Buddhism and the State in Sri Lanka

My chapter title stems from the fact that an exposition of the relations between religion and the state isprincipallyan account of the connection between Buddhism and polity. This is not to deny the fact that Sri Lanka, here also using the name to denote the island historically, has been a multi-religious society. The title is merely an allusion to how Buddhism was granted the ‘foremost place’ in the 1972 constitution, and how the royal patronage of Buddhism is a central narrative for understanding the intimacy between Buddhism and the polity in Sri Lanka. The chapter begins by discussing the Kandyan Convention signed in 1815 between the king of Kandy and the British, where ‘the religion of the Boodhoo’ was declared

‘inviolable’. From here I will discuss the royal patronage bestowed upon the Buddha Sasana in the Anuradhapura period, before looking at kingship and conversions with the arrival of Portuguese in the sixteenth century. Central historical epochs, especially the Buddhist revival from 1860s, will be covered before looking into the momentous election in 1956, when Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism emerged as an influential factor in Sri Lankan politics. Few, if any contemporary processes can be understood isolated from the civil war (1983–2009), and I will discuss how Sinhala-Buddhist pressure groups have been a major obstacle to any peace process, and how Sinhala-Buddhist and Tamil nationalism have had competing state formation projects in contemporary Sri Lanka. As this chapter is intended as a prelude to a debate on the anti-conversion bill, I place special emphasis on religious encounters, conversions and political allegiance.

Facts one should know

Sri Lanka is located at the Indian coast, just south of the tip of India. According to the last nationwide census in 2012, the population was defined as 74,9% Sinhalese,

11,2% Sri Lanka Tamils, 4,2% Indian Tamils, 9,2% Sri Lankan Moors (Muslims) and 0,5% others.¹³ Of a population of total 20,263,723, this includes 15,173,820 Sinhalese, 2,270,924 Sri Lanka Tamils, 842,323 Indian Tamils, 1,869,820 Sri Lanka Moor, 37,061 Burghers, 40,189 Malay and 29,586 Other. Of these: 70,2% were Buddhist, 12,6% Saiva Hindu, 9,7% Muslims, 6,1% Roman Catholics and 1,3%

Other Christians.¹⁴ As per religion 14,222,844 Buddhists, 2,554,606 Hindus, 1,967,227 Muslims, 1,237,038 Roman Catholics, 272,568 Other Christians and 9,440 Other. The following districts have more than 1,0% Other Christians: Colombo (2,8%), Gampaha (1,9%), Nuwara Eliya (2,0%), Jaffna (3,3%), Mannar (4,7%), Vavuniya (4,6%), Mullaitivu (3,5%), Kilinochchi (5,4%), Batticaloa (4,1%), Trincomalee (1,9%) and Puttalam (1,6%). Other Christians include both Protestant denominations (Anglicans, Methodists, Presbytarians, etc.), but also a wide array of evangelical churches. While Frydenlund (2005a) reports a total of 30,000 monks in Sri Lanka, both de Silva (2006) and DeVotta (2007) operate with 37,000. Thesangha is not one unitary organisation, but consists of three main fraternities: Siyam Nikaya (18,000 monks), Amarapura Nikaya (12,000 monks) and Ramanna Nikaya (between 6,000-8,000 monks). While the different fraternities can be understood in relation to caste, they cannot be strictly derived from it (de Silva 2006).

Kandyan convention (1815) and state patronage of Buddhism

Most of the interviews I conducted began with a historical introduction of how to understand the relations between religion, most often Buddhism, and the state in Sri Lanka. One of my informants, a professor in Buddhist studies, informed me that I would not be able to understand the debate around the anti-conversion bill without a fair notion of the historical state-religion relations in Sri Lanka:

The king protects Buddhism. Sangha expects patronage from the state. All the way from 1815 have there been an expectation that the state should protect Buddhism.

13http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/cph2011Pub/pop42.pdf

14http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/cph2011Pub/pop43.pdf

This is also in the minds of the monks. It is hard to think about the state without Buddhism.

