When the Sangha seeks immunity from the law

There is an unsettling, yet unnecessary, controversy brewing over the Court of Appeal’s decision to invalidate the presidential pardon granted to Galaboda Aththe Gnanasara, who must now serve the remainder of his five-year prison sentence. The ruling has provoked protests from sections of the Buddhist clergy, who appear to regard his saffron robe as grounds for exceptional treatment. Yet, beneath the noise and political grandstanding lies a fundamental question as to whether the robe that symbolises renunciation, compassion and moral discipline becomes a shield for criminality?

The answer must be an unequivocal no. The principle that all citizens are equal before the law is the cornerstone of any democratic society. Neither political office, social standing nor religious affiliation can confer immunity from its reach. A Buddhist monk, no less than an ordinary citizen, is accountable for his actions. Indeed, those who voluntarily embrace a religious vocation and assume the moral authority that accompanies it should be held to particularly high standards of conduct. To demand preferential treatment for a convicted individual simply because he wears the saffron robe is to undermine the very foundations of justice.

The controversy surrounding Gnanasara’s appearance in Court wearing the national dress rather than his religious robes is equally revealing. Why should the clothing worn by a convicted person become a matter of such intense public agitation? If the robe is a sacred symbol of the Buddha’s teachings, its sanctity must derive from the conduct of the person wearing it, not from the garment itself. A change of attire does not diminish Buddhism. What diminishes Buddhism is the spectacle of religious figures invoking their robes to evade the consequences of their actions.

If a monk has been convicted of a criminal offence, the relevant religious authorities should examine whether his conduct is compatible with the obligations of the Sangha. Where the circumstances and applicable disciplinary rules warrant it, appropriate action, including removal from monastic status, should follow. The robe must not become a permanent badge of religious authority for individuals whose conduct brings the Buddhist order into disrepute.

Similar concerns arise in the case of the Attamasthanadhipathi, Pallegama Hemarathana who is alleged of sexually abusing underage girls. Such allegations must be investigated fairly, and guilt must be established through due process. The religious institutions, on the other hand, have a duty to take appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with the law and their own rules. Protecting children and preserving the integrity of the Sangha cannot be subordinated to institutional embarrassment or misplaced loyalty.

Buddhist rulers, including Emperor Ashoka and King Parakramabahu I, are associated with efforts to strengthen monastic discipline and address corruption within the Sangha. Their historical contexts differed considerably, but the underlying principle remains relevant that the preservation of Buddhism requires the preservation of ethical standards among those who represent it.

 The Sangha is not strengthened by defending every individual who wears its robes. It is strengthened by distinguishing genuine spiritual commitment from the exploitation of religious status for personal power, political influence or immunity from accountability. In this context, the protests demanding Gnanasara’s release do little to advance Buddhism’s interests. Instead, they risk reinforcing public perceptions that sections of the clergy consider themselves above the law. Political leaders, too, must resist the temptation to exploit religious sentiment for electoral advantage through preferential pardons or pressure on judicial institutions.