By Palitha Ariyarathna

The characterization of Theravāda Buddhism, particularly in Sri Lanka, as militant is a distortion of its historical trajectory and core philosophy. Charles Keyes, in his article Political Crisis and Militant Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand (rev 1999), projects a generalized narrative of “militant Buddhism” that fails to account for the unique cultural, ethical, and historical context of Sri Lanka. His misinterpretation of the Mahāvaṃsa undermines the profound commitment of Sri Lankan Buddhists to ahimsa (non-violence), compassion, and coexistence.

Charles Keyes is a well-known scholar who, since the 1960s, has conducted extensive research in Thailand and other Southeast Asian nations. His work has contributed significantly to the understanding of the socio-political and cultural dynamics of the region, with a focus on Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, and southern China. While his scholarship is commendable, his interpretation of “militant Buddhism” fails to contextualize the Sri Lankan case and risks promoting a biased narrative.

Buddhism occupies a central place in Sri Lanka’s constitution, reflecting its historical role as the spiritual foundation of the nation. This protection is not an assertion of dominance but a framework to preserve the ethical and cultural identity of the country. Roles of Upāsaka (lay male followers), Upāsikā (lay female followers), Bhikkhu (monks), and Bhikkhunī (nuns) embody a collective responsibility to uphold peace, harmony, and moral conduct. This constitutional safeguard ensures that Buddhist principles guide society, fostering coexistence and resilience. It aligns Sri Lanka’s governance with the principles of mettā (loving-kindness), karunā (compassion), and upekkhā (equanimity), and stands in stark contrast to the claims of militant intentions.

Buddhism in Sri Lanka is deeply rooted in the teachings of the Buddha, which emphasize non-violence and moral discipline. Historically, Sri Lanka has demonstrated unwavering adherence to practices that serve as the moral backbone of the nation and unequivocally reject violence or militancy as methods for achieving objectives. Central to these practices are mettā (extending loving-kindness to all beings), karunā (showing compassion for the suffering), muditā (rejoicing in others’ happiness), and upekkhā (practicing equanimity in the face of challenges).

Charles Keyes references the Mahāvaṃsa’s portrayal of King Dutugemunu’s campaign against Tamil invaders, suggesting it is “the nearest approximation to a holy war” within Theravāda Buddhism. This interpretation misrepresents the text’s intent and Sri Lanka’s historical circumstances. The Mahāvaṃsa is a literary chronicle that blends history with moral and spiritual teachings, emphasizing the preservation of Buddhism amid external threats. Dutugemunu’s campaign is a narrative of defense—protecting sovereignty and ensuring the survival of the Dharma—not one of conquest or aggression. His profound remorse over the loss of life further highlights adherence to Buddhist ethics, reinforcing that violence is never taken lightly.

According to Buddhist principles, for an action to be sinful, four conditions must be met:

1. Identifying a being – Recognizing a living being confirms the awareness required for the act.
2. Intending harm – Formulating harmful intent introduces a deliberate decision to cause suffering.
3. Making efforts to cause harm – Taking actionable steps signifies the effort made.
4. Successfully harming – Achieving the harmful result completes the unethical act.

Dutugemunu’s actions were driven by duty and necessity, not malice or religious zeal. Viewing these defensive efforts as militant not only misrepresents the historical context but also undermines the ethical foundation of Sri Lankan Buddhism. Keyes misapplies the concept of militant Buddhism by equating defensive strategies with holy wars. He states, “The war that Duṭṭhagāmaṇi waged against the Tamils is portrayed in the Mahāvamsa in terms that make it the nearest approximation to a holy war that can be found anywhere in the literature of Theravāda Buddhism.” This claim overlooks the broader ethical and cultural framework underpinning the Mahāvaṃsa.

Throughout history, many religious traditions have engaged in violent conquests, crusades, and campaigns of forced conversion. For example, the Crusades (1095–1291) resulted in mass violence and the deaths of millions, religious inquisitions forced conversions through persecution, and empires expanded territory by imposing faith through military force. Sri Lanka’s history, by contrast, has no record of initiating religious wars or forcing others into Buddhism. Sri Lankan Buddhists have maintained a steadfast commitment to moral principles, even when faced with existential threats.

During this same period, Sri Lanka was governed by a series of monarchs who upheld Buddhist values and prioritized the well-being of the people. Their efforts stand in stark contrast to the violent campaigns observed elsewhere. The following comparison highlights the rulers of the time and their humanitarian contributions:

Crusade Period	Kingdom	Ruler	Reign	Key Achievements	Humanitarian Aspects
Early Crusades	Polonnaruwa Kingdom	Vijayabahu I	1055–1110	Reunited Sri Lanka after defeating Chola invaders. Restored Buddhist traditions and rebuilt temples.	Focused on healing and uniting a fractured nation, demonstrating justice, compassion, and a commitment to peace.
Middle Crusades	Polonnaruwa Kingdom	Parakramabahu I	1153–1186	Promoted Buddhism, developed massive irrigation projects like Parakrama Samudra, and secured sovereignty.	Known for his focus on sustainability and people’s well-being, with policies benefiting livelihoods and the environment.
Middle Crusades	Polonnaruwa Kingdom	Nissanka Malla	1187–1196	Declared himself the protector of Buddhism, emphasized piety in inscriptions, and supported social order.	Acted as a stabilizing force; however, his focus on grandeur sometimes overshadowed practical humanitarian efforts.
Late Crusades	Dambadeniya Kingdom	Vijayabahu III	1232–1254	Founded the Dambadeniya Kingdom to protect Buddhism; promoted societal harmony during political unrest.	Displayed care for societal stability and preservation of Buddhist values amidst a time of instability.

This comparison illuminates the significant difference between the violent practices of the Crusades and the peaceful, humanitarian approaches of Sri Lanka’s rulers, guided by Buddhist principles. Their focus on compassion, cultural preservation, and societal well-being underscores the deep contrast.

Charles Keyes’ characterization of Buddhism in Sri Lanka as militant is deeply flawed and fails to appreciate the ethical and historical nuances of the tradition. Sri Lanka’s Buddhist philosophy is one of compassion, non-violence, and harmony, reflected in its constitutional framework and cultural ethos. When faced with threats, Sri Lanka has defended its sovereignty and heritage responsibly, without compromising Buddhist principles.

It is essential to challenge these misrepresentations and illuminate the true legacy of Sri Lankan Buddhism—a legacy rooted in peace, resilience, and moral integrity.

“When certain acclaimed individuals distort history by masking the violence of their own religion while misrepresenting the actions of nations defending their lands and territories, they undermine the truth. Furthermore, academic attempts to target Buddhism by unfairly portraying it as a militant religion are not only incorrect but also deeply unjust, violating the principles of fair and honest scholarship.”

By Palitha Ariyarathna

References

• Keyes, Charles F. Political Crisis and Militant Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand (Revised 1999).
• The Mahāvaṃsa. A primary literary and historical source of Sri Lankan Buddhism.
• The Constitution of Sri Lanka. Emphasizing protections for Buddhism within the national framework.
• Theravāda Buddhist Teachings. Ethical principles such as mettā (loving-kindness) and ahimsa (non-violence).
• Deegalle, Mahinda. Buddhism, Conflict and Violence in Modern Sri Lanka