In India Nehru and other elites imposed the notion of secularism upon India. Do not forget the violence amidst the partition of India and Pakistan. Now BJP has come to power, yet India has a different history from Sri Lanka.

In Sri Lanka the religious resurgence came in 1956 with S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike.

Buddhist nationalism came much earlier. In 1972 Buddhism was declared the foremost religion. While the state protects Buddhism, it also guarantees protection to other religions as well. Legal scholars in Sri Lanka have been struggling to find out how to interpret this. (Interview, 14^thOctober, 2011)

My informant observes here how Buddhism and the state have had close relations historically, and how it in the present faces difficulties in negotiating these intimate relations into legal formulas. He further claimed that Sri Lanka was “not a Buddhist country in the administrative sense, but historically and culturally” (Interview 14.10.2011). In this trajectory, he mentions three important watersheds of this relationship in the modern period; 1815, 1956 and 1972. My first emphasis will be on the event of 1815, when the British brought the Kandyan kingdom, and thus the whole of the island, under one unitary political rule.¹⁵ Another informant, a highly influential Buddhist lay leader running a prominent development organisation, stated:

Then the British were able to sign an agreement – this is a most important thing – The Kandyan Convention of 1815. In that convention they called it inviolable that Buddhism should be preserved. The British got the condition that Buddhism has to be preserved and given protection. The 5 conditions, this was the fifth, the religion of the Boodho was inviolable. (Interview 25^thof September, 2011)

The signatory of the Kandyan Convention, which was signed 2^nd of March 1815,¹⁶ read: “The Religion of Boodho professed by the Chiefs and Inhabitants of these Provinces is declared inviolable, and its Rites, Ministers and places of Worship are to

15Terms like ‘unitary state’ are particularly loaded in Sri Lanka. Schalk argues in an article on the key concepts

‘unity’ and ‘sovereignty’ can be related to the concept of ekachattafound in the Mahavamsa tradition.

Ekachatta(pali) means ‘one umbrella,’ and can be seen as a metaphor for the unification of the country, especially under ‘Buddhist’ rule (see Schalk 1988: 64).

16Jathika Hela Urumaya initiated their political party with a procession on March 2nd, to allude to this signatory (see Frydenlund 2011).

be maintained and protected” (as quoted in Evers n.d.: 324). Evers argues that this formulation made the British the legal successor not only of the political aspects, but of the religious aspects, the protection of Buddhism, as well. The British colonial administrators were trapped in a paradox where they were ‘linked to the ideal of spreading Protestantism’ on the one hand, while protecting and maintaining the Buddhist order on the other, which posed a never-ending problem (Evers n.d).

Malalgoda argues that “there was no immediate withdrawal of state patronage to Buddhism after the cession of the kingdom to the British in 1815; but in stages the withdrawal was made all the same” (Malalgoda 1976: 258). Already in the 1920s the first petitions came from Buddhist interests requesting the British colonial administrators to take legal action against a series of missionary tracts and pamphlets which carried words of denigration against the Buddhist tradition. The Buddhist voices urged the government to prohibit offensive publications, especially since Buddhists did not issue any such offensive tracts themselves. The British government was often negligent towards the demands of the Buddhists, but was all the same nervous that they should honor the Kandyan convention so as to not stir rebellious sentiments among the population, as a rebellion had taken place in the province of Uva in 1817 (Malalgoda 1976). However, missionary tracts attacking various aspects of Buddhism were continuously released.

Harris observes how some of the missionary recollections reveal how the Buddhist clergy entered in encounters with missionaries with an expectation of courteous intelligent conversation, yet that the Christian antagonism against heathenism, including the motivation to learn of Buddhist precepts only to undermine them, condoned disappointment among the Buddhist clergy (Harris 2006: 196).

