Sri
Lanka does not seem to have learned anything from the past 30 years. We have
not investigated why we had so much conflict and why so many could be drawn to
violence with such hatred for people based on differences, in this case
Language.
I
hate to say the difference is race as if we look at the genetic map of each of
us there is very little to differentiate between Tamil and Sinhala, and in many
cases Tamil people have more local genes than Sinhala who have Portuguese and
other European blood. I will challenge the radicals to have their genes tested
and will find that they have less rights in the inherited sense than some
Tamil, who they say should pack there bags and go to India!!
In
similar light, I believe that intolerance of the Muslim people is growing,
pushing many young Muslims who feel it, to the extreme fringe of Wahabism that
is being taught in the Madrassas in the Coast, and which could overtake the
views of the Moderate majority at present. The moderates are reasonable people
who wish to concentrate on their businesses with as little interference as
possible by the government apparatus, and they are generally keen to help those
of the same community to grow and prosper, often quite unlike that of the
Sinhala population.
The
insane act of a rabid priest ( I have no idea of what possessed him) to storm a
small Muslim place of prayer, no matter what its origin was, was a very foolish
event. It just provided fodder to the extremists of that community to say that
moderates can go to hell, and the government is bent on oppressing their
beliefs.
This
is very similar to the Tamil problem, and due to the Jihadist mindset of some
of these people who have been brainwashed, the LTTE can look like pussies. I
therefore believe it is the Government’s responsibility to tackle this issue
head on, caution the Chief Prelate of the Dambulla Temple and generally take a
hard line on what happened, and proclaim, that as he took the law into his own
hands he jeopardized religious amity and so forfeits any rights to the sacred
area land he had claimed and previously been granted.
In
the earlier entry in the blog I referred to the feudal behavior of such people
which if it is unchecked creates untold misery for religious tolerance. The priest
in question effectively becomes the feudal lord of the area for the rest of his
life, and I believe he has forfeited his rights, by this act. If he is removed
by his order, which I believe is the Asgiriya Chapter, then it would calm and
allay fears of a future recurrence and it is in the interests of the country to
do so. Otherwise history will show that this event was a turning point, where
the sovereignty and integrity of the country was compromised. This is too much
of a sacrifice to face in the future and so the matter must be resolved without
delay.
It
is important at the same time to establish clear rules with regard to
establishing religious places for ALL religions as they all abuse their rights,
due to people being frightened to challenge for fear of reprisals by the
community. If the law is clear it can be enforced, and no one who tries to
steer a different path is tolerated.
The
constitution of Sri Lanka guarantees religious freedom to all, but with it must
come responsibilities so as not to intimidate cause a nuisance to other people.
In that regard, I believe the use of loud speaker in Temples, Mosques and
Churches must be banned as it is a modern day appendage that was never
contemplated at the times the religions were set up. If the lords of the time
knew of this I am sure they would have banned them, and it is only the people
in the 21st Century who have decided to interpret the use of such
antisocial means as being acceptable.
I
am not writing here to benefit or destroy any faith. I would like to encourage
the pursuance of at least one faith, as it disciplines the person and if he or
she follows the faith it must make that person better. It is the interpretation
of the faith by today’s sermonizers that I have an issue with. They appear in general
to be intolerant of other people’s belief and for that I immediately box them
in as intolerant heathen in the guise of the pious who we should ignore.
Think
for a moment what one’s religion really should be. It should be a personal
relationship with one’s maker or creator and not with one’s neighbor or friend.
The personal one to one factor is what is important here, as one cannot hide
from above or below. When we forget that notion and make it one where it is
about what others see in us, from what we do in public that it takes a
sometimes artificial flavor, where the faith is not deep, but shallow and
multi-intentioned, to preserve one’s place amongst one’s peers.
We
must avoid radicalism, (taking an extremist view of one's religion, which does not tolerate other beliefs and whose aims do not fit within a multi cultural and multi religious state) as it makes people of other religions uncomfortable, and
we should not do anything that is incendiary. Radicalism if it has any place it
must be inside the heart of the radical not spewing into religious fervor for
public consumption. It is in the end how true to one’s belief that one lives
one’s life, in a world where we live within the law.
Radicalism
by one begets radicalism by others, so let us not beget it in the first place
and prevail upon religious elders to nip radicalism in the bud, as they must
surely know that the end result of this is irrational behavior in the name of one’s
religion. It is better that all communities in a multi-faith country live in
harmony with one another in the interests of peace and unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment