By: EJ Laurel
Did you know? The word "Philippines" is derived from the name of King Felipe II of Spain (deformation of "Felipinas").
In addition to that, the official name of the Philippines has changed several times in the course of its history. President Duterte even considered changing the name to Maharlika. But what is Maharlika?
In Tagalog, the Filipino dialect, Maharlika can mean different things.
The term Maharlika is, believe it or not, a loanword from Sanskrit maharddhika—a title meaning "man of wealth, knowledge, or ability". Though some people say it means the ruling class of yore, it actually means the warrior class of the Tagalog people which is in turn equivalent to the Visayan timawa. Like timawa, the term also has connotations of "freeman" or "freed slave" in both Filipino and Malay languages. After all, a warrior is almost always equated to a freeman with the power to do as one wishes—alpha, if we have to describe it.
Alpha here, alpha there.
So, now we know that Maharlika is another word for a warrior—a freeman. But what makes a freeman? Money? Fame? Of course not. You might say that the freedom to do anything defines a freeman. But tell me, have we ever been truly free?
The definition of free has a lot to do with whether or not we really are free. I mean, will we ever be free from the horrifying clutches of death? Probably never. Will we ever be free to choose between Nike and Adidas? Absolutely. Yet, there are people who don’t have that choice and instead are forced into the choice of poverty. Does that mean freedom is relative? Or is freedom not even a thing?
As Filipinos—as “maharlikas”—we believe in individual freedom. Individual freedom, however, is dictated by a societal standard, or a set of values that we follow. Here, for example: killing is bad. Don’t kill. But what if in one culture, killing is an acceptable practice, like the Honor Killings in Pakistan, where dishonor brought to the family could get you cut open by your brothers or father. See, if people who practice things like this come to a country where such killings are illegal, then is there freedom? If they arrive in the Philippines and commit such acts, to them it’s their freedom to follow their culture, but by the law, it’s a grievous act that harms the Christian image of the Philippines. The question now is this:
Who’s impinging on whose freedom? And is the visitor’s freedom to practice one’s culture being eliminated, destroyed, decimated and placed under a carpet of dissension?
Times change for Maharlikas, too.
Just months ago, the West Philippine Sea was the source of debate between not just the Chinese and the Filipinos, but the Filipinos and. . . the Filipinos. In 2016, the elating victory of the Philippines against China’s claim of the West Philippine Sea showed that the Chinese government violated its obligation to guard the marine environment through tolerance of illegal fishing, massive land reclamation, and the construction of artificial islands. By who? The Chinese government.
This happened in the West Philippine Sea, a part of the ocean that belongs to us. Yet, it seems that we have no sovereignty over it despite the title we have given it. To the Chinese, that’s not even the name. We Filipinos can’t even reach a common ground on the topic anymore.
The President has reassured us that the West PH Sea belongs to us, almost ignoring the trouble of the fishermen whose ship was flipped due to a passing Chinese vessel on territorial sea. But do we really own it? Do Filipino fishermen—freemen—really have freedom in our own sea? Can we ever truly call ourselves Maharlika again?
Late President of the Philippines, Diosdado Macapagal, once said during his speech on June 12, 1964:
The love for freedom is the outstanding trait of the Filipino.
Photos used:
Comments