A Personal view on Ethnic problems in Sri Lanka 2019

I consider every Sri Lankan as a son or daughter of Mother Lanka. I have many friends and I don’t care what nationality, race or religion they are. I am convinced that any division of Sri Lanka on ethnic lines will lead to a sad situation with even more conflict. What we need is a just society in Sri Lanka where race, religion or cast etc would not in any way be a hindrance and every inch of land should be available to any Sri Lankan to live in if they chose to do so with complete freedom and safety. No Northern or North Eastern Homeland for Tamils and no Southern or Hill country homeland for Sinhalese. Sri Lanka belongs to all. I believe that Cultures can be preserved and cross-cultural fertilisation will only bring benefits. The Sinhalese and Tamils have far more in common than differences. They have common origins as suggested but the reality is that a Tamil person feels a “Tamil” and a Sinhala person feels a “Sinhalese”. To deny that would be to deny reality. To deny that Tamils in Sri Lanka have endured a lot of hardship and difficulties for the mere fact that they were Tamils would be dishonest.  However, if any Tamil does not recognise the reality that the majority race and religion in Sri Lanka is Sinhalese and Buddhism respectively and that this is bound to influence our Society (and I don't mean favouritism at the expense of minorities which is one of the dangers but not an inevitable consequence of being a minority), the only way for them to feel comfortable in a non-integrated environment is to pursue the unrealistic goal of a Tamil Eeelam. It is a shame if moderate Tamils were also pushed into this belief because of the failure of successive governments to implement a just Constitution. What they saw was a series of broken promises which ultimately led to the biggest disaster Sri Lanka and all its people ever faced, i.e., the birth of the LTTE, an inhuman terrorist organisation which led to unimaginable damage to Sri Lanka and its people, in every possible way, both directly and indirectly. Although it would be wrong to gloat in the defeat of the LTTE, it is quite natural to regard it as a victory and celebrate it in an appropriate and sensitive way, by all communities.

My personal view is that we are one Nation and I would promote integration at all levels leading to the end of the “Sinhalese” and “Tamil” racial identities and the birth of a true “Sri Lankan” identity, but although I am an idealist and humanist at heart, I am also a realist and I know that this won’t happen. I would like to see opportunities being given to every school child and for that matter every citizen, to learn Sinhala, Tamil and English. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we are all trilingual and if our religion is a personal matter which would not in any way influence our opportunities and aspirations? Wouldn’t it be lovely if all of us could appreciate the rich Sinhala and Tamil literature and musical culture? Wouldn’t it be lovely if “caste” becomes a bad word confined to history? Ah yes, it is nice to dream!

The war is over but the battle can be won only by acceptance from both sides that underlying grievances which made Tamil people feel like second class citizens in their own country must be tackled head-on. This is a two-stage process and the first is an acceptance of the fact. It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who still say “Grievances? What grievances?” When the first condition is met, i.e recognition and acceptance, then the second stage should follow, i.e, taking the necessary action to remedy this and work genuinely towards establishing a Society where your religion and race will not in any way disadvantage you. Any problems should be dealt with in a civil way and not by violence. The past does matter and cannot be swept under the carpet.  For example, the huge disparity in the proportion of Tamils in Universities and Govt jobs was a direct result of the methods used by the British Raj and the Missionaries. No one can seriously assert that this was because the Tamils are more intelligent for example. The Tamils have to accept that with favouritism disappearing and educational facilities becoming better and more disseminated, the balance is bound to change. And this balance is not just between Tamils and Sinhalese, it is also within their own communities. The chances of a rural Sinhala person or a rural Tamil person entering University are much higher than say, post-independence. This is even reflected in the Cricket Team. In the days gone by, it was Royal, St Thomas's, St Peters, St Benedict's, Ananda and Nalanda that produced our cricketers (Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim Moors etc). Now it is wonderful to have chaps from Maha Vidyalaya who can hardly speak English (and I do not in any way say that in a derogatory sense)! The move away from the highly advantageous position the Tamils enjoyed was bound to change even without standardisation or positive discrimination as a result of natural evolution. Even the much-maligned Standardisation disadvantaged not just Tamils but also Sinhala people in Colombo for example. These are realities which Tamils have to accept. They should try and understand why there is so much bitterness especially within the older Sinhala generation who witnessed the unfairness experienced by the Sinhala people within Colonial rule when to be Sinhalese and Buddhist were twin disadvantages. By the same token, the senior Sinhalese generation should be in a better position to understand how terrible it must be to be disadvantaged because you are not a Sinhalese or a Buddhist. Two wrongs do not make a right. What the minorities such as the Tamils can and should demand is that they should not be discriminated in any way because they are Tamils and that they should enjoy all the rights and safeguards (such as the Right to communicate in the language of their choice and observe their Cultural practices) that any citizen of Sri Lanka could expect. If however, people can truly feel Sri Lankan, such differences would not exist as we are all Sri Lankan. The fact that there will be a higher proportion of Sinhalese if an ethnic analysis is done, would merely be a statistic and a reflection of the ethnic mix of the country. Does it matter? No at all if we all have the same rights.

