• Preservation and safeguarding heritage shouldn't be seen as a matter of temples being built, monks arriving, or one community settling in another 
• Criticism of politicians is essential but should be fair 
• Wrong actions taken by politicians knowingly or otherwise must be advised and guided

The vision of the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress (ACBC) is to promote the teachings of the Buddha and Buddhist philosophy. 

In 2026, it convened a gathering of the Sangha, calling on the Government to focus on 10 key factors to guide it towards righteous governance. It emphasised that recognising Buddhism and the Sangha’s lineage as the foundation of Sri Lanka is not extremism but part of the country’s identity. The Government, it said, must acknowledge the Maha Sangha offers guidance not for votes, but for the long-term stability of the country and the Sasana. The ACBC also advocated respect for majority sentiments, when the beliefs and heritage of the 70 per cent majority are dismissed as outdated, it leads to alienation from governance. Protecting the cultural rights of the majority is a key responsibility of the State. The political use of religious leaders must cease, proposals presented at Sangha assemblies should be understood and implemented. Understanding rather than criticising that Sangha assemblies are not convened to oppose the Government but to guide it. While criticism escalates problems, dialogue and acceptance lead to solutions. It also highlighted the need for social justice and morality. The Government alone cannot curb the country’s moral decline caused by corruption, drugs, and crime, and the guidance of the Maha Sangha is essential in this regard. The Charter of the Great Sangha Conference held this year called on the Government to accept this reality and refrain from criticism, stressing that rulers must set aside personal ego and respect the country’s true heritage. Such governance, it said, would earn the respect of both the majority and the minorities.

Amid growing concern over challenges faced by the clergy, The Daily Morning spoke with the ACBC’s Working Committee’s Vice President (VP) and the Chairperson of the ACBC’s National Council for the Investigation of National and Buddhist Affairs, Ishan Buddhika Edirisuriya on key issues affecting the religion.

Following are excerpts of the interview

In recent years, there has not been any similar conference of the Sangha, so what were the reasons for holding one now?

The last conference was held in 2019. We then issued a charter titled the ‘Maha Sangha Conference’. Ten key proposals were presented at the Congress to create awareness within the Government, and a similar Sangha charter was issued at this year’s gathering as well.

In 1955, the ACBC was formally established after it was legally recognised through an Act of Parliament. With this recognition, it received the authority to act on matters concerning Buddhism. Its main objective was to protect the Buddha Sasana, support the Maha Sangha, defend the rights of the Buddhist people, and speak out against injustice or actions that may harm them. This demonstrated the clear distinction between political power and the independent role of the Congress.

The present role of the Congress remains the same. We work with any Government while representing the aspirations of the Buddhist majority. In particular, we are committed to safeguarding the protections given to Buddhism under the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions, especially Article 9.

If any Government, whether influenced by liberalism, neoliberalism, socialism, or any other ideology, fails to respect or safeguard these constitutional protections, it is the right and responsibility of the ACBC, together with the Maha Sangha and lay Buddhists, to raise its voice on behalf of the community.

Are the three Sects, the Amarapura, Ramanna and Siam in agreement with the Charter? 

All Mahanayakas (Chief Prelates) are aware the ACBC was organising this programme because several long-standing issues had not been openly discussed and related incidents continued to occur, prompting the Congress to intervene.

The initiative was first proposed by Muruththettuwe Ananda Thera, who suggested that action must be taken. Initially it was to be a gathering of the laity, but the Sangha responded saying they would organise the conference. 

It was also felt that when State authorities accuse the Sangha, it was necessary to remind the rulers the Sangha should not be belittled or treated as insignificant. The Bhuddist Clergy are traditionally regarded as the Rajaguru, the spiritual guides of the rulers.

During the colonial period, when the First Baronet of Kandy, John D'Oyly prepared reports on how the British are to govern the country, he observed that a group of people in yellow robes, held a strong influence over the people, making it difficult to rule the country. Later, various strategies were adopted to weaken that influence. Allegations were made against the Sangha, temple lands were taken or redistributed, and attempts were made to create divisions among monks. For instance, the Delkanda Subhadrarama Pirivena was divided into two when a road was built through the Temple premises, leaving the Temple on both sides of the road.

The monks have always remained close to the people and have acted according to public concerns. Therefore, attempts were made to create a rift between the monks and the public. Even today, some actions appear aimed at weakening the respect that people have for Buddhist monks. The conference was organised because there was concern the direction in which matters were heading was unhealthy.

As an example, when former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa made certain decisions while in office, the Mahanayakas wrote to him on three occasions, advising him not to proceed. However, he did not heed that advice and the consequences later became evident. The monks had pointed out he had taken his oath near the Ruwanweliseya and warned him of the manner in which the country was being governed could bring disrepute not only to the administration but also to Buddhism. They advised him that the concerns of the people should be understood, space be given for discussion, and problems resolved through dialogue.

So, when politicians face a great deal of criticism, is it wrong to criticise or find fault with the Buddhist clergy? Are they above criticism? 

In our culture, there is no concept of betraying the laity. There is a deep sense of respect and a strong bond towards a Buddhist monk. 

For example, when we offer a dana (alms-giving) at home, we don’t think in terms of whether we like or dislike the monk at the village temple, or whether we want to go there or not. That is not how it is viewed. Even if the alms are offered to the monk of the village temple, the true intention of the offering is that it is made to the entire community of monks starting from the time of Sariputta and Moggallana until today.

This is how people in our traditional families have been brought up to think. Therefore, when we criticise or rebuke a monk even when there may be a valid reason - it is done with great care and caution. Therefore, when criticising someone, we should not come before the media and make derogatory accusations or offensive generalisations about people. What this person is attacking is a culture, it is an attack on the faith and devotion of nearly 70-80% of the Buddhist population.

Therefore, whether it is a ruler, a Minister, or anyone benefiting from power, such behaviour only shows a lack of understanding of the people’s sentiments.

Our advice to the lay people is that they should restrain themselves when pointing a finger at a member of the Buddhist clergy as they should think about the discipline and restraint of those who wear the robe. They are not yet Arahant (enlightened), and so face the same problems in society that we do sometimes, even more.

As lay people, we have a certain freedom, but a monk does not. A monk cannot travel freely, cannot choose clothing, and often cannot do many things without the support of lay devotees. Therefore, they have to be treated with respect.

The Sigālovāda Sutta (the Buddhist code of discipline) clearly explains that Buddhism does not encourage criticism for its own sake, but rather guides people along the right path.

The Prime Minister, the President and several other Ministers have made such remarks. Minister K.D. Lal Kantha, referring not only to Buddhist monks but also to professionals and religious figures in general, said that he would give a “Bruce Lee shot” if necessary, meaning that he would knock down anyone to protect the Government. While some may take it merely as a statement, others understand very well what the Minister meant. It was only us at the ACBC who reacted strongly, while other religious leaders appear to understand the matter - even the Colombo Archbishop, if asked, has a clear understanding of this Government.

However, we are not speaking about the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna we are referring to the National People’s Power Government. Those in power have no right to freely express their personal views about the people, their beliefs, and their thoughts in this manner. 

After all, sovereignty lies with the people. Power has been given to them to represent the people. If they cannot understand the people, if they cannot understand the hearts of the people, how can they stand in Parliament on behalf of the people? How can they implement laws for the people, ensure their security, and make the country self-sufficient.

What gives monks who have not been elected the authority to criticise the politicians who have been elected by the people?

That means it becomes fascist, does it not? In Buddhism, there are the four biases – chanda (psychological alienation), dvesha (aversion), bhaya (fear) and moha (delusion) - which are said to lead to injustice.

