Buddhism as a religion is a proponent of equality and typically condemns discriminatory and hierarchical structures in society. However, the involvement of Buddhism in Sri Lankan politics has often contradicted these teachings. While Sri Lanka is home to a diversity of different religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and the religions of the local indigenous groups, the majority Sinhalese population is predominantly Buddhist. 69 percent of Sinhalese in Sri Lanka are Buddhist, and Sinhalese make up approximately 74 percent of the population. The largest minority group is the Tamils, who are mostly Hindu and are approximately 18 percent of the total population of the island state. [1]

The political and nationalist fervor, along with Sinhalese pride, has led to constant conflict on religious, linguistic, and regional grounds between the Sinhalese and Tamil populations.  Devastating violence between these groups erupted during the Sri Lankan civil war between 1983 and 2009. Legislation in Sri Lanka today still contributes to ethnic political disputes, with various laws threatening the culture and identity of Sri Lankan Tamils. Sri Lanka passed several discriminatory laws both under British dominion and as an independent nation. Even more troubling is the disregard for the rule of law during and since the war against the militant separatist group called The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Due process has often been replaced by patronage systems based on Sinhalese politicians, their families, and their ardent supporters.

The International Human Rights Association’s report in the People’s Tribunal of Sri Lanka lists some of these unfair, discriminatory laws that have been passed since 1948. [2] Tamil people living in the tea plantation areas, mainly in the central highlands, became the first victims of racially motivated attacks by the Sri Lankan state in 1948 and 1949. Then Prime Minister of the Ceylon dominion, Don Stephen Senanayake moved to pass the Ceylon Citizenship Act no. 18 of 1948 and Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act of 1949, which stripped these ethnic groups of their citizenship rights. This legislation was followed by a third act, Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Act, no. 48 of 1949, which took away their voting rights. These bills were in clear violation of Article 29 (2) of the island nation’s Constitution, which was drafted by the British Soulbury Commission before granting them the Dominion status. [3]

In the beginning of the twentieth century, the island grappled with the use of indigenous languages instead of English. This later took the shape of a resolution that demanded that the teaching of Sinhala in Tamil schools and Tamil in Sinhala schools be made compulsory. However, due to the nationalist tendencies of the Sinhalese majority, this proposition failed. Therefore, in May 1944, in reaction to the former resolution, the emerging leader of the Ceylon National Congress, J. R. Jayawardane, moved another resolution in the state council. He proposed to make Sinhalese the medium of instruction in all schools as well as making it a compulsory subject in all public examinations. [4] Later, in 1956, through Official Language Act No.33 Sinhala was made the sole official language, amidst protests by Tamil people and the leftwing parliamentary groups. The bill was unofficially termed as the “Sinhala Only Act” which replaced English with Sinhala as the sole official language. [5] These rules suppressed the linguistic identity of the minority communities of Sri Lanka, as it allowed an unfair and biased domination of the Sinhalese language. Moreover, it also made important legal documentations inaccessible to the communities that did not speak the language.

In 1979, J. R. Jayawardane, at the head of the elected United National Party, began a program of armed oppression of the Tamil population. This was done through the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Introduced as a temporary act, it was later made permanent through an amendment in 1981. The act intensified the repression of the Tamil community in a mandated, state-sponsored manner.

The division in Sri Lanka became more visible with the active involvement of Buddhism in policy-making. Sinhalese Buddhists institutionalized and legitimized the discrimination of the minorities, giving rise to the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’. The Sinhala majority was mobilized around a message of religious justice, in response to the unfair and discriminatory British rule that benefitted certain minorities economically. Walpola Rahula, a Buddhist monk advocated that other monks become involved in politics, which paved the way for the tradition of modern social and political Buddhism during the process of achieving independence from the British in 1948. [6]

The conflict witnessed the emergence of militarized Buddhist monks, who actively were involved in both politics and military interventions during the civil war. They opposed negotiations, ceasefire agreements, or any devolution of power to Tamil minorities, and mostly supported a violent resolution to the conflict. [7] The politicization of Buddhism also led to an active involvement of the religious leaders as decision-makers of the state. The civil war, therefore, became an example of the armed mobilization of Buddhism, an otherwise peaceful and passive religion. The conflict witnessed huge amounts of atrocities from both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government’s side, leading to various human rights groups calling them out for their violations of international law. The war ended in the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, bringing a hope that the thousands of lives lost would lead the government to addressing causes of ethnic grievances on the island. However, the victory of the government simply helped it strengthen and validate the idea of Buddhist nationalism even more. Only this time, the focus of discrimination has been shifted to the Sri Lankan Muslims.

Sri Lanka has seen a rise in the level of violent attacks, demonstrations and hate speech targeting its Muslim population. The violence is mainly perpetrated by Buddhist fundamentalist groups. The events have left the country’s second largest minority community feeling afraid and vulnerable. [8] The government’s authoritarian and majoritarian agenda has threatened the sustenance of the rule of law and the bond of reciprocity with its  citizens, especially the minority communities.

Works Cited

[1] Senanayake, Darini Rajasingham. “Buddhism and the Legitimation of Power: Democracy, Public Religion and Minorities in Sri Lanka .” National University of Singapore, 26 Nov. 2009.

[2] International Human Rights Association. “Discriminatory Laws and Regulations.”  People’s Tribunal of Sri Lanka, pp. 1-17.

[3] R, Edirisingha, et al. “Power Sharing in Sri Lanka: Constitutional and Political Documents 1926-2008.” Colombo: Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008, pp. 204.

[4] International Human Rights Association. “Discriminatory Laws and Regulations.”  People’s Tribunal of Sri Lanka, pp. 1-17.

[5]  International Human Rights Association 08

[6]  Senanayake, Darini Rajasingham. “Buddhism and the Legitimation of Power: Democracy, Public Religion and Minorities in Sri Lanka .” National University of Singapore, 26 Nov. 2009.

[7] Mahinda, Deegalle. Buddhism, Conflict and Violence in Modern Sri Lanka. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.

[8] Aliff, S M. “Post-War Conflict in Sri Lanka: Violence against Sri Lankan Muslims and Buddhist Hegemony .” International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, vol. 59, 11 Sept. 2015, pp. 109–125.

In 2019, Thai authorities confirmed that four more people were killed in a late-night attack by Muslim insurgents in Southern Thailand. The insurgents assaulted a military outpost in response to the recent torture of a Muslim rebel suspect. The suspect was left in a critical condition after spending several hours in a notorious army interrogation unit. Even though Thailand is party to the 2007 United Nations’ Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Thai army has been torturing prisoners for a long time.[1] The military’s rampant use of torture has provoked many insurgent attacks like the most recent one in 2019.

Torture is the infliction of physical torment on individuals by the state to extract a confession, gain information, or simply for intimidation.[2] While a severe human rights violation, Torture is often still widely used as one of the most brutal forms of authority. Classical notions of torture included inflicting wounds that marked the body of the tortured as a symbol of state power over  its citizens.[3] However, modern torture methods often aim to intimidate the tortured in a more psychological and less physically apparent manner.[4] Torturers sometimes avoid creating visible scars or wounds on their prisoner’s body, which makes it harder for the individual to prove their suffering. This ensures that torture remains underground, reducing the credibility of the tortured to mere accusations.

However, torture in Thailand has been used in ways that has not always been secretive in nature. While primarily used in detention centers and police custody, Thai security forces have also used torture in public spaces such as streets and police roadblocks. The 2014 coup led by army officers gave rise to an environment where few could speak up against the military. Moreover, those who did were violently silenced. The transition towards a dictatorship from a democratic system of governance ensured that torture could occur in public view.

The Royal Thai Armed Forces, led by General Prayut Chan-o-cha, seized power in May 2014 and formed The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). Since then, torture and brutality by military authorities has become commonplace across the country. According to a report by Amnesty International, Thai soldiers and policemen have targeted those suspected of being insurgents, political opponents, and individuals especially from the most vulnerable sections of society. The report, “Make Him Speak by Tomorrow: Torture and Other Ill-Treatment in Thailand”, documented 74 cases of torture and other violent treatment at the hands of soldiers and the police between 2014 and 2015 alone. These include beatings, suffocation by plastic bags, strangling by hand or rope, waterboarding, electric shocks to the genitals, and other forms of painful and humiliating abuse of individuals in custody.[5]

The Thai military has referred to torturing political activists, opposition leaders, and journalists as ‘attitude adjustment’ designed to encourage them to support the government. Rather than isolated incidents, torture has been used to systemically suppress those who opposed the military government.[6] In addition to this, the military also regularly tortures suspected drug users, migrant workers, members of ethnic minorities, and indigenous people as a routine security measure. It is usual for people suspected of being drug addicts to be beaten and humiliated in public by military or police officials. Furthermore, many undocumented and unregistered migrant workers in Thailand are similarly susceptible to abuses of power by government officials. In particular, the authorities use their power to deport individuals without providing them access to judicial or administrative processes. This makes undocumented migrants particularly vulnerable to violence, coercion, and extortion.[7]

Thailand’s legal system fails to acknowledge or address the issue of torture, which has made it easier for the military to use it openly. The Thai Penal Code does not define torture as a distinct criminal offence.[8][9] Moreover, Thai law does not prohibit the practice of obtaining evidence through torture or other forms of manipulation, nor does it prohibit using the evidence in court.[10] However, Thai law has several prohibitions against any form of unlawful detention. Under the law, there is a duty to bring detainees before court within 48 hours of arrest. The detainees also have a right to a legal counselor present during questioning. However, these statutes can be easily overridden by the Thai Martial Law Act, which has been applied in several conflict zones in South Thailand continuously since 2006. Furthermore, a series of post-coup orders issued by the National Council for Peace and Order can also override the existing safeguards against illegal detention provided for by Thai law.[11] The Martial Act also allows military officers to detain suspected individuals in unofficial locations (places that are not prisons, detention centers, or police stations). This makes it easier for military officers to use torture as an intimidation tactic in an undocumented manner, and hence, it is not accounted for.

The arbitrary use of torture in Thailand has come along with the breakdown of democracy and the establishment of a more authoritarian power structure. Therefore, the use of torture is less about inflicting pain or extracting information and more about humiliation and intimidation. While the torture done in official and unofficial detention is used to suppress and intimidate those suspected of working against the coup, public use of torture humiliates and degrades the individual. The latter also uses the audience as a part of the act of torture. The public views the tortured as an outcast an example of the consequences of disobedience. The tortured individual’s humiliation by military officials is meant to send the message that their authority is absolute and demands compliance.

Works Cited

[1] Khidhir, Sheith. “Thailand: Land of Torture?” The ASEAN Post, 30 July 2019, theaseanpost.com/article/thailand-land-torture.

[2] Rejali, Darius. “Torture and Democracy”. Princeton University Press, 2007. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rwf8

[3] Rejali.

[4] Rejali.

[5] “Thailand: A Culture of Torture under the Military.” Amnesty International, 2016. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/thailand-a-culture-of-torture-under-the-military/

[6] Amnesty, International. “MAKE HIM SPEAK BY TOMORROW: TORTURE AND OTHER ILL-TREATMENT IN THAILAND.”  2016, pp. 4–47

[7] Amnesty International.

[8] “Torture in Thailand.” Asian Human Rights Commission, www.humanrights.asia/tortures/torture-in-thailand/

[9] Amnesty International, “Thailand: A Culture of Torture under the Military.” 

[10] Amnesty International, “Thailand: A Culture of Torture under the Military.”

[11] Amnesty International, “Thailand: A Culture of Torture under the Military.”