Hoodwinking in the name of the Buddha and Gandhi

September 11 should have taught the world the dangers of mixing religion and politics. On their own, politics and religion are inflammable enough as history has shown over the centuries. Together they provide a heady mix whose explosive potential was seen that September day.

Still for all, purveyors of violence and their propagandists - always the pliant tools ready to dance to the tune of their masters - will gleefully distort history, denigrate religious leaders and religion as long as it serves their dastardly ends.

About 10 days ago I attended a press preview of a film titled "In the name of Buddha", produced by a company "Da'sai films international" of the UK but could well have been made by "Tiger Studios"; such is its propagandist purpose.

The United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and others produced many films during and after the Second World War that depicted the valour of their soldiers and the cowardice and atrocities of their enemies. Even today such films are being shown and still others are being made telling stories of more recent wars.

But "In the name of Buddha", does not merely condemn and castigate the Sri Lankan soldiers for human rights violations. The implication is that this is done by Buddhist soldiers and in the name of Buddhism.

The film begins with just the chanting of pirith. During the film, soldiers passing out of a training camp are blessed by Buddhist monks seated by a waterfall. Immediately after pirith nool are tied on their wrists, they pick up automatic weapons and go to war. The images of Buddhist blessings and being provided with arms are closely juxtaposed.

This film was made in 50 days starting in June this year, the director of the film told me. In short, after September 11. The purpose is quite clear. At a time when Islam and Muslims in general are suspect in the West for committing terrorism or supporting violence and violation of human rights, the attempt here is to tell the western world that Islam alone is not to blame, that Buddhism is as guilty of violence as happens in Sri Lanka.

The producers are a Sri Lankan Tamil K Shanmughathas and Sai George who, I gather, is a Catholic from Kerala in India. The director and screenwriter Rajesh Touchriver is also from Kerala.

The obviously-expensive literature distributed at the preview with an image of the Buddha on the cover carries stills from the film and write-ups about the producers, the director and tells how the film came to be made.

Reading what is said of the film, one might well be inveigled into believing that it tells story of the Sri Lankan conflict fairly and impartially. For instance the brochure says that the producers have "always wanted to make a movie with a difference. The human rights violations in Sri Lanka have been a theme that kept haunting their creative imagination".

Impartial observers of the conflict will readily concede that human rights violations have occurred on both sides of the barricade.

But the film tends to show only violations committed by the Sri Lankan forces and the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). Where the so-called "freedom fighters" shoot and kill it is only when they are attacked or to show their military prowess such as attacking from ambush.

The film covers the years 1986-87 and supposedly tells the "true story" of somebody called Siva, a Sri Lankan Tamil, who unable to stand the violence, leaves the country and seeks asylum in Britain.

Even if Siva is a real person like so many others who sought asylum abroad not only to get away from the security forces but also to escape from the Tamil Tigers themselves, what we do not know is whether it really happened during the years covered by the film.

It seems that the years 1986-87 are carefully chosen so as to establish a historical truth - the presence of the IPKF and the atrocities and human rights violations such as rape and murder, committed by the Indians. So the Tamils are the victims of both internal and external forces.

How subtle the film has been in pointing the finger at everyone else but the real practitioners of terror - the LTTE - is that most of the Indian troops and officers are turban-wearing Sikhs. So the perpetrators of atrocities in the IPKF are neither Hindus nor Christians (unlike the Tamils in the north) but Sikhs whose faith is Sikhism.

So the producers and director/screenwriter who are all Christians or a Hindu and two Catholics have conspired to exonerate their faiths for violence and lay the blame for atrocities on Buddhist and Sikh soldiers, blithely ignoring that Sri Lankan armed forces as well the IPKF consisted of persons of different religions.

How contrived the screenplay is clear from the fact that a church with Christians at prayer is shown under attack from the air - artillery shells or bombs is not certain - and another group of Christians singing hymns and crossing a lagoon are shot and killed.

Here again the motive is patently obvious. This film is due to be shown in Britain in January. These episodes are intended to win the sympathy of western Christian audiences and raise the ire of Christians and others against Buddhism.

It would not be surprising if the film is exhibited commercially in western countries that have large Tamil audiences so that its propaganda value can be exploited to the full.

There are questions to be asked. Was there an attack on the church in the north during this time? If I remember correctly a bomb or bombs fell on or near the Catholic Church at Navatkuli but that happened in the early 1990s. If so, the film has juxtaposed events to make the most of its propagandist purpose but has acted fraudulently to mislead western audiences.

Moreover the film carefully avoids mentioning the killing of Buddhist monks and civilians during the same period. For instance, in 1986 June, 30 Buddhist monks and four civilians were killed and 15 monks wounded when the bus in which they were travelling was attacked in Aranthalawa.

The collective memory of the filmmakers fails to record that during this same period hundreds of civilians in the north-east were massacred by terrorists and even militant Tamil leaders such as Sri Sabaratnam were victims of Tiger violence.

None of this is shown despite the producers' vowed desire to expose human rights violations in Sri Lanka. What about the massacre by shooting of over 100 Muslims at prayer in the East? Don't Muslims have human rights?

The published brochure says "The freedom fighters, the Lankan army, the Indian Peace Keeping Force, all vie with one another in inflicting violence on the hapless victims", meaning the civilians. That is false. The film shows no such thing. The so-called freedom fighters emerge as paragons who could not say boo to a goose. All the others are villains.

The producers claim that the film is an impassioned plea to "all right-thinking people to shun violence once for all" and turn to the "path shown by the Buddha and Gandhi". False again. There is no mention of the path of non-violence preached by the Buddha and the only such appeal by Siva is to tread Gandhi's path of non-violence.

In fact, the Buddhist are shown as the perpetrators of violence.
One of the final images is stunningly clever, though totally irrelevant. The British Immigration Officer who interviews Siva at Heathrow airport is ultimately so moved by his harrowing story that, with tears in her eyes, she unbuttons her shirt sleave and rolls it up, showing clearly the tattooed number that Jews in Nazi concentration camps carried.

The Sri Lankan Buddhists are immediately compared with Nazis.

It is now for the Sri Lanka government to take whatever action it sees fit at this denigration of the Buddha and Buddhism and the perpetuation of falsities.

It might place the peace talks above everything else. That of course is a matter the government will have to settle with the Buddhist people the world over. They may not take well to being placed along Hitler.

The government is being suckered in step by step into a political conundrum while the LTTE gathers its arms, prepares its communications, musters its forces, tries to recover its international image through devious ruses including profanity.

It is moving on all fronts, while some of the political preachers seem unable to distinguish the front from the back.

Is this film tantamount to a violation of the UK Anti-Terrorist Act 2000 and the bans placed on the Tigers in the US, here and elsewhere?

So far the film has been shown to select audiences in Oslo and London. If the Norwegian authorities are going to turn a blind eye, will the descendents of Lord Nelson here also do the same?

That would depend on whether the Sri Lanka's Foreign Ministry and its High Commission here have the courage to raise the issue on behalf of the Buddhist world. Or is kowtowing to colonial powers - then and now - the name of the game?

Websites: www.inthenameofbuddha.com and www.dasaifilmsinternational.co.uk

 


Back to Top
 Back to Columns  

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster