Achala Gunasekara-Rockwell. PhD (ABD) USA.

It has often been asked in international circles, more particularly the pro-LTTE West, as to how Buddhist monks, who have a worldwide reputation for advocating nonviolence, have for the past quarter century in Sri Lanka supported the government’s use of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”violenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ against the Tamil ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”militantsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in contemporary Sri Lanka. This crusade, in my opinion, is part and parcel of the same vicious, anti-Sri Lankan propaganda program carried out by the LTTE and their Western sympathizers to discredit and embarrass the Government and the Buddhist monks of Sri Lanka. Therefore, I think it is the bounded duty of every patriotic Sri Lankan to counter this type of baseless and diabolical conspiracy and lies to safeguard the good name of our country and its fraternity of sangha.

Introduction

Before I delve into the main theme I would like to make a few preliminary observations on two words used in this query by way of clarification and as an entry point to the main subject. First, I believe it is inappropriate, both semantically and commonsensical, to describe the LTTE, who have taken up arms against the democratically elected government, as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”militantsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ as they have been internationally identified as the most violent and brutal terrorist outfit in the whole world. Secondly the intervention of the legitimate government of the country to defeat terrorism, particularly in the modern context wherein the whole world has risen against terrorism, also cannot be termed as the use of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”violenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. Any democratically elected government has a legitimate right to use force against such terrorist groups to restore law and order in the country and to ensure normalcy in governance. In fact, that is the first and foremost duty and the responsibility that any government anywhere in the world bears as an obligation to its people. As such, the government of Sri Lanka, by taking action against the LTTE has only fulfilled that basic duty. In the process some Buddhist monks, like many other civilians, may have endorsed what the government did. However, many more have opposed it. This shows that all the Buddhist monks as a religious fraternity, in Sri Lanka, as it has been generalized, have not endorsed what the government did in this case. Therefore, apart from the implied religious overtone, it is highly irrational, illogical, and unethical to make such sweeping statements and say that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka have supported the governmentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s use of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”violenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ against Tamils in Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.

The first presumption they make under these misconceptions is that the government has used ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”violence against TamilsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in Sri Lanka. The second is that the Buddhist monks have supported the governmentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s use of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”violence against the TamilsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in the ongoing crisis in Sri Lanka. The third is that it is wrong for them to have acted in that manner, being the disciples of a religion that advocates nonviolence. At the very outset it must be categorically denied that the government of Sri Lanka has ever used violence or even force against Tamils as an ethnic group. What the government has done is to use state power to crush a ruthless terrorist group that has take arms against it. These terrorists constitute an insignificant minority of a few thousand who kept the civilians as hostages in the North and the East while the majority of the over two million Tamils lived among the Sinhalese in the South. Unfortunately, these terrorist happened to be Tamils. When the government had to face a similar terrorist movement in 1971 and 1979 who were Sinhalese, it did the same thing. However, no one then raised this issue.

In order to critically examine these statements, it is first necessary that we try to understand the key issues; such as, what is the real conflict, who are these ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”militants,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ what are they struggling for, what are the inherent characteristics of the Sri Lankan state, how has it acted in the present crisis, what is the traditional role of the Buddhist monk in the affairs of the state in Sri Lanka, and is such role compatible with the Dispensation, they being the disciples of the Buddha- the universal champion of nonviolence?

The conflict and the government

The recently concluded conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was an armed struggle waged by a minority Tamil terrorist outfit confined to the North and certain parts of the East to overthrow the democratically elected government of the country. They were demanding a separate Tamil Homeland for an independent Tamil State called Eelam, covering the Northern and Eastern Provinces comprising 1/3 the total area of Sri Lanka and 2/3 of the coastal belt of the island. The LTTE was the military wing of all the extremist communal Tamils both at home and abroad who reject the accepted historiography of the island and claim a separate Tamil State within Sri Lanka following the same strategy adopted by the Jewish Diaspora in creating Israel. Unfortunately for the Tamils, Eelam never existed in Sri Lanka or anywhere else in the world, and the State of Eelam they dream of creating is only an illusory and storybook invention fabricated by power hungry communal politicians.

On the other hand, the government of Sri Lanka, like any other legitimate government, after decades of abortive negotiations for a peaceful settlement, finally decided to use state power to defeat this terrorist group and to defend its territorial integrity and restore law and order in the country.

The history and true nature of the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka

The conflict between the Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka had its beginning in the second century BCE with the invasion of the Island by Sena Guttika horse traders from South India. A second major invasion also took place in the latter part of the second century BCE with the advent of another South Indian invasion orchestrated by Elara. He ruled the northern territory for 44 years until he was defeated by King Dutugemunu, the son of Kawantissa who hailed from Magama in the south of Sri Lanka. After DutugemunuƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s liberation, although there were intermittent minor invasions by the South Indians, there was no major thrust until the twelfth century CE by Kalinga Magha.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The Kalinga Magha invasion is considered to be the most devastating invasion, having completely annihilated the Sinhala Buddhist civilization in the Rajarata (the dry zone lowlands), thereby effectively and permanently shifting the Sinhala kingdom to the South and Southwestern parts of the Island.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  However, although Kalingha Magha was defeated in war by Perakumba II (1240-1275) and Polonnaruwa was once again restored, it is important to note that the destruction wreaked by Kalingha Magha invasion was never fully rectified, and the Dry Zone irrigation works, settlements, and the original Sinhala Kingdom was never restored to its pristine glory.

In the following centuries the Sri Lankan Kingdom was shifted from one location to another in the southwestern quadrant of the Island. It started with Dambadeniya, then to Yapahuwa, Kurunegala, Gampola, Kotte, and finally to Mahanuwara (Kandy) until it was ceded to the British Crown in 1815. Meanwhile the Sinhalese dynasty itself came to an end in 1739 with the death of Sri Veeraparakkarama Narendrasingha. As Narendrasinha did not have a son by a local Sinhala queen, he was succeeded by Sri Vijaya Rajasinha, the brother of his South Indian consort, a member of the Nayakkar dynasty, thereby institutionalizing a new tradition of succession to the Sinhala throne. This change in royal succession had no precedents in either India or in Sri Lanka. This is the first instance one comes across in Sri Lankan history where they have gone against the accepted Sri Lankan tradition of patrilineal royal succession. Vijaya Rajasinha was succeeded by another three Nayakkar princes, namely, Keerthi Sri Rajasingha, Rajadhi Rajasingha, and finally Sri Wickrama Rajasingha. Although all these Telugu speaking kings took Sinhala names and ostensibly embraced Buddhism, they brought all their Queens and most of their palace staff from South India. They also followed the Hindu traditions at the same time. Meanwhile, there were segments of society, led by Kandyan aristocrats and monks, who viewed these South Indian rulers as foreign heretics who were deploying an underhanded conspiracy to usurp the Sinhala kingdom. The native resentment culminated in the voluntary handing over of the Kandyan Kingdom by the Kandyan chiefs to the British in 1815 along with the King, Sri Wickrama Rajasingha. This brought to an end the glory that was the Sinhala Kingdom that had begun in the sixth century BCE.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) movement ravaged Sri Lanka for the past quarter century were fighting for a separate Tamil Homeland in the North and the East and was only the latest version, garbed in new clothes, in this historical sequence of invasions waged by the Tamils of South Indian origin to capture this resplendent Island with its bountiful resources. The only difference between the previous invaders and the latter was that the LTTE were a local outfit, supported abroad, where as all the former were foreign invaders. The LTTE terrorists who formed the most ruthless terrorist outfit in the world are internal agents provocateurs who declared war against the democratically elected government of the country. They belong to the Hindu/Catholic Tamil minority of the Island. Although there is no evidence whatsoever to their claim of a Tamil Homeland in Sri Lanka they still claimed that they were the original settlers of this Island. Subsequently reduced to a minority, they claim, they have suffered decades of discrimination by the Sinhalese Buddhist majority and therefore they wanted a separate independent state for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The proposed establishment of Eelam in 0the north and the east of Sri Lanka was, of course, only their first step in forming their illusory World Federation of Greater Eelam comprising the whole of Sri Lanka, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, and Fiji; as conceptualized by the pan-Tamil Eelamists way back in 1947.

Now let us look at the issues for which they agitated. They are popularly called the Thimpu demands of 1985.

1. Recognition of the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a distinct nationality;

2. Recognition of an identified ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”homeland,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ for them in the North and the East;

3. Recognition of the inalienable right of self-determination of the Tamil nation within this territory;

4. Recognition to the right of full citizenship and other fundamental democratic rights of all Tamils.

In reality this means a separate Nation and a separate country for Tamils living in the north and east so that they could operate as a separate nation with its own territory, independent of the rest of Sri Lanka. I cannot understand what they meant by ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-recognition to the right of full citizenship and other fundamental democratic rights of all Tamils;ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ because, like any other community, all Tamils in Sri Lanka even now have full citizenship and enjoy all other fundamental democratic rights. For that matter, as a minority, they enjoy more privileges than any other community anywhere in the world. The fact they wanted a separate country for Tamils in the north and the east while they also agitated for equal rights for those who are living in other parts (as if they donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t have them now) clearly shows that what they were asking for was preferential treatment for Tamils over the Sinhalese who constitute 75% of the population of this country. They wanted a separate state for Tamils only in the North and the East and at the same time they wanted preferential treatment for Tamils living in all other parts of the country. Although they did not want any Sinhalese or Muslim in the north and the east they wanted Tamils to have the liberty to live all over the island. This also means that should we devolve power to the Tamils as requested they will thereafter bully the government of Sri Lanka for the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”aspirations and rightsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ etc of the Tamils living in the rest of the country, the same way India continues to pester us at the moment. This clearly shows their ambitions are far wider than they spelled out at the moment and suggests a hidden agenda they were trying to manipulate. So from this it is evident that the recent Tamil problem is much more complicated and far reaching than all previous invasions.

Everyone, except the extremist Tamils, knows that there has never been a Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka and the true and historical Tamil homeland is found in Tamil Nadu in South India. They know that all Tamils in Sri Lanka are mere immigrants who came to this country in different waves throughout the course of our history. Some were brought by the ancient Sinhala kings and others came as illegal immigrants who subsequently became naturalized citizens of the island. They also know that this country has been the historically accepted and undisputed homeland of the Sinhala people from at least the sixth century BCE. This is easily demonstrable by the fact that it is only upon this island that the Sinhala people exist as a nation. They are also aware that the Sinhala people transformed this Island into a fully developed nation and reshaped the countryƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s civilization with the Buddhist ethos as its foundation. The vast wealth of innumerable archaeological, epigraphic, documentary, and cultural evidence such as extant and abandoned ancient irrigation tanks distributed all over the length and breadth of this island from north to south and east to west has established this fact beyond all reasonable doubts. Furthermore, the absence of any noteworthy ancient archaeological evidence of Tamil ruins in any part of the island proves the fallacy of the claims of early Tamil settlements in this country.

It is in this historical backdrop the Tamils are now claiming a homeland for themselves in Sri Lanka. They are not accepted as a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”NationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ even in India where they have a population of over 67 million in Tamil Nadu. So how can a minority of 2.4 million Tamils out of total Sri Lankan population of 20 million claim to be accepted as a separate nation here? Even out of this 2.4 million Tamils more than 60% live outside the north and the east, having settled among the Sinhalese in the other parts of the country. Of the remaining 40 percent, more than half have left the country in search of greener pastures in the West and other countries like New Zealand and Australia; nations who have accepted them as refugees or as citizens. So it is for the remaining 1.5 million people that they are now claiming a separate country comprising one-third of the land area and two-thirds of the coastal belt to be carved out of this island. This is the so-called Tamil Eelam for which they are fighting. If that were given they expect the balance of the populace, nearly 19 million people including 1.5 million Tamils to live in the rest of the country. The Eastern Province is different from the Northern Province in its demographic composition in that it has all three communities more or less equally distributed where as the Northern Province has a Tamil majority. Now you can see how irrational, illogical, illegitimate, and impracticable their demands are.