Missionary antagonism was not only directed at Buddhism per se, but especially against the provisions endorsed by the Kandyan convention. It was in particular the word ‘inviolable’ that caused resentment, as it was seen as a hindrance to promoting efforts of conversion in Kandy. In the 1830s many of the traditional services of the state towards Buddhism were ended, not lest due to aggressive campaigning from Christian missionaries. Provisions to the Asgiriya and Malvatte chapters, two significant temples in Kandy, were stopped, and the government no longer forced

tenants in temple lands to partake in religious festivals. As a result of such moves, temples and clergy had to take legal action to enforce many of its enjoyed rights, a process that was not only expensive, but also made the monks widely unpopular (Malalgoda 1976: 115-122). Thus, the provision guaranteed in Article 5 of the Kandyan convention soon became one of expectation, frustration and disappointment in the encounter with the British colonial administrators.

Before we turn to the Buddhist responses against missionary efforts from 1850s and onwards, we need to shift our attention to the historical relations between Buddhism and royal patronage, and how the influx of missionary efforts and ‘alien’

political rule challenged the historical relations between Buddhism and political power in Sri Lanka. Malalgoda argues on the consequences of these shifts:

An important consequence of the transfer of political power into alien hands, as far as Buddhism in Ceylon was concerned, was the loss of the state patronage which it had enjoyed for centuries, and which, as we have seen earlier, was a necessary condition for the proper functioning of its central institutions. Under the Portuguese and Dutch, the strength of the state machinery was not merely withdrawn from Buddhism; it was actively used against Buddhism on the side of Christianity. (Malalgoda 1976: 28) Malalgoda argues here how the loss of state patronage severely affected the vitality of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, especially under colonial administrators, as they not only withdrew their support, but often actively opposed the Buddhist tradition. The intricate relations between Buddhism and the state have been an ongoing source of conflict since ancient times, and it is a conflict that has seen different manifestations throughout different historical epochs. To understand how the proposed anti-conversion bill can be seen as one such encounter in the wider picture of Buddhism and the state, we need to look into the various moments of the island’s history.

Anuradhapura era

Relations between Buddhism and political power in Sri Lanka go back to the conversion of the king Devanampiya Tissa (250–210AD), who had the base of his reign in Anuradhapura. While de Silva (2005) claims that Buddhist presence probably

arrived in Sri Lanka earlier, the momentous conversion of Devanampiya Tissa came about when a missionary envoy ZDVVHQWE\.LQJ$ĞRNDRIWKH0DXU\DQHPSLUHWR VSUHDG WKH WHQHWV RI %XGGKLVP ,W ZDV 0DKLQGD WKH VRQ RI $ĞRND ZKR DUULYHG LQ Anuradhapura¹⁷and convinced Devanampiya Tissa to embrace Buddhism, and later a kinswoman named Sanghamitta arrived to establish a line of Buddhist nuns along with a sapling of the Bo tree,¹⁸ under which the Buddha had allegedly attained enlightenment. The conversion of Devanampiya Tissa can be read on three levels; the influx of Buddhism to Sri Lanka by missionary efforts, a linkage to the legendary .LQJ $ĞRND DQG WKH FRQFHSWV RIcakravartin (the wheel-turning emperor), and the HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI VWDWH SDWURQDJH RI %XGGKLVP LQ 6UL /DQND .LQJ $ĞRND LV RIWHQ labelled as a perfect ideal of a cakravartin,¹⁹ which is often translated as wheel-turning emperor or universal monarch, connected to the term dharmavijaya, what Seneviratna calls “the concept of conquering the world by righteousness without the use of weapons” (Seneviratna 1994: 79). Albeit a track record of excessive violence, somH HVWLPDWHV VD\ KH ZDV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU RYHU YLFWLPV .LQJ $ĞRND regretted his violent deeds and found solace among the sangha and their tenets of Buddhism, and changed his rule accordingly. However, Seneviratna (1994) argues WKDW .LQJ $ĞRND FRQWLQXed his expansionist ambitions, but substituted his way of conquest from force of arms to that of dhamma. Hence, the conversion of Devanampiya Tissa by the means of dhamma did not only bring state sponsored Buddhism to Sri Lanka, but also subordinated Devanampiya Tissa under Mauryan LQIOXHQFHOLQNLQJWKHOLQHRI%XGGKLVWNLQJVKLSWR.LQJ$ĞRND²⁰

17The city of Anuradhapura has been cast as the ‘sacred city’, as it was the first capital of Buddhist kingdoms in Sri Lanka, as well as the home of several important buildings and historical sites, and it has the last 100 years been subject to a revival as a pilgrimage destination, not least due to its ideological position in the heartland of the Sinhala Buddhist nation (Nissan 1989).

18In 1985 this particular Bo tree was attacked by (allegedly) LTTE soldiers, an act which Elizabeth Nissan claims has a resonance of an attack upon the “whole construction of the island as continuously and inviolably Sinhala Buddhist” (Nissan 1989: 65).

19The concept and myth of the cakravartinis explored in Digha Nikaya’s “Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta” (Rhys Davids 1995) where the ‘wheel-turning’ king Dalhanemi is marked by 32 auspicious marks. Through his reign of dhamma all suffering and wrongdoing are absent, but when his successor is not able to fulfil the ideals of the cakravartinthe kingdom resumes into chaos due to the imperfect rule (see Strong 1993).

207KHWZRPRVWLPSRUWDQWWH[WVRQ$ĞRND$ĞRNDYDGDQDand 0DKƗYDۨVD, differ in the portrayals of King

$ĞRNa. While $ĞRNDYDGDQDSRUWUD\V.LQJ$ĞRNDDVEHLQJGDUNDQGSDUDGR[LFDOWKH0DKƗYDۨVDbrings more

The conversion of Devanampiya Tissa is seen as the advent of state-Buddhism relations in Sri Lanka. Gombrich comments that this relationship was based upon complementarity, the Sasana and the kingship mutually supported each other, and that the Sangha was treated with ‘immense deference’ (Gombrich 1988: 160). Also de Silva observes how the bonds of the sangha and the royal authority were formed in mutual association, and he notes the formal obligations that were expected from the royal authority:

Of the formal obligations of the ruler to the established religion, three were of special importance. First of all, there was a provision, by the state and its citizens, of the wherewithal for the maintenance of the sangha. Second, part of the state’s economic resources were used for the construction of religious edifices and monuments, with the architectural and sculptural embellishments associated with these […]And third, it was the king’s duty to protect the established religion. (de Silva 2005: 60)

While the ideal state-Buddhism relation was inextricably linked, the king’s protection of Buddhism also entailed the responsibility for purifying the sangha in times of corruption and indiscipline. Gethin, however, warns against simplified comparison of ancient ties to the official state religion by modern standards (Gethin 2007: 75).

Nevertheless, the historical relations between Buddhism and the state have been widely discussed in contemporary Sri Lanka, especially through the historical Vamsic chronicles,²¹ as is why Kemper (1991) names his book The Presence of the Past.

While Mahavamsa, the main text of the Vamsic chronicles, had been at one time almost forgotten, it was rediscovered in colonial times and proved to be a potent tool for religio-national revivalism. The subject-matter of the Mahavamsais to follow the line of kings in Sri Lanka, explicating how they have nurtured the close ties between the state and the sangha. Various scholars place the work along the pendulum between myth and history, depending on their background and political intentions. K.

M de Silva claims that it is “too bold in its outlines and too simple in its narration”

IRFXVWRWKHKLVWRULFDOOLQHDJHRI$ĞRNDEULJKWDQGJORULRXVDQGKRZWKH%XGGKLVWWUDGLWLRQVXUYLYHVLQLWV most pristine form in Sri Lanka (Strong 1993: 24).

21The Vamsic chronicles referred to a set of historical chronicles with similar subject-matter: Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa and Culavamsa.

(de Silva 2005: 14), despite the fact that it has obvious historical relevance for the period it covers.²² Kemper notes that Mahavamsa works on three levels simultaneously; historical, moral and political (1991: 85).

