On militant Buddhism and speaking for the voiceless: Samanth Subramanian

My interview with Romesh had spilled over, above the stipulated time. Samanth, who was next, came up to him and said-"Hey, if you say everything about Sri Lanka, what will I talk about?" At which point I couldnt help but cut in--"Don't worry, I'll have a whole new set of questions to ask you."

Journalist turned author Samanth Subramanian talks at the Jaipur Literary Festival about his book on Sri Lanka, This Divided Island, and what he calls the ‘fiendishly tough’ experience of gathering stories in this exclusive interview with Zehra Naqvi:

Me:Your book contains a multitude of stories chased across the globe. What was the experience like?

Samanth: The war ended in 2009 so going there in 2011 was dangerous because it was a time of great flux, the government was not willing to open itself to the scrutiny of journalists and human rights activists and so I had to go there under false pretenses. There were various reasons why people wouldn’t or couldn’t talk to me. They were cautious about what will happen if they are outspoken or honest. I was told that my phone was being tapped and it was—but I was more concerned about the safety of the people talking to me, their lives were in much more peril.

Me:Would you say that your Tamil roots prompted you to write this book?

Samanth: Yes, it has a little to do with my roots as I knew a lot about the war. But it was primarily the curiosity of the journalist. When the war ended my first thought was—maybe an opportunistic one –that it’s a great time to do stories.

Me: Is it possible for people living in Sri Lanka to do a direct, open book like this?

Samanth: I can’t think of a Sri Lanka living in Sri lanka who has written non-fiction like this. It’s difficult to do newspaper articles even—journalists are abducted and arrested … so a book… almost out of the question.

Me:Your book ends with an image of a soldier with a dove perched on his gun. What are your thoughts on the future of Sri lanka?

Samanth:Till last year I would’ve been very pessimistic but now after the elections I am less so. The new President is not as much of a tyrant as the last one. But then he too has similar allegiances to Buddhist right wing groups. Still, its heartening that Rajapaksa lost and also cleanly departed.

Me: Rajapaksa was a hero of sorts in Sri Lanka.

Samanth: Was. Not any more. He did a lot of abuses of power in the last five years and turned increasingly authoritarian, several human rights problems emerged—not just towards Tamils but also Sinhalese and the Muslims. There was a whole climate of uncertainty. He isn't the hero he was considered.

Me:What about the common people. Is there better integration among them now?

Samanth: Colombo was always cosmopolitan city even at the peak of the war, and that hasn’t changed. There is more interaction now in terms of Siunhalese people travelling from the south to the north, areas they never visited for the last three decades. But then that’s also a bad sort of integration. There are stories of how Sinahlese people have been given incentives to travel to the north and set up farms. So the next time a Sinhalese person stands for election in the north, he has a better chance of winning, because of the changed demographic. That kind of integration isn’t good for anybody because it builds resentment.

Me: Do you think that conflict is inevitable in multicultural, multireligion societies?

Samanth: Well, no. India has survived fairly well. I mean we’ve had riots and problems of intolerance but at least not full scale civil war. When I went to Sri lanka I thought you have just two languages it’s so easy to solve! India’s an example right here! 

Me:Perhaps just two adversaries fight harder…rather than multiple groups fighting!

Samanth: Absolutely, this is what I figured out later, theorized on my own. In India there is a certain balance. No single group is predominant.

Me: You’ve said that Indians wear their problems on their sleeve but with Sri Lanka you need to peel off the “beautiful polished skin to find the toxic bloodstream within”. What do you mean by that?

Samanth:India’s problems are out there in the open. We debate about religious tolerance, freedom of expression, there’s a certain messy openness to India. In Sri Lanka this isn’t there. On the surface it seems extremely peaceful. Nobody talks about the problems. They fester under the surface, simmering. And then all of a sudden it explodes. (Pauses) I’m thinking on my feet now…Perhaps its because Sri Lanka has always been presented to the world as this beautiful Island nation… they feel the pressure to keep up that image of beauty and serenity… but under the surface all sorts of tension boil.

Me:Your book talks about militant Buddhism—militant monks even—which is a surprising image. Could you talk more about that?

Samanth: The clergy has always been influential in Sri Lanka, and they were empowered by the war. In fact there was this very rabid monk who you read about in the late 19^th century whose writings are still studied by right wing Buddhist monks… about a pure Buddhist nation. And now there are a number of right wing groups that you could call the equivalent of RSS or the Bajrang Dal. They have money and muscle power and connections to government and make life miserable for the minorities.

Me: Your book seems to have more Tamil voices than Sinhala ones. Is that deliberate?

Samanth: Sure. The job of a writer such as myself is to give voice to the people that don’t have a voice. And that is always the minorities. The Sinhalese by virtue ofbeing majority have always spoken out.

 There’s very little room for the Tamils to express themselves even now. But do note that the Tamils don’t talk about sufferings at the hands of the Sinhalese only, but also at the hands of the Tigers. The Muslims too have suffered  at the hands of both. But I was careful to include the Sinhalese voices because it’s interesting for me to see what their rationale is, behind their actions.