Sarath Fonseka Statements Reek of Sinhala Triumphalism
by Izeth Hussain
Army Commander Sarath Fonseka has provoked a storm of criticism with some of his recent statements, notably the following which had appeared in a Canadian magazine, "I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our people….. We being the majority of the country, 75%, we will never give in and we have the right to protect this country … They can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things." (National Post of September 23). Notable also was the following, "In any democratic country the majority should rule the country. This country will be ruled by the Sinhalese community which is the majority representing 74% of the population." (Daily News of July 19).
I cannot join in the storm of criticism because my own responses to the above statements have been complex, ranging from strong and enthusiastic approval to strong disapproval to alarm. My first reaction of strong support - which in truth made me want to shout "Bravo, Sarath, bravo" – was evoked by his claim that this country belongs to the majority Sinhalese, and so on.
It is surely the kind of claim that is made by the members of majorities in nation states right round the globe. Maybe he has made his point bluntly and rather crudely, but we must remember that he is a soldier and not a politician and as such has a preference for reality over rhetoric, and so wants to see that his words get to target just as bullets do. Why blackguard him for that?
Sometimes politicians are also quite frank that their country belongs to the majority and so on.
I recall a television interview given by Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus sometime in the first half of the ‘sixties, in which he said that after all the negotiations the Turkish Cypriot minority must ultimately accept what the Greek Cypriot majority is prepared to give them. I remember being annoyed by that statement, but on reflection I came to the conclusion that that astute statesman merely wanted people to face reality.
It is pertinent to recall also a conversation that I had some years ago with a Church of Sri Lanka clergyman, in which we touched on the subject of Christian clergymen who had enlightened views on our ethnic relations. He cited the names of Bishop Lakdasa de Mel and Harold de Soysa from his Church, and I pointed out to him that he was obviously forgetting the late Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe. To my surprise he replied that "even Lakshman" used to hold that ultimately the minorities must accept what the Sinhalese majority is willing to give them. No one in his right mind has ever believed that Bishop Lakshman was a communalist, or racist, or chauvinist, or anything of that sort. Sarath Fonseka’s position is I believe not essentially different from that of the Bishop.
The problem of course arises when the majority holds – as majorities always do – that the minorities are given fair and equal treatment and the minority perception is the opposite. There is today a way of resolving this problem. It is to apply the criterion of the human rights norms established in the UN Declarations and Covenants on the subject. We can take it that all Sri Lankans agree that those norms should apply in Sri Lanka. But our racists and fascists are fiercely resistant to the idea that Sri Lanka is answerable to the international community on observance of those norms. I don’t know Sarath Fonseka’s position on this.
Before proceeding to my next point I must raise a question about one of the statements quoted above, "In any democratic country the majority should rule the country." It is of course true that under any democratic dispensation the majority ethnic group gets power over the minorities. But is SF aware of the terrible dangers of majoritarian democracy? I quote from Michael Ignatieff’s Oxford Amnesty lecture of 2001, "Where democracy means self-determination for the ethnic majority, ethnic cleansing and massacre of minorities as a method of state consolidation usually accompany it." I want the reader to note well the word "usually".
I come now to the strong disapproval that has been roused in me by a detail in SF’s statements. He states that "there are minority communities and we treat them like our people". I wouldn’t know where to begin and where to stop in refuting that statement. I have plenty of appropriate material on discrimination against the minorities right here at my elbow, but on second thoughts I would refrain from using any of it. No useful purpose will be served.
I will now state why SF’s statements have caused alarm in me. Taken together they reek of Sinhala triumphalism, the evident reason for which is that our troops are on the verge of finishing off with Mr. V. Prabhakaran. That triumphalism bodes ill for the future. I have in mind the implications of the victim syndrome. For centuries, until 1956, our Buddhists saw themselves as victims because some of the non-Buddhists had been given favoured treatment at their expense. The situation was reversed thereafter and gradually the Tamils became the victims. After 1983 the LTTE fought back, evidently with strong Tamil backing, and by stages the Sinhalese again became victims. Every offer of devolution was contemptuously rejected, and the response to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s inordinate accommodativeness was the LTTE offer of the ISGA, which was surely meant to humiliate the Sinhalese. Now the armed forces have got the upper hand, and the Tamils are about to become victims once again. If the note of Sinhala triumphalism struck by so important a personage as the Army Commander prevails, we can take it that ethnic reconciliation and harmony are still far away.
