The International Day of Happiness

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

The United Nations General Assembly adopted March 20 as the International Day of Happiness in 2012. March 20 was chosen to coincide with the spring equinox, which signifies a passage of seasons noted and celebrated by people all around the world. The International Day of Happiness has been celebrated since 2013 not just by member nations of the United Nations but also by many NGOs and other civic and community groups.

Long before the United Nations adopted the International Day of Happiness, an important initiative was taken by Bhutan, a small country sandwiched between China and India, back in the 1970s to embark on a new social initiative away from the materialistic conception of social progress and welfare measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), replacing it with a new concept called Gross National Happiness (GNH). Coined by Jigme Singye Wangchuck in 1974, the Fourth Dragon King of Bhutan from 1972 till 2006, the promotion of Gross National Happiness has since been incorporated into the Constitution of Bhutan, a parliamentary democracy since 2008. As a concept, Gross National Happiness consists of information on nine domains: good governance, psychological well-being, balanced time-use, community vitality, health, education, cultural diversity, living standards, and ecological diversity.

Considering that it recognizes the pursuit of happiness as a fundamental human goal, it was natural that the United Nations would pick up the idea of conceiving social progress and welfare broadly over and beyond material progress as measured by GDP. The decision to adopt the International Day of Happiness, followed by the publication of annual “World Happiness Report,” was a clear recognition on the part of the United Nations that all nations should be concerned with happiness and well-being of all peoples while raising living standards and promoting sustainable development.

The World Happiness Report by the United Nations ranks nations according to an index based on information on six key factors: income, freedom, trust, life expectancy, social support, and generosity. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Switzerland have consistently done well since the first report, with Finland coming at the top in the 2018 report. While the idea of promoting happiness and well-being is commendable, what seems to be forgotten is that the very idea of ranking nations according to some index is an outstanding example of the linear mode of thinking, which reflects the notion of rationality as developed and promoted in the evolution of Western civilization. In fact, the idea that there is progress in human history in the form of increasing material standards of living was a product of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

Nations are complex systems as systems go. Hence, the idea of representing the state of a nation just by a single index, whatever it may be and however it may be measured, must be said to be too simplistic to capture the reality of nations as complex systems. Bhutan may indeed be a land of happiness, but how do we reconcile that characterization with the fact that about 12 percent of its population fall below the poverty line, finding it difficult to send their children to schools and receive proper health care, and with the recent problem of youth unemployment and substance abuse? What is needed is a composite picture of how nations are doing as systems, which cannot be reduced to a single index.

Aside from the problem of measurement, there is further problem with the idea of representing happiness of nations by some kind of index. What is most serious is its neglect of the spiritual aspect of happiness taught, for example, in Buddhism. Is not happiness something that we nourish through our daily practice, cultivating understanding and love not just for ourselves but also for those around us? If there is one thing that is clear, it is that happiness is not something that we celebrate once a year on the International Day of Happiness.

Buddhist Nationalism in Myanmar

Tetsunori Koizumi, Director

What kind of Buddhist culture develops in a specific place often depends on the historical evolution of the people and society in that place. “To be a Burmese is to be a Buddhist” is a saying that captures an integral role Buddhism has played in shaping the Burmese national identity. The Burmese’s resolve to hold on to their Buddhist culture has been severely tested by a number of historical events such as the destruction of their Buddhist temples and pagodas by the invading army of Kublai Khan in the thirteenth century and the loss of royal patronage by the dissolution of the monarchy by the British colonialists in the nineteenth century. These adverse historical events may explain why Burmese Buddhism has evolved into a highly political culture, with monks actively involved in political affairs. The politicized Buddhist culture is still apparent in Myanmar today, as the country was renamed in 1989 from Burma, with monks lending their support for democratic movements.

While the role of Buddhism in shaping their national identity came into sharp focus when the British came to Burma and governed as a province of their Indian Empire, little did the Burmese—or, for that matter, other people in the world—anticipate that Buddhism would be used as a pretext for discrimination, even execution, of a group of people with a different faith tradition. But that is exactly what happened, and is happening, to the Rohingya in Myanmar.

The Rohingya are an ethnic minority group of nearly million people in the western Burmese province of Rakhine. The Rohingya trace their origin in the region to the 15th century, when thousands of Muslims came to the former Arakan Kingdom. They differ from Myanmar’s dominant Buddhist groups ethnically, linguistically, and religiously. The label “Rohingya” as a self-identifying term surfaced in the 1950s to give them a collective political identity. But successive governments in Myanmar have refuted the Rohingya’s historical claim to Rakhine State, and denied the group official recognition as one of the country’s 135 ethnic groups, except under the democratic government of Prime Minister U NU (1948-58, 1960-62), who was he first prime minister of independent Burma until 1962 when the military junta seized power.

The Rohingya are discriminated in Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist country, for the color of their skin, which is darker, and their language, but most importantly for their Muslim faith. Another factor that may have contributed to discrimination against the Rohingya is that fact that Rakhine State is Myanmar’s least developed state with a poverty rate of 78 percent, compared with around 38 percent national average, according to the World Bank. Denied citizenship, the Rohingya have been registered as temporally residents with identification cards, known as white cards. But the Rohingya even lost that temporary residents status when President Thein Sein cancelled the temporary identity cards in February 2015.

The current wave of discrimination and execution of the Rohingya started when, in August 2017, a militant group known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) attacked police and army posts, killing more than 500 people. This incident prompted the government to declare ARSA as a terrorist organization and mount a brutal campaign to destroy Rohingya villages. More than half of Rohingya population in Myanmar fled the country to neighboring countries of Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia.

There is no question that what is happening to the Rohingya is a case of genocide, according to the UN definition by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ratified on January 12, 1951.1 What is difficult for us living in the rest of the world to accept is the fact that this atrocity against a minority group is done by the Burmese Buddhists who have contributed a lot to the worldwide spread of Buddhist practice. Though introduced and propagated as a political means to promote national identity in the post-independence nation, it was the Burmese Buddhists who elevated vipassana, or insight meditation, as a popular Buddhist practice. In fact, the worldwide spread of this practice owes to a number of influential Burmese teachers, such as Ledi Sayadaw (1846-1923), who called for the renewal of lay life that included meditative practice, Saya Thetgyi (1873-1945), who was instrumental in the evolution of insight meditation into a global phenomenon, Mahasi Sayadaw (1904-1982), who became head of the Thathana Yeiktha meditation center in Rangoon in 1949 appointed by Prime minister U Nu, and U Ba Khin (1899-1971), who set up International Meditation Center in Rangoon in 1952.2 Granted that insight meditation in Burma grew out of the Theravada tradition, it is nevertheless a form of Buddhist practice that would lead its practitioners to panna, or wisdom, which certainly includes compassion and loving-kindness toward fellow human beings.

  1. See Maung Zauni, “Buddhist Nationalism in Burma”, Tricycle, Spring 2013.
  2. Erik Braun, The Birth of Insight Meditation: Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.