Buddhist division and polarisation in Myanmar’s revolutionary situation

This submit is an abridged model of an article that seems in a particular version of the Journal of Modern Asia on “Revolution and Solidarity in Myanmar” (Vol 54 No 5).

Not surprisingly, revolutionary visions pose severe threats to institutionalised faith, such because the Sangha—the monastic order—in Myanmar. From a Buddhist–normative viewpoint, the query inevitably arises as to what extent a revolution constitutes a menace to the sasana (Buddhism). How do Myanmar’s practically 600,000 monks and nuns relate to the groundbreaking work at stake? Do they see the revolution as a menace to Buddhism? Or do they see the navy as a menace to Buddhism?

Throughout 2007’s so-called “Saffron Revolution”, resistance was articulated inside a Buddhist framework—for instance, by monks chanting Buddhist protecting prayers in public area; inversion of the alms-bowl as a type of spiritual boycott of navy personnel; and with monastic gatherings at politically vital Buddhist websites such because the Sule Pagoda and the Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon. Whether it is true that what distinguishes the post-2021 coup political wrestle from earlier struggles is a shift from a Buddhist political paradigm that features notions about shut state–Sangha relations and royal safety of Buddhism, to a notion of the sovereignty of the individuals—articulated in a progressive and multi-cultural ethos—then what’s the position of Buddhist political paradigms, or of institutional Buddhism, in creating new political orders?

Understanding anti-revolutionary Buddhism

The Theravada Buddhist Sangha in South and Southeast Asia is commonly spoken of as one unitary physique, each in Buddhist traditions themselves, in addition to in educational literature. In our analysis venture on Buddhist responses to the Myanmar Spring revolution, we interviewed 30 Buddhist monks and lay individuals, along with analysing digital supplies. Primarily based on our empirical findings, we query that narrative by declaring that the Sangha in revolutionary Myanmar is a divided and multifaceted phenomenon. Our analysis reveals three vital elements of navy–monastic relations after the 2021 navy coup: the Army–Monastic Advanced, the Buddhist Ideology of Order, and eventually, Buddhist Revolutionary Monks.

First, our analysis demonstrates how the navy, by means of a long-term venture referred to as the saya-dakar program, has been profitable in co-opting elements of the Sangha in what we name the Army–Monastic Advanced. This venture, which was initiated after the large navy crackdown in 1988, has served as a state propaganda software to tie collectively the junta and probably the most senior monks in each township throughout the nation by means of varied types of assist comparable to funding of monastic instructional packages, entry to land, or lavish temple donations.

Inside three many years, the junta managed to tame a whole lot of progressive and pro-democracy monks and suppress dissent with assist from its pro-military community backed by the venture. This matches exactly with what Benjamin Schonthal and Tom Ginsburg in an vital article on state–Sangha relations within the area have termed “Sangha seize”.

Nonetheless, this instrumentalist clarification alone is just not enough for explaining monastic assist to the navy. A second discovering in our analysis is that we have to perceive the sturdy monastic ideological dedication to the navy within the revolutionary state of affairs. As we have now proven in a earlier article, the preliminary response from many main monks was condemnation of the coup.

Importantly, nevertheless, with the navy crackdown on civilians and subsequent armed in style resistance, monastic elites more and more favoured what we outline as a Buddhist Ideology of Order. The roots of the Buddhist Ideology of Order, which is essential to the Army–Monastic Advanced described above, will be traced to 2 distinct, however interrelated, strands of thought.

The primary strand is rooted in Buddhism itself, for instance, in Buddhist fears of chaos and anarchy, as depicted in canonical texts such because the Agañña sutta. Moreover, it may be argued {that a} deal with order and self-discipline is inherent to the Sangha itself (as expressed within the Monastic Code, the vinaya). The second is linked to the post-1988 navy ideology of regulation and order. The political idea of regulation and order corresponds to the absence of anarchy, the latter understood as a situation of being kingless. What we see is that the navy law-and-order narrative can simply be mixed with Buddhist fears of anarchy in addition to monastic notions of self-discipline.

Inside the Sangha, a minority of monks overtly engages within the navy’s anti-revolutionary operations. For instance, the Shan monk Wazibeik Sayadaw, who has long-term ritual relations with Basic Min Aung Hlaing and his spouse Kyu Kyu Hla, made headlines for his magic companies (yadaya) to the military. He turned notably unpopular amongst revolutionaries for making a magical utterance calling for violence, saying to military troopers that, “In order for you a brand new age, you higher make headshots”. Different monks, comparable to Ashin Warthawa and Ashin Nandacara, have delivered sermons the place they encourage villagers to hitch the junta-aligned Pyu-Noticed-Htee paramilitary troops of their battle towards the revolutionaries.

