Is saffron robe above the law?

Time has come to confront a dangerous and long-standing problem of the belief among certain Buddhist monks that wearing the saffron robe places them above the law. The ongoing campaign demanding a presidential pardon for the convicted monk Galabodaatte Gnanasara, accompanied by threats and ultimatums directed at President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, has exposed the arrogance of those who mistake religious robes for political immunity. The President and his Government must stand firm. No individual, regardless of their religious standing, should be permitted to intimidate the state or demand that justice be circumvented.

During the protests calling for Gnanasara’s release, monk Balangoda Kassapa reportedly challenged President Dissanayake to either resign or grant the imprisoned monk a presidential pardon. The audacity is breathtaking. By what authority does a religious figure presume to dictate terms to an elected head of state and on what grounds should a convicted criminal receive special treatment simply because he wears a robe?

A presidential pardon is a constitutional power, not a bargaining chip to appease an angry religious faction. Its exercise must be guided by justice, principle and the public interest, not threats, political pressure or the fear of offending powerful religious institutions. If the law has been applied through due process, the mere fact that a convicted individual is a Buddhist monk cannot become grounds for demanding an exception.

The spectacle becomes even more disturbing when one considers the conduct of those claiming to defend Buddhism. Last week, gathered monks reportedly resorted to chanting ‘vas kavi’ or curses directed at the President. These are supposedly men who have dedicated their lives to the teachings of the Buddha, whose Dhamma emphasises compassion, restraint, non-violence and the conquest of hatred.

In the Kakacūpama Sutta, the Buddha instructs his disciples that even if bandits were to savagely sever their limbs with a two-handled saw, they should not allow their minds to become consumed by hatred. “Those who harbour ill will, he teaches, do not uphold my teachings” he says. Yet here we have individuals invoking Buddhism while publicly expressing hostility towards the country›s elected leader because he has not granted their demand.

Of course, not all Buddhist monks behave this way, and many perform invaluable work in their communities. But respect for the genuine contribution of the Sangha must not become a shield for those who exploit religion for political influence, personal enrichment or protection from accountability.

For far too long, sections of the clergy have enjoyed a status that discourages criticism and invites politicians to bend the knee. Successive Governments have often treated the demands of influential monks as political commands, fearful that challenging them might carry an electoral price. This culture of deference has allowed religious authority to be weaponised against democratic institutions and the rule of law.

President Dissanayake›s Government has an opportunity and in fact an obligation to break with this tradition. It must make clear that the law applies equally to every citizen, whether they wear a suit, a uniform or a saffron robe. The police must enforce the law impartially, courts must operate without intimidation, and the Government must resist attempts to turn religious sentiment into a licence for coercion.

This is not an attack on Buddhism. It is a defence of Buddhism against those who would hijack its moral authority for their own purposes. Nor is it an argument against the legitimate exercise of presidential clemency. It is an argument against demanding clemency as an entitlement.

The saffron robe deserves respect when it represents the Dhamma. It deserves no immunity when it is used to intimidate, threaten or obstruct justice.