We voted for these people, yet, this is how they are governing the country. It makes us feel that we may have acted foolishly. The very people that we elected are now behaving in this manner. Buddhism also warns that even voting can be influenced by bias. What we desire or prefer does not always produce the expected result, and later we regret the decision.

That is why it is said that issues should be resolved through consensus rather than simply through voting. Democracy represents the will of the majority. If the majority makes the right choice, the outcome will be good. But, if the majority makes the wrong choice, the consequences can be dangerous.

Members of the Sangha remain in the hearts of the people for generations through their religious role. Politicians however, are only public servants elected under the Constitution to hold power for a limited period.

They are a temporary group appointed by the people. Observing their actions, criticising them when necessary, and removing them if they fail are powers granted to the people by the Constitution.

However, criticism must be fair. No one can change everything overnight, and people learn as they go along. That is not the issue. What we are referring to are actions taken knowingly, despite being wrong, or decisions made with hidden motives. In such instances, they must be advised and guided. At the same time, good actions must also be acknowledged.

What is the current position of the reform of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance?

The Vihara Devalagam Act refers to places of worship that were traditionally regarded as sacred sites within our culture. The rights relating to these places originated through Royal grants and Sannasas (decrees) issued by kings. Through this historical inheritance, these institutions continued to exist. It was only after the British systematised these matters that they were brought under formal Acts of law and given a legal framework. As a result, the provisions in these Acts mainly deal with how these institutions function and how their rights are recognised and exercised.

When these provisions are aligned with the general law, caution is necessary because these places have long been protected according to established customs and traditions.

The responsibility for these institutions largely rests with the temples. In temples, custodianship lies with the Maha Sangha and the priestly group. In the case of devalas, the responsibility rests either with the temple authorities or with the traditional lay custodian families who manage them.

Through these groups, the practical issues that they face today, as well as the inconsistencies and shortcomings in the law, can be discussed. The aim is to find practical solutions so that the general law and the historically established traditional devalas can function without conflict.

However, when the Government views these matters from one side, those involved in the traditional system often don’t agree. When such disagreements arise, the Act cannot move forward as it loses acceptance.

Therefore, the differences must be minimised and practical solutions discussed. What often happens is the Government stands on one side while the traditional groups remain on the other, and the two sides rarely come together. For this reason, the ACBC undertook to examine the matter and held extensive discussions.

In our view, some of the existing provisions in the law can remain unchanged as they don’t create problems. However, several clauses have led to practical difficulties and require attention.

Accordingly, we have prepared a set of proposals. These have already been submitted to the Mahanayakas, several Parliamentarians, as well as to the Nilames and the committees of the relevant devalas that come under the Vihara Devalagam Act. In effect, these proposals have been presented as amendments suggested to the Act.

Can a claim be made to establish a temple by declaring any place an archaeological site? 

There is no separate category called ‘Buddhist archaeological sites.’ Under the Antiquities Ordinance, such places are recognised simply as archaeological monuments or sites, and only become official once gazetted by the Government.

Many identified sites however remain ungazetted, unprotected, and poorly conserved. As a result, their true historical value is often misunderstood. Sri Lanka has one of the highest densities of archaeological sites per square kilometre in the world, and around 95% of these are linked to the Buddhist heritage. Protecting them does not make them the property of Buddhists alone — they belong to the Nation.

Archaeological sites, whether connected to Buddhism or another faith, reflect the technology, culture, and lives of people from earlier times. Their value belongs to all communities and to the country as a whole. The nation benefits as a whole from its preservation.

As Ellawala Medhananda Thera has emphasised, the location, whether Jaffna or Batticaloa, does not change a site’s value. Even if no Buddhists live nearby, local communities can help preserve and maintain these places, while visitors who understand their significance can bring economic benefits.

Medhananda Thera raised these points repeatedly in Parliament, but, they were not fully implemented. What is needed is a genuine, non-political commitment to protect Sri Lanka’s archaeological heritage.