The political selectivity of (in)tolerance

By Malinda Seneviratne

(April 05, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Kalana Senaratne wrote a thoughtful essay last week on the issue of the singer Akon’s show being cancelled after protests that include throwing stones at the MTV/MBC office. It was carried on one of online journals under the title ‘Aroused by Akon’s Sexy Bitch: the Rise of Sinhala-Buddhist Fundamentalism?’It was also published in the Sunday Leader a few days ago under the title ‘The Surge of Sinhala-Buddhist Fundamentalism’.

Kalana objects to what he rightly claims is a patently non-Buddhist way of conducting affairs at whatever level one may choose, as individuals or as a collective. The ‘dharmic’ issue aside, there was a fundamental error in singling out MTV/MBC as target of objection. The media outfit, although having developed a considerable and dubious reputation for being culturally insensitive and promoting things that counter the national interest, was just a media sponsor for the now aborted event. The main organizer was Platinum Entertainment Private Limited and the money had come from the Cinnamon Grand and Dialog as well as the state-owned SriLankan Airlines. In addition, there is irrefutable evidence that the Tourism Ministry had endorsed the event, with the Managing Director of Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau having stated that it would help promote Sri Lanka as a popular destination in the sphere of global entertainment and moreover was in line with the ‘Visit Sri Lanka 2011’ campaign.

Objections to the objection have come from various sources. Some have claimed, like Kalana, that the right way of dealing with the kind of insensitivity and crassness that Akon is associated with, was to refer to the sathara brahma viharana (kindness, compassion, equanimity and the quality of rejoicing in the joy of others). Some have said, like Kalana, that it provided an opportunity for practicing reflection on impermanence. Some have told me, privately, that it was an excellent opportunity to reference the Buddhist concept of tolerance. Others have said that the principle of Freedom of Expression should be upheld and that banning the show was wrong on this account. Let me first deal with the objections of the ‘secular’ kind.

Akon has made music videos where there are images of simulating rape and sex with minors. So there is content that is clearly offensive. Fine. It is simulation after all. He is not, technically, a rapist. Nor a pedophile. I am not conversant with the laws pertaining to indecent exposure or those that refer cultural sensitivity so I will assume there are none. I know that there are laws and there are customs, things that are written and things that are unwritten, no-nos that are not found in the law books or are admissible in court. There are neethi and there are reethi. I think there is enough in the reethi to object to someone like Akon, but again, I will let it pass.

This is freedom of expression we are talking about. Art, some say. Entertainment. The anything-goes of a liberalism which taken to extremes is as bad as any kind of fundamentalism, but is good for the whole multi-ethnic-multi-religious lie that a lot of people want us to be (‘lie’ because there is clear injustice in the one-ethnicity = one vote; one-religion=one-vote kind of equality that is pregnant in the formulation, which one notes is non-existent anywhere in the world, especially in countries dominated by Christians and Muslims).

I would like to take this liberal, ‘tolerance-demanding’ argument further. Kalana might say it is part and parcel of being a Buddhist and therefore Buddhists cannot object purely from the ‘Buddhist’ angle. On the other hand, a state cannot treat one set of citizens differently from others. What of those who subscribe to other religious faiths? Surely they are not required to ‘be Buddhists’ as it were? Christians can say they want to be Christians and Mohammedans can say that’s what they want to be. Let’s turn around the embroidery of political objection.

Let’s take a hypothetical situation. A Buddhist musical group creates a music video that depicts Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary or the Apostles or even ‘God’ himself engaged in some ‘simulated’ sex act. Let’s dilute it, if this sounds distasteful. How about a music video or any other ‘work of art’ such as a painting depicting some kind of culturally offensive statement on the Christian faith or some element of Christian iconography and seek to entice Christians to serve some other faith. Buddhists can object saying that it is quite ‘un-Buddhistic’. Ok. So let’s have a non-Buddhist do something of this kind. What part of the Bible would a Christian refer if and when called upon to respond?

‘Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass upon us’? That would be ‘ok’ in that it will not result in any altercation or disruption of normality. What if some Christian chance upon or remember Deuteronomy 13: 6-10, viz, ‘If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.’

The problem is that religious doctrines come with extensive archival material, word and word-interpretation, all underlined with the one inescapable fact that all ‘readings’ are done by human beings, who as any philosophy will tell you, are imperfect (saints and arahants are rarities).

This ‘imperfection’ leads us to another set of questions. Since human beings are by nature ‘imperfect’ in relation to some ‘ideal state’ (more often than not defined or interpreted by other imperfect humans, regardless of claims about divine writ) isn’t it logical to assume less than perfect behaviour, response and engagement in the fact of things that jar sensibilities honed over time and ingrained as prescriptive text in practices handed down from generation to generation as cultural bequeathing? Does not a person’s freedom end where another’s nose begins? Is the limit of that lovely thing called ‘freedom of expression’ obtained at the point when its assertion desecrates the literal or metaphorical icons associated with someone else’s faith? Are ‘imperfect’ human beings capable of determining such limits and in the absence of perfection is it not prudent in the interest of larger social harmony to be sensitive to the sensitivities of others? Is this not why Buddhists should object to loud-speaker pirith just as Mohammedans should object to loud-‘speakered’ calls to prayer and Christians should object to evangelists violating certain tenets enshrined in the Bible pertaining to engagement with peoples by smashing Buddha statues and offering bribes for conversion, without saying ‘it’s politics’ or ‘it’s the free-market of ideas’?

Where does the state come in? When a community’s feelings are under threat of being violated and when it is clear that certain lacerations in imperfect human beings produce certain kinds of reactions, some of which can cause untold damage to the social fabric, is the state required to throw ‘Freedom of Expression’ at the objectors?

I have Christian friends who tell me that ‘freedom of expression’ should have had the final word. They even throw a little bit of Buddhism after this argument, ‘Buddhists should tolerate’. I have not heard of any Christians or Christian organizations referring to the ‘freedom of expression’ and objecting to the banning of ‘Da Vinci Code’ a few years ago or ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ a couple of decades ago. As someone rightly said, Buddhists cannot expect Christians to be Buddhists and neither should Buddhists operate like Christians or Mohammedans. On the other hand, what kind of logic allows those Christians who refer to secular tenets when taking issue with people protesting this Akon show, for example, to seek a non-secular ‘resolution’ when a ‘free-expression’ offends their religious sensibilities? Is it an e e banis walata e e kesel gedi kind of political practice that is being advocated? A non-Buddhist fundamentalism sanctioned because it is non-‘majoritarian’ and privileged in the politics of selective (in)tolerance?

What can Buddhists take from all this, I asked myself. The answer was provided by Kalana: be Buddhists. This means, abide by the sathara brahma viharana. This means also to employ reason just as much as they employ compassion. This means to recognize that there are infinitely better ways in dealing with the mal-intent of those who seek to vilify Buddhism and the devious ways of the defenders of such action. It means, outside of all this, to remember that the Buddha Sasana had declined to abysmal levels but the dhamma was resilient, as it always will be, and that just as the Ven. Welivita Sri Saranankara Sangharaja Thero revived the dhamma in the Dhammadeepa, a return to reflection on the Buddha Vachanaya will provide all the answers to all the questions that are asked of and by Buddhists in these times that are clearly not as innocent as the objectors to Buddhists (and Buddhism) make them out to be.

The answer lies within. Within ourselves as individuals. And, if social and political harmony is sought, then too the answer lies ‘within’ us as a collectivity, and a collectivity that is not limited to Buddhists, but which can draw strength from Buddhist tenets as well as certain Christian tenets (not all for I think Chronicles 15:13, viz ‘Whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman’, and Mark 16:16, viz ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned’ would hardly foster ‘tolerance’ but would call forth the forces of fratricide if they are in the hands of the small-minded who typically make up the evangelical hordes that I am pretty sure are not the kind of ‘children’ that Jesus would embrace because the Kingdom of Heaven belong to them).

This was once called Dharmadweepaya. The dharma is nobody’s preserve. We can get there again and we should not allow ourselves to be trapped by or stopped by labels, self-taken or pinned on us. I believe that a return to original text would do everyone good, regardless of ‘denomination’.

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta! (May all beings be happy!).

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malinsene@gmail.com