Point of view

The vision of 'our urumaya' beyond politics

 By Fr. Siri Oscar Abayaratne

"Giving thanks to the Father for having made you worthy to share the inheritance of the Saints in Light".

I know experientially the value of this claim. The two words Sihala Urumaya when I first encountered as a name of a political party, my reactions were of a mixed one. Urumaya — a word that had a sacred connotation for me, to be now associated with the muck that is party politics in Sri Lanka was negatively speaking a sacrilege, but the potential for blessing was the positive one that surfaced within me. "Blessing upon blessing" is the Urumaya of this country of over well nigh 2,500 years that should be claimed and not allowed to lie fallow and disappear from the face of this lovely isle.

The word "Sihala" conjure up images of a people whose country bore the name Sinhale once upon a time (not of a particular race). Naturally Urumaya seen in this context would mean the inheritance of all its people, whatever ethnic group they belonged to. 

However, the image of a people who could boast of a way of life that can be a challenge to any, in any part of the world, appeared stark and clear. Let me share with you an experience of mine.

"I remember the day as a young seminarian in a small group, in the early fifties, walking into a Buddhist village, exhausted after having trekked close on 15-20 miles on a hilly terrain. Our request was only for a little water to drink, we were served with the most refreshing king-coconuts. One of my pals, before we parted, offered the poor villager a 'santhosam'. The mildly expressed riposte hit me right on my eyes. A blinding, but an enlightening shot. Let me repeat what he said, in his own words.

"Aganthuka Sathkara Karala Ova Gannawada" (You are our guest, how can we accept this.)

It was a death-resurrection experience for me. Buddhism did it. And today! Yes today, it is still valid in spite of all the 'isms' we have and are importing!!

I am a Catholic priest. I am happy to be one. I like to say, 'give Buddhism a chance' in this country once again. When I say Buddhism I mean the liberative core experience shared by the Buddha and not the 'religion' with all the enslaving accretions that selfish man had attached to it."

Buddhism was given a chance in this small island, once upon a time. An experience that we all can be proud of. A lot of it.

o Respect for life, even for the insignificant ant

o Respect for elders

o Worship of parents

o Simple life style (Alpeichathavaya)

o Tolerance of other ethnic groups and religions

o Seemingly 'patriarchal' but the mother was the 'Buddha' of the home

o Communal life, a challenge to the 'individualism' of today

o And more, and more and more (1st January 1998 - Daily News)

It was a way of life, for the most part nurtured by (call it aspiration, a wish, a hope, an expectation of blessing) the hallowed words:

Niduk Wetva! Nirogi Wetva! Suvapath Weva!

It was a way of life that was characterised by the four Brahma Viharas — Maithreya, Karuna, Muditha and Upeksha.

It was a way of life that was primarily communal, though for economic reasons grouped into what currently carries the tag — caste. It was community life that brought people together in an environment for mutual help, support and cultivation of say, the pancha seela. 

The caste system of this Urumaya I take it, was not that oppressive or hugely belittling of the supposed to be low castes. Though such like negative aspects did prevail, because of the ordering of its economic and administrative life, but as an overall way of life, that revolved round the Dagoba, the Pansala and the Wewa, it did provide a life that was free from want. Food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, were taken care of, while the life of the people was in perfect harmony with the environment according to the locality they lived in. 

What an Urumaya this, that could be claimed, promoted and made relevant to meet the needs of our people today in the 2000 millennium! It is my contention that a people stuffed into a political and economic system that makes the poor poorer and rich richer and makes close upon 30% live on the verge of destitution, could be liberated by having recourse to this 'Urumaya'. 

We are getting more and more lost in the glitter of the various types of ideologies that have been ruinously forced upon us. I find myself often amused when I watch the programmes in the electronic media where our great leaders peddle their ideologies to the benefit of none but themselves or their kith and kin, henchmen and party loyalists. 

Heretofore I maintain that this Urumaya has had its inspiration from the Buddha Dhamma. I want to posit with all the conviction that I could muster, that I am indeed proud of being an inheritor. I wish that the people of this country whatever race, ethnic group or religious persuasion, claim it as theirs and not of a particular race or group. 

