A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Saturday, May 27, 2017
Is Violence Inherent to Human Beings?
( May 26, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) This
short article aims to answer one significant comment by Dr/Prof
Lasantha Pethiyagoda to my previous article titled “Manchester Carnage
and the Need to Combat Terrorism and All Forms of Violence”. I thank for
the comment.
The comment in full was as follows.
“While
the writer seems to sincerely believe that violence can be eradicated
from human behaviour, he has not researched the fact that violence in
human history has always been present and is an inherent feature of the
human mind, together as groups or as individuals. Our thoughts are often
violent, although we restrain ourselves due to social requirements or
in fear of punitive repercussions. What needs to be addressed are the
triggers for “terror” type violence and change government foreign policy
(for example) that are unjust to hordes of civilians in far-away lands.
However, it is impractical to imagine that these policies will be
dismantled, given the enormous economic advantages that major
(especially free market) countries have enjoyed for many years, at
devastating cost to millions of “lesser” people.”
I wish to answer his propositions in Q&A form.
Question: Has violence been always present in human history?
Answer: No.
There have been peaceful periods in human history including in Sri
Lanka. The period of Parakramabahu VI (1410-1467) was one. These periods
can be relative, nevertheless significant. The human history has
produced the term Pax Romana. Similarly, one can talk about Pax Sinica.
The period of Ming dynasty opened up peace in China. Of course,
violence has so far been more prevalent than peace. This is the
challenge of civilization. It is unfortunate if we (LP included)
emphasize the negative than the positive. Steven Pinker (The Angles of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence and Its Causes, 2011)
shows the decline of violence today including in Sri Lanka. I am not
saying he is completely correct. But the attempt should be to sustain
the situation without being critical.
Question: Is violence an inherent feature of the human mind?
Answer: Again
no. In 1986, UNESCO convened 20 experts/scientists to deliberate on the
matter. They came up with what is called the Seville Statement on
Violence. UNESCO General Assembly later adopted it as a resolution.
There were five core conclusions as follows.
- It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.
- It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature.
- It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.
- It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.
- “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”
The Statement concluded as follows. “Just as ‘wars begin in the minds of
men’, peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war
is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of
us.” This resonated what the Buddha said.
Question: Do our thoughts always violent?
Answer: The
UNESCO statement comprehensively answered this question. If I go
beyond, yes, our thoughts are sometimes (not always) violent. This is
more so in the contemporary, competitive and antagonistic, society. We
should look for personal and social solutions.
Question: Do we restrain ourselves due to social requirements or in fear of punitive repercussions?
Answer: Yes,
certain social requirements prompt us to restraint ourselves. Simply
said, that is good. Even if we get angry with our spouse or children at a
public place, we usually don’t vent our spleen. There are also
‘punitive repercussions,’ for example, if you hit your wife even at
home! In old days, those were not there. Perhaps still in Sri Lanka, you
might be able to escape from punishment for ‘wife beating.’
But is that the better method? I hardly think so. Temper control might
be even better for your own health, mental peace and happiness.
Therefore, proper meditation might be the better way. I am not an expert
on the subject, but I have heard, perhaps there is a part of the brain
which prompts us to keep grudges, continue hatred and creates violent
thoughts. This mostly comes from the subconscious mind. Therefore, the
mindfulness meditation or such mental exercises can bring calm to your
thoughts.
Question: Could addressing triggers be sufficient to prevent ‘terror’ type violence?
Answer: Addressing
triggers are of course necessary. What are these triggers? The views on
the matter can be different. Could the ‘grievances’ be the triggers?
LP’s questioning/comments direct in that direction. How do these
grievances are created? Particularly in the Manchester case, we are
still at the early stages of uncovering the facts. If we take Salman
Abedi completely as a ‘lone wolf’ (I doubt it), we should know whether
he had faced personal discrimination. Was he unemployed? Was he
prevented from doing any business? If the triggers are related to
government policies and wrongs, of course those should change. I have
identified some.
However, as I have stated very clearly, none of these ‘triggers’ justify
violent reactions let alone terrorism. This is a broad debate even in
human rights. This is about rights and responsibilities of human beings.
Lack of rights, should not allow a right to violence, specially under
the modern circumstances. In the Manchester case, what we know very
clearly is the existence of the IS group and its ideology. To distract a
bit, I did my master’s thesis on political violence and the 1971
insurrection. My thesis was against the ‘frustration-aggression theory.’
In treasure this thesis than even my PhD! In my findings, it is not
primarily the grievances that trigger political violence but violent
ideologies. Therefore, combating violence also should take an
ideological, philosophical and educational form. I don’t wish to use the
term ‘struggle’ instead of ‘form.’
Question:
How far the economic and international policies (free market) of the
West responsible for the ongoing confrontations and violence?
Answer:
Of course, the economic and international policies have created
breeding grounds for violence and terrorism. I have very clearly
identified the key elements of them (not all, given the restricted
space) as invasions (Iraq, Afghanistan) and effected and attempted
regime changes (Libya, Syria etc.) Money, oil and power have been the
motives. However, to pin them all to ‘free market’ is not the correct
diagnosis in my opinion. It could be easy and fashionable, but not
totally correct. That kind of an analysis lacks precision and depth. It
is like Kokatath Thailaya.
There are countries who have benefitted from ‘free market’ when applied
cautiously and preserving the national interests. China and India are
two. Even Sri Lanka has benefitted in the past.
If one points out capitalism, as the structural condition of
contemporary violence of the states and non-state actors, instead of
mere ‘free-market, there is much truth in it. How can we talk about free
market without capitalism? But that is a general theory. Moreover, many
of our radicals or ‘Marxists’ are so shy to use that word (capitalism)
these days, perhaps preferring state capitalism for their own benefit.
One reason could be they are talking about and involved in not ‘class
struggles,’ but ‘power-struggles.’
In conclusion, let me ignore Lasantha Pethiyagoda’s slight slight that
the ‘writer’ (that is me!) has not researched violence in human history.
He also seems to think that my advocacy of non-violence is perhaps
naïve! Both are clear from his first sentence. My reservation about his
comment, in turn, is that while beginning from the premise that
‘violence is inherent to human mind’ in general terms, he then further
attributes further justification for specific violence that I was
talking about to economic and foreign policies of governments. This is
done without a single word condemning violence. I am sure he would, but
he has not.