SF’s statements have the merit of drawing attention to the fact that the nation-state privileges the dominant ethnic group. But that can easily lead to racism, which can prove to be problematic in many and dangerous ways. SF says that he strongly believes that this country belongs to the Sinhalese. But who are the Sinhalese? It is known that most of the so-called low country castes – namely the Karawe, the Salagama, and the Durawe – came to Sri Lanka from South India after 1505. It becomes arguable that the Sri Lankan Tamils are more truly sons of the Sri Lankan soil than those Sinhalese because they were established here for a far longer period.
We must also bear in mind that the Portuguese encouraged a class of settlers or casados through marriages of Portuguese and local women. Some married Dutch and British residents and came to constitute the Burgher and Eurasian communities. Kumari Jayawardena writes in her fine work of scholarship Erasure of the Euro-Asian, "Other casado descendants maintained their local identity by marrying Sinhalese, but kept Portuguese names and over time were ‘deemed’ to be Sinhalese.
This may partially account for the large number of Sinhalese with Portuguese names, even today. Contrary to the belief that all Sinhalese who took on Portuguese names did so in order to be baptized, and thereafter get jobs or to avoid taxes, many Sinhalese were, more likely, the descendants of casados." It becomes arguable that our Tamils are more indigenous to Sri Lankan soil than the Sinhalese with Portuguese names.
I have no quarrel at all with SF when he says that this country belongs to the Sinhalese. My point is that it also belongs to our Tamils, our Muslims, and other ethnic minorities. It is only through recognition of that fact – the fact of Sri Lankan multi-ethnicity – that we can ever come to have a Sri Lanka that is worth having.
15 Comments
Sarath Fonseca is a useful idiot. He has been effective so far in running the war. His views need to be restricted to that arena. Really he is undoing much of the benefits gained by the military by opening his foul mouth.
People with this type of unenlightened views have no place in modern society and should not be entertained. Its quite embarrassing.
Raj
Commander Sarath Fonseka’s statement, “I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese…” is no less pathetically bigoted than the author’s conclusion, “It becomes arguable that our Tamils are more indigenous to Sri Lankan soil than the Sinhalese with Portuguese names.” Both are positioning their own respective biases based on ethnic justifications demonstrating their sheer incapacity to view those “not like us” as equal and respectable stakeholders of a single common community – in this case the Sri Lanka nation. [The emphasis here is on “sheer incapacity” which is a learned behavior that is acquired over time encouraged by a mutually respectful social environment as the highly egalitarian American society. It is becasue of this reason (capacity for ethno-religious transcendence) that the Americans were able to elect a minority for its highest office, and it is precisely for lack of this capacity that the rest of the world including Western Europe is grappling with this notion.]
Furthermore, the author’s final conclusion, “It is only through 'recognition' that Sri Lanka is a multi ethnic society …” we can overcome prejudices under-values the more fundamental and overriding requisite: that we are all human beings on a spiritual journey - and therefore deserves the mutual affections and respects of one another. - N. Dias
"In any democratic country the majority should rule the country. This country will be ruled by the Sinhalese community which is the majority representing 74% of the population." what about the United States of America?? the president elect Barack Obama is majority ethnic? Lot of changes have been taking place in the globe. Has anyone thaught that a black will become the president of the USA?? it is only the Sinhala chauvanist government following the same path and denying the rights of the Tamil people. Now they are engaging in the war to ethnic cleanse the Tamils and to destroy the LTTE which is the sole representative of the Tamil people. The Sinhala regime know that if the LTTE is destroyed, it could propose a solution which will never meet the grievances of our people. It will be welcomed by the puppets of Rajapaske.
Sri Lanka is the ONLY homeland that the Sinhala people who are a result of and combination of migrant from the subcontinent and the indigenoius peoples' of Sri Lanka.
So from this self evident fact it is justifiable from a Sinhala General the statement:
"I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our people….. "...
It is not that country beongs to the Sinhalese(Sinhala people) in reality the SINHALA people belong to the the WHOLE COUNTRY...And so does other people...
BUT there are TAMILS who say that TAMILS belong more to the (NORTH+EAST+NORTH-WESTERN) than the Sinhalese....
SO WHERE IS THE CRY OF RACISM,chauvansim, AGAINST the Tamils.......
