VENERATION WITH UNDERSTANDING By ARMANDO J. MALAY Dean of Students, U. P. (Address before the Philippine Booklovers Society, February 8, 1970 in Pasay City) In one of his bitterest moments during his misunderstanding with Marcelo H. del Pilar, Rizal wrote in a letter: “The wound inflicted by an enemy is painful, but more painful is the wound inflicted by a friend.” In his lifetime and even after, Rizal had his share of enemies, like Retana, Feced or Quiouiap, Barrantes, and the friars. They were foreigners and their hatred of Rizal, while unfair and scurrilous, nevertheless was understandable. Today, seven decades after Rizal's execution, it seems that foreigners have stopped putting down Rizal. Foreigners have realized that if 74 years after his death the Filipino people continue to venerate him, then there is no use trying to topple him from his pedestal as the national hero of the Philippines. Unfortunately, attempts to downgrade Rizal have not ceased completely. And more unfortunately, those who would downgrade him and even picture him as a false hero, are his own ‘countrymen. Paraphrasing Rizal in his remark to Del Pilar, we éan truly say, “The wounds that had been inflicted on him by foreigners were painful, but more painful are the wounds still being inflicted on his memory by his own countrymen.” The main argument of the home-grown detractors of Rizal is this: Since Rizal did not lead the Revolution of 1896—even discouraged and disowned ithe could not properly be the national hero of the Philippines. Two minor themes have been put forward by Rizal's madein-the Philippines critics: (1) that Rizal's becoming the national hero was the result of American sponsorship, and (2) that Rizal's patriotic works, including the writing of his two novels, reflected his mestizo or ilustrado background and were undertaken precisely to protect the interests of the ilustrado class. The main conclusion which latter-day detractors would foist on us is this: Since Rizal, despite the fact that he is a false hero, continues to be venerated by Filipinos, then that veneration is misplaced and that if his countrymen only “understood” Rizal's motivation, they would drop him like a hot potato, In this short paper, I would like to develop the opposite theme: that continued veneration of Rizal by the country, and even by the world, is not only deserved but also understood. issertation in Fort Santiago (Rizal Shrine, Intramuros, ember 30 (1969—O.), Prof, Renate Constantino said,“Almost always, national heroes of the world have been revolutionary leaders.” In other words, if you do not lead a revolution, your chance of emerging as a national hero is nil, or very little. I beg to disagree. Today, if we go by the roster of United Nations membership, there are about 125 sovereign nations, Out of 125 nations, Mr. Constantino could name seven revolutionary ‘leaders who, in his opinion, have become national heroes: Washington of America, Lenin of Russia, Bolivar of South America (Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama), Sun Yat Sen and Mao Tse-tung of China, and Ho Chi minh of Vietnam. Very clearly, a mere seven out of 125 is a very small minority. Yet Mr. Constantino was very sure that “almost always, national heroes of the world have been revolutionary leaders.” If Mr. Constantino’s statement is correct, then the national heroes of major nations like Britain, France, Sweden, Spain, Japan, India, and many others, would have been revolution- aries. The fact is, a man becomes a hero, or a national hero, not because he leads a revolution—although I'd say that happens sometimes—but because he is admired for his achievements and noble qualities, and considered a model or ideal. Since Mr. Constantino mentioned seven military leaders, I suppose he would rule out India’s Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi led no armies, but he did more than all the military leaders of India put together to achieve nationhood for India. As a matter of fact, mention of India today evokes memory of Gandhi and vice-versa. On the other hand, Mr. Constantino failed to list Sukarno of Indonesia. If, following Mr. Constantino’s criterion, leadership in a revolution is a prerequisite for the status of national hero, then Indonesians would auto- matically regard Sukarno as the national hero of Indonesia. But they don’t because some of his actuations have been placed under a cloud. Parenthetically, I question Mr. Constantino’s inclusion of George Was- hington as the national hero of the United States of America. True he is called the Father of his Country because he commanded the American revolutionary army and was the first president of his country, but he is on no higher plane than Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson. As a matter of fact, in the stone memorial at Mt, Rushmore in South Dakota, Washington is only one of four presidents, the others being Lincoln, Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. Even if we concede that Washington was the greatest revolutionary or military leader of the U.S. we must remember that Washington did not come from the common people like Andrew Jackson or Lincoln. As a matter of fact, Washington was of the landed gentry, owning vast tracts of land and keeping slaves. Now again, one of Mr. Constantino’s “gripes” against Rizal's being the national hero is that Rizal did not come from the masses whose aspirations he did not sympathize 2526 with. We could say the same with regards to Washington, perhaps even Worse (since Rizal did not hold slaves like Washington did), yet Washington made Mr. Constantino's list and Rizal would not (if Mr. Constantino had his way). The fact is, and I would like to say this over and over: a man becomes a hero, or a national hero, if he accomplishes some achievement or achieve- ments that his people admire so mutch that they would place him in higher regard than any other man of the country. Now, that achievement might be in the revolutionary field; (not necessarily revolutionary); it might be in the field of statesmanship and music, as in the case of Poland’s Ignace Paderewski; and, in the future, it might be in the scientific or economic _ fields. The point is: the field from which a national hero would spring is not limited to the field of revolution, which is Mr. Constantino’s thesis. Maybe—who knows?