Sri Lanka’s National Conflict

STATEHOOD FOR BUDDHISM?
The need for ‘Separation of Church & State’

One item that has not received any serious attention in the discussions on the recent proposals to change the Sri Lanka constitution, is the one in Chapter II, titled Buddhism.

Article 7 of this proposed new constitution states,

"(1) The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana,

(2) The State shall consult the Supreme Council in all matters pertaining to the protection and fostering of the Buddha Sasana and

(3) For the purpose of this Article "Supreme Council" means a Council established by law in consultation with the Maha Sangha."

It further states,

"It shall be an entrenched provision, requiring a 2/3 majority in Parliament and the approval of the People at a referendum for amendment."

Without a doubt, this proposed article seeks to establish and entrench, a constitutionally guaranteed superior status to Buddhism. The provisions, elsewhere in the proposed constitution, that assure equality of all religions are incompatible with this, and are therefore meaningless.

The concept of a ‘foremost place’ for Buddhism and a ‘duty’ imposed on the state to ‘protect’ Buddhism, however, is not new. It was first introduced in the 1972 constitution, and repeated in the 1977 constitution. The new-sprung feature in the latest proposal is that, it now seeks strengthen this ‘religious superiority’ for Buddhism, with an ‘entrenched’ status in the constitution.

Conferring a superior status to the religion of one group of citizens over that of others, in our view, is of much greater consequence than even the question of what powers would be ‘delegated’ to the ‘regional councils.’

It is about the very vital principle of equality of citizens (and citizen groups), in what is envisaged as a ‘multi-ethnic, multi-religious, plural society.’ If such equality is not recognized in the constitution, or undermined as this one seeks to do, there will be profound consequences. It will have a poisonous effect on the entire society and the result will be disastrous.

James Madison, one of the American founding fathers, addressing the same concern at the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1779 said,

‘Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?…

…If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.’

Unfortunately, this vital principle is not being recognized, and there is a certain mindset in Sri Lanka that accepts inequality of individuals based on their group identity and of the groups themselves. It is this mindset that permits the even the more liberal among the Sinhala leaders to say that we (the superior) will devolve some powers to (the inferior) Tamils.

The question of equality of citizens is absolutely vital. Will all citizens in the proposed ‘united’ Sri Lanka be equal to one another?

Even if one disregards the practical aspect of being forced to pay taxes to ‘foster and protect’ a religion that is not his/her own, we cannot imagine non-Buddhists having a sense of equality with Buddhists under this set-up. A sense of equality with other citizens is absolutely vital for all citizens to evolve and develop a sense of belonging, and it is from such sense of belonging that all citizens acquire loyalty and patriotism to ones country, flag and constitution.

A few among those, with whom we have had discussions with (Tamil and non-Buddhist Sinhalese) on this subject, seem willing to concede on this question for the sake of expedience. This we believe is a dangerous trend, and much strife awaits us if this is acceded to.

Some have said that, it is after all the religion of the ‘majority’ and therefore it should be allowable. It must be remembered that it is the same logic that was once applied to make Sinhala (the language of the majority) the only official language of the country, and look what it led to. There are already signs of smoldering religious quarrels in the South, and the only reason why this hasn’t exploded is the diversion of the northeast war.

It is also important to bear in mind that as far as the northeast region is concerned Buddhism is the religion of the ‘minority’ there. This region is being asked to accept this pre-eminent position for the ‘minority’ religion in ‘their’ region, and become part of the ‘indissoluble union of regions!’

A Tamil lawmaker once said to us that this provision has ‘no practical value.’ He said, ‘it is not like the Sinhala only act,’ implying that this has no economic consequences to the Tamils. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever since independence, and more so after the 1972 constitution, we have seen tax revenues from non-Buddhists being used for Buddhism. Large sums are spent on Buddhist universities, scholarships for Buddhist monks, building Buddhist temples, converting Hindu temples to Buddhist ones, etc., etc. Public funds for such activities must come at the expense of benefits to non-Buddhists, and this Tamil lawmaker’s assertion is certainly unfounded.

In this regard, we wish to quote from Thomas Jefferson. In his draft of the ‘Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom’ (1779), he said,

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness."

Buddhists themselves must ask the question, is state protection needed for their religion? They could learn a great deal from the American concept of separation of church and state.

James Madison said the following -

" In most of the Governments of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization, and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Government…

… It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test… the lapse of time, now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn, sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Government and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid."

It is well to remember that "India", which split into two nation states based on a quarrel over religion, took a mature view and chose to be secular. It has a much higher percentage of Hindus, than the Buddhist population in Sri Lanka, and yet the constitution of India is clearly secular.