Berkley Center

Background: This discussion complements the parallel exploration with Professor Steinberg about broad faith roles and issues across Asia. Both were part of preparatory work for the December 2009 Phnom Penh consultation. Here, the focus is Myanmar/Burma and the roles of religions in that context. The conversation took place at Georgetown University between David Steinberg and Michael Bodakowski. Dr. Steinberg reflects on the role of Buddhism in Burmese society, its influence across both civil society and politics, and the tense and often unequal relationship between the government and the Buddhist sangha. He speaks about the national demonstrations by monks in 2007 and the host of factors that contributed to their sense of “hopelessness.” He also speaks about the role of faith-inspired organizations in the country, the challenges they face, and the prominence of indigenous faith beliefs at all levels of society.

Can you sketch a brief historical background on Burma and the role of religion in society? How is it relevant today?

Buddhism is a critical part of the identity of the Burmese. It is intimately tied in with Burmese nationalism, and has been used to bring legitimacy to various governments, sometimes to the detriment of minority ethnic groups and religious communities (Christians, Animists, and Muslims). You have to understand the role of Buddhism if you want to understand what’s going on in Burma. You know about the Saffron Revolution of 2007. What you may not know is that the hierarchy of the Sangha is controlled by the government. In 1980 the government was able to register all the monks and control the hierarchy of monks. The government also controls what is taught in all the Buddhist universities and the number of Buddhist sects there can be. Rigid control over Buddhist institutions was intensified after 1988.

The government cannot, however, control individual monasteries. This relates to something I’ve been writing about that no one else stresses: the issue of the hopelessness of youth in Burmese society. If you look at the demonstrations, they are primarily young monks surrounded by younger people in the streets. Social mobility is controlled by the military, as is education and social organizations. The private sector is not relevant in terms of mobility to any significant degree.

This lack of mobility leads to a sense of hopelessness, which was one of the factors in the demonstrations of 2007. There were a variety of factors, however, as the monks have been politically volatile since the colonial period when Buddhism championed anti-colonialism. The British did not prevent the formation of the Buddhist associations, such as the Young Men’s Buddhist Association (1906), which was also a nationalist organization.

Buddhism is an absolutely critical factor today. We tend to think of Buddhism as “other worldly," which is about as stupid as saying the Sermon on the Mount summarizes the history of Christianity in Western Europe. When I was living in Burma, a woman who was a professor of Buddhism at a major American university spent all of her time crying. She kept on saying “Buddhism isn’t like this, it shouldn’t be like this.” I said, “This is reality and we have to understand that.”

There have been groups of people in Thailand and in Burma who have tried to get Buddhism involved in social welfare activities. The monks are often the best educated, most prestigious people within the society. They have charismatic power. In Thailand, during the 1950s, there were two Buddhist Universities, of which Mahamakut Buddhist University had a social component. It trained monks in social welfare (along the teachings of service in Buddhism), and was also involved in the anti-communist struggle. The program was in part funded by the Asia Foundation.

In Burma, U Nu, the first elected Prime minister after the 1948 Constitution, was personally a very devout Buddhist. He was reelected in 1960 on the basis of making Buddhism the state religion. It had not been the state religion before, although it was of special status and about 89 percent of the population is said to be Buddhist. When the military came to power in a caretaker government in 1958, they published a document called “Dharma in Danger,” which presented the danger to Buddhism by the above ground and underground communists. There was also the Social Service Sangha, which was active in social development work along Buddhist values. Monasteries were involved in social welfare activities as well; the original one was founded by Aw Boon Haw, a Chinese born in Burma (inventor of Tiger Balm). He was a devout Buddhist who supported social activism. His monasteries worked with kids in villages and trained them in local crafts, such as carpentry, so they could get jobs. There was no other way these kids could be trained. No other way to earn a living other than farming, and the children had no access to land.

Theoretically, the monks are not supposed to be involved in politics. Under the new constitution, monks and those registered in religious organizations cannot legally vote.

I would say there has been a heritage of activism on the part of monks in Burma, in social welfare as well as politics. There is a very interesting survey that the Asia Foundation conducted in Thailand that I do not believe. It is a national survey of Thai people. The Asia Foundation office in Washington, D.C. can get you a copy. The survey claims that membership in Buddhist organizations is very small, about one percent of the population. That is very difficult to believe because of the ubiquitous influence of Buddhism in Thailand. A man named Brian Heidel did a study of civil society in Burma in 2004, and found that a very high percentage of people who were in Buddhist organizations were also in PTA organizations. If there is such a contrast in fact, it would be an important subject for research in the future.

Buddhism is absolutely critical to understanding the Burmese present and historically as well. All kings and leaders build pagodas. One was built in the new capital that was consecrated early in March 2009. They are built to get merit and legitimacy for the regime, the state, as well as the leaders. They have been centers of economic and social activity as well as religious centers. Now, there are a lot of Christian organizations in Burma. They are allowed to operate, but foreign missionaries are not allowed. They may go in, but not to proselytize. There are Christian and Catholic seminaries, as well as a Baptist seminary in Rangoon. Christians and Muslims face glass ceilings as to the extent they can achieve leadership positions in the military or government. Some Christians in Burma have also talked inappropriately about “genocide” of ethnic minority groups in the country. This is not true.

Do faith-inspired development organizations face many challenges in implementing development work given their faith affiliations?

Not if they are there to do pure development work, and not missionary work. For example, the YMCA and the YWCA are there and have been operating for a long time—since the colonial era.

As for Buddhist organizations doing social development work, The METTA foundation is very good on community development. There’s a person in Thailand who has his own foundation, Sulak Sivaraksa. I’ve known him since the Vietnam War days, and newspapers refer to him as a social critic. He is a devout Buddhist with a good conscience, certainly a pacifist.

Speaking from your experience, how do faith-inspired organizations function in Burma?

The Christian groups, both local and international NGOs in Burma, have been engaged in development and welfare activities, and have been accepted by the government, although with residual suspicions because of their foreign origins. During the period of relative Burmese political and economic isolation, it was the Burman majority that was most isolated, while Christian, Muslim, and some ethnic groups had support and contact with intellectual or ethnic “cousins” across the borders. This increased suspicions about such groups. But there have been development and welfare related Buddhist groups. They were especially active in providing relief after the Nargis Cyclone in 2008. In Buddhism, there is traditional literature about the ten attributes of a good king. It’s all about appropriate virtues—kindness, compassion, and so on. The idea here is that a good king gives people an opportunity to improve their lives and make merit. Therefore, one might argue that it is in the interest of Buddhism to support development. That’s the philosophical basis as I understand it.

How does that philosophy actually relate to the conditions on the ground now? It’s there conceptually, but the government hasn’t paid enough attention to social development. As someone said, the military are good at building things. Whether they should be building them, in terms of priorities, is questionable. Should they be building roads, building schools, or addressing basic human needs? This may have important implications for future development. When the present military government came to power in 1988, they had about $30 million in foreign exchange reserves. Today that total is about five billion, but they have not spent it on the people—Burma has some of the lowest percentage expenditures in a government budget on health and education in the world.

Brien Heidel, at that time of Save The Children (UK), estimated based on limited surveys that there were about 214,000 national and local NGOs and community based organizations, the vast majority of which were community based organizations at local levels and not registered with the government. Many were religiously oriented, and others were educational—local PTA groups.

The PTA organizations came about in response to the government operating a failed educational system. Teachers are paid poorly and can’t possibly live on their income. There is 90 percent enrollment in primary school, but according to UNICEF, a 50 percent drop out before completion. Classes are also very large, typically 50 to 60 people. Historically, the British said that Burma was the most literate country between Japan and the Suez because it was taught that, to be a good Buddhist, you had to be literate and read the scriptures. This included women too. Now, there are more women in school than boys. In any case, the government does not provide effectively for education. People established tuition schools, in which teachers teach students after school, with payment. A lot of the Community Based Organization’s are PTAs, trying to find out how to support the schools. In order to get into the better schools, there are personal and institutional bribes. That I know. All of this information is from conversations with the Burmese.

Looking forward, what do you see the best strategy for the international community to take, especially vis-à-vis faith?

Muslim and Christian organizations must be very circumspect—low profile and keeping far away from political controversy. This can be very difficult, because they often note violations of human rights, but if local organizations were to be perceived as threatening the government, they would be suppressed, and probably expelled if they had foreign origins. Under the new constitution to come into force after the 2010 elections, I believe foreign funding for internal religious groups will be prohibited or severely circumscribed, so foreign NGOs, many of which are faith-inspired, will have to be very careful how and with whom they program.

There is a very strong anti-Muslim feeling in the society. There is a medieval concept that I’ve even heard by Ministers who say that the Muslims are dangerous because they try to convert Burmese girls, and if a Muslim man converts a girl to Islam, they can get paid some money, and the higher her status, the more money they receive.

In the U Nu period (the civilian government), there were Muslims in high positions in the cabinet. Today there are not. The worst off group are the Rohingyas, who are stateless, have no rights, and are the most discriminated against. A lot of them flee by boat to Malaysia and Thailand to seek sanctuary, but many are turned back.

On the Christian side, there are a lot of organizations (local and foreign) that are allowed to do some good work, but their adherents cannot rise because of glass ceilings in society. These groups and adherents may be influential but they are suspect. The government has become more stringent on the operations of NGOs in general.

How do you see Buddhist social work moving forward, especially after the Saffron Revolution?

It can move forward, because it is more acceptable than anything else in terms of faith. They can do many things. And a smart Buddhist organization will appeal to the Burmese military by saying that our work can help you, help the government, by providing the social services you cannot provide. We also haven’t talked about Animists, spirits, and astrology which are absolutely critical. I spent an evening having dinner with a chief science advisor who had a Ph.D. from MIT, and who spent the time telling me about ghosts he had seen. Burma became independent at 5:20 a.m. on January 4, 1948 because astrologists believed it was the most auspicious time. The movement of the new capital was in 2006 and took place at 5 something in the morning, for the same reason. These events are not inconsequential. The referendum on the constitution was on May 10, 2008, which I think was an auspicious day and I would be willing to bet at very large odds that the Election Day in 2010 will be chosen on the same basis.

I once worked with people who were said to know some nats, or spirits (nats have died a violent death, and have not reached fullness in their lives). I later employed an Austrian economist to teach at the University of Rangoon, who was wanted there because he came from a neutral country, and Burma was noted for being neutral. It turned out to be a complete tragedy, because he was killed by bandits in the Shan State in my Land Rover. Afterwards, the guard at my office said he had heard the murdered Austrian economist come back into the office after he had died. He thought that he had become a nat. The other part of the story is that my driver ran away after the killing but the government made him return to identify the bandits. People brought the authorities decapitated heads to confirm that the head was that of the killer, but in a number of cases it was not!

This story serves to illustrate the pervasiveness of all sorts of religious beliefs in Burmese society; they range from the most sophisticated to the simplistic, much as, under a different set of criteria, they do the same in Western societies.