More than 1.5 million Tamils live among the Sinhalese; they own properties in those areas; do business and work in those areas; and hold positions both in the public and private sector in all professions without any problem. They intermarry with the Sinhalese and sometimes even with Muslims. To that extent they even eat and sleep together, and they enjoy equal rights with others. So how can anyone say that there is discrimination, let alone genocide, against Tamils in Sri Lanka? Those who talk about majority hegemony point out that there are more Sinhalese in all sectors compared with the Tamils. Naturally it has to be so. Because seventy-five percent of the population in this country is still Sinhalese and seventy percent of the population are Buddhists. So in any case no one should expect to have more or equal number of Tamils in these places as they enjoyed during the colonial times under conditions of preferential treatments by the British. The real problem here is, since independence, they have lost the privilege of enjoying the lionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s share of the positions in the public service, which they had at the expense of the majority Sinhalese. What has really happened now is the colonial gross discrimination against the majority community has been removed and justice restored. However, the democratic rights of the Tamils have never been curtailed. Although they comprise only a minority, even their language also has been recognized as an official language. So how can one argue that there is discrimination against them?

It is in this milieu that the LTTE has waged war against the democratically elected government of the country. In the process they have unleashed a brutal campaign of terror not only against the Sinhalese but also their own Tamil people and all other communities living in the country. This terrorist war destabilized the entire political, economic, and social machinery in a manner unprecedented in the history of this island nation. They killed innumerable victims, including Presidents, Prime Minister of India, Ministers, and other leaders at all levels of government; not to mention the thousands of innocent and hapless civilians who have died in the process. Billions and billions of rupees worth of national assets were vandalized and devastated. The progress and development of the country was greatly retarded not for decades but for centuries. Finally law and order and peace and harmony virtually disappeared from this once serene and peaceful Indian Ocean island.

It is with a view to finding a permanent solution to this tragic situation that a peace accord was signed between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE in February 2002.The LTTE, taking advantage of this respite, first strengthened its military capacity and again declared war against the Sri Lankan Government in 2006, thereby unilaterally violating the accord signed in 2002. The main incident of violation began with the blocking of the Mavilaru anicut in the eastern province. It cut off irrigation water for nearly 30,000 acres of cultivated paddy lands and affected the provision of drinking water for about 15,000 families of all three communal communities. Hence, the government was forced to take action against the LTTE to liberate the dying paddy fields and ensure drinking water for about 75,000 people. This was the immediate incident that led to the fourth Eelam war which finally culminated with the total defeat of the LTTE. At last this brought an end to the military activities of the LTTE, which resulted in the liberation of about 15,000 square miles of land that had been forcibly occupied by the terrorists out of a total of 25,000 square miles in the island. It also restored peace over the whole Island after 30 years of terror and destruction.

The Sri Lankan State and its inherent characteristics

According to available historical evidence the Sinhale State, known by various and sundry names in its long storied past, was founded with the arrival of a North Indian Prince named Vijaya in the sixth century BCE. The Sinhala nation was converted to Buddhism in 307 BCE by Arahat Mahinda (the son of the great Indian Emperor Asoka) during the reign of Devanampiyatissa. Thereafter, the whole island was universally recognized as the Sinhala Buddhist State and remained so up to this point. In fact, the Sinhala nation and Buddhism have become almost inseparable. It is often said that the two are interrelated just as the tree is to its bark and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. They are mutually interdependent and symbiotically interwoven. While the headquarters of the faith remained in the capital at Anuradhapura, in each village throughout the country a temple was built to propagate the religion. The temple and the village priest thereafter became the most dominant institution in the village and have decisively influenced the destiny of the nation throughout its history.

Buddhism was made the State religion, although other religions were also permitted to exist side-by-side. The islandƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s civilization was molded on the ethos of Buddhism. Colossal Buddhist monuments like the stupendous Dagabas, some of them such as Abhayagiriya, Jetavanaramaya, and Ruwanweliseya rising over 400 feet in height; monumental statues turned out of stone or solid rock like Avukana, Galviharaya (Polonnaruwa), Samadhi statue (Mahamevuna park-Anuradhapura), and Reswehera in the south and Dambulla rock temple were widely spread all over the Island and formed the solid foundation of the Sinhala Buddhist civilization that is Sri Lanka.

