How would a child feel if he were forcibly removed from his mother? How would a man feel if his child were forcibly removed from him? In the case of Pradeep Nilanga Dela, Diyawadana Nilame, whether in his capacity as a son or a father, the answer would be – “nothing”. Why? This insensitive man (who in the light of the event that has occurred does not deserve to be referred to as “a human being”) saw nothing legally, morally or ethically unacceptable in separating two baby tuskers from their mothers at the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage a few days ago, DESPITE the trauma which was visibly demonstrated in the response of the animals. Subsequently, it was also reported that the baby elephants had injured their tusks during this deplorable incident. Before I respond to the reportage, I wish to commend The Island for stepping up to its role as a media watchdog on these matters of public concern.
For the Nilame to think that he has a right to impose suffering on any animal, is nothing short of violence. I assume that the Nilame has no time at the present moment to write a reply to my criticisms as he is busy sitting on yet another elephant and parading himself through the streets of Kandy – both man and animal dressed up, one voluntarily, the other involuntarily; one unenlightened and the other artificially lit up. Therefore, I pre-empt the arguments that he and the supporters of this cruel act of removing elephants from their natural habitat for the purpose of “employing” them at the Dalada Maligawa may bring with regard to the views that I express here. They are likely to indignantly reply that the use of elephants is part of the tradition of peraheras, a cultural/religious ritual with a long history, something which needs to be preserved to retain the identity of the event, etc. Presuming that the defenders are so-called “Buddhists” supposed to be practicing “compassion” as a fundamental principle of Buddhism, I wonder how many of them can then also endorse the “tradition” of bull-fighting in Spain or the “tradition” of fox-hunting in England. Perhaps they will argue that the elephants are not killed in this case. However, the end-result is irrelevant and it is the act of inflicting pain which matters. As “developed” countries, particularly in the West, are banning or regulating acts considered as cruelty to animals such as the use of animals for research and entertainment, it is a great tragedy that a country which boasts of a much more ancient and richer “civilisation” such as Sri Lanka seems to be regressing.
In all my years of advocacy against cruelty to animals, I rarely use religion – including Buddhism, although it naturally lends itself to the cause with ease because of its first precept – to refrain from killing any living being – as a platform to promote animal welfare. In my opinion, the subject is less controversial and more rational if justified on the ideology of “humanism”. However, since the Kandy Perahera is inevitably linked to the rituals of Sri Lankan Buddhist culture, I pose this query: Why are the prelates of Asgiriya and Malwatte quiet as they witness cruelty in their backyards? It will be a long and hard battle to have the fixture of elephants permanently removed from this popular pageant, but it may be easier to remove Pradeep Nilanga Dela from the powerful position that he has just abused. How dare he qualify himself to be the keeper of the tooth relic of the Lord Buddha when he cannot protect or respect a living being? Surely, the Nilame should not fear the consequences of his actions – as a man of religion (ridiculous as it may sound in the context of the irreligious act he has committed), he can ask his gods to FORGIVE. But remember that it is said that elephants never FORGET. I can only hope that we as an enlightened, sensitized nation do not forget either. Start the lobbying, keep the pressure on, restore our sense of humanity.
Vanita Perera
Nawala
(A reader’s opinion in The Island)
