To a very large extent Prof. Erick White and I agree rather than disagree. I would clarify the following.
1. “None of it is published in journals of Buddhist Studies as Mr. Mazard claims. I have never disputed the fact that these venues are rarely filled with scholarship on Buddhism and politics…”
We agree: Buddhist Journals aren’t broaching these issues, and we both agree that this is somewhat problematic or regrettable. Formerly, you did suggest that journals such as the ones you’d named (C.B., B.S.R., etc.) provided significant material in this area, compensating for the lack of these things in J.I.A.B.S., etc., but I’m glad to see that you’ve either changed or clarified your position on this –and obviously we agree much more than we disagree about it.
2. “Mr. Mazard asserts that academics have shown no interest in discussing the recent race riots between Muslims and Buddhists in Burma…”
No, that is not what I stated (above), and I think that Prof. White does not realize that (again) we agree more than we disagree. What I stated was, in fact, the very opposite: that mainstream political journals (such as Foreign Policy magazine) take no interest in Buddhism except when there’s some sudden crisis, such as anti-Muslim riots. So, in this case, Prof. White is criticizing me for a view that I did not express, and do not hold.
I did not say that academics lack expertise in this area: I said that mainstream magazines like Foreign Policy lack such expertise, and, therefore, it is regrettable that we do not have an academic journal that broaches these issues, etc. (I believe that Prof. White simply mis-read or mis-remembered the only comment I made on this issue, and that he had no ill-will in doing so).
3. “Very little of this scholarship discusses the role, place or significance of political or ecclesiastical leaders as Mr. Mazard claims. Again, I don’t dispute that most scholarship on Buddhism and politics does not investigate this topic in discussing the relationship between religion and politics.”
Again, we agree, and I believe this is a very significant issue to agree upon, frankly (and indicates precisely the worrying “blind spot” that the article was written about).
4. “A good chunk of these readings are not published in academic journals or monographs…” etc.
Again, we agree (even if, perhaps, Prof. White disagreed with me about this earlier). The question of where and how these things get published is significant, and it is significant to note that Prof. White has provided citations to no fewer than five postings here on New Mandala!
I could hardly ask for a more direct affirmation of my complaint that, “I can’t fault my contemporaries for avoiding such areas of research, as I myself do not know anywhere (aside from New Mandala) that would publish their findings.”
[E.W.:] “I can only ultimately conclude that you are not in fact interested in a reasonable debate based on evidence.”
What do you think we’re debating?
As I said in my prior message, and say again now, you have conceded the only points that I was arguing for.
(1) We agree that academic journals of Buddhist Studies (such as the J.I.A.B.S.) are averse to hard politics (and, I think, you do not disagree with the notion that journals of hard politics don’t deal with Buddhism at all, or deal with it very badly, only in cases such as anti-Muslim riots in Myanmar, etc., as per my original article).
(2) We agree that “It would be great if there was more academic work on Buddhism and politics.”
(3) You are more optimistic than I am that monographs make up for the deficit –but this difference of opinion is not the basis for any kind of stark “face-off” between polar-opposites.
I am pessimistic about this, and feel that it isn’t entirely salient, in part due to some difference in emphasis (between the two of us) as to what province of “politics” we’re talking about, etc., and in part,
perhaps, because you don’t see periodicals as having special importance above and beyond monographs. Perhaps, also, you’ve read some especially great monographs lately that fill you with optimism on this front, but I don’t share this experience.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I really, sincerely, think it’s a problem that I can’t turn to a periodical discussing the type of issues I’ve been describing (and that I can’t suggest anyone contribute to such a
periodical, etc.); for the reasons you’ve stated, you may sincerely think this isn’t a problem, or that it is a very minor problem.
Again, this difference of opinion is hardly an irreconcilable rift between diametric opposites. I genuinely don’t see a solution to the problem in an allusion to a stack of monographs discussing diverse issues (such as, e.g., Kat Bowie’s work on the history of slavery, colonialism, etc., that I do value, but don’t consider salient).
That’s how I feel about it, and the concessions you’ve made indicate that you understand that opinion well enough, even if you disagree with it to some extent (while, evidently, as per points 1 & 2, you also agree to some extent –and, frankly, you seem to have given up the defense of _Contemporary Buddhism_ & _B.S.R._ as viable
alternatives to solve this problem, so perhaps we agree on that, also, although you did not at first).
For me, this general problem is emblematized by the fact that I can’t find Shinawatra’s name (nor a discussion of decisions made by the Supreme Patriarch, nor a discussion of contemporary decisions made by the Communist Party, etc.) in these journals. An emblem doesn’t tell the whole story, but it provides a symbol that summarizes it, or
recalls it to mind.
I am not using an unreasonably narrow definition of “politics” in statements such as the following (from my original article-ette) that you now characterize, in retrospect, as if it were an absurd, unreasonable claim:
“Politicians (like Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen) have made decisions that directly influence the religion, and they are influenced by the religion themselves; the position of Supreme Patriarch is, ultimately, a political one, and might be the subject of academic scrutiny or scholarly interest. We can’t expect magazines
such as Foreign Policy or The Economist to have the depth of linguistic and historical [expertise] to really deal with this area of
contemporary politics, but, currently, who can? Every time there’s a race-riot between Muslims and Buddhists in Burma, the mainstream press makes a profession of its ignorance, and the academics seem to
demonstrate their disinterest; conversely, I can’t fault my contemporaries for avoiding such areas of research, as I myself do not
know anywhere (aside from New Mandala) that would publish their findings.”
Does this paragraph, above, really sound to you like such an unreasonable claim as you’ve pretended it to be?
Does it not seem, rather, like a reasonable complaint from someone who is simply disappointed with the state of the literature, across the board, after (many) years of experience with it?
Conversely, is it really reasonable for you to respond to a musing such as this paragraph I’ve just quoted (or my polite-as-possible first message sent to you as e-mail) with charges that I am making “grand pronouncements built on empirical foundations of sand”?
Mr. Mazard has sent me several emails outside this forum complaining strongly that I have misrepresented his claims, failed to provide any evidence of my assertions, and impugned his character by claiming that there is in fact a considerable amount of scholarship out there in the academic world on the topic of Buddhism and (contemporary) politics (in SEA). While my attempts to clarify my claims and substantiate my position have not convinced him in the slightest, I would like to take a moment to make sure that my criticisms are clear to the readers of this blog in case I have not been understood.
I will work through one example. As evidence of the neglect of this topic by scholars, Mr. Mazard asserts that academics have shown no interest in discussing the recent race riots between Muslims and Buddhists in Burma. Recently I taught a module on Democratization, Islamophobia and Pogroms in Burma. Examining the materials I asked my students to read is instructive as to Mr. Mazard’s various claims about the blind spot of Buddhist Studies. Here is what my students read:
Guenter Lewy, “Militant Buddhist Nationalism: The Case of Burma.” Church and State 19 (1972): 19-41.
Michael Aung-Thwin, “Of Monarchs, Monks and Men: Religion and the State in Burma.” Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series No. 127, December 2009.
Matthew Walton, “Myanmar Needs a New Nationalism.” Asia Times online, May 20, 2013.
K. Yhome, “Mapping the Meaning of Burman Nationalism.” Himalayan and Central Asian Studies 18,1-2 (2014): 52-63.
Mikael Gravers, “Spiritual Politics, Political Religion and Religious Freedom in Burma.” The Review of Faith and International Affairs, 11,2 (2013): 46-54.
Human Rights Watch, “Crackdown on Burmese Muslims – July 2002.”
International Crisis Group, “The Dark Side of Transition: Violence Against Muslims in Myanmar.” Asia Report #251, October 1, 2013.
Ardeth Maung Thawnghmung, “Contending Approaches to Communal Violence in Rakhine State.” In Burma/Myanmar: Where Now?, ed. Mikael Gravers and Flemming Ytzen. Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2014. Pp. 323 -338.
Nehginpao Kipgen, “Conflict in Rakhine State in Myanmar: Rohingya Muslims’ Conundrum.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 33,2 (2013): 298-310.
Peter Coclanis, “Terror in Burma: Buddhists vs. Muslims.” World Affairs 176,4 (2013): 25-33.
Penny Green, “Islamaphobia: Burma’s Racist Fault Line.” Race and Class 55,2 (2013): 93-98.
Elliot Prasse-Freeman, “Scapegoating in Burma.” Anthropology Today 29,4 (2013): 2-3.
Emilie Biver, “Chapter 5: Discussion.” In
Religious Nationalism: Myanmar and the Role of Buddhism in Anti-Muslim Narratives – An Analysis of Myanmar’s Ethnic Conflicts through the Lens of Buddhist Nationalism. MA Thesis, Lund University, 2014. Pp. 36-53.
Tatsushi Arai, “Toward a Buddhist Theory of Structural Peace: Lessons from Burma/Myanmar in Transition.” Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA) Conference in Bangkok, Thailand on November 13, 2013.
Matt Schissler, “Everyday Ethnic Tensions in Myanmar.” New Mandala post, March 27, 2013.
Matt Schissler, “Sleeping Dogs.” New Mandala post, January 20, 2014.
Olivia Cable, “Sectarian Conflict in Mandalay.” New Mandala post, July 18, 2014.
Max Beauchamp, “Beyond Bigotry: Unravelling Ethnic Violence in Rakhine.” New Mandala post, December 19, 2013.
Taylor O’Connor, “Pathways to Peace in Rakhine State.” New Mandala Post, April 29, 2014.
Matthew J. Walton and Susan Hayward, Contesting Buddhist Narratives: Democratization, Nationalism, and Communal Violence in Myanmar. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center, 2014.
Stephen Gray and Josephine Roos, “Intercommunal Violence in Myanmar: Risks and Opportunities for International Assistance.” Adapt Research and Consulting, April 2014.
Looking over these readings, one can come to several conclusions with regards to this one sliver of the scholarship on Buddhism and politics in contemporary SEA.
1)None of it is published in journals of Buddhist Studies as Mr. Mazard claims. I have never disputed the fact that these venues are rarely filled with scholarship on Buddhism and politics, however. All I have disputed is that this is the proper place to look to find such scholarship or to judge the character of all academic scholarship on Buddhism and politics. I agree with Mr. Mazard that it would be great if Buddhist studies journals did publish more work on this topic.
2)Very little of this scholarship discusses the role, place or significance of political or ecclesiastical leaders as Mr. Mazard claims. Again, I don’t dispute that most scholarship on Buddhism and politics does not investigate this topic in discussing the relationship between religion and politics. Mr. Mazard finds this neglect much more problematic than I do, however.
3)A good chunk of these readings are not published in academic journals or monographs, although some of that work is nonetheless written by academic scholars. Clearly other venues and voices beyond academia have an important place in studies of Buddhism and politics. Again, however, I never asserted otherwise. I merely asserted that scholars have not neglected the study of Buddhism and politics as profoundly and thoroughly as Mr. Mazard claims.
4)12 of the 21 readings were written by academics, and these readings constitute a significant amount, perhaps a majority, of the pages read. Moreover, 7 of these were published in scholarly journals of a very general nature. Almost all of this scholarship was located by me through the use of Google and Google Scholar. This is surprising as Mr. Mazard calmly and confidently asserts that scholars have utterly neglected to study this issue. One can only conclude, unfortunately, that Mr. Mazard is uninformed about the true state of the academic scholarship on Buddhist-Muslim violence in contemporary Burma despite his assurances to the contrary. (Moreover, given the lag in scholarly publication, I am quite certain more academic work is on the way. Much of what I assigned only arrived on the scene in the past 6 months.)
As my previously posted long list of scholars who have written about Buddhism and politics in contemporary SEA indicates, I quite strongly believe that similar findings would be discovered upon close examination of many other issues and topics in the study of Buddhism and politics. I can only conclude therefore that Mr. Mazard’s general criticisms about the impoverished state of academic scholarship on Buddhism and politics are founded upon an overly narrow source of data and an unfortunately limited awareness of the depth, breadth and range of existing academic scholarship on the topic of Buddhism and politics.
Buddha or Gautama Buddha is also a Kalar, as he is a South Asian and an Indian who lived and taught nearly his entire life in India, the Burmese and the Burmese monks are actually worshipping a Kalar day and night.
The writing on “the myth surrounding the ‘poet’ politician” is inclined towards “hear say” evidence which is “unreliable and simply superficial.
Xanana Gusmao’s image and political standing is being “labelled” and “constructed” by persons that is not closed nor “intimate” with his stature “unbalance” and inaccurate.
There is more of Xanana Gusmao that what is written and said about him.
The crux of the issues are who were the manipulators, who were the suckers, who were the people behind the game of politics at that era (1930 to 1949 to 1956 to 1963 to …). What was Malaya,Singapore and even China in 1930.
It’s probably just blatant ignorance Westerners have of Asian cultures, but it has turned into a hot topic and inadvertently throwing her into the limelight.
We need more people like you. Stop differentiating yourselves. If you have been with us for hundreds of years, then you can speak our language, sing our nation’s national anthem and be a part of society.
But if you cannot speak our language, don’t want to sing our nation’s national anthem and don’t want to be a part of our society, that is probably because you are not. You probably might feel you belong more to another country and not want to be loyal to our nation.
So we can and accept people like you who want to be a part of us.
Two projects.
One, the Chinese port for Chinese use. Crude imports from Middle East being pumped through their terminals into China via their own pipelines. Gas from No. 1 Shwe Gas field being pumped into China.
Two, SEZ for regional venture.
True.
From forced resettlements and altercations with authorities incurring numerous casualties to regime backed rounding up of an ethnic group for extermination like the Hutus and the Tutsis or the Serbs and the Croations, or the Nazis and the Jews.
“Ethnic cleansing” as a term has lost its gravity.
December 22, 2014 at 6:22 AM
They’re not illegal immigrants, they have been there for generations.
When there’s worship of Allah or God, there’s wealth and oil, look at all the oil rich countries, its all mostly Muslim countries, its being blessed by God, that even other countries are out to invade it greedily to rob its wealth. Saudi Arabia is world’s number one oil producing country in this world and its the birthplace of Islam. In contrast with the evil dead man worshipping countries aka Buddhism, nothing just plain evil, jealousy hatred and murderous. Prosperity comes with peace, love, harmony and kindness, look at your country, its no better than the toilet!
I think Tay has just about right. Nobody is defending illegal detention, but I certainly hope that no one is, even more so, defending CPM-led targeted assassinations in Singapore and Malaya. I recall very well, numerous attempts to wipe out a British battalion stationed in Ipoh. I doubt even the most liberal Malaysian would have liked to have seen a local version of Indonesia in 1965. I should think the Emergency, 13 May 1969, and 22 years of Mahathirian Machiavellianism should be enough for anyone.
Less biased than your comment, and were you not even younger than Mr Gafoor, I wonder if you would have made such a comment. Mr Gafoor made no claim to direct military involvement in the Emergency; that does not preclude him from an opinion, any more than your likely non-involvement has precluded you from expressing yours. In my opinion, a most unbiased piece at a minimum. I suspect your spectacles are no less (likely more) shaded than Mr Gafoor’s.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Blind spot in Buddhist Studies
How did he get your email address?
Anyway, I hope Mr. Mazard finds a more suitable Ph.D. supervisor (someone that deserves him!)
Blind spot in Buddhist Studies
To a very large extent Prof. Erick White and I agree rather than disagree. I would clarify the following.
1. “None of it is published in journals of Buddhist Studies as Mr. Mazard claims. I have never disputed the fact that these venues are rarely filled with scholarship on Buddhism and politics…”
We agree: Buddhist Journals aren’t broaching these issues, and we both agree that this is somewhat problematic or regrettable. Formerly, you did suggest that journals such as the ones you’d named (C.B., B.S.R., etc.) provided significant material in this area, compensating for the lack of these things in J.I.A.B.S., etc., but I’m glad to see that you’ve either changed or clarified your position on this –and obviously we agree much more than we disagree about it.
2. “Mr. Mazard asserts that academics have shown no interest in discussing the recent race riots between Muslims and Buddhists in Burma…”
No, that is not what I stated (above), and I think that Prof. White does not realize that (again) we agree more than we disagree. What I stated was, in fact, the very opposite: that mainstream political journals (such as Foreign Policy magazine) take no interest in Buddhism except when there’s some sudden crisis, such as anti-Muslim riots. So, in this case, Prof. White is criticizing me for a view that I did not express, and do not hold.
I did not say that academics lack expertise in this area: I said that mainstream magazines like Foreign Policy lack such expertise, and, therefore, it is regrettable that we do not have an academic journal that broaches these issues, etc. (I believe that Prof. White simply mis-read or mis-remembered the only comment I made on this issue, and that he had no ill-will in doing so).
3. “Very little of this scholarship discusses the role, place or significance of political or ecclesiastical leaders as Mr. Mazard claims. Again, I don’t dispute that most scholarship on Buddhism and politics does not investigate this topic in discussing the relationship between religion and politics.”
Again, we agree, and I believe this is a very significant issue to agree upon, frankly (and indicates precisely the worrying “blind spot” that the article was written about).
4. “A good chunk of these readings are not published in academic journals or monographs…” etc.
Again, we agree (even if, perhaps, Prof. White disagreed with me about this earlier). The question of where and how these things get published is significant, and it is significant to note that Prof. White has provided citations to no fewer than five postings here on New Mandala!
I could hardly ask for a more direct affirmation of my complaint that, “I can’t fault my contemporaries for avoiding such areas of research, as I myself do not know anywhere (aside from New Mandala) that would publish their findings.”
Blind spot in Buddhist Studies
[Further Reply to Erick White],
[E.W.:] “I can only ultimately conclude that you are not in fact interested in a reasonable debate based on evidence.”
What do you think we’re debating?
As I said in my prior message, and say again now, you have conceded the only points that I was arguing for.
(1) We agree that academic journals of Buddhist Studies (such as the J.I.A.B.S.) are averse to hard politics (and, I think, you do not disagree with the notion that journals of hard politics don’t deal with Buddhism at all, or deal with it very badly, only in cases such as anti-Muslim riots in Myanmar, etc., as per my original article).
(2) We agree that “It would be great if there was more academic work on Buddhism and politics.”
(3) You are more optimistic than I am that monographs make up for the deficit –but this difference of opinion is not the basis for any kind of stark “face-off” between polar-opposites.
I am pessimistic about this, and feel that it isn’t entirely salient, in part due to some difference in emphasis (between the two of us) as to what province of “politics” we’re talking about, etc., and in part,
perhaps, because you don’t see periodicals as having special importance above and beyond monographs. Perhaps, also, you’ve read some especially great monographs lately that fill you with optimism on this front, but I don’t share this experience.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I really, sincerely, think it’s a problem that I can’t turn to a periodical discussing the type of issues I’ve been describing (and that I can’t suggest anyone contribute to such a
periodical, etc.); for the reasons you’ve stated, you may sincerely think this isn’t a problem, or that it is a very minor problem.
Again, this difference of opinion is hardly an irreconcilable rift between diametric opposites. I genuinely don’t see a solution to the problem in an allusion to a stack of monographs discussing diverse issues (such as, e.g., Kat Bowie’s work on the history of slavery, colonialism, etc., that I do value, but don’t consider salient).
That’s how I feel about it, and the concessions you’ve made indicate that you understand that opinion well enough, even if you disagree with it to some extent (while, evidently, as per points 1 & 2, you also agree to some extent –and, frankly, you seem to have given up the defense of _Contemporary Buddhism_ & _B.S.R._ as viable
alternatives to solve this problem, so perhaps we agree on that, also, although you did not at first).
For me, this general problem is emblematized by the fact that I can’t find Shinawatra’s name (nor a discussion of decisions made by the Supreme Patriarch, nor a discussion of contemporary decisions made by the Communist Party, etc.) in these journals. An emblem doesn’t tell the whole story, but it provides a symbol that summarizes it, or
recalls it to mind.
I am not using an unreasonably narrow definition of “politics” in statements such as the following (from my original article-ette) that you now characterize, in retrospect, as if it were an absurd, unreasonable claim:
“Politicians (like Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen) have made decisions that directly influence the religion, and they are influenced by the religion themselves; the position of Supreme Patriarch is, ultimately, a political one, and might be the subject of academic scrutiny or scholarly interest. We can’t expect magazines
such as Foreign Policy or The Economist to have the depth of linguistic and historical [expertise] to really deal with this area of
contemporary politics, but, currently, who can? Every time there’s a race-riot between Muslims and Buddhists in Burma, the mainstream press makes a profession of its ignorance, and the academics seem to
demonstrate their disinterest; conversely, I can’t fault my contemporaries for avoiding such areas of research, as I myself do not
know anywhere (aside from New Mandala) that would publish their findings.”
Does this paragraph, above, really sound to you like such an unreasonable claim as you’ve pretended it to be?
Does it not seem, rather, like a reasonable complaint from someone who is simply disappointed with the state of the literature, across the board, after (many) years of experience with it?
Conversely, is it really reasonable for you to respond to a musing such as this paragraph I’ve just quoted (or my polite-as-possible first message sent to you as e-mail) with charges that I am making “grand pronouncements built on empirical foundations of sand”?
No, Erick, your response has not been reasonable.
Blind spot in Buddhist Studies
Mr. Mazard has sent me several emails outside this forum complaining strongly that I have misrepresented his claims, failed to provide any evidence of my assertions, and impugned his character by claiming that there is in fact a considerable amount of scholarship out there in the academic world on the topic of Buddhism and (contemporary) politics (in SEA). While my attempts to clarify my claims and substantiate my position have not convinced him in the slightest, I would like to take a moment to make sure that my criticisms are clear to the readers of this blog in case I have not been understood.
I will work through one example. As evidence of the neglect of this topic by scholars, Mr. Mazard asserts that academics have shown no interest in discussing the recent race riots between Muslims and Buddhists in Burma. Recently I taught a module on Democratization, Islamophobia and Pogroms in Burma. Examining the materials I asked my students to read is instructive as to Mr. Mazard’s various claims about the blind spot of Buddhist Studies. Here is what my students read:
Guenter Lewy, “Militant Buddhist Nationalism: The Case of Burma.” Church and State 19 (1972): 19-41.
Michael Aung-Thwin, “Of Monarchs, Monks and Men: Religion and the State in Burma.” Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series No. 127, December 2009.
Matthew Walton, “Myanmar Needs a New Nationalism.” Asia Times online, May 20, 2013.
K. Yhome, “Mapping the Meaning of Burman Nationalism.” Himalayan and Central Asian Studies 18,1-2 (2014): 52-63.
Mikael Gravers, “Spiritual Politics, Political Religion and Religious Freedom in Burma.” The Review of Faith and International Affairs, 11,2 (2013): 46-54.
Human Rights Watch, “Crackdown on Burmese Muslims – July 2002.”
International Crisis Group, “The Dark Side of Transition: Violence Against Muslims in Myanmar.” Asia Report #251, October 1, 2013.
Ardeth Maung Thawnghmung, “Contending Approaches to Communal Violence in Rakhine State.” In Burma/Myanmar: Where Now?, ed. Mikael Gravers and Flemming Ytzen. Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2014. Pp. 323 -338.
Nehginpao Kipgen, “Conflict in Rakhine State in Myanmar: Rohingya Muslims’ Conundrum.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 33,2 (2013): 298-310.
Peter Coclanis, “Terror in Burma: Buddhists vs. Muslims.” World Affairs 176,4 (2013): 25-33.
Penny Green, “Islamaphobia: Burma’s Racist Fault Line.” Race and Class 55,2 (2013): 93-98.
Elliot Prasse-Freeman, “Scapegoating in Burma.” Anthropology Today 29,4 (2013): 2-3.
Emilie Biver, “Chapter 5: Discussion.” In
Religious Nationalism: Myanmar and the Role of Buddhism in Anti-Muslim Narratives – An Analysis of Myanmar’s Ethnic Conflicts through the Lens of Buddhist Nationalism. MA Thesis, Lund University, 2014. Pp. 36-53.
Tatsushi Arai, “Toward a Buddhist Theory of Structural Peace: Lessons from Burma/Myanmar in Transition.” Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA) Conference in Bangkok, Thailand on November 13, 2013.
Matt Schissler, “Everyday Ethnic Tensions in Myanmar.” New Mandala post, March 27, 2013.
Matt Schissler, “Sleeping Dogs.” New Mandala post, January 20, 2014.
Olivia Cable, “Sectarian Conflict in Mandalay.” New Mandala post, July 18, 2014.
Max Beauchamp, “Beyond Bigotry: Unravelling Ethnic Violence in Rakhine.” New Mandala post, December 19, 2013.
Taylor O’Connor, “Pathways to Peace in Rakhine State.” New Mandala Post, April 29, 2014.
Matthew J. Walton and Susan Hayward, Contesting Buddhist Narratives: Democratization, Nationalism, and Communal Violence in Myanmar. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center, 2014.
Stephen Gray and Josephine Roos, “Intercommunal Violence in Myanmar: Risks and Opportunities for International Assistance.” Adapt Research and Consulting, April 2014.
Looking over these readings, one can come to several conclusions with regards to this one sliver of the scholarship on Buddhism and politics in contemporary SEA.
1)None of it is published in journals of Buddhist Studies as Mr. Mazard claims. I have never disputed the fact that these venues are rarely filled with scholarship on Buddhism and politics, however. All I have disputed is that this is the proper place to look to find such scholarship or to judge the character of all academic scholarship on Buddhism and politics. I agree with Mr. Mazard that it would be great if Buddhist studies journals did publish more work on this topic.
2)Very little of this scholarship discusses the role, place or significance of political or ecclesiastical leaders as Mr. Mazard claims. Again, I don’t dispute that most scholarship on Buddhism and politics does not investigate this topic in discussing the relationship between religion and politics. Mr. Mazard finds this neglect much more problematic than I do, however.
3)A good chunk of these readings are not published in academic journals or monographs, although some of that work is nonetheless written by academic scholars. Clearly other venues and voices beyond academia have an important place in studies of Buddhism and politics. Again, however, I never asserted otherwise. I merely asserted that scholars have not neglected the study of Buddhism and politics as profoundly and thoroughly as Mr. Mazard claims.
4)12 of the 21 readings were written by academics, and these readings constitute a significant amount, perhaps a majority, of the pages read. Moreover, 7 of these were published in scholarly journals of a very general nature. Almost all of this scholarship was located by me through the use of Google and Google Scholar. This is surprising as Mr. Mazard calmly and confidently asserts that scholars have utterly neglected to study this issue. One can only conclude, unfortunately, that Mr. Mazard is uninformed about the true state of the academic scholarship on Buddhist-Muslim violence in contemporary Burma despite his assurances to the contrary. (Moreover, given the lag in scholarly publication, I am quite certain more academic work is on the way. Much of what I assigned only arrived on the scene in the past 6 months.)
As my previously posted long list of scholars who have written about Buddhism and politics in contemporary SEA indicates, I quite strongly believe that similar findings would be discovered upon close examination of many other issues and topics in the study of Buddhism and politics. I can only conclude therefore that Mr. Mazard’s general criticisms about the impoverished state of academic scholarship on Buddhism and politics are founded upon an overly narrow source of data and an unfortunately limited awareness of the depth, breadth and range of existing academic scholarship on the topic of Buddhism and politics.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Buddha or Gautama Buddha is also a Kalar, as he is a South Asian and an Indian who lived and taught nearly his entire life in India, the Burmese and the Burmese monks are actually worshipping a Kalar day and night.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Buddha’s race is closer to the Rohingyas being South Asians as claimed by the Burmese than the Burmese themselves.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Right as That’s the truth! And truth stands out clear from error! That’s why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West and the World.
The changing face of Xanana Gusmao
The writing on “the myth surrounding the ‘poet’ politician” is inclined towards “hear say” evidence which is “unreliable and simply superficial.
Xanana Gusmao’s image and political standing is being “labelled” and “constructed” by persons that is not closed nor “intimate” with his stature “unbalance” and inaccurate.
There is more of Xanana Gusmao that what is written and said about him.
Reponse to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations
The crux of the issues are who were the manipulators, who were the suckers, who were the people behind the game of politics at that era (1930 to 1949 to 1956 to 1963 to …). What was Malaya,Singapore and even China in 1930.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Who are you? I doubt you got anything to do with Myanmar and just trying to be a part of the conversation?
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
It’s probably just blatant ignorance Westerners have of Asian cultures, but it has turned into a hot topic and inadvertently throwing her into the limelight.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Pol Pot, extreme Buddhist leader?
Ha Ha Ha!
Where did you get that?
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
We need more people like you. Stop differentiating yourselves. If you have been with us for hundreds of years, then you can speak our language, sing our nation’s national anthem and be a part of society.
But if you cannot speak our language, don’t want to sing our nation’s national anthem and don’t want to be a part of our society, that is probably because you are not. You probably might feel you belong more to another country and not want to be loyal to our nation.
So we can and accept people like you who want to be a part of us.
Myanmar Special Economic Zones, Part II
Two projects.
One, the Chinese port for Chinese use. Crude imports from Middle East being pumped through their terminals into China via their own pipelines. Gas from No. 1 Shwe Gas field being pumped into China.
Two, SEZ for regional venture.
Myanmar Special Economic Zones, Part II
True.
From forced resettlements and altercations with authorities incurring numerous casualties to regime backed rounding up of an ethnic group for extermination like the Hutus and the Tutsis or the Serbs and the Croations, or the Nazis and the Jews.
“Ethnic cleansing” as a term has lost its gravity.
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
Excellent baiting.
Reponse to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations
I doubt that Peter.
You do know that ANU conferred Mr. Lee with an honorary doctorate.
http://www.newmandala.org/2007/03/28/lee-kuan-yew-anu-is-not-for-you/
You should also see some of the leaders the ANU work’s with in Asia and the Pacific.
ANU, like Australia, is a rational being. They will work with anyone who can contribute.
http://www.newmandala.org/2014/11/12/30666/
BBC under fire on Rohingyas
December 22, 2014 at 6:22 AM
They’re not illegal immigrants, they have been there for generations.
When there’s worship of Allah or God, there’s wealth and oil, look at all the oil rich countries, its all mostly Muslim countries, its being blessed by God, that even other countries are out to invade it greedily to rob its wealth. Saudi Arabia is world’s number one oil producing country in this world and its the birthplace of Islam. In contrast with the evil dead man worshipping countries aka Buddhism, nothing just plain evil, jealousy hatred and murderous. Prosperity comes with peace, love, harmony and kindness, look at your country, its no better than the toilet!
Reponse to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations
I think Tay has just about right. Nobody is defending illegal detention, but I certainly hope that no one is, even more so, defending CPM-led targeted assassinations in Singapore and Malaya. I recall very well, numerous attempts to wipe out a British battalion stationed in Ipoh. I doubt even the most liberal Malaysian would have liked to have seen a local version of Indonesia in 1965. I should think the Emergency, 13 May 1969, and 22 years of Mahathirian Machiavellianism should be enough for anyone.
Reponse to Poh Soo Kai’s allegations
Less biased than your comment, and were you not even younger than Mr Gafoor, I wonder if you would have made such a comment. Mr Gafoor made no claim to direct military involvement in the Emergency; that does not preclude him from an opinion, any more than your likely non-involvement has precluded you from expressing yours. In my opinion, a most unbiased piece at a minimum. I suspect your spectacles are no less (likely more) shaded than Mr Gafoor’s.