As is depicted in the Mahavamsa, in this society ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”the kings made themselves one with the religion and the peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ (MV Ch XCIX). Anuradhapura remained the capital of the Kingdom from the sixth century BCE almost up to the end of tenth century CE. The country was divided into three divisions as Ruhunu, Maya, and Pihiti; corresponding to the Southeastern, Southwestern, and Northern sectors. Each was ruled by viceroys, while the King ruled from AnuradhapuraƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚the nationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s administrative capital. The whole country was also divided into villages in 427 BCE during the reign of Pandukabhaya. The capital of the kingdom was subsequently shifted from place to place such as Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya,Yapahuwa, Kurunegala, Gampola, Kottte, and finally to Mahanuwara (Kandy) as a result of the aforementioned South Indian invasions. Except for very short periods where Tamil usurpers ruled over certain parts of the island like Anuradhapura and the peninsula of Jaffna, the whole country was ruled by Sinhala kings up to 1815 in which year it was ceded to the British Crown. Although there lived many other smaller minorities like Tamils and Muslims they all were known as SinhaleseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚ meaning the people of the SinhaleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚ up to 1815. All such immigrants were integrated within the Sinhala nation, although most of them preserved their own cultural traditions. The fact that there is no record of any internally generated ethnic or religious conflict, clearly shows how peacefully they lived throughout history until the dawn of British colonial rule in 1815. The fact that the Kandyan Convention of 1815 was drawn between the Sinhale and the United Kingdom clearly proves by what name this country had been known before that. The foregoing account aptly shows the harmony that existed in this country between different ethnic and religious groups prior to the advent of the British rule. Unfortunately, it was the British who planted the seeds of communal hatred, to achieve their sinister objectives of divide and rule policies, which destroyed the centuries old political stability and social harmony that prevailed in this island.

The role of the Buddhist monk in the affairs of the State and Lankan society

Next let me outline the role of the Buddhist monk in the affairs of the Sri Lanka state, as it has evolved over time.

According to Mahavamsa (The Great Linage of Sri Lanka) composed by Mahanama Thera in the fifth century CE, it was Gautama Buddha, who while lying on his deathbed, proclaimed that his Dispensation (Sasana) would be established on the island of Lanka and flourish thereon for the next 5,000 years.

The narration runs as follows:

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Sabba loka hitan katva-patva santikaran padam

Parinibbana manchamhiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”nipanno lokanayako

Vijayo Lalavisayo-Sihabahu narindajo

Satta bajja satanubho-lankadiipa mupagamai?

Pathitthati devinda ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”lankayan mama sasanam

Tasma sparivaramtam-rakkha Lankancha sadukanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

(The guide of the world, having accomplished the good of the whole world, attained the supreme moment of bliss and was lying on his death-bed. The Great sage, the noblest among speakers, told Sakka, who was standing by him there, in the vast assembly of deities. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”King SinhabahuƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s son, Vijaya from Lala country has reached Lanka, together with seven hundred followers. Lord of gods, my faith will be established in Lanka. Therefore protect him along with his followers and also Lanka diligentlyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ 1-4)

According to this Buddha entrusted the care of his religion, Prince Vijaya and his retinue, and the Island of Lanka to Sakka, the king of gods. Legend says the Sakka in turn entrusted the responsibility of protecting it to Vishnu, who was ordained as the protector and the chief guardian god of the Sasana Sri Lanka.

Buddhist monks, the disciples of the Buddha, were the chief custodians and interpreters of the Dhamma Preached by the Buddha, which was recorded in the Three Canons. Tradition holds that the monks are known for their love and dedication for peace emanating from the Four Sublime States of Conduct enunciated in Buddhism, namely MettaKaruna (compassion) Mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkha (equanimity). They were the chief architects of the Sinhala Buddhist civilization from the advent of Buddhism in the fifth century BCE. Therefore as Tessa Bartholomeusz stated, as much as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Rome is sacred to the Catholics,ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Jerusalem to the Jews and Mecca to the Muslims, in the same way the tiny island in the Indian Ocean…where the Sinhalese have found their civilization and lived for over twenty-five centuriesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦is the hallowed land of Sinhala Buddhists13ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. (loving kindness),

