Buddhism and Nationalism
Rohan Rajesh
Of all the major world religions that have fallen to virulent nationalism, the fall of Buddhism was particularly surprising. After all, Buddhism eschews fervent nationalism because that would entail attachment to something, even if it is an abstract, modern concept like the nation-state. Further, Buddhism is quite unambiguous on the question of violence – abstaining from violence is the right path. Yet, one of the genocides being committed today is occurring in Myanmar, a country whose population is around 88% Buddhist. In Sri Lanka, another majority Buddhist country, a surge in Sinhalese Buddhist majoritarianism threatens to unleash a repeat of one of South Asia’s deadliest conflicts.
For a faith that was revolutionary in its ideals of equality, compassion, and ending suffering, the actions of Buddhist nationalists is shocking and disturbing. If these deadly impulses can take hold in one of the most peaceful religions in the world, what hope is there for the rest of us? It is therefore important to ascertain the origins of Buddhist nationalism and the potential consequences for nationalism in other religions.
For much of medieval history, Buddhism was a persecuted religion, particularly with the Turko-Muslim invasions of North India. Buddhism had been in decline before the Muslim invasions due to competition with revitalized Hindu philosophies, but Hindu kings continued to support Buddhist institutions, such as monasteries and universities. The Muslim conquest of Afghanistan and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in North India eliminated that patronage. The destruction of the ancient monastery-university of Nalanda by the forces of General Bakhtiyar Khalji of the Delhi Sultanate all but eliminated Buddhism from its traditional Indian hearth. At the same time, Hindu-Buddhist dynasties in Indonesia and Malaysia were replaced by Muslim ones. To be fair, in Southeast Asia most scholars believe this process was peaceful and a result of trade. At the same time, Hinduism continues to thrive in Bali and the Ramayana and Mahabharata (the two great Hindu epics) are extremely popular throughout the region. Still, this fraught history and the declining global Buddhist population (currently only 7% of the world population) have fed into this narrative of Buddhism disappearing due to the spread of Islam, which has fed into hysterical anti-Muslim sentiment in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. The 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban did not help erase those anxieties.
The violence against Rohingyas in Myanmar and the rise of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism also have specific local factors. In Myanmar, the Rohingya (as well as Muslims in general) are associated with Bengali migrants who came from British India when Myanmar was also under British rule. During British rule in the subcontinent, there was significant resentment among locals against Indian migrants, Muslim or otherwise. This is why Rohingyas are consistently demonized and referred to as “illegal immigrants” and “Bengalis” – doing so enables locals to “other” the Rohingyas and justify their ethnic cleansing. The Myanmar military (which effectively controls the country) also incites these passions to divide the population and cement its control. This is similar to how the Japanese military co-opted Buddhism to radicalize the population before World War II.
In Sri Lanka, Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism traditionally targeted the Tamil minority. Originally, conflict between the Sinhalese (who are mostly Buddhist) and Tamils (who are mostly Hindu) was largely ethnic in nature. The end of the Sri Lankan Civil War led Sinhalese Buddhist nationalists to find another group to fuel their anger. Muslims became a convenient target for multiple reasons: most of them speak Tamil, many are business owners, and there has been a rise in conservative Salafist influence in the community. The 2019 Easter bombings did not help the situation though anti-Muslim riots had occurred earlier in 2018.
Although Buddhism, unlike other major religions, consistently and unequivocally opposes violence in any situation, ethnic nationalism allows Buddhism to be coopted not as a religion but as a marker of cultural identity. Indeed, the rise in Buddhist nationalism is explained by factors familiar to us in the West – an insecure majority population. As Madison noted in Federalist 10, when one group comprises the majority of the population of a country, it is easy for minorities to become persecuted. I believe that regional integration is a potential solution to the problem of ethnic nationalism. When no group forms a majority of the population, every group can be protected. However, that is a long-term solution. In the short-term, the international community needs to monitor and sanction individuals and groups who perpetrate violence. However, given the strategic importance of Myanmar and Sri Lanka in great power competition in the Indo-Pacific, it is unlikely that that will happen. It should be noted that many moderate Buddhist monks have spoken out against anti-minority violence and authoritarianism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Such forces should be supported and provided larger platforms to preserve ethnoreligious peace and to prevent one of the most radically peaceful philosophies this world has seen from becoming a by-word for ethnocentric violence.