Perhaps the most discussed episode, both in the Sri Lankan public and in the scholarly realm, of the Mahavamsais where the Buddhist king Dutthagamini defeats king Elara for the restoration of Buddhism.²³ Kemper notes how this event is given resonance in the present situation: “as the leader of a specifically Sinhala Buddhist army, who acted to restore the island to Sinhala Buddhist hands, for Buddhist goals”

(Kemper 1991: 130). This resonance is particularly prevalent in Walpola Rahula’s work The Heritage of the Bhikkhu [1946],²⁴ a work which sought to redefine monkhood as one accommodative of political monks: “from this time the patriotism and the religion of the Sinhalese became inseperately linked (Rahula 2006: 21).

Walpola Rahula, not only an active participant in the debate concerning political monks but also a famous scholar monk, observes in his History of Buddhism in Ceylonhow several sources allude to the inviolable bonds between Buddhism and the state in Sri Lanka, and quotes a passage from Pujavaliya, a Sinhalese prose work from the 13^thcentury:

This Island of LaৄNƗEHORQJVWRWKH%XGGKDKLPVHOILWLVOLNHDWUHDVXU\ILOOHGZLWK the Three Gems. Therefore the residence of wrong-believers in this island will never be permanent, just as the residence of the Yakৢas of old was not permanent. Even if a non-Buddhist ruled Ceylon by force a while, it is a particular power of the Buddha that is line will not be established. Therefore, as LaৄNƗLVVXLWDEOHRQO\IRU%XGGKLVW kings, it is certain that their lines, too, will be established. (as quoted in Rahula 1993[1956]: 63)²⁵

This quote brings to the scene a set of the key figures of Sinhala Buddhist sentiments:

foreign domination, race, religious responsibility and the unification of the island as a

22Liyanagamage observes that most of the Mahavamsawas written within the confines of a renowned temple, Mahavihara, which made disputes surrounding that particular temple especially troublesome in the historical narratives. Liyanagamage himself discusses a dispute involving king Mahasena and the Mahavihara (Liyanagamage 2008).

23This episode is also widely discussed within the idiom of Buddhist legitimation of violence.

24The book appeared in its Sinhalese version, %KLN܈XYDJƝ8UXPD\Din 1946, and is a milestone work in the conceptualization of the legitimacy of political monks (see Hertzberg 2011, Seneviratne 1999).

25:DOSROD5DKXOD¶VUHIHUHQFHLVWR3MY3>3njMƗYDOL\D-LQƗODৄNƗUD3UHVV&RORPER@

spiritual goal (Kemper 1991). While historically the foreign invasions had come from South India, or from the many conflicts and disputes among the many regional rulers within the confines of the island itself, the relations between kingship and the sangha got a wholly new challenge with the influx of the Portuguese in 1505, and especially with the British takeover of the whole island under one rule in 1815. With the arrival of the Portuguese in 1505, the island was divided among four regional powers, ORFDWHG URXJKO\ DW -DIIQD .DQG\ 6ƯWƗYDND 6DEDUDJDPXZD DQG .RWWH FORVH WR Colombo).

Kingship, conversion and colonialism in Sri Lanka

With the arrival of the Portuguese in 1505/1506, the age-long rivalry between local and regional forces in Sri Lanka and South India got a new actor on the political scene:

For those with purely commercial and maritime ambitions, religion could remain a secondary consideration, but when the Portuguese decided to stay on in any locale they would initiate a campaign of proselytizing, on the assumption that those converted would serve as their supporters. Many groups accepted conversion to align themselves with governing powers, either to enhance their fortunes or for survival – having no other option. (Mendonça 2010: 136)

The Portuguese kings had already from 1455 and onwards received special privileges from the popes to expand their empire along with missionary enterprise. By a number

The Portuguese kings had already from 1455 and onwards received special privileges from the popes to expand their empire along with missionary enterprise. By a number