Inhuman attacks on Rohingya refugees: What is

wrong with Buddhist Sangha?

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

The recent violent attacks led by some Buddhist monks against a small group of
asylum seeking Rohingyas have brought the Burmese reality into Sri Lanka. The
Mahanayakas have not condemned the extremist incidents, although the
incidents constitute the polar opposite of the basic tenants of Buddhism and
Ahimsa (non-violence), not to speak of Metta (compassion). It is quite unlikely
that they would condemn, or criticise, other than condoning directly or indirectly
because of the reasons that this article is going to discuss.

This is not the first time that Rohingya Muslims have appeared in Sri Lankan
shores as asylum seekers, although compared to the numbers who have reached
India or Malaysia by boats, these are quite insignificant. Minister Mangala
Samaraweera has given the details in a statement condemning the attacks. Like in
all the previous instances, they are under the UNHCR (United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees) care, and would be repatriated to a third country
because Sri Lanka is unfortunately not in a position to take them as refugees.

Inhuman and backward

That can be considered understandable, given Sri Lanka is a poor country with its
own internal problems. However, that is not a reason to be inhuman when they
reach here or when they are processed by the UNHCR to be sent to a third
country. In recent times, we have seen pictures and videos of thousands and
thousands of Rohingyas fleeing Myanmar (Burma) to Bangladesh including
children, women, sick and old. They are not coming here, to be too alarmed. They
are also now facing resistance in Bangladesh showing that these problems are
intertwined with poverty, insecurity and political conflicts.

Whatever the reasons triggered the recent events, as a person who have visited
some of these areas for work and research purposes, and who has written on
them, the conditions of these ethnic minorities are quite appalling both politically
and socio-economically in Myanmar. This is particularly the case of Rohingyas. Of
course the conditions are no better of the majority Buddhist Burmans particularly
as a legacy of the army rule and Myanmar being a poor country. That is one
reason why they should unite, and not fight each other. The army officers
function in that country as feudal lords and the Buddhist hierarchy as their close
associates.

It is only 31 persons, with 16 children and seven women, who were kept under
the UNHCR care in this case at Ratmalana. They were rescued by the Navy in
April. Given what is happening all over the world, Sri Lankans and, particularly the
Buddhist monks, should have a more compassionate attitude on the refugee
question and other human issues, but this is prevented because of their unbridled
narcissism. How come they are so backward, narrow minded and selfish? These
are the broader issues that I am raising in this article. Is it lack of education,
awareness, knowledge about the international affairs or Metta?
As reliably reported, Sinhala Ravaya was the main organisation behind the violent
protests on 26 September against Rohingya asylum seekers. Sinhala Ravaya is one
of the brotherhood organisations of the Buddhist extremist 969 Movement led
by Ashin Wirathu in Myanmar. They were behind many provocations and violent
atrocities against Rohingyas. Wirathu was even sentenced to 25 years
imprisonment in 2003, but released in 2011.

It is quite inhuman that one organisation chase a particular group of people from
one country, and when they come to the other country, the other organisation
protest against them violently. As both organisations are led by some Buddhist
monks, serious questions arise about the Buddhist Sangha, no social analyst could
easily ignore.

Broader issue

Why Buddhist Sangha are so extremist on religious, ethnic, political

and social issues? Is it possible to ignore the tendency as limited to some Sangha?
Then why many others and particularly Mahanayakas are silent? Or have they
ever stood for any democratic or progressive cause?

There is no question that almost all religions have extremist and violent
tendencies. This is why some philosophers (i.e. Karl Marx) have criticised religion
in general, and people in many democratic countries have become non-believers
or secular. It has been a common phenomenon in pre-modern societies of all
countries, that religion was used by authoritarian rulers as an instrument of
ideological control. That is how religion and State became closely linked to each
other in addition to feudal links. Therefore, the separation between the State and
religion was considered a necessary task in democratic transformation.

If religion can serve a purpose in spiritual harmony, then it can also serve a
purpose in social and political harmony as well. That is what Dharmasoka
intended in promoting Buddhism and introducing Buddhism to Sri Lanka. His
edicts are very clear on this subject. However, for various historical reasons the
purpose has become almost upside down or Sangha have placed Buddhism on its
head. It is extremely doubtful whether these protesting monks have any
harmony!

In observing extremist tendencies and violence in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and

Cambodia, the present author previously raised the question whether Theravada
Buddhism has a tendency towards extremism and violence, associated with
ideological sectarianism? The article was titled Some Questions About Violence
and Theravada in Buddhism. In that article what was not discussed were the
social bases of Sanghas conservatism and, one may say, reactionary tendencies.
These social bases are primarily feudal and those are the profound reasons why
these Sangha and most of the Mahanayakas are resisting necessary social and
political change in the country today.

One may ask the question, what is the connection between the recent Sinhala
Ravaya protest and feudalism? The connection is via the type of nationalism that
Sinhala Ravaya, Ravana Balaya, the BBS and many others are advocating. It is not
the type of nationalism that the modern era witnessed (modern nationalism), or
scholars like Earnest Gellner (Nations and Nationalism, 1983) or Eric Hobsbawm
(Nations and Nationalism since 1780) identified; uniting economies, different
communities, liquidating feudal order and giving priority to the citizens. It may be
imagined communities to a large context, given the fact that most of the other
feudal elements are now liquidated. However, it is out and out feudal and archaic
in ideological terms.

Feudal roots
Can there be any doubt that Thri-Nikayas are the continuously remaining feudal
institutions in Sri Lanka? Some of the other Maha Viharas (big temples) must have
changed; some continuing from the landed feudal roots, and others thriving
through donations and commercial ventures, but mentality and practices
primarily being feudal.

This is not to underestimate the progressive and enlightened role that some of
the modern educated Sangha have played and still playing in the socio-political
sphere. A particular mention should be mentioned about the Vidyalankara group
in the Left movement in the 1930s and Ven. Udakandawela Siri Saranankara. Ven.
Walpola Rahula Thero also played a major role in emphasising the philosophical
side of Buddhism against ritualistic orientation. What Buddha Taught written by
him is one example. I was privileged to be recruited to the Vidyodaya University in
early 1969, as a lecturer, under his Vice Chancellorship, and interviewed by him.

There was no question that under colonialism, the Buddhist Sangha had to
undergo enormous difficulties and even humiliation. However, that is not a
reason to go back to the feudal age or feudal nationalism after independence.
When SWRD Bandaranaike stepped into nationalism in 1930s, although he
thought it would be modern, he himself invoked the Genie. Although he
wanted to rally the poor and disadvantaged Sangha, under his five constituency
movement (Sanga, Veda, Guru, Govi, Kamkaru), those who took over the control
were the feudal hierarchy, and they still try to control the State and politics.

When Bandaranaike wanted to give reasonable use for Tamil language (it was too
late of course), who opposed? Who forced him to tear off the BC Pact? Who
conspired and assassinated Bandaranaike? What is not so known is the Sangha
opposition to the land reforms that Philipp Gunawardena spearheaded. Finally
they were spared from the land reforms then, and thereafter under Mrs.
Bandaranaike under pressure. This is how the feudal power of Maha Sangha kept
intact. Therefore, there is no doubt why they are so conservative and resistant to
change and wanted to control the State and politics. This is nothing personal, but
institutional and structural, however they are responsible for their conservative
and parochial ideas.
This is not peculiar to Buddhism or Buddhist organisation/s in Sri Lanka. This was
the same in feudal Europe, Christian monasteries and abbeys possessing land and
controlling the State and politics. However, this became largely changed through
reformation and also democratic and parliamentary reforms. However, this
remains still the case in some Buddhist countries. Sri Lanka is one and Myanmar is
another. In the case of Thailand, the Buddhist Sangha also constitute a feudal
remnant or force other than the Throne. Klumsuksa Itsara and Sulak Siwarak have
revealed these feudal forces in their works, Tearing Off the Mask of Thai Society
(1981) and The Unmasking of Thai Society (1984), respectively. They are Thai
writers and not Westerners!

Even in China before the revolution, the Buddhist and Daoist monks were linked
to feudalism, particularly through landlordism. Instead of reform, they were
unfortunately controlled or suppressed. Dalai Lama became escaped and he
himself has become reformed fortunately. He was one of the first to condemned
or disapprove the treatment of Rohingyas in Myanmar. A similar suppression to
China happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot, quite distortedly. While Buddhism is
now resurrected, the monks are not allowed to enter into politics and even
debarred from voting. Sri Lanka or even Myanmar should not go to that extreme,
but refraining them from politics might be useful.

What can be done?

It should be admitted that the prominent Sangha influence in politics at present is
detrimental to the democratic process and progress. Not all, but some are playing
a dubious role quite harmful to peace and harmony in the country. There are
others who are taking fire under water. I am using a Sinhala idiom.

Take for example what particularly Asgiriya Nikaya is saying about a new
constitution. It is not only about preserving the foremost place for Buddhism in
the constitution. They are trying to dictate terms on all other matters and on
devolution. My previous article on the subject was Is There a Sangha State
Behind the State? Is it acceptable in a democratic country, in the 21st century, to
keep the minorities under the yoke of the majority rule and/or religion like in
Myanmar? The Sinhala Ravaya attacks on Rohingya refugees are only another tip
of the ice burg. The other issues underneath are more profound.

In symbolic terms, if the foremost place is preserved for Buddhism as a historical

recognition, that can be acceptable. However, the present attempt is to link the
State more closely to the Sangha. A link is already there through the Ministry of
Buddha Sasana and the Vihara Devalagam Ordinance which is the feudal link.
Even this can be acceptable, if the Sangha refrain from hegemonic dominance in
politics.

One advantage in possible deconstruction of the situation is the most

sophisticated philosophy in Buddhism. It is not only about Metta (compassion) or
Karuna (kindness), but also about critical questioning of all what the controversial
Sangha says and the feudal privileges that they unjustly entertain. This is about
the application of Kalama Sutta. What I have not discussed here is the apparent
unbridled narcissism that marks the ideology and behaviour of Sinhala Ravaya,
Ravana Balaya and Bodu Bala Sena, leaving it for another day.
Posted by Thavam