May this Urumaya be further enriched by the inheritance that may be very specific to any ethnic group. Then we have a country and people so blessed that they will not be clamouring for and murdering one another for 'Rights' but for the good life for all.

Mesmerised as it were by the vision of an Urumaya, that should be claimed and made present in our land today, the Sihala Urumaya as a political party did have its own attraction to me despite what was its very apparent racial, ethnic bias. The leadership of the SU at a meeting I had with them at the very outset prior to their entry into the open public forum, was challenged in no uncertain terms to be true to the words SU.

An assurance was given in writing as to their desire to entertain our aspirations. (Refer Divaina Oct. 4, 2000). Should we believe what politicians say or promise? However, we felt grossly let down when the publicity campaign gained momentum in the parliamentary election fray. We lost no time in conveying to them that they should ease out on some of their very strongly worded protestations. 

Be that as it may, in the manner of a Christian optimist, whose trust is more than solely in human endeavour, but also in the Power of a Spirit of Love at work inexorably in the din and confusion of personal, social and structural sin I will continue to impress on this particular political party that they need must make a radical shift of stance. 

I am convinced that this will spell the good of Sri Lanka's people, very specially the poor, whatever group they belong to. 

It's my belief too that the inner squabbles that's endemic to all political parties, though they made a very conspicuous presence at the very beginning of their (SU's) political career, was a blessing that pointed markedly a condemnatory finger at the individualism and fanaticism that hold sway. This is what happens when the Dhamma is not made to play its part in the day to day activities of even a political party. While challenging any political party to make the necessary shifts, we would in a special way ask the SU with its boast of an 'Urumaya' to turn around.

The JVP which has already, in and thro' the bitter experience of setting aside the Dharmic Urumaya of our land, in its quest for a decent living freed of deprivation, should change stance. It should rethink the need to hold on to an imported variety of a way of life that is ill suited to the ethos of our people. 

At a meeting with a few of its leadership our great desire that they "turn around to the Dhamma," while taking in and promoting whatever good that their ideology as of present offered them, was given clear expression. They are certainly committed. If they could only find their roots in their and our Urumaya, what a blessing it would be to this country. We know how this land of ours is plagued by a coterie of self-seekers at the helm. These leaders know neither the poor nor the Dhamma.

The great majority of our people, I venture to suggest, are innately religious as evidenced by the numerous temples, kovils, churches that dot the landscape of our land. With 'wants' destructively present oppressing our people, they would caste their vote, provided they are allowed to do it by rampaging generals on the election front, for the party that will safeguard their measly plate of rice and curry than for constitutions, divisions of the country et al. 

May be it's good for politicians to have the people permanently in want so that cosmetic applications like "Samurdhi" or "Janasaviya" can be used as "catch word" in a campaign that has the next election in mind. It is in the context of such like tragedy that the call is made to 'Turn around to the Dhamma', the 'Urumaya' of our people. The power of good and in a Christian sense the power of the Spirit will eventually triumph when we contribute our mite towards this end. Our contribution may seem insignificant. We can affirm - 'This is all we have, this is all we can do' - but that 'little' will be leaven that will transform a whole system.

We repeat to 'turn around to the Dhamma' is our call, however difficult or foolish the whole enterprise may sound or appear to be. The time, the place, the way we shall deem opportune and proper after pray and a communal discernment process.

May I, in my fondness for paradoxes, hold both idealism and realism in both my hands together and call on for the establishment of a few Dharmic people, Spiritual men of Stature preferably lay, drawn from the four great Dhamma of Sri Lanka, to be an indispensable advisory council to political parties and politicians.

To be The Dhamma Dveepaya is our Urumaya.

