Red Flags and Sacred Relics: The Marxist Paradox in Sri Lankan Politics

IN FOCUS, 5 May 2025

Sanjeewani Rupasinghe - TRANSCEND Media Service

Introduction: A Paradox in Plain Sight

3 May 2025 – In contemporary politics, the use of myth and ritual is no longer the exclusive domain of monarchies or theocracies. Even secular and revolutionary regimes increasingly draw upon cultural and religious traditions to bolster their legitimacy. Sri Lanka offers a striking example of this phenomenon. A recently elected government with Marxist ideological leanings has openly embraced Buddhist symbolism—most notably through its engagement with the sacred Tooth Relic of the Buddha. This development poses a fundamental paradox: why would a regime grounded in Marxist principles—an ideology that famously critiques religion as a tool of oppression—seek to legitimize its authority through one of the island’s most venerated religious artifacts?

Myth, Ritual, and the State: Theoretical Background

Myth and ritual have long served as foundational mechanisms in the construction and maintenance of political authority. In this context, a myth is not merely a fictional tale but a powerful narrative that conveys meaning, legitimizes social hierarchies, and shapes collective identity (Eliade, 1963). Rituals—symbolic actions often performed publicly—reinforce these narratives, anchoring individuals to a shared sense of history and purpose. Together, myth and ritual function as cultural instruments through which states articulate and sustain their legitimacy.

Émile Durkheim argued that religion and ritual serve as the glue of society, reinforcing collective values and identities (Durkheim, 1912/1995). Political theorists such as Antonio Gramsci and Benedict Anderson expanded this framework into modern political analysis. Anderson’s (1983) notion of “imagined communities” illustrates how nations are built upon shared myths, symbols, and rituals, while Gramsci (1971) introduced the concept of cultural hegemony—where dominance is maintained not just through force or law, but by shaping symbolic and ideological consensus.

Importantly, even revolutionary or secular regimes have not abandoned myth and ritual. Communist states, for instance, frequently replaced religious rites with civic ceremonies and transformed revolutionary leaders into mythic figures (Verdery, 1999). This enduring reliance on symbolism demonstrates that the emotional and cultural dimensions of power are indispensable. Administrative competence alone is insufficient; states must also foster emotional resonance, historical continuity, and symbolic authority. This is evident in Sri Lanka today, where a Marxist-influenced government is drawing on deeply rooted religious traditions to reinforce its political position.

The Political Power of the Tooth Relic

The Tooth Relic, believed to be a canine tooth of the Buddha (though its authenticity has long been debated), has historically served not only as a spiritual object but also as a powerful symbol of kingship and state authority. Ancient chronicles such as the Mahavamsa describe Sri Lankan monarchs as guardians of both the relic and the Buddhist faith (Geiger, 1912). Throughout history, rulers have used their association with the relic to assert divine authority and foster a sense of national unity (Seneviratne, 1999). Today, that same relic is being strategically reinterpreted—not by monarchs, but by a government that once pledged to depart from religious and traditional forms of legitimacy.

The Temple of the Tooth (Sri Dalada Maligawa) in Kandy continues to embody this intersection of spiritual veneration and political symbolism. During the Kandyan Kingdom, kings were seen as the custodians of both the relic and Buddhism itself. The annual Esala Perahera, a grand public procession in which the relic plays a central role, functioned not merely as a religious event but also as a dramatic affirmation of the monarch’s divine mandate (Geiger, 1912; Obeyesekere, 1992). Despite the end of monarchy and colonial disruptions, the relic’s symbolic potency persisted. In the 20th century, nationalist leaders repositioned it as a cornerstone of post-colonial identity and sovereignty.

In the present day, the Tooth Relic remains more than an object of spiritual devotion—it is a potent political symbol embedded in the historical narrative of Sinhalese-Buddhist identity. By engaging with the relic, contemporary political actors align themselves with a longstanding tradition of sacred legitimacy.

Myth Meets Marx: From Secular Promises to Religious Performances

Despite its Marxist foundations, the current Sri Lankan government has increasingly turned to religious rituals—especially those involving the sacred Tooth Relic—as a tool for political legitimacy. This move presents an ideological paradox: while classical Marxism condemns religion as “the opium of the people” (Marx, 1844/1978), the government now embraces Buddhist symbolism and public ceremonies at the Temple of the Tooth in ways that are both highly visible and politically strategic.

High-ranking officials frequently participate in rituals at Sri Dalada Maligawa, offering tributes and performing acts of devotion under media spotlight. Such performances are not mere tradition; they serve a calculated purpose. With over 70% of the population identifying as Sinhala Buddhist, aligning with religious symbolism helps the government appeal to a culturally and electorally significant demographic that might otherwise distrust Marxist secularism (Uyangoda, 2010).

The irony is especially evident in the president’s personal transformation. Prior to his election, he was openly critical of religion in politics, once stating that it was a refuge for ineffective leadership and pledging not to worship the Tooth Relic in front of cameras. However, as local elections approached, his stance shifted dramatically. He appeared at the Temple, took part in religious rituals, and allowed media coverage of these moments—clearly recognizing the value of religion as a mobilizing force, particularly in rural areas where religious belief remains deeply embedded.

This evolution does not suggest a shift in core ideology so much as a pragmatic adaptation to political realities. It echoes patterns observed in other Marxist or secular regimes, where religion was replaced by state-sponsored rituals and revolutionary symbolism (Verdery, 1999), serving the same function of fostering collective identity and reinforcing state power. Durkheim (1912/1995) highlighted how ritual strengthens social cohesion, while Anderson (1983) and Gramsci (1971) argued that shared symbols and cultural narratives are central to constructing national identity and sustaining political authority.

The symbolic use of the relic is particularly striking in light of classical Marxist theory. Karl Marx (1844/1978) characterized religion as “the opium of the people,” a tool used by the ruling classes to pacify the oppressed and preserve existing power structures. According to Marxist logic, religion diverts the working class from recognizing their material conditions by offering illusory comfort.

Yet political history shows that even Marxist regimes have found utility in myth and ritual. Civic cults, state funerals, revolutionary iconography, and secular pilgrimages have often replaced religious traditions without abandoning their social function (Verdery, 1999). As Durkheim (1912/1995) argued, rituals help reinforce collective identity and cohesion. Benedict Anderson’s (1983) theory of “imagined communities” and Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) concept of “cultural hegemony” further illuminate how nations and governments use shared symbols to construct legitimacy.

Viewed through this lens, the government’s embrace of Buddhist ritual is not a betrayal of Marxist principles, but a calculated effort to secure cultural hegemony. It positions the administration within a long tradition of Sri Lankan rulers who used religious imagery to legitimate their rule—demonstrating how myth and ritual continue to shape power, even in ideologically secular states.

Cultural Strategy or Ideological Compromise?

The fusion of Marxist rhetoric with religious symbolism in Sri Lanka has sparked considerable debate. Some view this convergence as exposing a fundamental ideological inconsistency, while others argue it reflects a pragmatic political maneuver. By co-opting sacred Buddhist symbols, the government taps into Buddhist-majoritarian sentiment, securing the loyalty of a large voter base while mitigating opposition from religious conservatives.

From a Gramscian perspective, this strategy exemplifies the concept of cultural hegemony, where the state does not merely enforce power through coercion or law but aligns itself with the prevailing symbolic and emotional consensus of the populace (Gramsci, 1971). By positioning itself as the protector of tradition, the government blurs the distinction between revolutionary change and the maintenance of cultural continuity. This dual positioning helps to solidify its authority within a society that values historical legacy and religious identity.However, this cultural strategy carries significant risks. It risks alienating religious minorities, particularly Tamils and Muslims, who have historically been marginalized within the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist framework. Moreover, ideological purists within the left-wing camp may view this embrace of religion as a departure from Marxist principles, potentially undermining the government’s credibility with its original supporters. While the use of religious symbolism may serve short-term political goals, it could compromise the government’s long-term ideological integrity and alienate groups whose interests do not align with the dominant Sinhala-Buddhist narrative.

Conclusion: The Politics of Symbolic Survival

The Sri Lankan government’s engagement with the Tooth Relic reveals a fundamental truth about political power: myth and ritual continue to play a central role in legitimizing the state, even within ideologies that traditionally reject them. The government’s symbolic embrace of religious tradition is not about theological devotion but about tapping into the emotional, cultural, and historical significance these symbols carry.

In this sense, Sri Lanka offers a poignant example of symbolic pragmatism. Ideologies alone cannot govern societies; they must navigate and align with tradition, identity, and collective memory. Even in an era dominated by rational policy-making and secular governance, political leaders still turn to ritual as a means of securing authority. While revolutionary banners may fly, survival often depends on bowing—both literally and symbolically—to sacred relics.

References:

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Durkheim, É. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912)

Eliade, M. (1963). Myth and reality (W. R. Trask, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Geiger, W. (Trans.). (1912). The Mahavamsa: The Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka. Pali Text Society.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

Marx, K. (1978). Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction. In R. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader (2nd ed., pp. 53–65). Norton. (Original work published 1844)

Obeyesekere, G. (1992). The royal court and the Kandy Esala Perahera: Transformations of Buddhist kingship. In J. Spencer (Ed.), Sri Lanka: History and the roots of conflict (pp. 146–172). Routledge.

Seneviratne, H. L. (1999). The work of kings: The new Buddhism in Sri Lanka. University of Chicago Press.

Uyangoda, J. (2010). Religion, politics and crisis in Sri Lanka. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(4), 10–13.

Verdery, K. (1999). The political lives of dead bodies: Reburial and postsocialist change. Columbia University Press.

_______________________________________________________

Sanjeewani Rupasinghe is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. She is currently pursuing her PhD at the University of Hull in the United Kingdom.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 5 May 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Red Flags and Sacred Relics: The Marxist Paradox in Sri Lankan Politics, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.