Ethnic superiority: A pathetic fallacy
View(s):Today, you will agree that our type of ethno-nationalist chauvinism has become an ethnically-biased worldview which marginalises religious and cultural minorities through praxis increasingly prejudicial to the state of our nation. First, the Halal fiasco; now an imbroglio over Hijab dress and Muslim women’s mores! If left unaddressed by government, civil society, all religious leaders, and this country’s right-thinking people remnant, it threatens to become the dominant national mindset eventually. It could come to be enshrined as a judicially, socio-economically, politically, and militarily enforced reality. A reign of terror for anyone and everyone outside or in some way opposed to the desired or normative socio-ethnic identity?
So, where does the ethnic nationalism of the vulgar mob stem from? Some may argue that the rise of Sri Lankan communalism was a late nineteenth-century phenomenon reinforced by early Sinhala-Buddhist teachings of nationalistic doyens. This has been questioned, if not undermined, in the post-independence period by Sinhalese scholars. But it is quite conceivable that during this phase the writings of German academe on the origins of the Sinhalese people instilled the idea that theirs was that of a superior Aryan descent. Tamil Diaspora commentators have traced the emergence of Ceylonese ethno-nationalistic chauvinism to the 1920s and 1930s; where, because of competition for important political positions, the easiest way for Sinhalese-Buddhist politicians to achieve dominance was to exploit the grievances and prejudices of their own majority community. It is a trend that has captured the imagination and tendencies of a new generation of chauvinistic ideologues, as we see in the news almost every day these days…
There is little doubt that ethno-nationalism is shaping the political discourse. It has been salted into Sri Lanka’s ‘island-recipe’ for majoritarian rule by an emerging ethnocentrism, demonstrating how majority ethnic groups derive political legitimacy in our essentially pluralist society. The rabid chauvinists who engage in egregious rabble-rousing have succeeded in whipping up some sympathy among the hoi polloi. Good thing, then, that they stirred up mostly apathy among more civilized Sri Lankans. But that they are able to occupy so much of the public imagination is by dint of capitalising on the following predicates, which taps a certain psyche latent in the Sri Lankan people: The thinking that Sri Lanka is the traditional homeland of the Sinhalese ethnic group, excluding all other essential claims. This is despite the fact that there is no viable way to prove Sinhala hegemony ever existed historically, or legitimise counterclaims for even Tamil homelands. On balance, ethno-nationalism may not be simply a Sinhalese invention. To be fair by our agitated pseudo-patriots, it may have reflexively raised its ugly head with force in our day and age: first, as a response to violent Tamil nationalism; and now, to counter subtler Muslim expansionism.
That strong, singular, ethnic identity performs a protective function against colonisation, persecution, and (ironically enough) chauvinism. But this claim may be disingenuous. Constitutional Sinhala-Buddhism protects all ethnicities only as poorly as the executive system of governance has fulfilled its own corresponding mandate.
That constitutional safeguards instituted by a majoritarian agenda facilitate shared cultural and social life. Another widely-touted fallacy is that power protects the powerless. History shows up this lie. The post-colonial Sinhalese exercised their newly-gained power in a way that was not calculated to reassure the Ceylon Tamils. Their political classes, especially their representatives in the legislature, were generally obliged to respond to the economic and other demands of their Sinhalese constituents, and in the process the Tamils were neglected. Democracy had now come to be tantamount to rule by the ethnic majority; and the Sinhalese, being in the permanent majority, were the beneficiaries.
That civic nationalism is subsumed by ethnic nationalism to the extent that patriotic rhetoric is the only voice heard in the commons. Therefore, only Sinhala-Buddhist propaganda is tolerated in the marketplace. Chauvinistic leaders exploit this latency in the polity, and the people in general uncritically accept such thinking. Sinhalese political nationalism is based on agitation by political forces seeking to exploit historic fears. Historically there is a strong vein of Sinhalese chauvinism susceptible to arousal for political advantage.
That the ethnic majority has an unassailable right to direct the destiny of the nation-state to the exclusion of any other contribution or challenge by ethnic minorities. The Sinhalese (and their perhaps deracinated or definitely pragmatic ethnic-alliance partners) run the country – to the exclusion of power-sharing with Tamil-nationalist and Muslim-minority interlocutors qua a genuine national interest. As one commentator has suggested, “The symbols of the Sri Lankan state are exclusivist symbols. They are symbols that do not seek to incorporate ethnic minorities into the fabric of society. They remind minorities, and in particular Tamils, that they are – if not second-class citizens – at least not quite equal with the Sinhalese.” The Buddhist flag being hoisted at iconic Sri Lankan venues during national events, erstwhile singing of the national anthem in Sinhala only, renaming of ‘conquered’ Tamil towns within a ‘sovereign Sinhalese state’ – these exemplify this undesirable uni-polarity.
It is in this light that the statement “there are no majorities or minorities in this country” – must be taken. It is not as even-handed as apologists of any chauvinistic regime can claim. It is closer in spirit to the dictum that “those who are not for us are against us” than assertions by those mandated to protect all people of every ethnicity. In a lopsided national political ethic where paternalism, patrimonialism, and patriotism have fused to produce a volatile isotope of person-centred (rather than principle-centred) leadership, ethnic chauvinism can – and does – flourish to the detriment of peace- and justice-loving Sri Lankans. They, it is, who are the true majority! Can we hear their voices for a change from the tension and strife that racists generate?
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus