The Architectural depiction of the Chinese invested skyscraper “Lotus Tower” in Colombo, unfolds the gravity of Buddhist symbology that Beijing has reckoned on as a crucial element in its strategic interests in Sri Lanka. The choice of Lotus as an idiosyncratic feature of the tallest skyscraper in Colombo, that has been built as Chinese investment is a palpable embodiment of China’s novel strategy of blending its historic Mahayana Buddhist values under Sri Lanka’s Theravada Buddhist doctrine.
From a vantage point, Lotus is an intrinsic icon for both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists. Lotus is being often used as a metaphor in Theravada tradition to describe the extraordinary life of the Buddha. As how lotus blossoms in the depth of the impure mud while remaining pure, Buddha’s character was narrated in the Theravada Buddhist tradition as a sage who lived in a mundane society with no attachment. In Mahayana Buddhism, there is a Buddhist discourse named “Lotus sutra”, which is considered one of the most influential Mahayana sutras and it was translated into Chinese during the era of the Western Jin dynasty by bhikkhus Dharmaraksa, who happened to be one of the prominent Chinese bhikkhus in the 2nd century A.D.
Having known Sri Lanka’s Theravada Buddhist legacy rooted in the island’s every socio-political corner, China utilised a mutually significant symbol in its soft power projection in Colombo. Apart from, “Lotus Tower”, the Nelum Pokuna Mahinda Rajapaksa theatre is another iconic edifice built under Chinese donation where the significance of “Lotus” remains visible.
The image of Lotus as the overarching architectural design of the Nelum Pokuna Mahinda Rajapaksa theatre has brought to the fore a powerful historical representation of “Nelum Pokuna” a pond built by Sri Lankan monarch Parakramabahu the Great during the 12th century in the Polonnaruwa kingdom. But beneath this embodiment, China’s Mahayana Buddhist relevance of Lotus stands firm displaying Beijing’s successful attempt to harmonise Chinese Buddhist presence with Sri Lanka’s historic roots.
While the world still remains culturally “Americna” based on American ideals from food to architecture, China’s attempt to uplift its soft power strategies still stands in the infancy stage. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that China’s enthusiasm to project their civilisational legacy through BRI distinguishes Chinese way of soft power diplomacy from the Americans.
Port City Project
By now, the “Colombo Port City” project has become a news making topic with its unique nature and it is by all means the biggest infrastructure undertaking in Sri Lanka’s history with $1.4 billion by state owned Chinese engineering firm China Communication Construction Company (CCC). Built on 665 acres (2.6 sq km) of land being reclaimed from the Indian Ocean, the city is designed to be a smaller Singapore, with its own business-friendly tax regime and regulations and possibly a different legal system to the rest of Sri Lanka.
Artistic impressions of the future Port City show a brightly lit cityscape comparable to Dubai or London’s Canary Wharf. Developers say 1.5 million sq. metres of office space will be available and private investment could reach $13bn. Dense high-rises give way to lower-slung residential areas, crisscrossed by parks and canals. A marina and beach line the city’s edges. Within a few years, however, the Port City will be the site of glass skyscrapers, a busy financial district, hospitals, hotels and even a theme park.
Although the explanation represents the essential message of the Chinese mode of globalisation in Sri Lanka, the underneath presentation that China has portrayed in the construction of the Port City project is indispensably relevant to fathom how China has clung to the notion of Buddhist diplomacy. The geometric positions chosen by the Chinese investors and the numerical values given to the reservation of the land implicitly connote China’s sheer civilisational projection behind the Port City.
Indo-Sino rivalry
China’s sudden interest in restoring its Buddhist heritage is strongly linked to its rivalry with India. India is the land where Buddhism was born and flourished before it reached its gradual ebb. But, under the colonial yoke, Indian nationalists were deeply moved by the shared Buddhist values between India and China to strengthen Indo-Sino relations as a Pan-Asian league.
The Hindutva view of Buddhism was mainly based on portraying it as a reformed school of Hinduism and leading Hindutva leaders such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar considered Buddhism as the unifying identity marker of Asia: the Hindu-Buddhist religion”. But, this romanticised Indian tutelage as the country that introduced Buddhism to China has been widely critiqued by modern-day scholars. According to Tansen Sen, China’s interaction with India based on Buddhism was confined to the 2nd and 3rd centuries as Chinese Buddhist doctrine saw its own development, moreover, after the 4th and 5th centuries, Chinese Buddhism took a critical stance in Indian Buddhist doctrine.
Key element
In the present day, India has again looked for Buddhism as a key element in its global soft power projection with its relations with the Asian countries. Especially Indian premier Narendra Modi was quick to gauge the relevance of Buddhism as a key aspect of his foreign policy by stating “Without Buddha, this century cannot be Asia’s century”.
It was a profound appeal emerged from New Delhi to uplift its Buddhist legacy as India’s greatest gift to the world. When it comes to Indian-Sri Lankan relations in the recent past, India seemed to have rely on projection of Buddhism as a pivotal factor. In his visit to Sri Lanka in 2015, Prime Minister Modi invoked the Buddhist links in his address to Sri Lanka Parliament, promising “We will bring our shared Buddhist heritage closer to you”. But, in realty, the modern India’s cultural and political space does not adequately provide a nourishing ground for Buddhist diplomacy.
The moral foundation of Buddhism is embedded in the Buddha, Dhamma (Doctrine) and Sangha (the priesthood) commonly known as the Thrivida Rathna in Pali, but the practice of this concept has been extinguished from India mainland although Buddhism was born there. In reality, the status of Buddhism in modern India is no more than aggrandisement from the past, thus Modi’s grand ambition of presenting Buddhism as a soft power tool is likely to become a bemused project. On the other hand, Modi’s prime obsession with Hindutva consists of some doctrinal anathema to Buddhism as modern-day pioneer of Hindutva concept Savarkar had lampooned Buddhism as a weakening force which became disastrous to the national virility. Hence, it appears to be a paradoxical move that Modi attempts to focus on restoring Buddhism as a key soft power tool while admiring Savarkar’s Hindutva ideology.
Now what is puzzling about Delhi’s projection of Buddhist diplomacy, as described here is the structural defects it contains to proceed as a key pillar of India soft power. Notwithstanding India’s portrayal of herself as the cradle of Buddhism, present-day India does not have a considerable Buddhist population, also it lacks think tanks or renowned Buddhist teachers to spread Buddhism. It is in this context that China predominantly tries to project its Buddhist diplomacy in Sri Lanka as an effective mechanism.
The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