—in some new African nation, the national hero would be, not the one who liberated the country from a colonizing master but one who invents a vaccine that would forever banish a debilitating disease. My “quarrel” with Mr. Constantino simply is this: He set up the criterion of “revolutionary leadership” as the one that would govern the choice of a national hero, and since Rizal did not join the Revolution of 1896 but even repudiated it, ergo, he could not qualify. Further: that since Rizal continues to be venerated by his people, despite the shortcoming described by Mr. Constantino, then our veneration of Rizal as our national hero is misplaced, a veneration without understanding. I submit most energetically that his veneration is not misplaced, is not without understanding. If Rizal “betrayed” the masses—which is an inference to be logically derived from Mr. Constantino’s dissertation—then the masses must be so ignorant or so misled that 74 years after Rizal’s execution, they are still venerating a man whose main concem was to protect the interests of the ilustrado class, which is a selfish grasping class, Rizal continues to be venerated with understanding because, despite downgrading by foreigners before World War II and by critics of his own race after, the masses continue to admire him for his achievements and noble qualities, and consider him a model or ideal. You are all Rizalists and I need not detail here those achievements which to this day continue to evoke great admiration from the masses: his sacrifices indeed giving up his life for his country; his exemplary conduct; and his leaving behind, as a legacy to his people, of a monumental body of writing which to this day is invoked on every occasion, even by foreigners, His profound thoughts on patriotism, culture, history, sciences; his precepts which light the path even of those who would sneer at him as being irrelevant to our times—in short, the achievements of Rizal in all the ficlds he chose, put together, would be more, much more, than winning a battleor starting a revolution. Somebody once described Rizal as the nearest approximation of the “whole man,” and I agree. I am not denigrating those who served our country by starting the revolution or winning battles; each one has his place in the pantheon of our heroes. But to reject one man from the place that is rightfully his, because he did not believe that a revolution was the right way to achieve happiness for his country—this I cannot accept. Men and heroes are not like buttons that can be classified as to their size or color, because they did this or did not do that. Totality of achievements is a better criterion, and by this criterion, Rizal stands head and shoulders above all others. Mr. Constantino said also: “Perhaps I may shock some of you when I say that Rizal was one of the practitioners of a mendicant policy.” And the reason for saying so? “The fact is that the propagandists, in working for certain reforms, chose Spain as the arena of their struggle instead of working among their own people, educating them, helping them to realize their own condition, and articulating their aspirations.” As far as I can find out, two of the seven men at whose feet Mr. Constantino is now worshipping also went abroad, but they did so not to isolate themselves from the masses of their country but to get ideas, to work for reforms. These are Ho Chi minh, who worked in Moscow, and Lenin, who went to London (as did Karl Marx). The fact is, many great men and women got their baptism of fire, as it were, in foreign countries, ‘but returned home as soon as they thought they were ready. The same was true for the Filipino propagandists, including Rizal. With the tight censor- ship and other repressions obtaining in~the Philippines, they could not call attention to the abuses of the rulers here. Besides, some of them wanted to get an education before they went into the fray, Some of them did go home, among them Rizal. Del Pilar was also on his way home when death caught up with him. Others died of diseases caused by mal- nutrition. Again, Mr. Constantino is setting up another criterion of his own making: that the national hero must work among his own people. I say: not necessarily. If a man could serve his country better by working from the outside, then more honor to him than the one who elects to stay in his home country where he virtually can do nothing because of despotism. “The place matters not ....” Rizal said in his farewell poem. Remem- ber: Manuel L. Quezon and Claro M. Recto died in foreign lands; so did Del Pilar, Panganiban, and many others. Mr. Constantino also complains that, reflecting the interests of the ilustrado class: Rizal drew the principal characters of his two novels from that class: Ibarra, Fathers Damaso and Salvi, Maria Clara, ete. There is a difference between the main character or characters in a novel or a play and those whom the writer or author would set up as a model for 27emulation. The “heroes” in Rizal's novels were not Ibarra, Maria Clara or Fray Damaso and Fray Salvi. In contradistinction, Rizal gave us Elias, a man of the masses; Father Florentino, a Filipino priest; Juli and Sisa, and many others, who all sprang from the masses. As a matter of fact, Tbarra was drawn as a weak person who came back to start a revolution simply because he wanted to get Maria Clara from the convent. And I do not see by what stretch of the imagination Fray Damaso and Fray Salvi could be regarded as anything else but unmitigated villains. As to the contention that Rizal as the national hero was created by the Americans, I'd like to say two things: Two years after his execution, Rizal was already honored by the Philippine revolutionary government when Aguinaldo declared December 30, 1898 as a day of mourning. Second: As early as 1892, when the Katipunan was organized, Rizal was already regarded as a sort of national hero, He was the honorary president of the Katipunan, and according to Katipuneros questioned by Spanish military authorities, Rizal’s picture was hung in their meeting rooms. Veneration of Rizal was a fact even before his execution. To say now that Rizal was a creation of the Americans because they did not want the Filipinos to choose Bonifacio as their national hero, is to fly in the face of facts. Worse, it is to insult the masses who, if we are to believe the detractors of Rizal, have allowed themselves to be duped for so long. As a matter of fact, those who would say that our national hero should be one who comes from the masses are underestimating the intelligence and the understanding of the masses. More than some intellectuals in our midst, the masses know that Rizal lived and died for all of us, not only for an elite class. They know that Rizal fought for the farmers of Calamba; that he opened a modern school for boys in Dapitan; that he gave medical services for free in Dapitan, Calamba and other places; that he established a cooperative; that he suffered moral and physical beatings; that his family and friends suffered much abuse—the masses know as well as feel that these were not done by Rizal simply to preserve the interests of the ilustrado class. If some of us today do not accept these truths because Rizal happened to be born to a fairly well-to-do family and went to the Ateneo and Santo Tomas University and was able to pay his own fare to Spain and back—then I say, you are the ones without understanding. Thank goodness, you are very, very few. 29