Equality before the law is not an assault on Buddhism

The ugly scenes witnessed in Anuradhapura last week were not merely an embarrassment involving a handful of unruly Buddhist monks but a disturbing reminder of how far the institution of the Sangha has fallen from the moral authority, dignity and public respect it once commanded.

For centuries, the Buddhist Sangha occupied a position of extraordinary respect in Sri Lanka. Its authority rested not on political power, wealth or the ability to intimidate, but on discipline, restraint, learning and spiritual example. Monks commanded the devotion of ordinary people and the patronage of political leaders because they represented something above the petty ambitions of worldly politics. Their influence was rooted in moral authority.

That relationship began to change as Buddhist monks increasingly entered the political arena, particularly following the watershed year of 1956. The politicisation of the Sangha progressively blurred the distinction between religious leadership and political activism. Instead of standing as a moral conscience capable of holding governments accountable, sections of the clergy became participants in political mobilisation, ethnic nationalism and struggles for power.

The entry of Buddhist monks into Parliament in 2001 accelerated this deterioration. The sight of monks engaging in parliamentary politics was a powerful departure from the traditional understanding of their vocation. The consequences have been profound. Political loyalties, ideological divisions and the pursuit of influence have increasingly displaced the qualities that should define religious leadership.

This process reached another level during the Rajapaksa years, when a distinctly political-religious establishment took shape. Patronage extended to selected monks and temples became increasingly intertwined with political allegiance and support for the regime’s projects. Religious institutions were drawn into the machinery of political power, while sections of the clergy became enthusiastic defenders of a particular political order. Buddhism was too often deployed as an instrument of political legitimacy rather than protected as a universal moral tradition.

That political-religious arrangement is now under strain. The Government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has signalled a departure from the established practice of using religion as an instrument of political patronage. Its rejection of preferential political relationships with sections of the Buddhist clergy represents an important test of whether Sri Lanka can finally establish a more equal relationship between the State and its religious institutions.

The Government must not retreat in the face of pressure, intimidation or accusations that enforcing the law against Buddhist monks amounts to an attack on Buddhism. Such arguments are fundamentally dishonest. No religious robe should provide immunity from the law, and no institution, however historically respected, should be permitted to place itself above the Constitution.

Indeed, equality before the law is not an assault on Buddhism. It is entirely consistent with the principles of justice, compassion and restraint that underpin the Buddha’s teachings. The responsibility, however, does not rest with the Government alone. The wider Buddhist establishment must confront the crisis within its own ranks. The Sangha needs to reclaim its independence from political parties, restore meaningful standards of monastic discipline and demonstrate that those who repeatedly bring the institution into disrepute cannot continue to hide behind the authority of the robes they wear.

If the Sangha is to recover its dignity, it must rediscover the discipline that once made it worthy of public respect. The Government must uphold the law without fear or favour. And the Buddhist establishment must recognise that the greatest threat to Buddhism today may not come from outside, but from those within who have abandoned the very principles taught by the Master 25 centuries ago.