Sinhalese Buddhists who were the original settlers of this country and who constitute the dominant community even at present (75%) have been extremely accommodating and tolerant of all other people of different denominations and cultures who immigrated to this island from the four corners of the world at different times of history. All those who came subsequently have integrated with the Sinhalese and formed an integral part of the Sinhala nation throughout history. Such religious and ethnic tolerance at the state level is best demonstrated when kings have provided special places of worship and places of domicile to adherents of different religions. For example, during the Anuradhapura period adherents of different faiths have been provided with places of worship on the outskirts of the city. Also during the Kandyan period King Senarath gave the entire Panama pattuwa over to the Muslims who had fled Portuguese repression along the coastal belt and had begged his help. Also, during the same period Catholics were accommodated in Wahakotte in the Matale Disawa. All these decisions had the full support of the Buddhist monks. Even today almost all Buddhist temples display and offer worship of the images of traditional Hindu gods and the majority of Hindu, Muslim, and even Catholic places of worship are constructed on lands belonging to Buddhist temples. What more evidence is needed for the religious harmony that exists between different religions in this country?

I think the question as to how Buddhist monks, who are wedded to uphold the teachings of the Buddha and who have a worldwide reputation for advocating nonviolence, could support the government’s use of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”violenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ against the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Tamil militantsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and how can one justify that within the perception of Buddhist teachings therefore is only an illusory invention of the western world.

It must also be clearly noted that since the Sinhala polity which was nothing but a conglomeration of thousands of villages, had the village temple as its spiritual as well as the socio-politico-economic nerve centre throughout history, right from the advent of Buddhism in the fifth century BCE. The temple, therefore, enjoyed a decisive influence over the affairs of the state. The King was one with the religion, and the people, as Mahavamsa has pointed out.

Tradition held that the King had to rule the country according to the advice rendered by the chief monks of the nation. The monks, therefore, had a decisive say in the affairs of the state as well as the society, both spiritual and mundane. On the other hand, the monk also had a tremendous influence over the people of the kingdom. The rationale for this situation arose from many factors.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Firstly, they had to depend entirely on the people for their four basic requisites (sivpasya) namely food, robes, shelter, and medicine. They did not engage in any economic activity either, as such pursuits were prohibited for them as activities not conforming to the monastic life. The majority of them, with very few exceptions, like those in temples, which received royal grants for their upkeep, had no source of direct income. Secondly, the people also had to depend heavily on the temple as it served as the nucleus for both spiritual and worldly pursuits of the villagers. Besides its spiritual role, the village temple also acted as the center of education where the monk played the role of the chief educator. The monk was also the natural village leader, physician, astrologer, and the benefactor and adviser of all societal needs. Therefore, no villager dared to question the authority of the village monk. The monk, acting for the good of all and in keeping with the concept of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-charatha Bhikkhave bahujana hitaya, bahujana sukhayaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ as enunciated by the Buddha, was unanimously acclaimed as their natural leader within this social system. By virtue of his exalted position of knowledge the Buddhist monk held the highest place in the village hierarchy. In this backdrop there operated a closely-knit mutual dependency mechanism between the monk and the village populace, which dictated the behavior of its societal components. Therefore, one cannot expect the monk to strictly adhere to the canonical doctrine and concentrate only on self- deliverance and completely remain alienated from the society within which he forms a symbiotic component, as most critics of the role of Buddhist clerics in modern Sri Lankan society have pointed out.

Their problem, I think, is twofold. Firstly they try to evaluate the role of the monk from a Marxist or Weberian perspective of religion and their paradigm of social analysis. Before they do so they should first understand the sociological background in which the Sri Lankan society has evolved. Their second mistake is they unable to differentiate between canonical Buddhism and what Rahula called ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”popular BuddhismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ (Thambya calls the latter ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”affective BuddhismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢). They should also realize that all things change over time and one cannot expect Buddhism to be an exception to this universal law. These critics should understand that the present day gramavasi monk who lives among the people couldnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t be treated as a separate entity completely detached from society and seeking self-realization under these circumstances. On the other hand, he has to play a more active role to keep the society politically and economically well organized to sustain the stability of the state which is a sine qua non for the protection of religion.

