Myth legitimizes religio/political identity

Reflecting on the underlying theme of the Buddha's teachings of an 'I' less state ,one invariably begins to understand the significance of non-identity in order to arrive there. The world of social constructs cannot survive if not for a sense of identity which in a larger context makes no sense at all, for identity itself ceases to be in the elegance and finesse of Buddhist thought in arriving at the Nirvanic state. However, as man's history is a constant quest for power, legitimizing myth, tradition, beliefs and customs was an essential pre-requisite. This then is not to disown all such for in its originality which bears qualitative grandeur. Even so, in contextualizing such in what comprises a higher purpose, its limitations are evident for it operates within the framework of the senses. For instance let's take the custom of mutual respect - the idea of respect or otherwise is purely a matter of feeling and is very much into the state of 'I' - that 'I' exist which in the Nirvanic context is a non-entity.

Legitimizing social constructs

Legitimizing social constructs including what comes by way of myth is to consolidate the existence of power, communities and even individuals. All this and more crossed this writer's mind when listening to brilliant historian Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri whose almost three hour delivery was a mental refreshner at the end of which the already half collapsed world of social constructs crumbled down in toto which perhaps is the aim of intellectual wonder. It made this writer understand how myths certainly come into or rather are brought in to legitimize almost anything and everything which is where the danger lies.

The nation state formation with its fixed boundaries, territorial integrity, sovereignty and what not have nothing to do with Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism giving rise to the importance of a secular state. The nation state characteristics itself have been brought in to legitimize such state formation. Myth and tradition among other things become twin partners in this legitimizing process. British historian Eric Hobsbawn even spoke of traditions being invented for religio/political identity.

In pre-nation state times of unfixed boundaries where national identity of territorial integrity and sovereignty was unheard of there was no need to legitimize existence. It was only in the 19th century that the term nation came in as a political community. When a nation is defined it becomes a spatial entity with groups of people residing in a geographical space who are sovereign. Thereafter they try to find the essence of their communities in the course of which myths come in to legitimize their existence.

Poetry for ethnocentricity

Dr. Ranjith couldn't have said it any better for its reflection on areas outside myth itself. For instance the 19th century nation state formation also brought in the arts including poetry and literature that eulogised highly volatile ethno centric and nationalistic sentiment all of which was written and sung in the language of the majority community. The religion of the majority was also brought in - the irony being religion's goal being differently oriented. Thus the collision of a spatial entity with that of what is sublime coming in the form of religion has apart from other things such as marginalization and exclusion even made the majority community come to cross roads with a religion that preaches detachment colliding with the attachment of worldly identity and increasing wants.

Getting back to Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri's delivery on the myths and its legitimization, he even said it was introduced for purposes of political and religious identity.

'The Bhikkhus at the time when the Mahavamsa was written in 6th Century AD had their own perceptions of political and religious identity. In this chronicle, the Bhikkhus legitimized their kings as warriors. He also said the Buddha's visit or the Dutugemunu/Elara conflict were events that took place hundreds of centuries before the chronicle writings. "For instance the Buddha's visit 12 centuries prior to the chronicle writing and the Elara/Dutugemunu conflict that took place 700 years before - now just imagine what sort of distortion could come in between that huge time gap?" he asked.

Thus he believes the Mahavamsa chronicle as being manipulated into much religio/political/social identity to uphold nationalistic and majoritarian tendencies.

Nationalism he believes is all about an imagined community. Making a distinction between the imagined community and the face to face one Dr. Ranjith said, "The defining feature is we don't know many members of the community. I simply imagine they exist. It's like this. I haven't been to Ampara but I imagined the Sinhalese lived there. We dream of things we know. We imagine those coming from Mars like UFOs. We even draw these UFOs like we saw them."

Imagined community

"The nation too is an imagined community. Once we believed these communities existed we have to legitimize it. The nation has spatial existence. Right now as I talk the Sinhala people exist within a geographical framework. This is not sufficient.

We have to give them a historical legitimacy - a temporal factor - a kind of historical evolution must be given to legitimize."

"The Jews for instance were all over the world. But a strong tradition of theirs was a centuries old origin dating back even to the time of Moses - that they were the chosen people.

Elaborating all this at a personal level he said, "I can say I'm the best intellectual. Then I create a myth that legitimizes my present position. We go on creating stories that legitimize prevailing conditions. These myths not only legitimize these conditions but all practices as well inclusive of social/religious/cultural and economic. Myths legitimize communities, the clergy, a state dynasty organisations and all else.

Identity awareness

"The idea of identity came in as societies moved from the nomadic state into sedentary agriculturists. Identities intensified with the development of capitalism, big markets, revolutions that destroyed empires and brought in the nation which later became political identities. Nations in fact are political communities. The UN even defines nation as an entity that has a right to self determination. The nation being a political community defines its self in terms of political characteristics. Sovereignty and territorial integrity are all political concepts - part and parcel of identity.

This problem aggravates when geographical space comes in to accommodate that political community. Then sets in exclusion. The way we define Sri Lankan identity did not give opportunity for Tamils and Muslims to be included in it. Our official definition of what this Sri Lankan nation is does not end there. We further qualify Sri Lankanness. Take for instance the Sri Lankan national flag. How do non-Sinhalese view this? Are the Tamils as comfortable as the Sinhalese with this flag. Do the Tamils and Muslims get sufficient sense of being included.

Only the majority define who can determine what to give them. How is this lion symbol perceived by contending parties. Tigers versus lions - does the lion signify Sinhalese or Sri Lankans. Is being Sri Lankan inclusive of all communities or Sinhala exclusiveness. So there's nothing Sri Lankan in the lion symbol. The two strips are therefore trivial. If this is the state of the national flag, discrimination on all fronts go without saying. We the majority first define the Tamils as a group of people who don't have historical legitimacy as the Sinhalese. We don't allow them to define their existence while we define ours. They feel they have a different history than what the Sinhalese believe is theirs. They create an identity which we don't like."

This brought to writer's mind the mutual creation of identity followed by mutual hate of such identity - again the relative state sets in due to the onset of identity itself which when seen bereft of such emotional baggage leads us to sane and sublime thinking - namely sharing and caring.

[email protected]