Many articles and papers have been written over the past year or so by various commentators attempting to offer an analysis of the sudden emergence of anti-Muslim groups in Sri Lanka.
The conceptual framework which underlies most of these analyses is based on the postulate that the cause of the problems affecting the Muslims is the emergence of these groups. This amounts to a convenient externalization of the solution to the Muslim problem, which simply put would then be to ‘ban the racist groups’.
But silencing the voice of such groups through legal procedures does not mean that the various allegations made by such groups against the Muslim community have been proved to be null and void. If these allegations are not addressed effectively, they will continue to fester, to grow in intensity and extent and will almost certainly surface again in a far more violent form some time in the future.
I am of the view that, far from being the cause of the problems affecting the Muslim community, the emergence of anti-Muslim groups is actually a symptom (or effect) of the problem. To identify the possible causes of these problems, the minority Sri Lankan Muslim community must start looking within themselves, conduct an ‘introspective analysis’ of their Islamic wayof living in the context of living in a non-Muslim majority nation.
The big question then is: Did the Muslim community, by their words and deeds, create the space necessary for the emergence of the various anti-Muslim groups over the past few years?
For instance, it is alleged that Muslim extremists are rapidly gaining a foothold in Sri Lanka. Who is responsible for the creation of this perception among the non-Muslims? Could the fact that, of the 4 major religious groups in Sri Lanka, intra-religious violence has erupted only within the Muslim community have contributed towards the shaping of this particular viewpoint?
Have there been any ‘Buddhist versus Buddhist’, ‘Christian versus Christian’ or ‘Hindu versus Hindu’ violence of a similar intensity during the past 30 – 40 years? Some Muslims are disdainful of such perceptions, but one should bear in mind that perceptions are more important than reality in moulding public opinion.
Are the Sri Lankan Muslims able to empathize with their Buddhist brothers and sisters to the extent that they of their own volition change patterns of their behaviour which cause concern and apprehension to the majority community?
Or do the Muslims feel that they alone are entitled to the right of being angry and offended? We should bear in mind at all times that the tolerance of the Buddhists should not be misconstrued as acquiescence on their part.
The implementation of a strategy of ‘proactive empathy’ requires persons with strong leadership skills and who are ready, willing and able to think out-of-the-box. We need a leadership, consisting not of politicians or of the ulemas, but of respected members of Muslim civil society who are capable of winning the trust of the ummah because of their standing in the community.
We need a leadership that can persuade the ummah to look not just at the ‘dots’, but rather at the big picture obtained by connecting the dots.
Are the Muslims of Sri Lanka able to put aside their differences and to focus on the urgent need to introduce measures to ensure the physical and mental well being of the members of their community in the years ahead?
- Bisthan Batcha, I am a Sri Lankan Muslim Pragmatist
No comments:
Post a Comment
We highly admire your helpful comments on our posts.