Absence of a meaningful, positive and strong social discussion is a major social problem that Sri Lankan society is facing. It may be considered a social problem which has not received the attention of even the social scientists to the necessary extent. If you take its external appearance, Sri Lankan society is literate. However, in internal essence it is an illiterate society. What this means is that in the matter of attitudes Sri Lankan society is a backward society. If we are to give a more descriptive definition, it means that a developed society which understands the world in which it lives, and comprehends its rights and duties in that world does not exist in Sri Lanka.
The state of development or lack of development in a society affects the state of development or lack of development of consciousness of that society. The knowledge and thought that exist in a society are a result of the social discussion that exists in it. It influences the arts, literature, politics, sciences, technology and economy and, in fact, all aspects of that society.
The Sri Lankan society may be considered a society which is developed in external appearance but which is not nourished by a powerful social discussion, which flows forward. Even the feudalist economy and the political system were given up not due to any internal will but due to external pressure. Thereafter there was a transition to a democratic political system, not due to any dislike of the feudalist system that had prevailed but because of external pressure for such a transition in the context of colonialism. The economy too is feudalist in essence though modernist in appearance. The political system too is modernist in appearance but feudalist internally. It is not a democratic statesman who is elected by the people’s vote but a feudalist king. There is a multi-party system in the country but there is no internal democracy in any of the parties. However, no aspect of this state of affairs is criticized or protested against. These feudalist features of the political system are found to a greater or lesser degree in the system of private enterprises too.
However, in many countries, transition from one social system to another social system has occurred, and the society has progressed as a new entity through a social vision and thought suited to the changes that were occurring, and through a positive social discussion.
European society was given a social thinking which embraced the conceptual knowledge and attitudes necessary for liberation from the feudalist system and for transition to modern capitalist system by socialism based on philosophical liberation, which blew throughout Europe. It considered religious wars a folly and trained the society to tolerate other religions and other ideologies. It taught the people to discard state power based on heredity and convinced the people that the government should be an outcome of a social contract among the people. The state recognized the necessity of free trade and confirmed private ownership of property. John Locke (1632-1704) might be considered the highest product of philosophical liberalism. His ideas influenced the England of his time, and influenced the French revolution and the American revolution to a greater degree.
This process of social discussion took place in the colonial countries too, though in a different way.
Nehru in his “The Discovery of India” argues that, although India appears to be an uneducated country if literacy is taken as the criterion; India has to be considered an educated country if knowledge of social criticism is taken as the criterion. That argument of Nehru is correct.
India is a country, which gave birth to such religious teachers as Buddha and which was nourished by the great discussions brought forward by such teachers. It was Mahatma Gandhi who brought forward the discourse of democracy in a way that suited India. Although the literate population of India at that time was small, the population who actively joined the discussion that Mahatma Gandhi was taking forward, and joined the knowledge necessary for a democratic social system, was very large. The fact that India has been able to evolve a constitution and a system of government suitable for India’s ethnic diversity, and the fact that India has been able to build a strong Indian nationality within India’s ethnic diversity may be considered a result of that social discussion brought forward by Mahatma Gandhi.
We too will be able to liberate ourselves from the drowsiness and backward attitudes in which we are engulfed today, only if we are able to bring forth a powerful social discussion that would give life to every important aspect of national life.
Like Mahatma Gandhi of India, Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka may be considered the first person who made a great effort to evolve a powerful social discussion in our country. However unlike Mahatma Gandhi, Anagarika Dharmapala, unfortunately, did not have a broad target aimed at a united nation free of prejudices of race, religion, language, caste, class and sex. Anagarika Dharmapala’s social discussion was one that divided the people by race and religion and sometimes by caste too. Although the social dialogue brought forward by the left movement too was strong to some extent, it was a discussion which, though it did not divide people by race, religion, caste or sex, it was one that divided the people by class. Thereafter there was no social discussion that might be considered strong even to that extent.
It does not mean that there is no discussion at all in the country today. Although there is some social discussion at a certain level, it can be considered only a dwarf of a discussion. It means that expression of views is confined to a microscopic few, and that the framework of the discussion is narrow and that it has given no dynamism to national life.
The number of educated persons who express their views in public in Sri Lanka is extremely limited. A mood in which abstention from expression of views is considered a virtue that should be pressured in an honorable manner prevails among the educated. Although there are tens of thousands who may be considered educated in the country, only a few hundred of them express their views in public. “Why should we get entangled in unnecessary debates and be hated by those who do not accept our ideas?” might be what they think.
There is in the sphere of ideology, also a tendency in which those who express ideas contrary to the standard ideas are considered traitors. A Sinhalese who expresses ideas against the accepted Sinhala stand is considered a traitor to the Sinhala nation. The same state of affairs prevails in the plane of Tamil and Muslim ideologies too. Fear of being subjected to such a state of affairs too might have contributed to silence the educated, to some extent. Involvement in party politics also acts as an impediment to free expression of views. Those who express views contrary to those accepted by the party are also considered to be traitors. The fact that the media too permit only a handful whom they like to express themselves, may have contributed to this situation. More than all that, it may be that the failure of the educated Sri Lankans to realize that they have a social obligation as the educated, to express their views, has contributed to this silence.
A social discussion need not be confined to the educated only. However, any social discussion can be intelligent and meaningful only to the extent that that process is nourished by the educated and the intellectuals. The limitations caused by the abstention of the educated from expressing views, and only the less educated express their views, influences the thinking of the society too. When the educated not only abstain from expressing their views, but also abstain from correcting erroneous views when such views are expressed, those erroneous views tend to be socialized with no obstacle. If the educated and the intellectuals had realized that they had an obligation to express their views and had discharged that obligation, perhaps a Wijeweera and a Prabhakaran might not have emerged.
If Sri Lanka is to progress towards a new and modern society, this miserable silence that prevails among the educated and the intellectuals must end. They must actively participate in the process of social discussion and remove the rust from the wheels of the socio-psychological mechanism. It is then that the dwarfish discussion of today will become a broad, meaningful and enthusiastic one. It is then that there will be a new awakening in the arts, literature, the sciences, technology, the economy and politics. The ideas in this article are open to discussion.