Racism: some questions

June 25, 2013, 6:47 pm 

Sugath Samarasinghe in his letter in the Island of June 20 raises several questions which he sees as arising out of my article "SL Muslim Problem, Sinhala Racists’ Problem, or Sinhala Politicians’ Problem" in the Island of March 31. It will be best to begin with a clarification of what I mean by racism. I don’t mean by it ethnocentric prejudice which leads to the belief that one’s own ethnic group is superior to all others. Such prejudice is widespread all over the world, including among all SL ethnic groups. I mean by racism the belief –the belief leading to action – that the Other is inferior or threatening and should therefore be confined to lower positions in the society, or be marginalized, or even be exterminated. In that sense racism prevails only among a minority of the Sinhalese. That is true also of our other ethnic groups.

It will also be useful to bear in mind two outstanding characteristics of racists. One is the propensity to apply to the whole what is true only of the part, in a process of what has been called "synechdocic substitution". Cattle rounded up for slaughter by Muslims in the meat trade are starved and maltreated in other ways. Therefore all Muslims should be targeted for cruelty to animals. Such idiocies are legion among Sri Lankan and other racists. The other characteristic is an essentialising habit of mind. SL Muslims have been predominantly engaged in trade in the past. Therefore they will always have essentially the trader’s mentality and show a propensity to be avaricious, cunning, and crookish. And so on.

SS asks why, if the minorities are not racist, they have political parties whose names declare the ethnic groups that they represent, whereas the parties of the majority ethnic group don’t carry such names. The implication seems to be that the minorities are racist while the Sinhalese are nationalist. The fact, however, is that the Sinhalese have been unable to come up with even a single party that the minorities accept unequivocally as an authentic nationalist party, such as for instance the Indian National Congress. The UNP, SLFP etc are ethnic parties in all but name, - which was the reason given by Ashraff for starting the SLMC. Anyway whether or not the minority ethnic parties are racist has to be established in terms of the criteria that I have set out above. In my estimation neither their statements nor their actions show them up as racists. They are objecting to majoritarian racism – just as the blacks do in the US – which does not necessarily make them also racist.

SS claims that apart from just two Muslim parliamentarians, the others generally speak only on matters pertaining to the Muslims, and only rarely on what affect the entire nation. It is an important point. Muslim MPs other than those of the SLMC belong to parties that claim to be nationalist and multi-ethnic. It is understandable therefore that they should focus on the Muslims. But certainly their giving insufficient attention to national problems shows that their ethnic identities are more important than their national identities. That betokens a serious failure in nation-building, for which I hold that the Sinhalese are mainly responsible.

Nation-building requires as a first essential that ethnic minorities be given fair and equal treatment to a reasonable degree. In Sri Lanka they have been subjected to grotesque systematic discrimination, with the result that they have a deep sense of alienation. Consequently they are in Sri Lanka but not of it. Consider the following facts. On matters affecting the Muslims adversely to a serious extent the Muslim MPs refuse to speak out as that might offend the Sinhalese lords and masters of the land. A spectacular example is that the prolonged anti-Muslim hate campaign and anti-Muslim action of recent times transformed Muslim politicians into clams. One of them, Azath Sally, broke ranks and spoke out loudly and clearly. He was jailed, after which he was released fairly quickly, a process that transformed him also into a clam. A further spectacular example is that video footage showing anti-Muslim rioters in action with the police playing the role of passive spectators have not led to any prosecutions or punitive action against the police, but counter-demonstrations twice led to quick arrests. It was clearly shown that the rule of law is not a right for the Muslims. It is not surprising that their sense of ethnic identity is becoming more sharply defined while their national identity is residual and weak.

SS finds it intriguing that our Tamil politicians keep quiet about the depletion of our marine resources by Tamil Nadu fishermen, without taking up the matter with the Indian authorities. The explanation is of course quite straightforward. Evidently our Tamil politicians don’t believe that they can ever get a political solution providing for fair and equal treatment without pressure being exercised by the Indian Government on ours. Consequently getting on with India is all-important and the legitimate interests of our own fishermen become secondary.

SS makes the charge that many SL Muslims cheer for Pakistan against our own cricketers. I have tried to get accurate information on this subject and find the picture confusing. Many of our Muslims hold that it is not SL Muslims but Indian and Pakistani Muslims, temporarily in Sri Lanka, who cheer for Pakistan. In any case, they say that the numbers involved are infinitesimal and the Sinhalese should not be fussy about it. That position is obviously a disingenuous one because though only an infinitesimal number openly cheer for Pakistan many more may do so secretly. That has to be expected because – as I have acknowledged above – the SL Muslim’s religious identity is stronger than his national one. In India too Muslim religious identity is stronger than the national one, and I am told that Indian Muslims side with Pakistan against India at cricket. In both countries the underlying problem is a failure in nation-building and discrimination. I was shocked the other day to read that Shah Rukh Khan, a Bollywood idol and vastly popular all over India, had declared that he is in reality a second-class Indian citizen. The case of Sinhalese expatriates in England and Australia is very relevant. They are known to side with Sri Lanka at cricket against the country of their adoption, and I am told that neither the English nor the Australians care a damn about it. The reason for that debonair attitude, I believe, is that in those countries successful nation-building is taking place. Here there is a colossal failure in nation-building, and the possible divided allegiances of our minorities could loom as a problem in Sinhalese consciousness.

In conclusion SS asks whether I am a racist. Is there anything in what I have written that suggests that I am one, understanding racism in the terms that I have set out above. In any case, even if I am a racist the charges I make against Sinhalese racism are not invalidated.

Izethhussain@gmail.com