against them. What Ven. Gnansara proposes to the Maha Sangha is that they unite and provide the necessary moral guidance for the rulers to rule the country righteously, whatever political ideologies they subscribe to. This does not involve any violation of secular democracy in governance. He says that the Sri Lankan society to day is sick in every way. To heal the society, the Maha Sangha must unite. He quotes the Buddha’s teaching: ‘sukho sanghassa samaggi’ ‘Happy is harmony among the Sangha’.

Ven. Gnanasara Thera predicts that when the Maha Sangha are united, the politicians and the people will fall in line, and a suitable lay political leadership will emerge. Ven. Ratana’s intervention in his capacity as an MP monk will produce some limited positive results in the immediate context, but in the long run, it will be counterproductive. He is only doing more of what he did in the past. And we all know what he did has led to. His involvement will be an obstacle to the emergence of a lay political leader that the whole country approves of as being capable of fixing not only the problem of Wahhabist incursion, but also the infinitely greater issue of external interference in the country’s domestic affairs that, in the first place, as the media reveal, inflicted it on our  nation under the Yahapalanaya. It is good to note that Ven. Ratana is still not contrite enough about the pioneering role he played in calling down that visitation on a resurgent Sri Lanka at the end of 2014.  

The D-Day for epoch-making Sangha unity to usher in a new spring will be July 7, 2019 in Kandy in the vicinity of the Sri Dalada Maligawa, where a massive rally of Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists will be held that day for the proclamation of a Dasa Panatha or Ten Commandments of righteous governance based on Buddhist principles drawn by erudite monks in consultation with experts in other fields.