Finally, the place of Buddhism. It is one of the most tolerant of religions (just one of the many good things we got from India!) and if so called Buddhists live the true life of a Buddhist, there will be no place for anger, hatred, jealousy, fear and paranoia but just true love, brotherhood and tolerance. I believe that all people innately have these qualities which just need encouragement and nurturing.

Let us learn from the past but not live in it. Let us move forwards towards a Sri Lanka blessed with economic prosperity within a tolerant and just society for all its citizens irrespective of race and religion.

If no realistic and practical measures are taken, the only other solution worth considering is a federal constitution within a Unified Sri Lanka with 2 separate states. This is not easy. Which areas would constitute a Tamil state? North or North and North East? How do you overcome the fears of those who regard this as  the first step in establishing a completely separate, Eeelam model state? How much freedom would each state possess in local affairs? What would come within the purview of the Sri Lankan State overriding any local laws?

I have been silent because I have an enormous sense of guilt as a Sri Lankan living comfortably abroad ( for reasons I don’t want to go into) and in many ways, I don’t feel I have the right to comment, especially to those Sri Lankans who had the opportunity to seek better pastures abroad like I had but chose not to. 

Nevertheless, in the words of Sir Walter Scott, - Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, “This is my own, my native land!” Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned, as home his footsteps he hath turned, from wandering on a foreign strand! "

A typical day at Matale Base Hospital in 1969

A typical day at Matale Base Hospital in 1969

Dr Mahendra Gonsalkorale

It is 7.00 am and I just woke up. I don’t really want to get out of bed as I am sleepy and tired after a very busy night on call. I went to bed at 11.45 pm after doing a night round to make sure that I had attended to everything and done preventive work in anticipation to ensure as far as possible that I won’t be disturbed, such as prescribe those PRN medications and advising nursing staff on what could wait till the morning and what needed urgent action. I went all around the hospital as there was only one junior doctor on call after 5 pm till 9am the following day. Our wards included Paediatric, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Medical and Surgical wards, spread over what appeared like miles of corridors. The hazards of night rounds included dealing with unwelcome growling dogs. But camaraderie and bonds of friendship were strong. If calls got heavy and I needed to be in several places at the same time, I had no hesitation in calling for help from my colleagues and they would willingly help.  There were no disclaimers to fill and no working hours directives.

There were no bleeps. At night you are awoken by a knock on your door with a voice saying gently, “Sir, call ekak”. After a few expletives uttered almost reflexly which the poor chap always never took personally, you open the door and read the message on the book – “Patient Piyadasa in ward 7 is having a fit, please come and advise”. By now, I am wide awake. I gather my stethoscope and getting into my trousers, hurry to ward 7. There was a time when as a mere intern house officer I slept fully clothed, ready for action, but one does mature!

