Arrested and Charged, in the Name of the Compassionate One

The Compassionate Buddha, illustrated by Kenneth Wong

Would Gautama Buddha be offended if someone draws an image of him with headphones dangling over his ears?

Buddha, according to canonical accounts of his life, bore no malice toward Nalagiri, the wild elephant that threatened him in Rajagaha; and was prepared to forgive his cousin Devadatta, who made numerous attempts on his life. It's hard to imagine such a sage taking offense at a playful depiction of him with a piece of consumer electronics over his head. Yet, Rangoon Police seems to have concluded it was a crime against Buddhism, worthy of immediate arrest.

Iconic Crimes
On December 10, Yangon Police wrote on its Facebook page, "A [poster] design with the inscription VGastro.bar, Buddha.bar next to an image of Buddha depicted with a set of earphones over his ears was discovered to be circulating on social media. Upon receiving notifications of this inappropriate treatment of Buddha's representation on December 10, at 17:15 hr, Rangoon Police Division comprising [names of senior officers] went to investigate the VGastro Bar located on Shwe Taung Gya [Golden Valley] Road, Shwe Taung Gya 2 District, Bahan Township ... For this inappropriate usage of Buddha's image, the Police shut down VGastro.bar at 20:00 hr, and took into custody the responsible parties Htun Thurein, Htut Ko Ko Lwin, and New Zealand citizen Mr. Philip ... under the penal code 295/295 (a) ... Because such mistreatment of Buddha's image violates local ordinances, they will be vigorously prosecuted under penal code 188 as well ..."

According to Irrawaddy, the initial complaint against the Buddha.bar came from The Association for the Protection of Race and Religion, the conservative Buddhists led by Wirathu and other nationalist monks.

Penal code 295 and 295 (a) are the ambiguously written codes that condemn those who defile a place of worship, insult a religion, or stir up religious outrage. Also in the cross hair of 295 is prominent columnist Htin Lin Oo, a member of Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD Party. A lawsuit brought on by immigration authorities of Sagaing Division’s Chaung-U Township hangs over him. According to The Irrawaddy's report:

The prominent author gave a two-hour speech to over 500 people at a literary event in Sagaing Division’s Chaung-U Township on Oct. 23, during which he criticized the use of Buddhism as fig leaf for prejudice and discrimination.

“Buddha is not Burmese, not Shan and not Karen -- so if you want to be an extreme nationalist and if you love to maintain your race that much, don’t believe in Buddhism,” he said at the time.

After a 10-minute excerpt of the speech was widely shared on social media, the Patriotic Buddhist Monks Union denounced his speech in a statement last month.

Last August, Canadian professor Jason Polley discovered the cost of showing too much skin in Buddhist Burma. When photos of his exposed legs tattooed with a series of cross-legged Buddhas went viral online, Burmese tourism officials came knocking on his hotel door. Soon after the meeting, Polley and his girlfriend were on an involuntary 15-hour bus ride heading to the airport, out of the country.

It's unclear what law or regulation was used to justify the immediate removal Polley. Explaining Polley's deportation to Burmese paper 7 Day Daily, Northern Shan District's tourism official U Saing Win said, "There's been frequent religious conflicts here. And his tattoos weren't covered with a sarong or pants. He was wandering around in shorts. Because his safety and security could be in danger if he came across religious extremists, the district chief decided to immediately deport him."

Polley, according to CBCNews, "is a Mahayana Buddhist and his tattoos, which chart the religion's development, are on his leg to represent a pillar of support." He couldn't have known that the Burmese Buddhists consider legs and lower parts of the body debased, thus unfit to be adorned with Buddhist icons. (The Burmese believe one's head and shoulders are sacred.) He spent the remainder of his vacation in Thailand and Laos. Polley's forced exit from Burma was just a few days before U.S. Senator John Kerry's arrival.

The Buddha.bar poster that prompted an arrest, posted to Yangon Police's Facebook page.

A Code for All Purposes
Under Burma's military regime, 295 was one of the codes frequently used to detain, arrest, and imprison dissidents. The regime used it to charge comedian Zarganar, a staunch critic of the military regime. His real crime, however, was giving radio interviews to BBC and VOA. (Zarganar was released under amnesty in 2011). U.S. Campaign for Burma listed activist Hnin Nwe Moe (aka) Hnin Hnin as another victim of 295, sentenced to two years in prison in November 2008. Her so-called crime against religion, ironically, was "for her donation of water and food to the monks, who were peacefully marching in the streets in Rangoon," as noted by U.S. Campaign.

The monastic robe didn't offer immunity from the sting of 295 either. In a report detailing the arrests made soon after the monk-led Saffron Revolution, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners listed U Nandira and U Damma Thara, monks from Aung Mingala Thaiddi Monastery; U Panda Vantha, abbot of Shwetaung Monastery; and U Thuta Nyarna, a monk, as those charged with 295.

In the post-military transition administration, 295 still remains an effective weapon against dissidents. In April 2013, U Aung Soe from Yangon People’s Support Network, who protested against the Lepadaung copper mine project, was charged under the same code.

No Defense Like a Good Offense
If penal code 295 were applied equally in defense of all recognized faiths, many nationalist monks, including Wirathu, would have to answer for the public comments they have made about the Muslim faith. Yet, I can't recall a recent case where section 295 was pressed into service against outspoken nationalist monks.

One odd case is that of the Burmese actor Ye Deight, charged and sentenced to six years in April 2014. Section 295 was applied to him because he staged an inexplicable solo protest on the compound of St. Mary's Cathedral.

For the hyper-reactionary religious groups, 295 offers irresistible opportunities for abuse. With the cooperation of local authorities, they could use the antiquated law to silence their critics. Since the bar for what constitutes "offensive" is set so low, nobody can be safe. The slightest sign of provocation, real or imagined, against the country's majority religion might trigger an arrest. Such an atmosphere leaves no room for the good-humored thrusts and jabs that are part of art, literature, and satire.

As I see it, the real harm done by section 295 is the erosion of the spirit of tolerance and forgiveness, the virtues I've always associated with Buddhism.