The Buddha passed away in 543 BCE. The Dhamma is today found only in books. It is the sangha, the disciples who form the most important live segment of the sasana (the Dispensation) who keep the vehicle of the sasana alive and moving. That is why today the monk must play a dual role, one spiritual and the other worldly, where one cannot be divorced from the other. This argument is equally applicable to all clerics of all other religions as well, whether they lived in the past or the present. That is the reality those who criticize Buddhist monks for involving themselves in the affairs of the Sri Lankan state have utterly failed to understand. Therefore, the role of the Buddhist monk as a change agent of social service in modern Sri Lankan society, where politics also form an inherent part, has to be accepted as a social reality that cannot be criticized as anti-Buddhist, heretical, or irreligious by any standard.

While altruistic service by monks was highly praised even by the Buddha during his time, many external forces have from time to time tried to disrupt and perhaps destroy this foundation of Sri Lanka society. Besides the South Indian invasions of the early period, the colonial invasions that began in early fifteenth century also attempted to destroy this solid. It all started with the advent of Portuguese colonization in 1505. These interlopers gained control over a narrow strip in the islandƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Maritime Provinces. They were succeeded by the Dutch, who were in turn replaced by the British in 1897. Only the British finally succeeded in annexing the whole island in 1815. However, in spite of all these colonial repressions, the position of the monk in Sri Lankan society has ever remained intact and strong, other than during short and darker periods of history like the early Kandyan times where the institution of monk was temporarily in abeyance due to the absence of Bhikkus who had obtained higher ordination.

In dealing with the current problem in Sri Lanka it has been a common practice to put the blame on the Buddhist monks. However, very few people realize that the real cause for this tragedy lies somewhere else. The raison dƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚ªtre for this crisis, in my opinion, is neither ethnic nor religious. This is the first reality that has to be properly understood by anyone before they rush in to sweeping generalizations of the sort given in this question.

Though some reputed scholars like R.A.L.H. Gunawardana, and Tambya have argued that there is dissonance between the Buddha of the Mahavamsa and the Buddha of the Pali canon and therefore the involvement of Buddhist monks in the affairs of the state cannot be justified, such statements, in my view, have to be dismissed as irrational, illogical, and irrelevant for the reasons already stated above.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The role of the monk in the affairs of the Sri Lankan state has been succinctly described by Rahula in his book Bhiksuwakage Urumaya. I cannot think of any other scholar whose credentials stand above his in this subject. This treatise has clearly demonstrated how the Buddhist monk has participated in the matters of state throughout history of this island nation. It is not a phenomenon confined only to the past quarter century as the detractors would have us believe.

It is widely accepted that the Buddha never condoned with war. It is also important to note that he never meddled with the subject of war and left it for the kings to decide at their discretion.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  When King Bimbisara wanted go to war with Lichchavis the Buddha told him that he cannot defeat Lichchavis as long as they adhere to the Seven Principles (Sapta Aparihani Dharma). The BuddhaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s conflict was of an entirely different nature, namely to liberate humanity from the suffering of sansara. It is entirely different from those of kings. Therefore, to drag the Buddha or his canonical dispensation to formulate theories of convenience against Buddhism or present day Buddhist monks, without understanding the historical background and ground realities in Sri Lanka, in my opinion is utterly extraneous and irrational.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Even in the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta, which depicts the role of a universal monarch committed to the Dhamma, there is reference to a four-fold army. This shows the need for a King to have an army to defend his territory against enemies. One can argue that for the monk, these images suggest that even the Buddha, who taught that the paradigmatic Buddhist king is a pacifist, realized that war is a reality of life and that for defensive measures, war is unavoidable in statecraft. What the Buddha had said in that context was only a reference to a salient characteristic of a regime of a Universal Monarch.