Returning now to the story I began, there were many such calls and my sleep was badly interrupted but I had to be in the Medical ward at 8.00am latest for the Ward round by Dr RanjithMunasinghe, one of the most capable, honest and caring doctors I have ever come across.

I grab a quick breakfast and reach the ward bleary-eyed and partly refreshed by the strong coffee made by Letchiman, the House Do-it-all based in our residential quarters. “Good morning Sir” and Dr DRM replies “Good morning Gonsal, shall we start?”

Just to digress for a moment, I mentioned our House Do-it-all Letchiman. Most readers know how we managed our daily needs while being resident in Hospital accommodation, but just to refresh your memories, all our meals had to be organised by us. There were about 8-10 of us (only the MO, OPD being not resident) and each month one of us took turns to be “Buth Master”. His/her duties included managing the “Do-it-all” and his young assistant Supramanium(including their salaries) and all the shopping, cooking, devising menus etc. Each would pay an advance to the BM and at the end of the month; an accurate detailed account is produced by the BM and residual dues collected. This was done in the most amicable way with complete trust and worked very well. Some BMs were more enthusiastic than others. Jeff Babapulle comes to mind. He once provided each of us with a small chicken for lunch. Bacon and eggs meant much more than a rasher and an egg – there were enough bacon and egg to feed 25 people! That month, we ate exceptionally well. The bill was as you would imagine, a bit higher but nobody minded.

Back to my ward round with Dr DRM. We came to an empty bed and DRM asked what happened to Nalliah, the patient who should have been there. The Nurse very proudly announced that although he had left against medical advice, she made sure that he signed the Bed Head Ticket (BHT) before he left- “pothaassankeruwa!” DRM asked about his medication and future care and the nurse again proudly said that as he went “potha asankarala” (signed the BHT), he was not given anything-“Eh minihatapissu! Kotcharakiwathahuwenaha” (he is mad; he did not listen at all to my pleas). DRM told the retinue (there was always a retinue, not as big as these days with a plethora of all types of health care workers), that in future, this is not the way to deal with those who insist on leaving against medical advice. Firstly, the doctor on call must be notified if attempts by nursing staff failed. Secondly, if he still insists on leaving after seeing the doctor, he must be issued with a few days’ supply of medication and a handwritten note must be given with a short history, investigations performed etc. and he must be told that he must present this to any doctor he sees subsequently. He must also be told that if ever he changes his mind, he is most welcome to come again but always note the exact time and date of his departure in the BHT. He said that in his view, people have all sorts of reasons unknown to us why they appear to behave irrationally and we must never treat them as outcasts or punish them. This was a real eye-opener for me. DRM was the most humane and understanding “boss” I have come across and his message on why we choose to be doctors and the responsibility that we must carry, left an indelible impression on me.

Ward round over! Hurry back to Quarters for a tasty lunch cooked by Letchiman. He is there with his ever-present mischievous smile with profuse apologies for not providing the Beef steak that Jeff wanted. He says “Chir, ada arak musivarai, ekanisa vegetable beef steak aduwa!” (Sir, there was no beef, so I made a beef steak with vegetable!).

And then the siesta on chairs (a few lucky ones on the haansiputuwas- reclining chairs) till 2 pm for those who had clinics and 3 pm for those with ward rounds. This was one of the most welcome times of the day. It was hot; we were tired, happy after a tasty meal. It definitely was time for that most civilised of activities, the afternoon siesta!

It is wake up time and back to the ward. Those doing Obstetrics could do anything from a breech delivery to a caesarean. The “Boss” would train you first and your first few Caesareans are done with him supervising you, the next few with him having a fag in the doctor’s room and always available to help if needed. The same applied to surgery. We did the minor ops list and if we were that way inclined and showed interest, may even be allowed to do hernias and haemorrhoidectomies. No wonder we felt so important. When we went to Matale town, we were well known and vendors sometimes refused to take money for our purchases- “Eh mahaththuru ispiritale dostarawaru”(these are important doctors from the hospital). But none was as elevated as Senarath Panditharatne. The harmless and ineffective DMO at the time who shall remain nameless was over fond of the amber nectar and there were more times when he was under its influence than off it! Pandi stepped in with authority whenever required and was the real boss.

That’s it! A day’s work done and I am not on call today! Hurrah! At dinner time, it is time to catch up with all the gossip and plan that coming weekend trip to Dambulla. We will take our gas burner, eggs and bacon and have a picnic lunch at a picturesque spot complete with a stream and a pihilla (water duct). Such weekend outings were common and thoroughly enjoyed by all. Once a month or so, it was the long train and bus trek to see my parents in Nawala.

The gossip turned toward me and I was asked whether I still wake up and peer out of the window in quarters at 7.00am to catch a glimpse of one of the nurses I  found very attractive leaving the next door nurses quarters for work. Yes, I did! Sadly, I never plucked up enough courage to do anything constructive about it. My only physical contact was when she assisted me at the Minor Ops list and those brief touches spread as an erotic tingle enveloping my entire body. It was a case of being grateful for small mercies!

This was Matale in the late 1960s, a time I shall always treasure.  The friendships I made still linger, the lessons I learnt still shape me, and my memories of that important period in my life will continue to make me happy and say “After all, life is not that bad- I am truly grateful”

Ganga Addara- Instrumental "Shadows" Style by MG

Ganga Addara- Shadows style by MG on Yamaha Genos

Reply to Mahendra’s profound questions in the post:THOUGHTS ON BELIEF, FAITH AND SCIENCE AND DESTINY

(Note from Mahendra: This came as a comment from my close friend Zita but was too long to publish as one and I have posted it separately)

By Zita Perera-Subasinghe

This is an impromptu reply to your most profound assessment of Science, religion and myth, on the existence of the world, of man and the conclusions and assessment of where everything is going and how it is going to end.

I have yet to find someone managing to address all these dilemmas in one question and even rarer to find the questioner seeming to have a satisfactory answer by way of the annulment of previously held theories on these profound beliefs.

If I were to answer the above in a few words, I have to say, you are right in everything you say and everything you surmise about religions, beliefs, myths. You are also right in your assessment of the past, present and the future of the world. How can I say such a thing to a convoluted, problem involving history, religion and the sciences?

The very fact that you summarised the existing problems and conundrums in the way you did and my very acquiescence to your reasoning shows one thing, and that is, that this is a very knotty, convoluted problem so much so that the very unravelling of it is impossible and that person who sat in the opposite camp i.e. thinking religion is right, there is a supreme being who created all this and there is a promise of reward or punishment at the end of life, finds the easiest way is to agree with you.

Surprised? Well, let me enlarge on what I just said above. To a believer, there is a supreme being, God, who created man and this world and he has given clear guidance about what is right and wrong and there is reward or punishment according to how the creature acts. To those who did not grow up with religion, belief in God and afterlife is an unprovable myth and is propagated by Theists who in turn have been influenced by their own teachers who gave them these beliefs and so on as far back as you want to go. To scientists and thinkers who rely on observation, proof and an evidence base, this is all that matters and that what they hold is the ultimate truth.

So, how come, I seem to say, they are all right?

Actually, I am not saying they are all correct.

What I am thinking is that these questions, observations, theories and explanations you have so carefully and clearly outlined in your article are so logical and evidence-based and believable that there is no way anyone can dispute what you say.

Then, what on earth am I saying? Am I babbling like a nincompoop?

Well, listen to me, a person brought up in a Catholic home with believing parents and educated in faith-based schools. What we each believe is what we are exposed to from our birth especially if brought up by loving parents who held the same beliefs and felt they were doing the best they could for their children to bring them up in their faith, which they believed ‘is the utmost truth’. So what am I saying? Let each one believes what they want and they can hold on to that belief and that’s ok and that’s right?

Well, I am not saying those very words. It is just that Faith is a strong force, such an indestructible factor in our upbringing.

