Articulating Buddhism and Human rights in Sri Lanka
Posted in Buddhism and Human Rights, Final Year 2012, MCU Assignment
By Mangala
Priya Bhikkhu
BA final
year, 2012, Buddhist Studies,
Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya
University
Introduction
Human
rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place
of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any
other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without
discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and
indivisible.[1]
human
rights in Sri Lanka means Demand for inherent, nationality, place of residence,
sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status
particularly in Sri Lanka. In addition interrelated, interdependent and
indivisible in Sri Lanka.
Dr. Tilokasundari
Kariyawasam, President of the World Fellowship of Buddhist Women and Deputy
Director General of Education in Sri Lanka, also strongly
supports human
rights: "Buddhism is an all pervading philosophy and a religion, strongly
motivated by human rights or rights of everything that exists, man, woman,
animal and the environment they live in.[2]
In a Sri Lankan village Buddhists and Roman Catholics have found a common cause
in human rights. In 1981, before a thousand people gathered to celebrate the
triple light festival of Vesak, recalling the birth, enlightenment and the mahaparinibbana
of the Buddha, a Christian speaker suggested: "if we violate human rights
for food, clothing, shelter, justice, then we violate the first precept: pranatipata
vera mani sikkha..."[3]
In the
Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Sri Lankans are given
the rights of a labor to fair wages, leisure and welfare.[4]
This has been adumbrated, cogently upheld and meaningfully incorporated in an
overall view of life and society by the Buddha. Sri Lanka respects life
and dignity, individuality and diversity as the statement says thus: "We
make a commitment to respect life and dignity, individuality and diversity, so
that every person is treated humanely."[5]
Universal
responsibility is based on an understanding of the desire, the right, and the
possibility of achieving happiness for all beings. When we recognize the
importance of this outlook, a true sense of compassion becomes possible, and,
eventually, a natural reality.[6]
This means
that every human being without distinction of age, sex, race, skin, color,
physical or mental ability, language, religion, political view, or national or
social origin possesses an inalienable and untouchable dignity. And
everyone, the individual as well as the state, is therefore obliged to honor
this dignity and protect it.[7]
Buddhism, perhaps more than any other major contemporary
religion, places a high emphasis on freedom of thought and freedom of
expression in terms of its doctrinal ethics clearly articulated in the
discourses of the Buddha. The fundamental Buddhist doctrinal positions on
freedom of thought, freedom of expression and intellectual debate are clearly
represented in the Kalama Sutta.[8] Therefore it would be clear that
what is considered as freedom of expression, freedom of thought and debate in
contemporary human rights discourse would be vividly entertained and could be
absorbed within the ideas so profoundly and clearly demonstrated in Kalama
Sutta.
But beyond this obvious fact, what does all this mean in
terms of the reality of the human rights status in Sri Lanka and propagating of
human rights values in that country? It seems that the kinds of values that
were presented in Kalama Sutta have disappeared from the Buddhist
conscience in Sri Lanka. In such a context, is there any particular utility in
promoting a set of values on the basis of their affinity to Buddhist ethics
when those ethics themselves have already disappeared from the popular
conscience and public imagination.
It is not necessary to tell the average Sinhala Buddhist
that freedom of expression and freedom of thought are good things for modern
democratic existence because they have resonance with forgotten Buddhist
ethics. It is far easier and intellectually less cumbersome to argue that such
values are good for modern living in a democratic society. That way, one also
does not give a hegemonic position to Buddhism, which is already legally
entrenched in the constitution, at the expense of alienating members of other
religions. The problems and polemics of privileging the position of one religion
or way of life in the propagation of human rights in a multi-cultural and
multi-ethnic society which may lead to the creation of new problems rather than
harmonizing existing cultural values and notions of human rights are better not
allowed.