I do not understand why Mr.Izeth Hussain tries to give too much prominance to General Fonseka's statement.
If Sinhalese are going to worry about the racist statements regularly made by Tamil & Muslim leaders, we will have nothing else to do. (These include LTTE, TNA, Tamil Nadu politicians and actors, Muslim Congress leaders and MPs like Mr.Chandrasekaran)
What you have to do is to provide with evidence what are the specific injustices faced by minorities in Sri lanka, just because they are minorities.
Why these people ignore the brutal murders of Sinhalese taking place in the east, just because they are Sinhalese.
It is rediculous that these people talk about Karawe, Durawe etc. which most Sinhalese don't even know or care about. It doesn't matter whether you came here yesterday or 2000 years ago, as long as you are a legal citizen of Sri lanka, you have all the rights as others.
In Sri Lanka, the only positions the minorites have not held so far are the Prime ministership or Presidency. (We had police chiefs but no heads of Armed forces merely because there were not much involvement of minorities in them).
To be the president of course you have to win the confidence of majority voters. Though Obama is black, he is a Christian and speaks English. He has adopted American culture. Can a Muslim American who can't speak English become US president, just because he is a citizen? Can a Muslim or a Hindi speaker become the chief minister of Tamil Nadu?
Mr.Hussein, most Sinhalese working in Arab states/Maldives donot even have the right to practice their religion.
So please stop spreading racism and mistrust among our communities. Please try to do something to this country which gives us free education, free health care and many other benefits from our birth to death.
I suppose Izeth Hussain can only try, but trying to persuade extremists through reason is harder than trying to smash break a brick wall with one's head.
However on the other hand it is good to tell people how the Commander Sarath and his backers really feel and think.
To suppose that the Sinhalese have a right to dictate to the rest of the people simply because they are about 75% is not democracy but stupidity of the kind that will never solve the present problems.
First of all Sarath needs to remember that Srilanka is not alone sinhala country but also a country for minority tamils and muslims.
We are all living in a modern word and people should respect each others beleiving and every single tamils should be given same right as sinhalese as long as they are citizens of srilanka. Such nationalise view of Sarath is the root cause of this bloody war that killed over 300000 tamils.
Any human will fight for his own rights regardless tamil/sinhales/english/muslim - In america blacks fought against white and today a black president has been elected to lead the country from a minority origin.
This is the modern world and if sarath can not fit into the modern society then he should go to hell - he should never be the one to judge tamils rights.
"It becomes arguable that our Tamils are more indigenous to Sri Lankan soil than the Sinhalese".............................True.
THe bottom line is this: if there is no such thing as Sinhalese land there is no such thing as Tamil land and there is no such thing as Muslim land.
Are Tamils ready to accept that Tamil Nadu doesn't belong to them?
If not, do not expect the Sinhalese to accept that Sri Lanka doesn't belong to them.
Nimal (November 18, 2008 12:54 PM): "Are Tamils ready to accept that Tamil Nadu doesn't belong to them? If not, do not expect the Sinhalese to accept that Sri Lanka doesn't belong to them."
Very briefly, the history of Tamil Nadu and of the ISLAND of Lanka are very different.
And just as part of the SUBCONTINENT of India belongs to Tamils, another part to Punjabis, another part to Gujaratis, another part to Marathis and so on, part of the ISLAND of Lanka can be said to historically belong to the Tamils and another part to the Sinhalese - very simple, nothing complicated.
I have frequently noticed that this sort of confusion (as expressed by the above Nimal) and extremist ignorance seems to go hand in hand.
Dear N2,
The Sinhalese by and large do not accept your interpretation. Sri Lanka is the size of an Indian state. Look at the subcontinent without international borders. Punjab for Punjabis, Gujarat for Gujaratis, Bengal for Bengalis, Orrisa for Oriyas, Karnataka for Kannadigas, Andhra Pradesh for Telugus, Kerala for Malayalis, Tamil Nadu for Tamils and Sri Lanka for Sinhalese. Each of these ethnic groups built their civilisation in their respective areas. For Tamils, this area is Tamil Nadu, where their literature, arts and architecture developed and flourishes today. For the Sinhalese it is the island of Sri Lanka. Tamils look to Tamil Nadu which is their true homeland, while the Sinhalese look nowhere else but the island which is their homeland. The Sinhalese believe the Tamils invaded the Sinhalese homeland from what is now Tamil Nadu and are now claiming it as theirs; that is why Tamils are found mainly in the north of the country after pushing the Sinhalese southwards.
In other words, Tamils in Sri Lanka are like Tamils in Gujarat or Tamils in Punjab or Tamils in Karnataka or Tamils in Andhra Pradesh. These areas are not the homelands of the Tamils nor do they belong to them. In these areas, Tamils are a minority group. Their homeland is still Tamil Nadu. Like wise, Tamils in Sri Lanka are a minority group whilst their homeland is Tamil Nadu.
As Tamils have a Tamil Nadu (Tamil Country) which is twice the size of Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese are not willing to part with 60% of the coastline and 30% of the land area of the island for less than 12% of the Sri Lankan population. It is only fair that Tamils must relinquish all claims to Tamil Nadu if Sinhalese are to relinquish their claim to Sri Lanka.
I'm forwarding these views because I know a lot of Sinhalese share them.
Nimal,
I am sure that you are right that many Sinhalese do not accept that the island of Lanka has historically been shared by the Tamils and Sinhalese.
But that does NOT make you or those Sinhalese right!
A few hundred years ago most people believed and shared the view that the earth was flat. Did the earth therefore become flat because of their ignorance?
Population percentages, land areas and coastlines, mountain regions, rivers, grains of sand, kinds and number of plants and animals, minerals and gems etc. etc. make absolutely no difference to the FACT that the traditional areas are what they are.
Looking at it another way, why should you suppose that the Tamil speaking region should be bounded by the sea? Why should one not have a sea (the Palk straits) and the lands beyond that sea as a part of the Tamil speaking region too?
Look at the Maldives: there is sea all over the place.
Tamils and Sinhalese both came from India; the Tamils kept in closer touch with India and the wider world and so retained Tamil which was the language of the powers in the Southern region, while the Sinhalese language developed due to the isolation of those people from the wider world.
Also don't forget that the rulers of the Sinhalese people were Tamil speaking and were related to the royal families of South India - Parakramabahu left inscriptions NOT in Sinhalese but in Tamil.
The present nonsense and confusion of Sinhala-Buddhist mania of 'Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese' is a recent post-colonial fabrication, due largely to Anagarika Dharmapla and has no truth of honest basis.
The opportunist Sinhala politicians (and others) continue to exploit this lie and fool the masses for their own gain.
Nimal, if you are truly concerned for peace and the good of the people of Lanka then try to find out more and then do your duty of releasing those other Sinhalese from their ignorance too.
Mr. Izeth Hussain, I can not agree with your following argument "But who are the Sinhalese? It is known that most of the so-called low country castes – namely the Karawe, the Salagama, and the Durawe – came to Sri Lanka from South India after 1505. It becomes arguable that the Sri Lankan Tamils are more truly sons of the Sri Lankan soil than those Sinhalese because they were established here for a far longer period."
Let's answer your question Who are the Sinhalese? The short answer is those who accept Sinhala culture which is shaped by Theravada Buddhism. Now your second argument can be answered, low country castes which you have mentioned are truely Sinhalese as they have accepted the Sinhala Buddhist culture. This is a kind of cultural absorption which Tamils have failed to recognize. Sinhala race is a fusion, it has many different blood lines comming from native Sri Lankans, Indian, Persian and South East Asian migrants (mostly native Sri Lankan and South Indian) including Tamils. Let's assume for a while that Tamils were true sons of Sri Lanka, but who cares anymore the new race which is a fusion of many Asian races (including Tamil) have become the dominant majority through a mechanism of defining a culture, accomadation and absorption of other cultures/races. This is no different form the situation of Aborigenes and native Americans in Australia and USA respectively, even though they were true sons of those lands they are now ruled by the new dominant culture which is ready to accomadate and absorb from all other races arround the globe. This is the simple fact Tamils of Sri Lanka failed to understand.
Dear Wathsala,
Your statement that "low country castes which you have mentioned are truly Sinhalese as they have accepted the Sinhala Buddhist culture." is far from the truth. Nearly all the fishermen are from this origin. Although officially belonging to the Sinhalese people group, most of them are still speaking Tamil as mother tongue, and moreover, a large part of them are either Catholic/Christian or Hindu.
Please take some time to study history. Highly advised for some other commentators as well. Historic mistakes and untruths seem pretty widespread in a lot of comments.
Won't the same thing happen? ,