Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Social Sciences, Vol. 4, 2017, pp. 83-89
Copyright © TIIKM
ISSN 2357–268X online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17501/icoss.2017.4108
DEALING WITH MONASTIC REFORMS: A
STUDY ON THE DEBATE OVER ‘THERAVADA
BHIKKHU KATHIKAWATH (REGISTRATION)
BILL’ IN SRI LANKA
Nuwan Herath1
1
General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
Abstract: In the context of institutionalized Buddhism, the position of the Buddhist monks in Sri
Lankan society and the issues of their discipline have been commonly discussed and frequently
debated with reference to various practices such as the involvement of monks in politics, acting
militantly in public places, engaging in occult activities, and conducting trade or business activities,
etc. One relatively recent event, which intensified discussions and debates on some of such activities,
has been the introduction of the draft bill “The Theravada Bhikkhu Kathikawath” to the Parliament
of Sri Lanka in January 2016. It marked a sudden outbreak of competing views from various
segments of the lay and monastic societies on the position of Buddhist monks and the monastic
reforms required on certain behavioral conducts. This study adopted a thematic analysis, which
intended to explore what themes became more contentious in print and electronic media during the
debate; and critically looked into how actors relevant to such contentious themes highlighted matters
related to the Bill in particular and monastic reforms in general while falling into different discursive
spaces. The debate uncovered several underlying problems related to the draft bill, monastic reforms
and monastic community that include disagreements over the legitimacy of Mahanayakas or Chief
Prelates and the lay political leadership, contradictions over the constitutionality of the draft bill; and
problems over traditionalism and modernization of the Buddhist monastic community in Sri Lanka.
Keywords: Monastic Reforms, Buddhism, Monks, Modernization
Background of the Study
This study explored the themes that became contentious during a social debate over Buddhist monks’ social
position and behavior, with close attention on how actors involved in the debate fell into different discursive
spaces while uncovering several underlying problems related to the state of affairs in Buddhist monastic life in
Sri Lanka. In the context of institutionalized Buddhism, the position of the Buddhist monks in Sri Lankan
society and the issues of their discipline have been commonly discussed and frequently debated with reference
to various practices. They include activities such as the involvement of monks in politics, leading political
parties, contesting for elections, acting militantly in public places, engaging in occult activities, and conducting
trade or business activities, etc. The most recent event, which intensified discussions and debates on some of
these activities, has been the introduction of the draft bill “The Theravada Bhikkhu Kathikawath” to the
Parliament of Sri Lanka in January 2016. The bill proposed a framework for every monk to comply within a set
of disciplinary guidelines decided by the monk’s particular sect, chapter or ‘Nikaya’. It marked a sudden
outbreak of competing views from various segments of the lay and monastic societies on the position of
Buddhist monks in Sri Lankan society, their activities and the monastic reforms required on certain behavioral
conducts.
When looking at the history, the term ‘Bhikkhu Kathikawath’ can be defined as consensually arrived codes of
conduct by monks, which have been put into a form of official status with the assistance of lay political
4th International Conference on Social Sciences 2017
Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Social Sciences, Vol. 4, 2017, pp. 83-89
leadership, in order to regulate or standardize the behavioral conduct of the members of the Buddhist monastic
community. Such practices have taken place in several periods in Buddhist history of the country, particularly
with the patronage of kings, such as Pollonaru Kathikawatha, Dambadeniya Kathikawataha etc. where
disciplinary guidelines for monks were given official status in the state and violation of the guidelines had led to
punishments from the monastic community or from the state depending on their severity. This paper, however,
is not an attempt to trace the history of Kathikawath or go into details about the matters explained in
Kathikawath. Rather it intends to explain about a social debate that came into being as a result of a relatively
recent effort to make legal provisions to formulate a new Bhikkhu kathikawath for different sects, chapters or
‘Nikayas’ of Buddhists monks in Sri Lanka, mainly with the current government’s patronage.
This bill was published in the Gazette on 14th December 2015 and presented to the Parliament of Sri Lanka on
12th January 2016 by the Minister of Buddhasasana. In various monastic sects, there are already formulated
Kathikawath yet they do not have any legal status or power of enforcement in state’s legal framework.
Therefore, this bill was an attempt to give whatever the Kathikawath a formal status within the state’s legal
framework by properly registering them under the Commissioner General of Buddhist affairs; and enabling
inquiries and punishments on Bhikkus who violate the provisions in registered Kathikawath or codes of conduct.
According to the proposed bill, the possible violations in Bhikku Kathikawath may include monks involving in
“occult activities, trade or business activities, obtaining driving license and driving vehicles, engaging in any
employment in the public or private sector other than in the fields of education, social services or religious
affairs; engaging in activities unsuitable for a monk in public places”. The punishments proposed in the bill are
– “temporary/permanent expulsion from the residing temple, temporary/permanent removal from the office of
Chief Incumbent position / Viharadhipathy, expulsion from the studentship, expulsion from the relevant Nikaya
or chapter and cancellation of the Bhikkhu registration”. In addition, if a monk fails to submit to the given
punishment he will be convicted in a magistrate court with a fine no less than fifty thousand rupees or six-month
imprisonment or else both punishments together. Such given proposals in the Kathikawath bill marked a sudden
outbreak of competing views from various segments of the lay and monastic societies on the position of
Buddhist monks in the country.
This study, however, does not map all the competing views that expressed during the debate rather it intended to
explore what themes became more contentious, among others, in print and electronic media during the debate;
and looked into how actors relevant to such contentious themes highlighted matters related to the Bill in
particular and monastic reforms in general while falling into different discursive and argumentative spaces. In
order to answer these questions, a thematic analysis has been adopted and the main contentious topics that
foregrounded the argumentative space have been framed as (1) Legitimacy of Mahanayakas or Chief Prelates
(2) Government and Political Leaders’ legitimacy (3) Contradictions over the constitutionality of the draft bill;
and (4) Problems of traditionalism and modernization of the Buddhist monastic community in Sri Lanka.
Legitimacy of Mahanayakas
The Social debate of ‘Theravada Bhikkhu Kathikawath’ has led to the contestation of the legitimacy of
‘Mahanayakas’ or the Chief Prelates of different Nikayas and the lay political leadership of the country as
credible actors of taking leadership for constituting Bhikkhu Kathikawath. Right from the beginning, it was
quite evident that the Mahanayakas and the lay political leadership had mutually authorized each other’s role
and recognized the importance of their intervention at this conjuncture. For example, both President and Prime
Minister along with other ministers have repeatedly mentioned that further amendments or enactment of the bill
would be done with the advice and the consent of the Mahanayakas i. On the other hand, the Mahanayakas’
views on this bill were enclosed with more appreciative and approving statements on the government and
political leadership’s role in bringing this bill to the parliament ii. Due to this mutual alliance between the two
84
Nuwan Herath / Dealing with Monastic Reforms: A Study on the Debate……
categories of leaders, those who were critical of this bill, mainly the monks from various Nikayas, had strongly
criticized both lay and monastic leadership.
The criticisms leveled against Mahanayakas have been expressed along the lines of their leadership,
politicization, knowledge, possession of wealth and social work etc. Monks like Alle Gunawansa, Yatawatte
Dhammananda, Bengamuwe Nalaka and a number of young monks including university monks had expressed
their dissent related to above-mentioned themes. They include accusations such as - Mahanayakas never took
the lead for national problems, Mahanayakas are working with the government to chop off Buddhism and tame
the monks, they are supporting the neoliberal political-economic agenda of the government, Mahanayakas have
historically served the interests of the colonial and postcolonial leaders, they do not have the courage to point
out the wrongdoings of politicians, they are unable to guide and give directions to young monks, do not provide
acceptable solutions to the problems in monasteries iii and only concerned about unrighteous monk’s damage to
their Nikaya, which is predominantly based on caste, and not to Buddhism at large etc.
A young monk from University Bhikku Federation contended the role of Mahanayakas, in a media briefing,
saying that
“They are telling that monks should not do business activities. But we ask who is actually doing
business activities? Whether you or us? There can be monks who are doing a little vegetable
farm (elawalu koratuwa) and feeding small monks. This bill can even restrict such activities. We
are asking what right you have to say like this. Mahanayakas do not have a right because they
possess ‘Nindagam’’ (traditionally acquired land). If we go around Colombo there are so many
people living in slums but what those monks had done to these Buddhists? Have they given a
single piece of land from their ‘Nindagam’? Having acres of tall walls and pandals built around
their temples, they preach us about ‘Dukkha’. What a joke.”
He further questioned what Mahanayakas had done for the benefit of the people suffering from chronic kidney
disease in the north-central region of Sri Lanka with their traditionally acquired wealth. The majority of the
people those who suffer from the disease are Buddhists, and this young monk attempted to raise some moral
questions about the just use of the Mahanayakas’ traditionally acquired wealth and their commitment towards
social work.
The current research agenda in the study of Buddhism represents a world of competing debates and discursive
formations of what Buddhism is in local terms. It is more interested in understanding what Buddhists have to tell
about Buddhism, how Buddhists get involved in different sociopolitical ventures, and how certain definitions
about Buddhism get prominent while others get weakened in shifting conjunctures (De Silva, 2006). These
pieces of evidence point out that some monks were not happy with the traditional authority of the institutional
Buddhism at this conjuncture. However, it does not mean all the monks those who criticized the Mahanayakas
are always against them or they can be labeled as radical monks. In fact, some of the monks those who made
such comments have met and asked the assistance of Mahanayakas in other occasions for different issues. The
point is that these criticisms might look different in another conjuncture but at this situation the actors those who
had opposed the bill strategically resorted to criticizing Mahanayakas as it supported their agenda over the issue
of this bill. As Abeysekara (2002) argues, the different formations of religion simply do not deny ‘difference’
but rather create it to ‘undo’ the very existence of that otherness. Here when responding to the difference over
the issue of the draft bill, the actors reproduced the identity of the Mahanayakas, with adverse references, so as
to overrule them at this particular conjuncture to ensure that their interpretation dominates over the other.
However, when we see the state of affairs of monastic reforms at this point, these views seemed to have
suggested that the perceived legitimacy of Mahanayakas stood as an important factor when attempting to make
changes to the monastic community of Sri Lanka. Also, looking at the critiques over the monastic leadership,
one can argue that the effort to reform at this time invoked deeper reforms as opposing monks highlighted the
reforms that are in need of at the level of its community’s traditional authority. Therefore, one could infer from
85
Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Social Sciences, Vol. 4, 2017, pp. 83-89
the debate that the attempt to reform in fact led to an implicit demand for deeper reforms in the monastic
community, especially with respect to its traditional authority.
Government and Political Leaders’ Legitimacy
The monks those who opposed the bill contested the government and the political leadership by arguing that it is
inappropriate for those who are in the legislature to make laws related to Buddhists monks or ‘Maha Sangha’iv.
Further to that several monks and nationalist politicians made supporting views to this argument as they
questioned how Non - Buddhists in the government and those who do not even live according to the five
precepts or ‘Pansil’ could bring laws to control Buddhist monks in the countryv. This argument not only posed a
challenge to this particular way of lawmaking on ‘Kathikawath’ but also to any similar effort where a legal
framework to be made on monastic matters in time to come. It implies a separation of lay and monastic worlds
in a manner in which the lay political world was considered inferior and has no legitimacy to make laws
pertaining to the sacred monastic community.
Yet, those who advocated for the proposed bill seemed to have attempted to emphasize the values of democracy
to construct a counter-argument. For example, in an interview with a local newspaper, a monk called
Diviyagaha Yasassi responding to a question on Non – Buddhists voting to pass the bill said that
“Enacting laws is the duty of the parliament. They get appointed form the votes of the people
and they have the supreme authority. We cannot suggest abolishing the supreme authority of the
people. On the other hand, this is not something related to doctrine. This is about the procedure.
In order to decide what is good and bad; they do not have to be Buddhistsvi”
Here, this statement seems to suggest that the idea about good and bad is something beyond religion and people
do not necessarily have to be Buddhists to make decisions on what is good and bad. In a way, it locates people
with the ability to decide what is good and bad above the religious affiliations in a higher level so they can make
right decisions on procedures related to religions. Moreover, it implies that the power of popular consent stands
above the religious institutions.
This reminds what David Scott (1999) tells about the formation of narratives or counter-narratives. The
Nietzschean idea that he refers, which is “the past is a storage closet where all costumes are kept”. The actors in
social debates have accustomed to taking the appropriate outfit from the larger closet, which assures their
present. This discursive play is observable when we look at the above statement as the counter-argument
borrowed its costumes from liberal, democratic and humanistic discourses. The reference to the supremacy of
parliamentary system, the authority of the people and considering them as agents who could transcend the
religious boundaries to decide what is good and bad shows how this actor has resorted to a particular discursive
space to counter the opposing views. If someone approaches the issue from a religious point of view the first
perspective, which is about denying the right of non-Buddhists and those who do not even have ‘pansil’ for
bringing laws, might sound as the correct idea; whereas for someone who approaches the same issue from a
more secular point of view might see the second view, which is about the supreme authority of the parliament
and people, as the correct idea. Therefore, depending on how the reader of these contending views interpellated
by the ideology, he or she may find one of these as consistent with his or her thinking. The actors’ displacement
into different discursive spaces can create multiple realities over the contested issues, which can be appealing to
different people in different ways.
Contradictions Over the Constitutionality of the Draft Bill
As heated discussions and arguments started to unfold over the issue of this proposed Bill, three people
including a Buddhist monk petitioned the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka by challenging the constitutionality of the
Bill. The supreme court concluded that articles in the bill which reflect state interference to internal affairs of the
religious institution, manner of conducting inquiries, punishments for violations, state appointing officials to
86
Nuwan Herath / Dealing with Monastic Reforms: A Study on the Debate……
examine Kathikawath stand in contrast to Article 9, 10 14 (1) (e) of the constitution and need two-thirds
majority in Parliament and a referendum for their enactment.
When we examine the constitution of Sri Lanka, it has reconciled two incompatible goals in the form of legal
rhetoric. On one hand it gives special protection to the majority’s religion Buddhism in article 09, and on the
other hand, it provides equal protection for individual religious beliefs and worship practices for all Sri Lankans
in articles 10 and 14 (1) (e). Therefore, rather than easing out, this constitutional nature has increased the
complexities with respect to the issues that it intended to settle (Schonthal, 2014). This reference to two
discursively produced religious claims in the constitution became a source of protection for those who opposed
the bill at this time. Ironically, actors known for promoting more exclusivist form of religious ideas in the
country at this time sought protection also from the individual religious rights part in the constitution when
defending their position. They more than the other aspect, highlighted that the bill challenges the constitution’s
provisions on individual religious freedom. However, when it comes to previous conjunctures, like the issue
over evangelical religious activities in the country, the petitioners’ affiliated political parties selectively ignored
this particular aspect of religion in the constitution and highlighted the idea that is ‘Sri Lanka is a Buddhist
country’. This also affirms what David Scott (1999) and Ananda Abeysekara (2002) argued - that in ‘contending
conjunctures’ actors strategically resort to their fitting discourses. Here evidence suggests that they may even
affirm the values in some previously hostile discourses depending on their interests.
As actors shift across the discursive spaces provided in legal frameworks, the reformists need to take such
possibilities into account. Now the issue has once again come to where it was - as from the point of view of
Mahanayakas or other senior monks - the problem of how to control the various undisciplined monks and
various acts conducted by them still remains unresolved with further complexity.
Problems of Traditionalism and Modernization of the Buddhist Monastic Community in Sri Lanka
When it comes to problems over traditionalism and modernization of the Buddhist monastic community, some
have argued that certain traditional activities done by monks such as astrology, horoscope reading, Seth Kavi
(the blessings sung in the form of poems) and some indigenous medical treatments might come under risk as
they can be interpreted as occult activities. On the contrary, those who advocate for a purified form of Buddhism
argue for divesting Buddhism and monks from above-mentioned practices.
In addition, some inquired how a modern practice like monks’ involvement in politics, contesting elections and
holding Member of Parliament positions got sidelined from this bill vii. The involvement of monks in the realm
of politics as active agents or contestants has not been considered seriously in the draft bill as a matter of
significance, and it did not even find any resonance in this public debate. A theme like ‘politics’, which was
considered to be important in earlier debates about monks’ social position and behavior, got sidelined from the
discursive space of this debate.
Looking at the accounts of Smith (1966), Bechert (1970), Swearer (1991) and Carrithers (1983) on Buddhism,
politics, and modernity, Abeysekara (2002) explained how they, in their respective ways, envisaged dissociation
or purification of religion from politicization. They, in fact, authorized it as the kind of reformation required in
rediscovering the real identity of Buddhism and authentic monastic life. However, he was skeptical about
taking these categories of ‘authentic Buddhism and political Buddhism’, as distinctly visible realities, and
argued that varying debates in different ‘conjunctures’ characterize the shape of Buddhism. Persisting with this
rather new approach towards religion, Abeysekara looked at the concept of ‘reform’ as a discursive
characteristic. He contended that the other scholarly attempts had taken for granted the discursive roots of the
term ‘reform’ and opposed for discerning it as a true religious activity. The evidence confirms this rather new
argument of Abesekara; as the theme politics sidelining from the discursive space of reform at this time seemed
to have suggested that actors do not put much weight on politics when it comes to ‘reform’ in comparison to
previous situations. Therefore, despite what scholars have envisaged in earlier situations, the themes that
87
Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Social Sciences, Vol. 4, 2017, pp. 83-89
become prominent in different situations in the history of monastic reforms are discursively produced and thus
the concept of reform needs to be considered as a ‘discursive characteristic’.
In addition, the section in the bill over obtaining driving license shows the way in which discourse works
according to the structure. Here, the bill has defined obtaining a driving license as something inappropriate for a
monk; yet Sri Lankan Buddhists monks, those who are considered to be involved in Buddhist Missionary
activities (Dharmapracharaya), in western countries, obtain driving licenses and drive vehicles. Therefore, the
same principle which contests monk’s proper behavior is not applied when they are in western countries.
Moreover, a few decades ago laymen were not happy about monks having televisions and radios in their temples
and it was considered to be inappropriate for them. Today, donating televisions and radios to temples has
become a very common thing among Buddhist laymenviii.
Though one could argue that there is plenty of space for modern interventions in present day Buddhism i.e.
Uyangoda (2007), there is an incompatibility between reconciling traditional and modern values that had
influenced the monastic community. The ancient kings might have had the power to be more forceful in
reforming the monastic society and also the monastic leaders in this matter, yet in a modern state with the
influence of liberal and democratic values, the similar effort might be challenging. One could say the evidence
revealed how Mahanayakas wanted to maintain their influence and stronghold, yet failed with liberal democratic
constitutionalism.
Therefore, the traditional Buddhist leadership needs to think about the manner in which Buddhism should adjust
according to the shifting conjunctures of democratic modernity so as to conduct necessary reforms especially in
a legal framework that hardens religious conflict; though it intended otherwise. Finally, the debate reflects that
the traditional monastic institution is struggling to adjust with the modern state’s legal framework when it comes
to monastic reforms.
Conclusion
Overall, this social debate over the ‘Theravada Bhikkhu Kathikawath (Registration) Bill’ reveals that the actors
those who opposed the bill had reproduced the identity of the Mahanayakas, with adverse references, so as to
overrule them at this particular conjuncture to ensure that their interpretation dominates over the other. With that
effort, the proponents’ attempt to reforms in the monastic community was in a way confronted with implicit
demands for deeper reforms in the community, especially with respect to its traditional authority. In addition,
the contestation of government and political leaders’ legitimacy shows how actors have resorted to alternative
discursive spaces to counter the opposing views and how their displacements can create different realities over
the contested issue. Moreover, the issue of constitutionality of the bill illustrated the way in which actors
strategically resorted to their fitting discourse in ‘contending conjunctures’. The evidence also suggested how
actors tend to affirm the values in some previously hostile discourses depending on their interests. Finally, the
identified themes over traditionalism and modernization showed that actors have not put much weight on
politics when it comes to ‘reforms’ at this point of time in comparison to previous occasions, which also invites
us to consider the concept of reform as a discursively produced characteristic in religion.
References
Abeysekara, A., 2002. Colors of the Robe: Religion, Identity and Difference (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press).
Bechert, H., 1970. Theravada Buddhist Sangha: Some General Observations on Historical and Political Factors
in Its Development. Journal of Asian Studies, 29(No 4), pp.761 - 78.
Carrithers, M., 1983. The Forest Monks of Sri Lanka: An Anthropological and Historical Study (New Delhi:
Oxford University Press).
De Silva, , 2006. Anthropology of 'Sinhala Buddhism'. Contemporary Buddhism, 7(No 2).
88
Nuwan Herath / Dealing with Monastic Reforms: A Study on the Debate……
Schonthal, , 2014. Constitutionalizing Religion: The Pyrrhic Success of Religious Rights in Postcolonial Sri
Lanka. Journal of Law and Religion, 29(2), pp.1 - 21.
Scott, , 1999. Dehistoricizing History. In Refashioning Futures: Criticism after Postcoloniality (New Jersey:
Princeton University Press), Ch. 04. pp.93 - 105.
Smith, E.D., 1966. South Asian Politics and Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Swearer, D., 1991. Fundamentalistic Movements in Theravada Buddhism. In Martin, E.M. & Appleby, R.S.
Fundamentalisms Observed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), Ch. 11.
Uyangoda, J., 2007. Paradoxes of Buddhism. In Uyangoda, J. Religion in Context: Buddhism and Socio Political Change in Sri Lanka (Colombo: Social Scientists' Association). pp.1-5.
i
See the following news reports for evidence Lakbima 19/01/2016 p 05, Lankadeepa
21/01/2016, Rivira 21/01/2016 p. 06, Diwayina 21/01/2016 p. 03, Rivira 02/02/2016 p.09,
Lakbima 01/02/2016 p.05, Dinamina 03/02/2016 p.07 and Lakbima 03/02/2016 p. 05.
ii
See the views of Malwaththa Chief prelate - Lankadeepa 25/01/2016, Rivira 25/01/2016,
Dinamina 25/01/2016 p 01, 04; Asgiri Chief Prelate - Lankadeepa 25/01/2016, Dinamina
26/01/2016 p. 01, 04; Chief Prelate of Ramannya Nikaya - Dinamina 20/01/2016 p. 01, 04,
Lakbima 29/01/2016 p.02, Chief Prelate of Amarapura Maha Nikaya Dawuldena
Ganissara - Dinamina 03/02/2016 p. 02.
iii
The Chief Incumbent of Bahirawakanda Sri Sambhodi Temple Yatawatte
Dhammananda said that if the proposed bill is passed then it will be a major cause for
degradation of the Buddhasasana. For him - if legal status is going to be vested upon the
decisions taken by Mahanayakas and the Sangha Sabhas, then it will lead to conflict
between Nikayas and monks. It is difficult to assume that Mahanayakas and Sangha
Sabhas will give right decisions. Therefore, a Kathikawath composed after discussing with
few people can lead to pragmatic issues. There is no issue about giving legitimacy to
currently existing Kathikawath. The problem is with what is inside in those Kathikawath.
In many occasions when the problems in monasteries were presented to Mahanayakas,
they have not given acceptable and just solutions. See: 21/01/2016, Dinamina Visheshanga
p. 14.
iv
For the views of Bengamuwe Nalaka and Galabodaatte Ganasara, see: 14/01/2016,
Lankadeepa. Also see Ranpathvila Wimalaratana's views in 28/01/2016, Lankadeepa.
v
For example see: Deepa Wasanthi Edirisinghe referring to Udaya Gammampila in
20/01/16 Rivira and Volter Dayaratne referring to Pagoda Janththavansa in 28/01/2016,
Dinamina p. 05.
vi
For the views of Diviyagaha Yasassi see: 21/01/2016, Dinamina Visheshanga, p. 14.
vii
See the views of Hagoda Vipassi in 15/01/2016 Lakbima p. 02.
viii
For more details on this regard see: Kamani Alwis reporting Kotapola Amarakeerthi in
22/01/2016, Dinamina p. 09.
89