Even
Perera acknowledges that "Buddhism credits the human personality with a
dignity and moral responsibility" but does not explain fully whence this
arises or how it provides a foundation for human rights.[9] At one point he defines "the ethical assumption on which the
Buddhist concept of human rights is founded" as the "fundamental
consideration that all life has a desire to safeguard itself and to make itself
comfortable and happy."[10] Those who seek to end their lives through suicide, seem to lack the
desire in question. Nor is difficult to conceive of a justification for human
rights abuses along the lines that the victims "no longer cared what
happened to them." If they themselves had no interest in their future,
whose rights would have, been violated? A deeper problem is that the mere
existence of desires establishes nothing from a moral point of view.
Desires are many and varied and can be met in manifold ways.
Sri Lanka has become better known internationally as a
virulent site of political violence and a case study of conflict formation and
mismanagement. Violence has become a major mechanism of governance, and the
present government despite its rhetoric about peace and elimination of
political violence clearly makes use of institutionalized forms of extra-legal
violence for purposes of politics. The sanction against violence, particularly
against killing is still very much part of the Buddhist conscience, unlike the
case with the ideals of freedom of expression. . Children are still socialized
with that ideal early on in their lives, and school texts used for teaching
Buddhism still emphasize this value as does the first of the five principle
precepts of Buddhism.
Buddhist
texts, preaching are depicted in temple murals and are integral parts of
socialization in Buddhist societies of Sri Lanka to control violence and other
deviant practices. Gunadasa Amarasekera argued that the first precept was only
applicable to the members of the sangha, the Buddhist clergy, and not to
lay persons. According to Amarasekera, to kill enemies or perceived enemies in
the war or in other contexts was permissible.[11]
Under such circumstances, the legitimacy of attempting to use such concepts as
a primary means of propagating contemporary human rights concerns and values
may become problematic and unhelpful.
Conclusion
Human
rights should not be upheld on the basis of existing cultural values or because
of continuity from the past, but because they are an essential part of
modernity and a necessary precondition to safeguard the future of humanity, not
simply the future of Asians, or Sri Lankans.
Such a
position will create for us a legitimate interventionist position with no
socio-cultural biases to campaign for human rights as well as to critique
problematic cultural values which already exist. If some of the traditional
values are useful, so much the better. If not, from a non-conventional
perspective we can critique them as inappropriate for contemporary society,
irrespective of the fact that they may be deeply rooted in history, myth and so
on. On the other hand, looking for correlations between notions of human rights
and cultural values and traditions in the context of a plural society, Sri
Lanka would lead to further complications. For Buddhists in Sri
Lanka, recognition and protection of human rights may be seen not only as the
fruits of wisdom and compassion, but also as a means of attaining both.
Bibliography
1. Keown, Damien (1992), the
Nature of Buddhist Ethics. London: Macmillan.
22. Perera, L.P.N. (1991), Buddhism and Human Rights. A Buddhist
Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Colombo:
Karunaratne and Sons.
3. Tilokasundari
Kariyawasam, "Feminism in Theravada Buddhism," paper presented at the
conference, "Buddhism and Christianity: Toward the Human Future,"
Berkeley, Calif., 8-15 August 1987.
4. A Global Ethic,
5. His
Holiness the Dalai Lama, "The Principle of Universal Responsibility,"
in the Path of Compassion.
6. A Global Ethic, original
emphasis.
7.
Soma
Thera, 1981.
8.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights
9.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/humanrights
[1]
http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx, Retrieved on
15/03/2012.
[2] Tilokasundari Kariyawasam,
"Feminism in Theravada Buddhism," paper presented at the conference,
"Buddhism and Christianity: Toward the Human Future," Berkeley, Calif.,
8-15 August 1987, p. 1.
[3] Ibid., 3-4. See also pages 8 and
9, where she writes of equal rights "as to marriage, during marriage, womanhood etc." and of
rights "of freedom of peaceful
assembly and association." Emphasis in the original.
[6] His Holiness the Dalai Lama,
"The Principle of Universal Responsibility," in The Path of Compassion, p. 17.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment