Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka G.P.V. Somaratna* BA (hons), MA (Missiology), PgDip (Demog.), PhD “Whoever possesses the history possesses the country, possesses the right to rule, the right to exist” (Hellmann-Rajanayagam 1994:4). In the analysis of the historiography of Buddhism in Jaffna, several questions surface in determining historical facts. In our study, we have to be aware of who writes history, with what agenda in mind. One has to observe whether the historian’s own standpoint, impacted by national and ideological affiliation, contributes to an agenda. When religion is used as an instrument for politics, the politicisation of religion would result. The historian may be playing, unintentionally or consciously, into such a scheme. There is a danger of the past being abused for someone’s own purposes. This is very clear in the interpretation of historical material as we see clearly the differences and conflicts between the Tamil and the Sinhalese perceptions of history of Sri Lanka. The very selection of sources and the decision to exclude certain sources can bias the result of the historian's work in certain ways. However, the opinion of the historian is not part of the history. History is the part that exists without such opinion. Nonetheless, these opinions would be useful in theorizing various angles as to why events occurred. The history of Buddhism among Tamils in Sri Lanka has been entangled with prejudices associated with an ethnic dispute between the Sinhala and Tamil people in the recent past. Notwithstanding their association with Buddhism in the past, Tamil people today are adherents of either Saivism, Christianity *Former Professor of Modern History and Head of the Department of History and Political Science, University of Colombo. Research Fellow of Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1986-87), Dhaka University (1988), and Fuller Theological Seminary (1995- 1996). Presently Research Professor of Colombo Theological Seminary. 1 or Islam, but not Buddhism. Today, in Sri Lanka, the Tamil and Sinhala ethnicity have some correlation with religion. Introduction Ethnicity, without doubt, has emerged in recent years on the stage of history as a major social force, one which has powerfully propelled the events in Sri Lanka during the times of stress caused by conflict and civil war (1983-2009). Polarization and fragmentation of ethnic components of the nation have occurred explosively in the previously politically united nation of Sri Lanka. The people of this country have been forced to discover the potency of ethnicity and the delicate nature of social orders in our multi-ethnic society. Religion in the sense of a social group identified with a particular faith. Sinhala ownership of Buddhism Some scholars have stated that historical accounts have some kind of argument for partiality and are therefore polemic. Others indicate that all history is political, all history is partisan and subjective. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism is a political ideology which has combined Sinhalese ethnicity with Theravada Buddhism. Buddhism is the majority belief system of most of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. It has become increasingly assertive in the years following the independence of the country (DeVotta, 2007. 5). A new extremist Buddhist group known as BBS1 has insisted Sri Lanka was and continues to be a Sinhala Buddhist country, not a multiracial or multi-religious country (Colombo Gazette, March 24, 2013). Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka There are several Buddhist archaeological sites in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka which have given rise to controversial claims. As we notices earlier, these Buddhist monuments have been given a politicised interpretation recently with the escalation of ethnic rivalries in the country. 1 Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), translated as the Buddhist Power Force, is a Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist organization. It is a break-away group from the right wing ultranationalist Jathika Hela Urumaya organization. The BBS seeks to implement Buddhist predominance in Sri Lanka. 2 Both groups argue with an agenda to promote the claims of their side, overstepping the boundaries of academic impartiality. Ellawala Medhananda, sees even archaeological discovery in the Eastern Province and the Northern Province as sacred sites of Sinhala Buddhists. Alvappillai Veluppillai of the University of Uppsala makes every attempt to interpret the Tamil ownership and Tamil heritage of Buddhist ruins in the North and East. There are writers who claim the entire island as the heritage of Tamils while there are others who claim the island as Sinhala Buddhist heritage. Even scholars of international fame have fallen into this pit. It is true that one has a desire to enhance one’s own heritage and therefore one hundred percent impartiality would be difficult. The question is who these Buddhists were in the present day Tamil lands in Sri Lanka. It is linked with the highly volatile ethnic issue in Sri Lanka. Therefore the subject that I have to handle is a difficult one. I shall try to offer an impartial scholarly analysis. Political use of Buddhism Since the introduction of enumeration in the countrywide censuses from 1871, ethnic composition was clearly known to the public. By the time Anagarika Dharmapala began to link Sinhala and Buddhist as one identity, Buddhists had realized that they were the majority community in Sri Lanka. This tendency was solidified after independence in 1948. The ideology arising from it became a discriminative tendency toward ethnic and religious minorities. The archaeological findings which indicate Buddhism have caused confusion and disputes with the recent development of ethnic polarization of the country. The Mahavamsa written in the fifth century is the key text in all modern writings on the early history of the island. The idea that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese Buddhists is based on narratives found in the 5th century Buddhist chronicles. This religious myth has been propagated through the system of education ever since the introduction of compulsory free education in 1942. Various political leaders have fully exploited this view of ethno- religious distinction in order to gain political power through the ballot of the Sinhala Buddhist majority. Its usability reached its extremity after the election of 1956 where the election was fought with populist promises with the Sinhala Only programme. Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was able to exploit this with the help of five groups of the Sinhala populace known as Sangha (Bhikkus), Veda (Ayurvedic physicians), Guru (swabhasha school teachers), 3 Kamkaru (workers) and Govi (farmers). After that, every leader who aspired to become the Prime Minister or the Executive President of the country used this populist notion. In 2004 a group of monks formed a Sinhala-Buddhist political party known as the Sinhalese Heritage Party (Jathika Hela Urumaya) to contest parliamentary elections on an ethnic and religious agenda. Ethnic religion Concomitant with this advanced political use of Buddhism, the ethnic ownership of Buddhism by the Sinhala people has been stimulated by the majoritarian system of democracy. The processes of democratisation have given rise to Sinhala majoritarian nationalism. In the twentieth century, Buddhist reformers like Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933) and Walpola Rahula (1907–1997) demanded a socially and politically active role for the Sangha. The Buddhist chronicles, the Mahavaṃsa and the Dipavaṃsa, were reinterpreted in order to justify this new function of Buddhism. Universal suffrage given by the British in 1931 enabled every citizen, including the Sangha, to have the right to participate in politics. In this process some parts of the Buddhist literature were reinterpreted to justify and legitimize Buddhist hegemony in the country. The Sinhala community was able to dominate, disregarding the needs of the others. Political leaders cunningly exploited this Sinhala Buddhist consciousness to gain political power even to the extent of taking an anti-minority standpoint. The leaders of Sinhala-based political parties such as the UNP, SLFP, JVP and JHU have resorted to mobilizing religio- ethnic nationalism to secure political gain (Wriggins, 1960, 211-270). British Times (1796-1948) In Sri Lanka, prior to the advent of the British, there was hardly any evidence of social tension generated by ethnoreligious connections. Nationalism is a modern movement. Nationalism in South Asia was an organized political movement which had as its goal the restoration of the independence of the country. In Sri Lanka, prior to the advent of the British, there was hardly any evidence of social tension generated by ethnoreligious connections (K.M. de Silva 1997: 97). Scholars have traced the roots of ethnic and cultural nationalism to the nineteenth century when indigenous responses to the impact of colonial rule emerged (Roberts 2004:94). 4 Unequal distribution of western education, decline of the feudal economic structure and the rise of capitalist economics, changes in class structure, and the extension of representative government in the political sphere played a significant role in this change. The new formation of these identities has been placed in the period of colonial construction of social orders in South Asia. Hinduism and Buddhism Hinduism, with a large pantheon of gods, is also a pluralist religion. As Buddhism has some claims of inclusivism, Buddhists have resorted to seek help from the gods of the Hindu pantheon. Therefore Buddhists and Hindus have had a cordial relationship in times of peace in Sri Lanka’s history. Thus religious differences generally did not add fire to the ethnic tensions. V. Perniola, in observing the social relations at the grassroots level in the Dutch period of Sri Lanka, did not see "any racial distinction between Sinhala and Tamils," but "rather the division into various castes" (Perniola 1983: xxiv). The longevity of the Nayakkar dynasty (1739-1815) in the kingdom of Kandy indicates that there was no requirement for the king to be Sinhalese, while his patronage to Buddhism was insisted upon.