Template T94 – “This Is Not Your Country” – Discriminatory Speech, Cultural Violence & International Monastic Protection Dossier
OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADER
Template No.: T94
Template Title: “This Is Not Your Country” – Discriminatory Speech, Cultural Violence & International Monastic Protection Dossier
Related Research Case IDs: G94 – Discriminatory / xenophobic speech toward international monk/student (BU context; linked to relic and housing issues)
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. G86–G93, G95; T86–T93; T70–T71; T81–T82; T90–T92; H96–H100]
Cluster: G – BU Neglect & Relic Loss (Cases 86–95)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case / file code (office): _____________________________________________
Prepared by / Role: _________________________________________________
Office / Unit: _______________________________________________________
Country: _____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only
[ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics / legal / student affairs)
[ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form (tick):
[ ] Initial mapping of discriminatory / xenophobic incident
[ ] Ongoing case management and follow-up
[ ] Retrospective / archival learning & training material
1. BASIC CASE INFORMATION
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Discriminatory Comment: ‘This Is Not Your Country’ to International Monk at BU”)
Case type (tick all that apply):
[ ] V – Verbal discrimination / humiliation
[ ] C – Cultural / structural violence
[ ] H – Linked to relic / heritage neglect or loss
[ ] A – Linked to accommodation / housing / safety case
[ ] G – Governance / complaint handling issue
[ ] D – Nationality / race / religion-based discrimination
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 People & institutions involved
Target / affected person(s):
| Code / Name | Role (monk / nun / lay student / staff) | Nationality / background (short) | Link to relics / case |
|---|---|---|---|
Person(s) making discriminatory comment(s) (use roles, not names):
[ ] Teacher / lecturer: _____________________________________________
[ ] Administrator / staff: __________________________________________
[ ] Fellow student(s): ______________________________________________
[ ] Dorm / housing staff: ___________________________________________
[ ] Other: __________________________________________________________
Institutional setting (tick all that apply):
[ ] Classroom / lecture hall
[ ] Office / administrative building
[ ] Dormitory / housing office
[ ] Temple / religious space
[ ] Online / written message
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short context note (1–3 sentences):
1.3 Timeframe & current status
Date of main discriminatory incident: ____ / ____ / ______
Were there repeated similar comments?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Unclear
Current case status:
[ ] Ongoing (behaviour continues).
[ ] Stopped after complaint / intervention.
[ ] Incident denied / minimised by perpetrator(s).
[ ] No formal action taken; case archived for learning.
[ ] Under investigation / review.
Short current-status note:
2. BACKGROUND & NEUTRAL SUMMARY
2.1 Short neutral narrative
Describe in neutral language:
-
Context (e.g. class, dorm office, informal talk);
-
Who said what, in which words (summarised, not full transcript);
-
Who else was present (roles only);
-
Immediate reaction of target and others.
(10–20 lines max – no blaming language.)
2.2 Links to wider context
Tick and briefly describe:
[ ] Linked to earlier relic room / housing requests (T86–T89).
[ ] Linked to relic theft / loss incident (T88, T93).
[ ] Linked to earlier complaints / letters (T90–T91).
[ ] Linked to external housing and police reports (T87, T92).
[ ] Linked to general attitudes toward international monastics at MCU.
Short note:
3. INCIDENT DETAILS – LANGUAGE, POWER & CONTEXT
3.1 Key phrases / statements (paraphrased)
Record the key discriminatory or humiliating phrases (no full names; paraphrase where needed):
-
“__________________________________________________________________”
-
“__________________________________________________________________”
-
“__________________________________________________________________”
Tick elements present:
[ ] “This is not your country” or similar.
[ ] Negative reference to nationality / race / region.
[ ] Negative reference to monastic status or robe.
[ ] Suggestion that rights / protections do not apply to foreigner.
[ ] Mocking accent / language or use of Pāli/English in a hurtful way.
[ ] Other: ___________________________________________________________
3.2 Power relations
Tick and comment:
[ ] Speaker had institutional authority (teacher, rector, dean).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Speaker controlled access to housing, visas, exams, grades, etc.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Target was dependent (student, foreigner, scholarship holder, young monk).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Other power imbalances (gender, class, language).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short note on power & vulnerability (3–6 sentences):
3.3 Immediate and short-term effects
Tick and describe:
[ ] Target felt humiliated / ashamed / unsafe.
[ ] Target considered leaving BU / programme / dorm.
[ ] Others laughed / stayed silent / defended speaker / defended target.
[ ] Incident led to complaint / informal report.
[ ] Incident discouraged further requests (e.g. about relics, housing).
Short description:
4. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
4.1 Relevant teachings
Tick what especially applies:
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech (true, beneficial, gentle, timely).
[ ] musāvāda – concern about harsh, divisive, or false speech.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – loving-kindness and compassion to all beings.
[ ] anattā / anicca – non-clinging to identity (nationality, status).
[ ] hiri–ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing in humiliating others.
[ ] dāna – gratitude and respect for international monks who bring practice and support.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to nationalism or ego.
4.2 Ethical self-check (institutional)
Tick and comment briefly:
[ ] Did anyone in authority challenge the discriminatory speech?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Did bystanders remain silent despite clear harm?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Has there been any apology or attempt to repair the harm?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Has the institution reflected on how such speech contradicts Dhamma / Vinaya?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences – neutral, self-reflective):
5. PEACE, CONFLICT & CULTURAL VIOLENCE
5.1 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – deeper tensions:
(e.g. “international Buddhist university” vs “nationalist / exclusionary attitudes”.)
Attitudes (A) – mind-states:
(e.g. pride, nationalism, prejudice, fear of foreigners, shame, hurt, isolation.)
Behaviours (B) – what actually happened:
(e.g. public humiliation, mocking, silence, support, later apology.)
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
5.2 Types of violence
Tick if present:
[ ] Direct verbal violence – shouting, insults, public humiliation.
[ ] Cultural violence – “this is not your country”, nationalism, stereotypes.
[ ] Structural violence – discrimination in housing, complaints, support.
[ ] Heritage violence – international relic custodians discouraged / pushed away.
[ ] Psychological harm – anxiety, depression, health impacts.
Concrete examples (roles / paraphrased quotes):
5.3 Peace & reconciliation opportunities
Tick and describe:
[ ] Direct apology and acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
[ ] Structured dialogue between staff and international monastics/students.
[ ] Incorporate teaching on non-discrimination in Buddhist ethics courses.
[ ] Official statement affirming rights and dignity of international monastics.
[ ] Use G94 as a case study in H96-based peace training.
Short peace-opportunity note:
6. GOVERNANCE, RIGHTS & SDG LENS
6.1 Governance gaps revealed
Tick and comment:
[ ] No clear policy on non-discrimination and respectful conduct.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No safe, trusted channel for international students to report abuse.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Complaint pathways (T90–T91) weak or easily blocked.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No training for staff on intercultural competence and rights.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Incident not recorded in any official register (only informal).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
6.2 SDG links
SDG 10 – Reduced inequalities
How does G94 show inequalities based on nationality / status?
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
How does discriminatory speech and weak complaint systems affect trust and justice?
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
How might discrimination against international relic custodians harm long-term relic governance?
SDG 17 – Partnerships
How could such incidents damage relationships with foreign monasteries, universities, donors?
7. CHRONOLOGY – INCIDENT, RESPONSE & FOLLOW-UP
(Use more lines / attachments as needed.)
| Date | Event (incident, report, meeting, response) | Actor(s) (roles only) | Notes (content, tone, impact) |
|---|---|---|---|
| //____ | Incident (discriminatory comment) | ||
| //____ | Informal discussion / support from peers | ||
| //____ | Formal or informal complaint (if any) | ||
| //____ | Institutional response / meeting / apology |
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
8. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX
8.1 Written / digital records
| Code | Date | Type (email / message / memo / note) | From / to (roles) | Short description | File location |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
8.2 Witness accounts & statements
| Code | Date | Type (statement / interview / note) | By (role) | Short description | File location |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
8.3 Evidence assessment
Tick and comment:
[ ] Multiple independent witnesses confirm discriminatory speech.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Evidence shows pattern (not one-time incident).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Some aspects rely only on single testimony.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
9. RISK & SAFEGUARDS
9.1 Risk assessment
A. Risk to target’s well-being (mental, spiritual, physical):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Risk to other international monastics / students (copycat incidents):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Risk to institutional reputation (MCU, Saṅgha, donors, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Risk to relic governance and SDG-aligned partnerships:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
9.2 Safeguards (existing or proposed)
Tick and describe:
[ ] Clear non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy adopted.
[ ] Safe, confidential complaint and support system created.
[ ] Regular training on intercultural ethics and Buddhist right speech.
[ ] Monitoring of incidents involving international students / monastics.
[ ] Integration of G94 into annual audits (T82) on ethics & SDG 16.
Safeguards note:
10. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 Options considered
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Treat incident as “misunderstanding”; no formal action.
[ ] Private apology and informal reconciliation.
[ ] Formal written apology and acknowledgement.
[ ] Disciplinary review of person in authority (if applicable).
[ ] Policy reform and staff training on discrimination.
[ ] External mediation / ombuds support if internal process fails.
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short summary of main options and their pros/cons:
10.2 Decisions taken
Decision(s):
Date(s): ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (roles only):
10.3 Recommendations (for BU / partners / policy)
From a Buddhist–Peace–Governance perspective, what should change?
11. H96 REFLECTION & OVERALL RISK
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian examined this ‘this is not your country’ incident, would they see humble, inclusive trusteeship of people and relics, or nationalism, exclusion, and fear?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what was done well or improved later):
Risky elements (where lobha, dosa, moha or structural/cultural violence remain):
11.2 Overall risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
B. Peace / conflict risk (local / institutional / cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
C. Heritage / relic governance risk (linked to treatment of custodians):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
D. Reputational risk (MCU, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Short note:
12. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
12.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / legal / peace committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
12.2 Archive details
Case / file code: _________________________________________________
Physical location (cabinet / box / folder): _________________________
Digital location (drive / folder path): _____________________________
Access level:
[ ] General internal [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Notes for future custodians:
(What should future leaders remember about this G94 discriminatory / cultural violence case and how we tried to protect relic custodians, faith, and peace through reform?)