US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO1895

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001895 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/22/2014 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, KIRF, CE, Political Parties, Religious Freedom 
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA:  BUDDHIST MONKS MPS INTRODUCE BILL TO 
MAKE BUDDHISM THE STATE RELIGION 
 
REF: A. COLOMBO-SA/INS 11-22-04 UNCLASS FAX 
     B. COLOMBO 1805 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Classified By: James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of Mission.  1.4(b,d) 
 
-------- 
SUMMARY 
--------- 
 
1. (C) The Jathika Hela Urumaya party of Buddhist monk MPs 
presented a private member's bill in Parliament on November 
19 to give Buddhism the status of state religion through 
constitutional amendment.  Any potential amendment faces 
several legal hurdles, including a two-thirds majority in 
Parliament and a simple majority in a national referendum. 
Although this development is too recent to assess public 
reaction, at least one Christian cleric predicted the 
proposed bill would have little, if any, public support. 
While there has been much debate about potential religious 
anti-conversion legislation, there has been little public 
discourse on the question of elevating Buddhism to a state 
religion.  At present, this potential amendment sounds more 
like political grandstanding by the monk MPs -- whose party 
faces internal problems of its own -- than a serious effort 
to undermine the relative status of other religions.  End 
Summary. 
 
2.  (SBU) On November 19, the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), 
which has nine Buddhist monk MPs in the current Parliament, 
presented a bill in Parliament to make Buddhism a state 
religion through amendment to the constitution.  Similar to 
an earlier religious anti-conversion bill proposed by the 
JHU, this is also a private member's bill and is not backed 
by the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL).  Although presented to 
Parliament, the bill has not yet been placed on the 
Parliament's agenda and has not been formally read before the 
Members.  As a potential constitutional amendment, the 
proposal will take a slightly different track then that of 
draft legislation:  any amendment to the constitution 
requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, plus approval 
by simple majority in a national referendum. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
Buddhism's current and potential future legal status 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
3.  (SBU) The constitution currently grants Buddhism the 
"foremost place" in society -- a special status that falls 
critically short of that of a state religion.  Under Article 
9 of the Constitution, "it shall be the duty of the State to 
protect and foster the Buddha Sasana ("Affairs"), while 
assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 
and 14(1)(e)."  In contrast, the JHU's draft amendment 
provides for the following: 
-- "Other forms of religion may be practiced in peace and 
harmony with Buddha Sasana;" 
-- All citizens are allowed "free exercise" of their worship; 
-- Buddhists are bound to raise their children in the same 
faith; and 
-- Converting of a Buddhist to another religion or spreading 
another religion among Buddhists is prohibited. 
The full text of the proposed constitutional amendment has 
been faxed to SA/INS (Ref A). 
 
4. (C) In a November 22 conversation with poloff, Therese 
Perera, Legal Draftsperson in the Attorney General's 
Department, said that the potential amendment would likely go 
through Parliament and the Supreme Court, similar to the 
JHU's earlier religious anti-conversion legislation, before 
reaching her office.  While one constitutional lawyer told 
poloff that, unlike a law-making bill, a potential amendment 
would have fewer avenues for legal challenge, Ms. Perera did 
not immediately confirm this.  She instead stated that there 
might be "limited grounds" for a legal challenge, but that 
the Constitution certainly allows for challenges to 
amendments.  Any challenges would have to be "more direct and 
forceful," she said.  Saying that she had not yet seen the 
JHU bill, Ms. Perera felt that, from what she had heard, it 
would contravene Article 9 of the Constitution (see above). 
In addition, the concept of Buddhism as a state religion was 
not in line with the bill that the government is developing 
on its own.  (Note:  In response to the JHU anti-conversion 
bill presented to Parliament in June, the government began 
developing its own bill addressing the issue.  The exact 
substance of the bill is closely held; poloff has heard that 
it may not focus solely on banning "unethical" conversions, 
but be a more wide-ranging protection of religions act.  In 
line with Ms. Perera's comments, we have not heard anything 
that indicates the GSL would pursue institutionalizing 
Buddhism as a state religion.  End Note.) 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Political relevance for JHU, not religious 
------------------------------------------ 
 
5.  (C) While the issue of alleged unethical conversion is 
fervently debated in religious circles throughout Sri Lanka, 
there is little public call for an amendment to make Buddhism 
a state religion.  The JHU may be proposing the amendment in 
an attempt to demonstrate its political relevance, according 
to Catholic priest Father Cyril Gamini Fernando.  He said the 
Catholic Church would oppose such an amendment and felt that 
it had no religious or political future.  In the wake of the 
JHU's earlier proposed anti-conversion bill, the Church had 
established a task force.  Fr. Fernando said that task force, 
which includes lawyers, would now review the potential 
amendment and provide feedback.  He added that the Church 
would not publicly comment before evaluating the bill or 
before its formal reading in Parliament.  In his opinion, 
there would be little support among the public for such an 
amendment. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
6.  (C) So far, this potential amendment sounds more like 
political grandstanding by the JHU than a serious religious 
overture.  Given Sri Lanka's long history of religious 
tolerance and diversity, it is unlikely that this amendment 
will receive any significant public support, let alone a 
two-thirds parliamentary majority.  While it is premature to 
talk about what might happen if the bill becomes an amendment 
to the Constitution, most interlocutors recognize that the 
results would be divisive and debilitating.  There is little 
chance, either, that the President and other politicians 
would capitalize on this potential amendment for political 
mileage, especially when she is inviting the Liberation 
Tigers of Tamil Eelam for talks.  For the moment, it is 
important to watch the public debate that will occur in the 
wake of this bill becoming public.  End Comment. 
LUNSTEAD