Secretary to the Ministry of Buddha Sasana, Religious, and Cultural Affairs Prof. Kapila Gunawardana shared last week that they have drafted the cabinet paper for the proposed “Buddhist Publications/Texts Regulatory Act”. However, they are yet to receive cabinet approval.
The proposed Buddhist Publications/Texts Regulatory Act would review, regulate, and (if necessary) censor publications that contain content related to the teachings of Buddhism, the character of the Buddha, or discuss themes related to Buddhism.
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Prof. Gunawardana stated that there is a need for a legal change, claiming that once this Act is in place, people will not be able to distort the Buddha’s character and His teachings, commenting that it will not allow or disallow persons from raising questions on the Buddha’s teachings and the Buddha’s character without any dignity or the possession of accurate information.
While the regulation is still in its draft stage, there have been Buddhist academics who have come forward and expressed their support for the proposed bill. Considering that if the regulation is to be approved by the Cabinet and it would affect the average citizen and their expression, we posed the question to the general public: Would this regulation be a purveyor of civilised society or will it lend itself to limiting free expression and contribute to arbitrary censorship?
University of Colombo Professor of the Department of Sinhala Sarath Wijesooriya shared his thoughts on the matter, commenting that this is outright a worrisome and dangerous move adopted by the governing party.
He said that historically, people have secured their rights, particularly their right to life by way of making themselves heard. It is by expressing themselves, loudly and with purpose, that they have secured the rights that we all so happily enjoy. The freedom of the press too exists because journalists have not remained silent when their right to share information was stifled. However, if there were limitations on what you can speak out about then, will we move forward?
Prof. Wijesooriya stated that it is incredibly harmful to a democratic society and it absolutely has no place in such a society, adding also that it is largely a discretionary regulation, which leaves room for partial interpretation.
He shared that this is a transparent attempt to limit the fundamental rights afforded to the public by the power of the Constitution, and that freedom of speech and expression will be limited and controlled by way of this regulation. If the Thripitakaya has been distorted, that is not the duty of the executive to decide, but that of the Mahanayake and all other religious bodies who have been appointed to protect it.
Nebula Award-nominated science fiction author Yudhanjaya Wijeratne stated that he believes the regulation to be completely counter to the religion it is claiming to protect. “It is countering the spirit of the religion – a religion which invites one to come and see for yourself, don’t make your decisions based on preconceived notions, encouraging free inquiry and discourse. Much of the good we have in our Buddhism is this element of free thought,” he said.
“If we are to implement this level of cultural censorship, then what is the difference between us and those other states we so proudly point at and say ‘oh look, we are far more tolerant than them’,” he added.
He shared that it is “absolutely repressive”, pointing out that there has never been advancement when you cannot be critical of what is established, “where you cannot question the beliefs that are being held to continue to grow and examine them under the various lenses of science and new data. This is a massive step backwards for freedom and development. What is the difference between us and a far more repressive state?”
He shared that he as a writer of science fiction often portrays the Sri Lankan view of the world to his international readers, adding that if this is the level of censorship that must be endured, then what is he to write about?
Naomi Perera, an Attorney-at-Law from a reputed law firm in Colombo, also shared her thoughts on the matter, stating that this matter of power concentrated upon one individual is incredibly harmful – as you can see with the support of regulations such as this – that power can be misused. Perera said our President as of now maintains more power than even what President J.R. Jayewardene once held.
In reference to the justifications given by Buddhist academics, particularly Ven. Prof. Agalakada Sirisumana Thera’s statement about the Thripitakaya that has been around for 2,500 years without being amended and tainted, the Thera has said that it has remained pure Theravada Buddhism throughout these years and that criticism against it would only mean that the only thing left for future generations would be those distorted views. However, Perera shared that if it has remained pure for so many centuries, then those appointed for its protection, the Mahanayake Thera, has done a successful job and the clergy should trust in their own to continue to protect the integrity of the Buddha’s teachings, and the governance should focus on the task that the people have appointed them to tackle, not to explore side quests.
A law student, who wished to remain anonymous, shared that they feel as though this is a harsher extension of the Profane Publications Act No. 41 of 1958, which is currently in place to prevent the writing, production, printing, publication, sale, distribution, or exhibition of any profane publication.
Profane Publications Act
Section 2
Writing, production, printing, publication, sale, distribution or exhibition of a profane publication to be an offence.
Any person who writes, produces, prints, publishes, sells, distributes, or exhibits any profane publication shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction after summary trial before a magistrate, be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term, not exceeding one year or to a fine, not exceeding Rs. 2,000 or to both such imprisonment and such fine:
Provided that it shall not be an offence under the preceding provisions of this section to write, print, publish, sell, distribute, or exhibit any fair comments on, or any fair criticism of, any religion or religious belief.
Section 5
Interpretation.
In this Act, “profane publication” means any newspaper, book, picture, film, or other visible representation containing –
(a) Any insult to –
(i) The founder of any religion
(ii) Any deity, saint, or person, whether alive or dead, venerated by the followers of any religion
(iii) Any religion or religious belief
(b) Any ridicule of any figure, picture, emblem, device, or other thing associated with, or sacred to, the followers of any religion
They observed that it is quite transparent what the expectation is here, stating that at this juncture in time, religious censorship may seem, to you or I, as possibly the least important issue at hand and yet the Ministry of Buddha Sasana, Religious, and Cultural Affairs has deemed it essential enough to utilise resources and draft a regulatory bill and submit it for cabinet approval. They added that while it is unfortunate, there exists a hierarchy in established religious institutions and they are controlling the narrative and in doing so hold the populace hostage to their own ignorance.
