Australia and the World Past and Present

Buddhism is usually regarded as a religion of peace, one that condemns violence.

As a general rule, this tends to hold.

But one can still find examples where Buddhists have taken part in violence.

In the past few decades, there have been instances of conflict in Sri Lanka and Myanmar involving Buddhists.

In Sri Lanka, there have been attacks on Muslims, their homes and their businesses.

The vast majority of Sri Lankans follow Theravada Buddhism.

Monks are highly respected in society.

Historically, Buddhist monks have tended to leave politics alone.

Monks are generally expected to avoid activities that distract from renunciation and spiritual practice.

This includes trade, military activity, and politics.

It means avoiding partisan disputes and worldly power struggles.

Monks are discouraged from political campaigning or seeking political office.

They are expected to renounce wealth, status and power.

It is also important to maintain public trust in the sangha (the Buddhist community) and dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha). Monasteries depend on lay support. Staying non-partisan helps preserve trust across different political factions and encourages accessibility to all laypeople regardless of affiliation.

Many high-profile monks around the world have advocated non-violence.

When China invaded Tibet, the Dalai Lama fled over the mountains into exile. He did not start an army or engage in violence.

When the Vietnam war broke out, Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh advocated for a cessation of the conflict through non-violent means.

In the past few decades, some monks have emerged in Sri Lanka who have taken a more controversial path.

They have argued that there is a need to protect Buddhism.

In Sri Lanka, Buddhism is so deeply-ingrained in national culture that it has become part of the country’s national identity. It has transcended the confines of religion itself to become part of what it means to be Sri Lankan.

In the island nation, religion overlaps somewhat with ethnicity.

Sinhalese Sri Lankans make up more than 70 percent of the population and almost all identify as Buddhists.

Sri Lanka also has minority religions – Hinduism and Islam.

Hindus make up a little over 10 percent of the population and Muslims constitute a little under 10 percent.

Tamils in Sri Lanka tend to be Hindu rather than Buddhist.

In the 2000s, a political party with heavy monk involvement, the Jathika Hela Urumaya, was formed. When it was formed in 2004, it was unusual because many of its founding members were monks. In the beginning, the group fielded only Buddhist monks as candidates in parliamentary elections.

Another group, the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) was founded in 2012. BBS promotes Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism. It advances the idea that Buddhism should have a protected or dominant place in Sri Lankan society. It often frames its mission as protecting Buddhism from perceived threats.

It maintains strong opposition to Islamic influence (for example, halal certification and mosque construction) and also Christian evangelical activity.

It advocates for laws or policies favouring Buddhist primacy and the protection of Buddhist sites and traditions.

BBS is controversial, both domestically and internationally.

It has been accused by some of inciting anti-Muslim violence, especially around 2013 and 2014. It has been linked by critics to communal tensions and riots.

Supporters, however, argue that it is defending national identity.

BBS fits into a wider pattern in Sri Lanka of close ties between Buddhism and national identity and ongoing tensions between majority Sinhalese Buddhists and minority groups.

By standing up for Buddhist norms, politicians can tap into majority sentiment. This can increase their popularity, help them to attract more votes and shore up their political support. If monks stress their support for particular politicians, it can shroud these MPs in religious legitimacy.

If politicians ally themselves with Buddhist traditions, Buddhists can have a higher degree of certainty that their religion will be protected and that laws that benefit Buddhists will be protected or strengthened.

Religious and ethnic difference may not be the only factors driving the sectarian conflict seen in recent times.

Economics may also be a factor. There may be a perception that particular groups are doing well, while others are being left behind. This may stoke economic jealousy. There may be a financial undercurrent that is expressed in ethnic or even religious terms.

The civil war in Sri Lanka lasted for 26 years and ended in 2009.

The core conflict was ethnic, not purely religious. Tamils are mostly Hindu, but there is also a significant Christian minority.

The main armed group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), was secular and nationalist, rather than religious.

A Sinhala-Buddhist identity became closely linked with the Sri Lankan state, while a Tamil identity became associated with marginalisation.

Among Tamils, Hinduism was an important cultural marker, though not politically central to the LTTE. The LTTE itself was often hostile to religion, and at times suppressed religious institutions and assassinated religious figures.

So religion mattered culturally, but Tamil militancy was largely secular.

Sri Lankan Muslims (mostly Tamil-speaking but religiously distinct) complicated the picture.

They were neither aligned with the Sinhalese state nor the Tamil separatists.

The LTTE expelled tens of thousands of Muslims from the north in 1990.

The role of religious figures was not uniform. Some Buddhist monks supported the war effort or nationalist policies. Others worked for peace-building and interfaith dialogue.

It would seem that as the conflict with Hindu Tamils was dying down, attacks on Muslims were ramping up.

There is a repeated theme of insiders and outsiders in Sri Lanka.

Sometimes, ‘outside’ groups are often perceived as a threat to the dominant majority culture.

Hindus, Muslims and even Christians have fallen within to this category at different times.

Perhaps the continual presence of a perceived outside threat acts a unifying force for majority identity.

Myanmar

A similar situation exists in Myanmar.

Most of the population is Buddhist in the Theravada tradition.

Muslims form a religious minority in Myanmar – but less than 5%.

In recent decades, the country has experienced what we might call “militant Buddhist nationalism.”

The Rohingya in Myanmar are stateless Muslims.

They are concentrated in Rakhine state.

The Rohingya have lived in western Myanmar for generations, but under the country’s 1982 citizenship law, they are not recognised as one of the country’s official ethnic groups.

Under the law, ethnic groups had to have been settled in Myanmar prior to 1823, which marked the beginning of British colonialism in Burma.

So, according to this definition, the Rohingya are not seen as a legitimate Myanmar ethic group and that is why many refer to them as ‘Bengalis’.

At its heart, the Rohingya conflict is a dispute about what constitutes Myanmar citizenship, nationality and identity. It is about resolving who is an insider and who is an outsider, who is deemed legitimate and who is illegitimate.

The Rohingya are effectively denied Myanmar citizenship at the current time.

Consequently, accessing education, health care and employment can be difficult.

This culminated in intense fighting in 2016 and 2017.

There were attacks by a Rohingya military group followed by a military crackdown by the Myanmar state.

Widespread killings were reported.

Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and many fled over the border into Bangladesh.

Buddhism places much weight on individual insight and voluntary acceptance. Buddhism is typically inviting rather than proselytising.

Muslims in Myanmar have tended to focus on their own religious practice rather than initiating large-scale conversions of non-Muslims.

Still, for some, there may be a popular perception that Islam is an aggressive religion that actively seeks out new converts, thereby placing Buddhism at risk.

In Southeast Asia, over recent decades, we have seen episodes of violence involving Buddhists.

Sri Lanka and Myanmar are notable examples.

Both countries, have a long histories of Buddhism.

In both countries, Buddhism is the dominant religion.

Both Sri Lanka and Myanmar have sizable minority religions.

In both countries nationalism has often divided along ethnic fault lines.

Religion has been swept into this process.

It would be misleading to say that Buddhism in these countries has simply turned violent.

The responses of Buddhists in these countries are varied and many monks continue to uphold the principles of non-harm and non-violence.

Buddhist violence, where is does occur, stands out and is sensational.

If Buddhists are not careful and mindful, nationalism can pull them into dangerous territory and it may bring Buddhism itself into disrepute.