What I really think is that nobody knows the truth. After all, there can’t be truth 1 and truth 2 and truth 3. Truth is truth, and nobody can say what they are holding to is IT! Nothing else is going to counteract that. There is no way, we can uphold one ‘truth’ and make everyone believe it. That is impossible. And it is not necessary. It is fine to hold what you have been taught and it is also fine if later on you were convinced of some other way is the truth and you changed completely.

Just as we are white, black, brown, tall, short, intelligent or dull and so on to other characteristics, we can hold to a belief which we think is right. Who knows whether the believer or non-believer achieved what they believed in and found out that they were right? No one comes back to tell us what happened once they depart this world. So, it’s fine to hold what appeals to you most! If you read Mahendra’s article and your mind changes and your convictions change, that’s fine! That’s allowed!

All I am trying to say is that we only have to look at the history of this world to realise there are a hundred or more ways of one accepting one belief and a way of life that seems nearest to one’s reasoning, or if ‘reasoning’ is not important to the person, well, whatever one has been led to believe by parents, teachers and others who shaped their lives. In the meantime, science goes on advancing, knowledge goes on increasing, mysteries to go on baffling, and it’s all in the game! I ask, can anyone give the questioner a really acceptable, provable, undeniable answer to these profound questions?

So, I say, hey! It is ok to believe what you are convinced of. Follow your heart and your mind. Do what you believe in, provided it keeps in with the law.

There you are! That’s the crux of the matter. You have to obey the law, which is there to protect us, which is laid down by the government or other authority. So, within that framework, you can believe and do anything as long as you are within the law!

Zita

THOUGHTS ON BELIEF, FAITH AND SCIENCE AND DESTINY

THOUGHTS ON BELIEF, FAITH AND SCIENCE AND DESTINY

Man has always been curious by nature. He poses questions and seeks answers. He creates delusions such as “everything and every occurrence have a purpose” or “that everything has a beginning”.  A beginning implies that there was “nothing” before the beginning but he does not question what was there before the beginning as this leads to a spiral of uncertainty and a circular argument.

Before the advance of Science, Man had no idea of either the nature or the extent of the Universe. Most existing religions were equally in the dark. Humans were thought of as very special and Earth was more or less regarded as the Centre of the Universe (whatever it was!). This earth-centric, human-centric concept was championed by Theistic religions. Anybody who questioned that was regarded with suspicion and disdain as for example Galileo.

Humankind found out that the best way to get answers was by asking questions, forming a hypothesis and then seeking evidence to justify it. The evidence in its highest form as verifiable data but “evidence” at a lower level also satisfied many people.  What was needed was an explanation that appealed. For example, God created the universe and everything in it and in order to believe that, God had to be something with unlimited powers. This was perfectly sufficient for some. It is the “let it be X” in algebra. All of us form beliefs ultimately on the basis of some form of faith. Scientific evidence is not tested by all who read them. Quite often we accept the evidence on the basis of faith in the source of the evidence. It would not be feasible for all of us to check all the experimental results published and it is perfectly reasonable and practical to trust “trusted sources”. This does not devalue it or equate it with blind faith without a basis.

Humans also discovered that they had emotions and both pleasant and unpleasant subjective mental experiences. They also discovered that some were “luckier” than others in the sum total of their experiences. The inevitable next question was “why is this so?” Some were satisfied that it was entirely random but others saw a pattern. This gave rise to concepts of “good” and “bad”. Good actions resulted in good results and vice versa. This appeared reasonable as it provided an explanation and also a method by which future unhappiness could be reduced by appropriate action in the present time. However, a problem arose. How does such a “law” operate? Two explanations appeared to provide a solution. One was that God sits in judgement and the other is that the present life is part of a continuum of lives before the current birth, and lives after death (rebirth). This appeared to provide a neat explanation for what at first appeared as an injustice, e.g., a good man suffering from a bad experience which he didn’t deserve. The bad experience is because of something “bad” that he did in a previous life. But how do you square this up with belief in a God who is all-merciful? It depends on how you look at God. Is “He” all-powerful like some kind of force or has he got human characteristics such as experiencing love, empathy, pain, sadness etc.? In order to do this, God has to be more than an immense power capable of creating a Universe. He had to be humanised. The humanisation appealed to many as most human beings at some times in their lives have bad experiences which seem uncontrollable.  The experiences that qualify for this have shrunk with the advance of knowledge (for example, the best way to cure an infection and the discomfort it causes is to get rid of the infection- not by praying or lighting a candle or lamp as people long ago did in their ignorance). But there remain situations where one feels helpless and unhappy and in this situation, prayer can be of immense help psychologically. But this again poses a problem. Not all prayers are answered and you are entitled to ask why. If He is all-powerful and loving, why doesn’t he listen to you? Two possible answers come to mind. Firstly, God, in fact, does not exist or if he does, he is not all-powerful. Secondly, he does exist and as our existence goes beyond death (a belief in an after-life), what was seemingly a failure to respond to a prayer was, in fact, a failure  to see “the bigger picture” that God has for you; it looks bad but in fact, it is not. Some cultures overcame this problem by inventing an equally powerful Devil and there was a tussle between the Devil and God and sometimes the Devil won; the implication which some fail to see is that the Devil was more powerful than God.

Coming back to our quest for explanations, those trained in the Scientific method, sought answers by observation, experimentation, formulating hypotheses and testing them and either accepting them as true in the current state of knowledge or rejecting them because the evidence did not justify the hypothesis. This approach led to what we know of our Universe and how it operates. Science also has the humility to accept that in the face of fresh and emerging evidence, it may need to adapt or reject current hypotheses. But working hypotheses enabled us to discover electricity, explain many diseases that affect us and indeed shed light on how we Humans are constructed. It also enabled the most phenomenal control of Nature and innovations for the benefit of Man. The most notable advances in human history such as eradication of diseases, improvements in hygiene and general standards of living, reducing mortality, improvements in production and distribution of goods and services were due to Science. If humans went on Religion alone, they would still be cave dwellers!

A group of “thinkers” took another approach and studied human behaviour and tried to explain phenomena by introspection and reflection. They would not be able to explain most of the physical phenomena (such as thunder and lightning, hurricanes and eclipses), but they could form models of human behaviour and human interaction. These are the philosophers and preachers. Some did this without invoking supernatural beings such as gods but most did. Polytheism was common and monotheism was unusual till much later times.

Science has provided us with a view of the World which no Religion or Philosophy has provided. The vastness of the Universe, the minuscule nature of our planet (let alone ourselves!) in the scheme of things, the beautiful validated explanation for the diversity that exists in Nature by the theory of evolution, were total mysteries before Science. Before the theory of evolution championed by Darwin and  Wallace (and sadly even now), many people refused to accept that Humans are animals.No religion or philosophy told us that we humans have a history going back millions of years. Only science will make us pause in wonderment at how we as we are now, were not there thousands of years ago. We could trace back but the further back we go, the less we look like what we are now. If we project into the future, it would be a big mistake to form in our mind’s eye the image of populations of humans as we are. It is not difficult for us to visualise material changes such as in buildings, transport, communication methods but very few realise that if humans survived (without triggering of self-extinction), we will evolve either into unimaginable forms within the same species or more likely, give rise to a totally new species more adapted to changing conditions. Those future generations will have our skeletal remains to form images of what we looked like, just as we do now to visualise our fellow primates of thousands of years ago (unless digital storage methods evolve to persist for thousands of years). Science also teaches us that life on our planet will cease to exist with the death of our Sun. We don’t need to worry about it at the moment however as it is about 5 billion years on from now!

