Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
10
September 2020
Not
Machiavellianism; Chanakyanism says Mahavamsa
[Article 9 of
the Constitution says ‘the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka shall
give to Buddhism the foremost place’. One cannot help wondering why no
constitutional recognition has been given to the ism that the State,
governments and political leaders actually give the foremost place, albeit
unofficially—Machiavellianism, or a cynical tendency to advance one’s own
interests by manipulating others.] Island Editorial headed ‘Machiavellianism’. This was preceded by
report headed ‘Sabry asks MPs to abhor Machiavelli type behaviour’, published
by the Island on 31 August.
I heard about Machiavelli when Phil Dulhunty – an
Accounts Assistant at the University of NSW – said to me that mine was Machiavelli
approach. I Phil learnt accounting from me and I learnt about Machiavelli from Phil
and registered Machiavelli as the European parallel of Chanakya. Phil went on
to explain through ‘The Prince’. As per Wikipedia:
[Machiavelli endorsed immoral behavior,
such as the use of deception and the murder of enemies, as he thought that made
a leader effective and thus more viable to survive in politics]
It is interesting
that the Island editorial is published at the time Mr Premalal Jayasekera, who has been sentenced to death by the
Judiciary, was sworn in as MP. As per my understanding he was found guilty of
killing a political opponent. As per my knowledge ‘ The Prince’ was dedicated
to Lorenzo di Piero de'
Medici – then the ruler of Florence – whose illegitimate son became the Duke of
the Republic of Florence after his father’s death.
Is the Republic of Sri Lanka the parallel of 16th century Republic of Florence in the minds of some
intellectuals?
The Buddhist parallel of Machiavelli is Chanakya:
[The legend of Chanakya and Chandragupta is detailed in the
Pali-language Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka. It is not
mentioned in Dipavamsa,
the oldest of these chronicles. The earliest Buddhist source to mention the
legend is Mahavamsa,
which is generally dated between 5th and 6th centuries CE. Vamsatthappakasini (also known
as Mahvamsa Tika), a
commentary on Mahavamsa, provides
some more details about the legend. Its author is unknown, and it is dated
variously from 6th century CE to 13th century CE. Some other texts provide additional details
about the legend; for example, the Maha-Bodhi-Vamsa and
the Atthakatha give
the names of the nine Nanda kings said to have preceded Chandragupta.] Wikipedia
Dr
Jayampathy Wickramaratne who is understood to have been the main architect of
the 19th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution has also highlighted
that the proposed article 70(1) would be the Sword
of Damocles over Parliament :
[Under 20A, the Sword of Damocles, in the
nature of Article 70(1), will hang over Parliament. The President can dissolve
Parliament at any time, even if the Prime Minister (PM) commands a comfortable
majority in Parliament—that is what President Kumaratunga did in 2004. The only
fetter on the power of dissolution is that if the previous Parliament had been
dissolved before completing its five-year term, the President can dissolve the
new Parliament only after one year. If the previous Parliament had completed
its full term, the President can, under proposed Article 70(1), dissolve the
new Parliament even one day after it holds its first meeting.] Colombo Telegraph article ‘20A Erodes People’s Sovereignty –
Requires Approval At A Referendum’
Not many Sri Lankans of my age or junior would
understand the significance of this sword. It is about the hidden threats that
a king faces which a citizen is often
ignorant about and hence desires to be king:
[King
Dionysius, who had made many enemies
during his reign, arranged that a sword should hang above the throne, held at
the pommel only by a
single hair of a horse's tail to evoke the sense of what it is like to be king:
Though having much fortune, always having to watch in fear and anxiety against
dangers that might try to overtake him. Damocles finally begged the king that
he be allowed to depart because he no longer wanted to be so fortunate,
realizing that with great fortune and power comes also great danger]
Article 70(1) as per the 19th Amendment states
as follows:
70. (1) [The
President may by Proclamation, summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament:
Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration
of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed
for its first meeting, unless Parliament requests the President to do so by a
resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members
(including those not present), voting in its favour .]
The proposed article 70 (1) would read as follows:
[1)
The President may, from time to time, by Proclamation summon, prorogue and
dissolve
Parliament:
Provided that –
(a) subject
to the provisions of sub-paragraph (d), when a General Election has been held
consequent upon a dissolution of Parliament by the President, the President
shall not thereafter dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of
one year from the date of such General Election, unless Parliament by
resolution requests the president to dissolve Parliament.
(b)……
(c ) …….
(d) where the President has not
dissolved Parliament consequent upon the rejection by
Parliament
of the Appropriation Bill, the President shall dissolve Parliament if
Parliament rejects the next Appropriation Bill.]
To my mind, the 19th Amendment
facilitates the citizen to stabilize her/his relationship with the government
and its administrators over longer term than does the 20th
Amendment. This would tempt the citizen to ‘think’ of becoming President / King
even while being ignorant of the challenges faced by the President / King. It
is the future version of ‘living off the past’. This risk prevails in the
President who is more like a citizen than an experienced king – as was the case
with Mr Maithripala Sirisena. Whether the current President is also so ignorant
– is yet to be known. In the current government, one who has the experience is Mr Mahinda
Rajapaksa.
Chanakya’s Arthashastra written long before the birth of Christ is presented as follows:
[More recent scholarship has disagreed
with the characterization of Arthashastra as
"Machiavellianism". In Machiavelli's The Prince, the king and his coterie are single-mindedly aimed at
preserving the monarch's power for its own sake, states Paul Brians for
example, but in the Arthashastra, the king is
required "to benefit and protect his citizens, including the
peasants". Chanakya asserts in Arthashastra that, "the
ultimate source of the prosperity of the kingdom is its security and prosperity
of its people", a view never mentioned in Machiavelli's text. The text
advocates "land reform", states Brians, where land is taken from
landowners and farmers who own land but do not grow anything for a long time,
and given to poorer farmers who want to grow crops but do not own any land] Wikipedia
The above confirms that both pundits – Dr Jayampathy
Wickramaratne as well as Dr Ali Sabri are more concerned with making the king
of their choice rather than developing the pathway for the People to be facilitated by the king. Both
have Machiavelli as their mentor. Both have blinded themselves to Article 9
which requires the King to follow Buddha Sasana – which in the case of Sri
Lanka is Mahavamsa and it includes the
legend of Chanakya who was mentor of Maurya Dynasty that Emperor Ashoka
belonged to.
Mr Wigneswaran – another leader groomed by law - for his part showed dependence on the past
status of Tamils in Sri Lanka. None of them went into virtual reality to
Experience life as it was then. They do not qualify to make laws. Together they
seem to have invoked Premalal Jayasekera to become
Royalty through the Machiavellian pathway. When we go into the past – the present
dies. Thus the Prince was born.
Recently I was directed by a Tamil Diaspora leader
to an interview with a displaced family now living in Vanni. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nucOCVScc4k&feature=youtu.be
The young Tamil mother in Vanni said that she had studied upto A.Levels (Australian
HSC) and yet could not find a job nor work the Northern Administration where
there was high level of favouritism. The organizer – said ‘educate your
children for that would always help them
in life!’ This confirmed that he did not really listen to the mother who was
lamenting she did not have a job despite her education. If she did not have
those qualifications she is more likely to have connected to the needs of her
environment. This lack of connection is a common problem with migrants who rely
on their past qualifications and fail to connect to the minds of their seniors
in their new environment, who often would be less qualified than they. Mr
Wigneswaran is such an example – as are lawyers who are driven by winning
rather than upholding the truth of one who believes in law.
All of them are cheating the People.
No comments:
Post a Comment