CHINA DEFEATED LANKAN BUDDHISM
[Do we... want a single nation or do we want two nations? Do we want a single state or do we want two? Do we want one Ceylon or do we want two? And above all, do we want an independent Ceylon which must necessarily be united and single and single Ceylon, or two bleeding halves of Ceylon which can be gobbled up by every ravaging imperialist monster that may happen to range the Indian ocean? These are issues that in fact we have been discussing under the form and appearance of language issue."] – Sri Lankan Parliamentarian Dr Colvin R de Silva in 1956 debate of Sinhala Only Act.
As per my experience with Sinhalese at grassroot level, they, like White Australians at grassroot level, are open to all cultures. The politicians in both nations driven by their desires rather than their ‘duties’ and/or balanced intellectual thinking – appeal to the ‘seen’ and the ‘heard’ of the voters. At primary level where one is conscious of the senior providing the junior – the junior is fearful of ‘losing’ the benefit. But when the junior finds her/his own benefits, that fear is no longer present to balance the desire. At that stage one needs to apply balanced laws that would bring to mind the other side of the coin -i.e. – the ‘loss’ if one fails to respect the law/rule/senior at the workplace/institution one is part of. In terms of government, where the vote is desire based, it would promote a senior driven by desire at her/his level and v.v.
To facilitate such a balance, the law/rule has to be self balancing. At primary level – it would produce zero benefit and at the governing level it would have the self-spreading exponential / absolute value. Both – zero and infinity are invisible. Where there is clear advantage to one group at primary level, the other side that is disadvantaged, but continues to develop ownership values in the common structure develops higher ‘intuitive intelligence’ than the group that had a head start. This is now clearly visible in Sri Lanka where the advantage began with Sinhala Only Act and mutated into Buddhism Foremost article which remains unaltered in the Constitution escaping 20 amendments.
When Mr SWRD Bandaranaike came to power, on the backing of Buddhist clergy he revealed desire through Sinhala Only Act. Tamils in Colombo passionately opposed it. As did Sinhala Politicians such as Dr NM Perera & Dr Colvin R de Silva who projected the ‘two bleeding Nations’ as quoted above. This confirms his maturity as a governor.
One needs to then ask as to why Mr SWRD Bandaranaike who was also well educated lacked that insight? As member of a group that represented majority – he was excited by the ‘Freedom’ to make laws that render him a permanent base. Criticism of Public Administration, from Tamils would be minimal due to lack of proficiency in Sinhalese. That legacy was strengthened by the Rajapaksa government that failed to go past the primary level.
This was ‘copied’ by armed Tamil rebels in Northern Sri Lanka who wanted the secrecy of Tamil only rule.
In its article ‘China's bid for influence in Asia does not stop with Solomon Islands. This is how Beijing gained a foothold in Sri Lanka’ the ABC reports and quotes as follows:
[For weeks, Sri Lankans have been protesting and occupying their country's picturesque commercial capital Colombo, angry about a debilitating economic crisis that has stopped basic services.
The current protestors referred to above, are desiring the current government to step down. Even if they are successful, voters do not have a visible alternative that eliminates the advantage rendered by a group that has zero status benefit in terms of religion. Communists like the LSSP that Dr Colvin R de Silva opposed the Advantage that Buddhists had and this naturally was a vote in favour of Equal status for all ethnicities. At primary level, Communist China won against Buddhist Sri Lanka. Yet the protestors are not recognising this but are thinking ‘local’.
As quoted above, Dr Saravanamuttu says "Irrespective of whichever political party is in power, China is here to stay because of the size of the investments that it has made."
If there was no provision in the constitution to advantage any group – there would be no accumulation of opposition to the constitution which spreads beyond local borders of a country which by its very constitution declares that it is not sovereign.