As stated earlier, religion has no concept of the vastness of our Universe and the high probability that there are other planets inhabited by living beings. Some devotees of Eastern religions will no doubt contest this and state that their religions speak of other beings in different planes of existence, whatever that means. They also claim that lives can move between these so-called planes of existence. In terms of spatial orientation, it is unclear whether they are referring to other planets or planes within this planet as one of the planes of existence is the animal world. It is clear to me that this itself demonstrates the fallibility of this concept as its originator did not regard human beings as animals, which clearly they are.

In light of this and our knowledge of Evolution, it can only be a matter of faith to believe that a human being can be reborn as a lower-order animal. Apart from the mere scientific impossibility, if being born as an animal is the result of some “bad action”, it implies that the condemned animal will remain condemned as how can an animal do good or bad and ascend up the ladder again? Some get over this by stating that the “store of results of bad action” is time-limited and after a variable number of births in the lower animal kingdom, a triumphant return is made as a Human!

No Theistic religion is compatible with established scientific facts. According to the Bible, our planet is only six to seven thousand years old. We know from archaeological and palaeontological evidence that Man probably originated in the continent of Africa (and possibly Western Asia) and migrated outwards about 100,000 years ago. Furthermore, according to the Bible, Man was created by God in his own image. And before that he created all living beings. There is absolutely no statement referring to the differentiation and evolution of complex organisms from simple ones and the process of selection. The only way a real believer in God can be comfortable with this is to bury his head in the sand and not think about it. This does have merits! If the reason for seeking shelter in God is to be comfortable with a state of mind which gives them solace, it will succeed. Such needs are universal and one reason why Religions have survived. Scientists who accept God appear to have different concepts of God and not the simple lay imagination of a benign and rather imposing but gentle Old man with a long white beard image.   Some just accept this dichotomy and live their lives in the way they are most comfortable, treating religion and science as co-existing truths.

But it seems to be clearer with time, that religion and philosophy can be a way for human beings to find a way to exist in his world till the inevitable demise, with the maximum amount of happiness and satisfaction and a minimum amount of pain and sadness without being diverted to answer questions to which science has far more elegant answers than religion or philosophy can provide. One can argue that in the end, it does not really matter whether the Universe had a beginning or whether Man was created or evolved and what matters is how content we will be for the duration of time X-Y= Z, where X is the current age, Y is the unknown age of death and Z is the time till then.

But Religions have and still do, pose dangers to human society and cannot be labelled as an innocent and harmless pursuit by sections of humanity. More of that in the next instalment!

Lastly, I reflect on the concept of destiny. The Oxford dictionary defines destiny as “The events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future” (my italics). The problem is the use of the word “necessarily happen”, which implies that life is programmed in some way, if not completely, at least partially. I say partially because the definition does not state all events. It implies a lack of control and inevitability. There are some things which are inevitable, for example, if I forcibly keep a person’s head submerged for 30 minutes without access to air or Oxygen, he will die. But supporters of destiny believe that all their life events will necessarily happen in the future the way it was “destined”. To me, this is not supportable by any kind of evidence. This may appeal to those who believe in God. They could believe that there is a Master plan for all human beings and that we are merely acting it out. On the other hand, if we remove the word “necessarily” from the definition and refer to the probability of future events, we are on safer grounds. For example, if you are a heavy smoker, the probability of developing lung cancer and/or ischaemic heart disease is very high. If you grew up with caring parents in a supportive environment, the probability of developing into a well-adjusted and successful adult is high. But in both these examples, the outcome given is probable and not inevitable. A belief in destiny (it can only be a belief) is helpful for some in that if life is deterministic, it removes personal responsibility to some extent. It could also give solace when unpleasant things happen to you. It could also relieve you of responsibility in that it was after all your destiny and not your fault. To me, destiny is something which only operates with hindsight because it has happened and the fact that it happened is a fact, but before it actually happened, it could be something which came out of the blue (and impossible to predict) or something which had a high probability such that it was predicted to happen. The fact that it happened is of course not proof of the existence of destiny. Belief in destiny could also have an adverse effect by leading to a life of passivity with no real drive for achieving any form of success in life.