Prof. H. L. Seneviratne has approvingly quoted a few paragraphs from Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s article titled "Mervyn de Silva and the Lankan condition" and published in "The Island" of 22/06/2009. Does Prof. Seneviratne agree with the statement that "Sri Lanka’s problem is not an ancient, pervasive Sinhala Buddhism, but an obsolescent, lingering Sinhala Bushism", which is also included in the excerpt? If he agrees, then will he kindly explain whether ancient, pervasive Sinhala Buddhism should not be blamed for the present situation in the country? I believe it is reasonable to assume that ancient, pervasive Sinhala Buddhism refers to the Sinhala Buddhism that has existed in this country since the days of the Mahavihara, which was primarily concerned with safeguarding the Sasana. Can the professor kindly differentiate between Sinhala Buddhism and Sinhala Bushism also?

As far as I am concerned, one can easily be a Sinhala Buddhist, without being a Bushist and I doubt whether a Bushist can claim to be a Sinhala Buddhist. I am a Sinhala Buddhist who believes that in our country the Sinhala Buddhist culture should be able to enjoy the same place that is enjoyed by the Chinese culture in China, the English culture in England (if not Britain), the French culture in France where Muslim costumes such as hijabs, burqas, etc. have become an issue although the Sinhala Buddhists are more tolerant than the French, the Japanese culture in Japan, etc. and I believe that demanding the rightful place for a certain culture in a certain land has nothing to with Bushism. Our demand is not due to any superiority complex or any such but based on constructive relativist nationalism.