Time to reform antiquated mental health laws

All good reasons, one should think, as to why we should reorient our entire approach towards the so called mentally ill. Practically, this translates to two definitive areas of lobbying; firstly, the reserving of more state resources for the modernising of mental health institutions together with the training of the personnel so that these unfortunates are treated in a humane manner and secondly, the reforming of the country's antiquated mental health laws. This year's Draft Mental Health Act, which is currently in the final stages of preparation therefore, comes at a crucial time and deserves the attention of the public for their comments and feedback

Sri Lanka's regime of mental health laws had been hitherto classified as a basic legal scheme along with countries such as Argentina, Fiji, Nigeria, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago and Swaziland. Typically, these schemes include involuntary hospitalization procedures, substituted consent to treatment procedures and the appointment of a legal guardian to manage property. Once classified as such, a mentally ill person is automatically determined to be incapable of any level of decision making at all and removed from society. We have a classic practical instance of how this operates here in the amazingly blatant abuse of mental health laws where the easiest way to get rid of an "inconvenient" spouse, parent or dependent has been to get them certified as being insane and then committed into a mental health institution. 

From there onwards, the unfortunates are unable to leave the institutions on their own volition even if a medical officer guarantees that they are ready to re-enter society. Their individual choice in the matter of their own lives becomes of no account.

It is this automatic stigmatisation that modern mental health laws seek to avoid. Instead, as a World Health Organisation study in 1999 points out, the emphasis is on recognising that the mentally ill can be capable of making choices about their own lives on certain occasions and on creating an environment of consultation and choice in this respect. This thinking is incorporated in the 2000 Draft Mental Health Act to some extent. The Draft Act does away with the 1873 Mental Diseases Ordinance and repeals provisions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with trial of persons of unsound mind. 

It recognises the right of all persons to the best available mental health care which is stated to be part of the health and social care system. All persons with a mental illness or who are treated as such, should be treated with humanity and with respect of their inherent dignity and have the right to protection from economic, sexual and other forms of exploitation, physical or other abuse and degrading treatment. 

The draft legislation also prescribes that there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of mental illness and recognises international standards in this regard. While one can have no quarrel with these provisions except to say that ideally, attention should have been drawn to constitutional guarantees of equality as well as international standards and reference made to the rights of these persons as well as their dignity, other provisions of the proposed Act are more problematic. 

The draft legislation draws a distinction between two types of situations. Firstly, we have informal admission where any person who is not less than eighteen years may admit himself or may be admitted to a state or private health care facility. Thereafter, he may discharge himself with or without a medical recommendation or may be discharged by the responsible officer in charge. This is distinguished from compulsory admission where a relative or a guardian of a mentally disordered person may make an application for observation to a State hospital. Here, a medical officer has to make a written statement setting out the grounds as to why admission is required, which is again scrutnised by the medical officer in charge of the institution.

There is provision for emergency admission by a psychiatric social worker or an "interested party" if a relative or guardian is not available. It is this reference to an "interested party" that is somewhat disturbing as it could leave room for abuse of the provisions relating to compulsory admission even though there is a safeguard in the form of medical scrutiny. Meanwhile, a patient thus admitted can be confined initially for a period of 72 hours and further confined for a period not exceeding six months, provided that two medical officers, not on the same staff authorise such detention, giving reasons. There is also a reference to obtaining the consent of the patient to treatment except in cases of urgent treatment.

All this is a welcome break from the past. Detention beyond this period could be for a year at a time with similar safeguards against continuing unjustified detention. Mental Health Review Tribunals have also been created in order that applications may be made in respect of decisions made by officers acting under the provisions of the law but the mandate of the Tribunal has not been clearly spelt out. Neither is there any specification that the members of the Tribunal which would consist of attorneys at law and medical officers proposed respectively by the Bar Association and the Sri Lanka Medical Association (which is undoubtedly a refreshing change from total governmental control in appointments) together with two ministerial appointees should have specific experience or interest in mental health care. It is interesting that the draft Act makes it an offence for any person who is an employee in a mental health facility to have sexual relations with patients and details a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or to imprisonment for not more than three years. 

However, here again, one is compelled to question why a harsher punishment is not prescribed as in the case of Penal Code provisions relating to rape which lays down mandatory imprisonment in situations that are no more horrific than those contemplated in the instant case.

The Draft Act is now before the public. Once passed into law, its effectiveness will, of course, depend on its actual implementation and the political will in making a difference. This is a country, after all, where the sanctity of black letter law prevails and policy makers seem to feel that once the law is passed, their job is done. Assuredly, it will be a crueller joke than most if the Draft Mental Health Act is meted out the same fate.

More News/Comment

Return to News/Comment Contents