27 March 2013, 11:43 AM IST
Over two millennia ago, a great emperor who called himself Devanampiya Piyadassi (beloved of the gods) and who believed in Dhamma-vijaya (spiritual/moral conquest) more than digvijaya (military conquest), gave the gift of Buddhism to Sri Lanka. The world knows him as Ashoka the Great: a man whose faith in the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha was so deep that he defied all established notions of kingship and statecraft, and became a messenger of peace, or so they say. He was the master of an empire that stretched from the gates of Persia in the west to the border of Assam in the east. His spiritual empire, though, knew no bounds.
Lankan king Devanampiya Tissa (ruled from 307-267 BC) welcomed his great neighbour's children—son Mahinda (Mahendra) and daughter Sanghamitta (Sanghamitra)—as ambassadors. Mahinda converted the Lankan king to Buddhism, and it was through his good offices that king Tissa was able to convince Emperor Ashoka to send a branch of the sacred Bodhi tree to Sri Lanka. It was Sanghamitta who brought the branch along with her. It still survives where it was planted in the island country.
Emperor Ashoka codified his law of Dhamma through rock edicts and pillar inscriptions and declared that all his neighbours and contemporaries should follow the law and be just rulers. However, an alternative school of thought sees Ashokan edicts as instruments of coercion. They say Ashoka may have been a great monarch, but he didn't tolerate voices of dissent and so, wasn't exactly a liberal as made out to be. These historians have viewed the Mauryan emperor's rule through the prism of 20th century democratic ideals. But all historians have unanimously held that Ashoka was a benevolent despot at best, his empire a big brother state at worst.
[The Dhamek Stupa at Sarnath believed to have been first built by Emperor Ashoka to commemorate the deer park where Lord Buddha delivered his first sermon. The National Emblem, the Lion Capital, originally stood here]
The Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa (chronicles of Sri Lanka) suggest emperor Ashoka was held in high regard by his Lankan contemporary. And why not, after all it was he who had first united India by moral force—long before Akbar the Great, who achieved the same end but with equal use of physical and moral force—and had transformed a minor cult into a major world religion. It won't be wrong to presume that Buddhism is the most dominant faith in Sri Lanka today because of Ashoka; but in its country of origin, Buddhism, the man who founded it, and the man who popularised it, were forgotten until the arrival of the English (the Orientalists to be more precise).
When the English were making discoveries pertaining to the Sakyamuni and Ashoka, a Buddhist revivalist movement was going on in Sri Lanka (which would eventually give rise to the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism that we know today). One of the movement's founders, Anagarika Dharmapala, also contributed to the revival of Buddhism in India. A stone tablet at Sarnath recalls his contribution to the faith and Dharma, and ranks him with "Dharmasoka, Maha Mahinda and other notable figures in the history of Buddhism".
[The stone tablet at Sarnath listing the contribution of Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka. He died in Sarnath]
However, Dharmapala had his flaws. Some of his writings suggest a racial bias. He believed the Sinhalese to be pure-blooded Aryans and declared that Sinhalese women shouldn't marry or have children with the minorities. He also wrote that Christianity and polytheism (Hinduism) are responsible for some vulgar practices in the island country such as animal sacrifice, prostitution and drunkenness. Many argue that the unfair treatment meted out to the Tamils in Sri Lanka today has its genesis in the Sinhala Buddhist nationalism of Dharmapala and others of his ilk.
Over 2,000 years later, Ashoka's law of Dhamma is no longer remembered as much as his good relations with his southern neighbour. India and Sri Lanka today don't share the bonhomie of Ashokan times. And the way things are headed, both countries may soon find themselves in a situation far worse than a mere diplomatic row.
On March 21, India endorsed a US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). India never had an enviable foreign policy; in fact, traditionally, Indian foreign policy has always been dubbed as 'weak-kneed'; but on Thursday, the government allowed itself to be browbeaten into endorsing the resolution in the name of placatory politics. Sri Lanka responded by announcing that it would partially take over control of a strategic oil storage depot from the Indian Oil Corporation. Not just that, India also runs the risk of losing power projects in the island country to China. Too many consequences for saying yes to the resolution, isn't it?
By voting against Sri Lanka twice in two years, India has given a clear indication of its big brother attitude; but the moral force of Ashokan Dhamma does not power this India, so Sri Lanka isn't bothered. It has successfully ended the 30-year-old civil war on its own, so it has little to care about what India thinks it should do.
True, President Mahinda Rajapakse isn't the 'light of Ceylon' unlike his ancient namesake, prince Mahinda. His government is accused of not treating Tamils as citizens with equal rights, and of persecuting anyone who questions its handling of the Tamil problem after the successful ending of the three-decade old civil war.
But given India's own economic interests in Sri Lanka, which are being threatened by the ever-increasing proximity between the island nation and China, the decision to endorse the UNHRC resolution seems like a blunder, especially since Pakistan has already scored a point by voting against the resolution and empathising with Sri Lanka. Pakistan has argued that it's been only three years since the civil war ended in Lanka, and three years aren't enough to streamline processes and restore order that was lost for 30 years—a view shared by some Indian strategists too.
It needs to be seen how India would react to a situation if Colombo warms up to both Islamabad and Beijing. Time for another Dhamma-vijaya, I think.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
India, Sri Lanka need to revisit the past for a better future
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2013/03/india-sri-lanka-need-to-revisit-past.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
India, Sri Lanka need to revisit the past for a better future
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
India, Sri Lanka need to revisit the past for a better future
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar