By Punsara Amarasinghe –

Dr. Punsara Amarasinghe

The larger discourse created by Prof Joseph Nye in the 90’s by his most appealing term “Soft Power” is not a mere academic term limited to the scholars in International relations. The emergence of “soft power” clearly made significant impacts on the traditional spectrum of international affairs in a crucial way. In Nye’s analysis of soft power in a literal sense suggests that it is the ability to get what you want thorough attraction than force. In Nye’s analysis the soft power of a country is vested in three cardinal sources: its culture, its political values and its foreign policies. However, a question that comes to the fore is whether small states can always reckon those three factors as their status of hard power remains in a peripheral stage. Nye answers this question by placing their cultural values as a mode of attraction, which has been the case regarding countries like Singapore, Jamaica and Switzerland in Europe.

Given a wider context regarding the frontiers of soft power, I argue Sri Lanka can always rely on its historical Buddhist values to promote country’s attraction to the international community. Despite several opinions written by Indian academics connecting Buddhism to Indian soft power strategy, the realist view on the preservation of Theravada Buddhism stands in favour of Sri Lanka due to fervent factors. First, Sri Lanka has had an uninterrupted tradition of conserving Theravada Buddhist doctrine for the past 2000 years, albeit Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka in the 3rd century BC under the orbit of India. Secondly, the Buddhist texts and teachings practised by the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka resonated with other civilizations and legitimized Sri Lanka’s position as the custodian of Buddhism even after Buddhism began to decay from the Indian subcontinent. The 20th-century Western interest in exploring Buddhist doctrine mainly emanated from the Buddhist revival carried out by the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka after engaging in a series of coarse debates with the Christian missionaries that culminated in the famous “Panadura debate”.

Tibetan diaspora currently occupies the global dominance of using Buddhism as a soft power under Dalai Lama, who stands as an icon against the hard power of irreligious China. But, in reality the Tibetan Buddhist diplomacy does not embody the Theravada traditions and many Westerners are ignorant regarding this distinction. It is worth noting the ostensible zest initiated by Nehru in the aftermath of independence to depict Buddhism as Indian’s living legacy did not last long. Especially, the robust promotion of Hindutva under Modi’s government seems to have marred the Buddhist outlook by lifting up Shankara, Yoga and other Hindutva values, which creates a realistic concern on India’s current ability to be the sole ambassador of Buddhism.

Meanwhile China has attempted to position itself through its historic tryst with Buddhism and this machinery goes parallel to China’s pursuits in projecting Buddhist narratives as a means to gain support from Asian neighbours like Sri Lanka, Myanmar for Chinese interest without the use of coercion. The Chinese public diplomacy in Sri Lanka, which makes an assiduous attempt in linking Buddhist symbols to their development projects reflects the rigour of China’s intense efforts in projecting Buddhism as a soft power. Indeed, building Lotus tower as the tallest telecommunication tower in Colombo reflects a deeper meaning stemming from China’s Mahayana Buddhist tradition.

However, it is relevant to remember that neither China nor India has better stances in using Buddhism as a soft power than Sri Lanka due to the island nation’s authentic contribution to the propagation of Theravada Buddhism around the world. In particular, the country’s association with codifying the Buddhist suttas (discourses) continuously elevates the status of Sri Lanka to a pristine sanctuary for Buddhism, which awaits worldwide recognition. It should be the paramount task of the state actors of Sri Lanka to aggrandize the country’s Buddhist identity as an intrinsic one, which is purely different from its Indic appearance, also Sri Lanka needs to place its approach to Buddhism as a soft power strategy without any Chinese elements as China ‘s Buddhist diplomacy often receives a vehement criticism.  In writing her analysis Tabita Rosendal notes “China’s narratives attempt to establish a discourse concerning the continuation of Buddhist cooperation between the two countries as a prerequisite for establishing a harmonious Buddhist world. Sri Lanka actors often reproduce the Chinese narratives and many statements largely mimic China’s discourse word to word”.   

The militant attitude of the Buddhist monks and their aggressive aphorism against Muslims and Hindu minorities in Sri Lanka is a stark contrast to any possible projection of Buddhist soft power in Sri Lanka. The questions raised by Harvard anthropologist Tambiah in “Buddhism betrayed?” remains still valid in the West regarding the so-called nonviolent nature of the Buddhist society of Sri Lanka and indeed, it stands as a hindrance to promoting Buddhism as the country’s soft power. Yet, this is an issue that the foreign policymakers in Sri Lanka need to resolve by buoying certain initiatives to portray Sri Lanka’s historical legacy of Theravada Buddhism. For instance, Sri Lankan government can patronage the native Buddhist monks as religious ambassadors around the world to propagate the Theravada form of Buddhism. Especially the inquisitiveness among Westerners to know Buddhism better and the growing attraction for Buddhist Vidarshana meditation are the most appealing factors that Sri Lanka needs to address. The pacifist nature in its doctrine, which even denies the concept of self-defence and its pivotal rule reiterating the concept of “Patichcha samuppada’ as a rational inquiry are salient features for Buddhism as a standout, which can be a point of attraction for the growing atheism in Europe.

In a nutshell, Sri Lanka is endowed with the abundance of historical legitimacy and intellectual resources to take up Buddhism as its grand soft power. Yet, it needs to cling to a strategic position outnumbering Chinese and Indic claims as Buddhist ambassadors to the global community.    

*Punsara Amarasinghe is a post-doctoral researcher affiliated to Scuola Superiroe Sant Anna, Pisa and he held visiting fellowships at Wisconsin Madison, Sciences PO and Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He co-edited a book on the Post-Soviet state building for Routledge last year.