When analysing their on-line sermons and postings on social media, we see that these anti-revolutionary monks are notably knowledgeable by the anarchy narrative, through which the Folks’s Defence Forces (PDFs) are portrayed as anti-Buddhist. The extension of the enemy narrative to the Bamar Buddhist majority signifies a noteworthy narrative shift: the enemy is no longer solely racialised, non-Buddhist Others (such because the Rohingya) but in addition outlined, inner enemies of Buddhism. This suggests de-humanisation of the interior enemy, thus laying the bottom for acts of violence towards the bulk inhabitants.

Lastly, throughout the class of Buddhist Ideology of Order, we additionally determine the concept of the Obedient Majority, who’re conceived of giving their assist in a number of methods to the established order—for instance by finishing up instructional and ritual expectations of the navy state. This massive group of monastics usually withdraws right into a self-defined “non-political” area, and so they contribute to the restoration of normalcy by taking part in their ritual half within the monastic–navy advanced. Certainly, throughout the Obedient Majority a wide range of positions exist, from assist for the Buddhist Ideology of Order, to the traditionalist place of monastic non-political interference, or to outright fears of navy repercussions in case of non-compliance. Thus, the Obedient Majority constitutes a multifaceted phenomenon, however one which within the public eye is seen as anti-revolutionary, and thus helpful to the navy state.

Buddhist Revolutionary Monks

Analysts have up to now been overwhelmingly involved with monastic assist for the navy—maybe knowledgeable by the large lay revolutionary critique of the Sangha, but in addition knowledgeable by the notion that the Sangha ought to take an ethical lead towards injustice. This normal shock in addition to disappointment, we expect, has led to a niche in our data concerning the multitude of responses to the coup, in addition to to the continued revolution. Our analysis reveals that throughout the Sangha there’s a radical minority who actively work for the revolution and see themselves as “Buddhist revolutionaries”.

Maybe probably the most important monk within the monastic revolutionary motion and chief of the Spring Revolution Sangha Community is the Mon Buddhist monk referred to as King Zero. Within the Burmese language that is min thoun nya, which implies “King of Vacancy”. The identify is a direct reference to the Burmese custom of kicking again at political energy and is due to this fact in itself deeply revolutionary. To him, being a revolutionary is to revive the dhamma, which means that revolution and the dhamma can’t be separated. Decline in dhamma is what brought on the struggling of individuals within the first place. His mission is to construct a dhamma state after the revolution. In our conversations with him, he identified that in his view, this dhamma state should be “a religiously-inclusive state through which followers of various faiths can coexist peacefully”. A dhamma state is just not about creating a spiritual (batha) state primarily based on spiritual exclusion of minorities, however one constructed on respect, peace, and justice, transcending spiritual and ethnic variations.

Division and polarisation

The implications of our findings are twofold. First, they supply empirical information that questions narratives of full co-option of the Sangha by the navy state. Whereas it’s true that the navy state works relentlessly to regulate the Sangha, such efforts depend on territorial management. Because the navy is more and more shedding territorial management, revolutionary monks have fled to the liberated areas.

Second, our examine brings to the fore little-known elements of the revolution, specifically monks and nuns who work for the revolution to succeed. What turned very clear in our materials was the significance of long-term monastic engagements with resistance networks, revealing hidden types of monastic revolutionary engagements. As clearly demonstrated in our interviews and observations from the sphere, when in style resistance was met with large violence in March 2021, monastic resistance to the coup didn’t disappear, however underwent a radical transformation.

Admittedly, monastic revolutionary networks symbolize a radical minority. However monastic resistance must be understood as a broader social discipline past outlined networks. This contains a number of types of humanitarian engagement amongst monks who don’t essentially determine with the clearly outlined radical networks, and who would possibly even be involved concerning the methods through which the revolution is carried out by means of harsh language or magic practices. As our analysis highlights, such monks nonetheless self-identify as “revolutionary monks” and work tirelessly for the Spring Revolution to succeed, albeit in much less linguistically and aesthetically radical methods.

Lastly, we argue that the 2021 Spring Revolution requires an altogether totally different theorising of the connection between faith and revolution, calling consideration to the methods through which faith (on this case Buddhism) is neither the state-loyal suppressor of revolts (in failed uprisings) nor the sufferer of anti-religious revolutionary politics. Reasonably, Buddhism finds itself on a number of sides of the revolutionary state of affairs, together with what is likely to be understood as a Buddhist Ideology of Order and revolutionary politics.