It was not uncommon to see throughout the history of the Sinhala kingdom that Buddhist monks always served as the king’s advisors in the court. Even though Buddhist monks did not fight in the war with their enemies, they served the king in numerous ways. As such this is not something taking place in society only during the last quarter century in this as the detractors would have us believe. Rather, one can see the same phenomena operating throughout human history, irrespective of what religion one might profess and whether it be, the East or the West. It is an accepted fact that the religion always had a dominant influence on the affairs of state irrespective of the space and time factor. It is a universal phenomenon. Take for instance the role of Krishna in the war between Pandavas and Kauravas. King Dutugamunu, another grand personality from the Mahavamsa, was one such king who in fact sought the assistance of the monks in his war against the Damilas. As we read in chapter XXV lines 4-6, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦the Sangha gave him five hundred recluses. Taking that community of bhikkhus, the Lord of the earth [Dutugamunu] departed from there and had the road in Malaya leading here cleared. He mounted the elephant Kandula and, surrounded by the warriors, set out for war, along with a mighty army. The column reached Guttahala, while being still attached to Mahagama.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Assistance of monks in the Sri Lankan context is symbolic of the support of the subjects of the kingdom.

Nevertheless this cannot be interpreted as monks going to war as cynics and anti -Buddhist elements who are trying to fish in troubled waters use to argue. It is only the spiritual and moral support they render to the Lord of the land to protect the kingdom in which they live and the sasana that provides the foundation for the moral and spiritual destiny of its people. One has to remember that these monks are not Buddhas or arahants. They are only ordinary human beings who subsist on the society in which they live. If these critics also could look at how the medieval Catholic Church and the Muslim world fought the religious wars in the middle ages and even now how the church and other religious institutions continue to play a vanguard role in global conflicts, I am sure they will realize the irrationality of the argument they advance against the Sri Lankan monks. Do they not consider other clerics taking part in matters of the state in their countries contrary to the love, compassion, and other high flown principles preached in those religions?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  After all, all religions lead to peace and tranquility. To that extent no religion supports war. However, it is an accepted fact that all religious disciples throughout history have taken part in the matters of state craft and they continue to do so today. All states were and are run by the rulers in collaboration with the religious leaders in their respective countries, even though they pretend to be secular states.

If this is the reality, then why are some so critical about the role of the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka while they fail to mention a single word about the activities of other religious clerics like Christians, Hindus, and Muslims who openly support terrorism the world over? For that matter, I must categorically state with authority that, unlike other religions, never in the annals of the history of Buddhism has a war been fought anywhere in the world in the name of the religion. No Buddhist monks have taken an active part in any war.

Conclusion

In the foregoing analysis I have explained the development of the soƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”called ethnic crisis between the Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka and the futility and myth of the Tamil claim for a separate State within its territory. I have also outlined the inherent characteristics of the Sri Lankan State and the role of the Buddhist monk in the affairs of the State in Sri Lanka. I have attempted to view their role in a historical as well as a socio-religious and political perspective. Whatever the critics might say, this debate certainly is not a modern construct. My contention is that the present Sri Lankan issue should never be confused with Buddhist ethics or its practitionersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ religious lives.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  If you carefully analyze the historical background of the current problem in Sri Lanka, although its deeper roots go far back into antiquity, you will find that its present form could be directly traced back firstly to colonial conspiracies centered on the old maxim of divide and conquer and secondly to fairy tales and fallacies invented by the Tamil politicians and communal-minded elements during the recent past.

The idea that the Sinhala population will ever concede to surrender one-third of their homeland and two-thirds of its coastal belt, which they have owned and enjoyed for over twenty-five centuries, to a minority of less than one percent of its ethnic Tamil usurpers, whose ancestors have been sworn enemies of the Sinhala Kingdom from the beginning of history, merely because they are supported by India and the Western world, is, at best, a utopian fantasy. To dream for an illusory Eelam in Sri Lanka for a miniscule fraction of the minority Tamils, when even in India with 67 million Tamils they donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t have it is ridiculous by any standard. Most western scholars make sweeping generalizations on Sri Lankan affairs without knowing the actual situation. I suggest they read ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Hydraulic Society in Ceylon Past and Present by E.R Leach (1959) that has been presented as a critique of Karl WittfogelƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s views on the nature of the Sri Lankan State in his ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Oriental DespotismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢

The Sri Lankan government as a popularly elected government has done its duty by the people who elected it. The Buddhist monks on the other hand have only played their traditional role in statecraft, as they have inherited it from their long history. Any attempt to treat their role as a negation of their religiosity or a betrayal of the principles of Buddha Dhamma therefore is irrational, illogical, unethical and non-academic.