Why do ‘civil society champions’  want to shut down Chabad Houses?

The government has no right to arbitrate on the religious rights of people. Rather, it has a constitutionally bound obligation to ensure religious rights of all religions. Should the Chabad houses operate in a legally grey area, it is the responsibility to provide legal clarity and recourse to set them up under whatever the appropriate religious ordinance that similarly governs temples, mosques or churches

A recent curious occurrence should baffle discerning Sri Lankans. Local civil society activists and religious freedom advocates, who at other times decry the ‘Sinhala Buddhist Supremism’, are now campaigning to shut down Jewish Chabad houses in the country. 

Chabad Houses are Jewish community centres operated by Chabad-Lubavitch movement, an orthodox Jewish sect which holds certain questionable beliefs, including their opposition to Palestinian statehood. Doctrinaire differences apart, in Sri Lanka, they serve Israeli tourists and backpackers Kosher food and offer a place for religious assembly. 

A month ago, police beefed up protection for the Chabad houses, citing reported threats.In October last year, travel advice was issued against tourists visiting Arugam Bay and the Eastern coast over the threat of terrorist attacks against Chabad Houses, based on information unearthed following the arrest of an Iranian operative in the US. 

Recently, Chabad houses have come under scrutiny over their legal status, following allegations that they operate in a legally grey area. Last week, the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Economic Development and International Relations was told that there are five Chabad Houses in the country, two incorporated under the Companies Act, and the legal status of the others is unknown.

Also last week, the Pottuvil Divisional Development Committee ordered the closure of a Chabad House in the popular surf location, Arugam Bay, citing the absence of legal authorisation.  The Chabad House in question has served  Israeli backpackers and tourists who frequent the town since October last year. 

Intriguingly enough, at the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Economic Development and International Relations, it was also questioned how much an average Israeli tourist spends. This is interesting, since no one has yet asked how much an Indian, Russian, Chinese, Dutch or Bangladeshi tourist spends in Sri Lanka. And that betrays an overt prejudice as well.

The government has cited national security considerations over Chabad Houses.

First, these security considerations should be clarified, rather than enveloping them in an all-encompassing jargon. 

The starting point would be to establish whether the Chabad Houses pose a national security threat or if they are in danger and under threat by their mere existence.

Establishing the former, i.e. whether Chabad Houses are a national security threat, is not difficult. 

Do they preach religious extremism, advocate violence against non-believers, death to apostates, foster religious separatism and alienation --  not just in the scripture, but in their quest to provide practical manifestations of them in real life? If that is not the case, which seems obvious, what prompts national security considerations? National security considerations arise because some groups loathe them and feel aggrieved by the Jews praying in their places of worship.

If you have your eyes wide open, considering our recent painful past, that is exactly where you should be worried. That loathing is not directed at anything local is not an excuse –  former president Maithripala Sirisena was famously dismissive when pointed out that Sri Lankans were joining the Islamic State. He said: ‘Don’t put stray snakes under the sarong.’

However,  the government response should not harm the sensitivities of the local Muslims. Nor does it be tantamount to burying its head in the sand to escape an unpalatable local challenge.

Solving the problem is much easier if the government sticks to its constitutional obligations for assuring religious freedom, rather than playing into local electoral advantage. 

This brings us to the second point. The constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, which are inviolable and inalienable, extend to all religions, their practitioners, and their places of worship,  be it synagogues or Chabad houses, mosques or churches, kovils or temples within our shores. That right can not be discounted because some groups feel aggrieved by another practising their right.

The government has no right to arbitrate on the religious rights of people. Rather, it has a constitutionally bound obligation to ensure religious rights of all religions. Should the Chabad houses operate in a legally grey area, it is the responsibility to provide legal clarity and recourse to set them up under whatever the appropriate religious ordinance that similarly governs temples, mosques or churches. 

Third, we would be fooling ourselves if we overlook the overriding sentiments fuelling opposition to Chabad houses. The war in Gaza has unleashed unparalleled violence on the civilians, and heralded man-made starvation,  according to some accounts, worse since the Ethiopian famine of 1983-85. The Israeli military response, initially deemed legitimate, against Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, has resulted in disproportionate civilian casualties, amounting to over 60,000, according to Hamas-run Ministry of Health and the UN. 

Sri Lanka has raised its objections through available international channels, and recently backed the beleaguered UN rapporteur of human rights in Palestine Francesca Albanese. Peaceful opposition to Gaza war is within legitimate rights. That is exactly why the prolonged detention of a young man under the Prevention of Terrorism Act over a sticker opposing the Gaza war is not just illegitimate, but also undermines the legitimacy of the national security apparatus. In the same vein, shutting down the Chabad Houses, simply because some quarters of the local community do not like them, is not the solution. Nor should the government or local community councils, as in the case of Pottuvil, have the right to choose which religions are allowed to practice and which are not. That sends us down a dangerous slippery road.

Rich irony of the situation

Finally, though this might offend some folks, I cannot help but see the rich irony of the whole situation. 

The same champions of religious freedom who are now up in arms against Chabad Houses, when not at it, are busy lamenting the suffocating hold of ‘Sinhala Buddhist supremacy’’– probably because by its ethnic mix, this country is predominantly Sinhalese Buddhist, or perhaps because the Constitutions of 1972 and 1978, granted a nominal recognition for Buddhism, giving it the foremost place, while assuring all other religions full scope of rights of religious freedom - or because they are simply bitter.

They castigate that lone temple or two set up in the archaeologically contested land in the North or the East, and present it as ample proof of Sinhala Buddhist colonisation. They amplify each antic of a stray monk, and derive sinister satisfaction. 

However, you cannot escape the fact that these much loathed Sinhalese Buddhist supremacists do not care about Chabad houses in their midst in the Down South or in Colombo, in the same way they largely put up with a plethora of recent mosques or evangelical church houses, though the local evangelical associations in their heyday of proselytisation a decade back did a good day’s work by amplifying each minor local ruckus and writing international press releases.  

It might also help to note, for the sake of record, that this country did not ban Martin Wickremesinghe’s controversial novel ‘Bawatharanaya’, which scandalised the Buddha, but went on to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses to appease the local Muslims and the screening of  Da Vinci Code to appease the Catholic Church. 

In the past, local religious rights activists fumed when the controversial Burmese monk Ashin Wirathu was invited to an event organised by the controversial Buddhist group, Bodu Bala Sena.

 But all that time, rabid Islamist preacher Zakir Naik was welcomed in this country and his television channel Peace TV aired through local satellite networks, even after Bangladesh indicted the man for fostering extremism and banned the TV channel after the Holey Artisan Bakery attack in 2016. Peace TV was discontinued in Sri Lanka only after the Easter Sunday attack.

So when I hear all this hullaballoo over the Jewish Chabad Houses, I feel a sense of Déjà vu. Correct me if I am wrong!

Follow @Rangajayasuriya on X