Victory celebrations – A religious reflection

by Priyan Dias

(June 23, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write this on the evening of the victory celebrations on 18 June 2010. Not having a television at home I could not watch it live, but what transpired was probably predictable. Also, while relief that the war is over is something almost all of us feel, I argue here that celebration is the last thing that is called for especially in the context of building a unitary state in the future. I bolster my argument with a reflection on the description of a post war event recorded in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I raise three questions in this process. I am sure that other scriptures also express similar sentiments.

The story (recorded in the first chapter of the second book of Samuel in the Bible) is set in the aftermath of the death of Saul the king of Israel at the hands of their Philistine enemies around 1000 BC. The context is quite different from today’s post war Sri Lanka – yet there are sufficient similarities for lessons to be learnt. Anyway, although Saul was the king of Israel, he had proved himself to be an unworthy one. Among other things, instead of defending the country against foreign invaders, he was more intent on trying to capture and kill David, a former high ranking army officer of his and indeed his son in law, out of jealousy. David was a man of war but honourable to a fault (although perhaps on occasion limited by the customs of his times). For example, in the skirmishes between them, although David twice had opportunity to kill Saul, he refuses because he believes that Saul is "the Lord’s anointed [king]". Now however Saul is dead, at the hands of the Philistines.

The story opens with an Amalekite (another enemy of the Israelites) bringing the dead king’s crown and armband to David and falling at his feet to pay obeisance to him – people still do this in the 21st century too! In fact, the man claims to have killed Saul at his request, to put the injured king out of his misery (although this is questionable when looking at other parts of the historical record). The Amalekite clearly expects a reward from David in exchange for his homage. David however is outraged that this alien has killed "the Lord’s anointed" (despite the fact that Saul himself was trying to kill David), and has the Amalekite summarily executed – rough justice as was the practice in those days. The question I raise is this: "Who do we reward and punish at the end of a war?" Rewarding those who kowtow to the victorious leader was not David’s style. Punishing those who violate sacred principles was.

The second question that arises immediately is this: "By what name do we call our enemies?" Saul had made himself David’s enemy and had tried to kill him many times. But David refers to the dead king as "the Lord’s anointed". No wonder he is described elsewhere in the Bible as "a man after God’s own heart". We have many names by which to call our enemies – terrorists, traitors, tyrants. Sometimes the names we give our enemies are a reflection of our own character traits (as in the old analogy of three fingers pointing at ourselves when we point a finger at others). The point is that no human being is simple enough to be described by a single label. We are multi-dimensional beings. There is much evil in the best of us; and considerable good in the worst of us. Derogatory name calling becomes a habit and is terribly divisive. During our war almost all Tamils were viewed with suspicion as being "terrorists". This was supposed to be calling a spade a spade. It appears that we are digging our own grave of disunity with that spade. After the war, even Sinhalese who are not "with us" are called "traitors". Where will this end?

Finally, David declares a day of mourning a fasting for the slain king and his son Jonathan (David’s closest friend as it happened) and also for the army – even though Saul would probably have been pursuing David with that same army. He also writes a lament to be recorded and taught to his people. So, the third question is this: "At the end of a war do we rejoice or lament?" David’s example is the one I prefer and would commend to all my countrypersons too. Abraham Lincoln did the same after the American Civil War. His Gettysburg Address made no mention of winners and losers – it just paid homage to the dead on both sides. A few chapters (actually a few years) later in two, Samuel the entire nation of Israel, including those loyal to Saul, approach David and ask him to be king over all Israel. He was their best loved king and reigned for 40 years (not just 12 or 18!!). The message is clear. If anyone wishes to lead a united country for a long time after a civil war, all (s)he has to do is to weep genuinely for his/her fallen enemies – it is much more effective than changing the Constitution.