Template No.: T – Conflict & Governance Review (Pilot)

 OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA MUSEUM

INTERNAL CASE & ACTION RECORD

Template No.: T01 – Conflict & Governance Review (Pilot)
Related Research Case IDs: 2023-C-66 (Cluster F – Case 66), plus F67–F71, F75, F85; linked to H96–H98
Date: 01 / 03 / 2023 (opened) – 01 / 12 / 2025 (latest review)
Prepared by / Role: Venerable [Your Name], Siridantamahāpālaka – Custodian & Case Owner
Checked / Approved by: Hswagata Advisory Committee (Chair) / Senior Saṅgha Mentor
Confidentiality Level: ☐ Public summary ☑ Internal ☐ Restricted/Sacred

---

1. Background & Purpose

What situation, problem, or decision is this document about?

This record concerns the core HGT conflict between Mr A and Mr B regarding Buddha tooth relics, including rival ownership claims, use of alleged UK laboratory tests and royal/ministry links, and a pattern of pressure on Mr A that affected his well-being and the reputation of the HGT / Hswagata network.

Mr B claimed 11 tooth relics as his personal property and used stories of DNA / Carbon-14 testing in England and supposed letters from a royal household to support his ownership and to seek duplication and status. Mr D assisted by preparing a presentation with alleged test results and letters.

As tensions rose, a suspicious Viber screenshot was sent to Mr A and Sao, appearing to show a government minister saying relics must be held as national property. This message, later found to be non-authentic, increased pressure on Mr A and contributed to serious anxiety and later health impacts.

The purpose of this document is to:

• Record how the Office of Siridantamahāpālaka / Hswagata responded as a trustee, not an owner, of relics and community trust.

• Guide future decisions on verification of documents, conflict management, and neutral custodianship in similar high-risk relic disputes.

Template-specific background question for Case 66:

How should Hswagata act when a friendship-based relic network breaks down into rival claims, dubious documents, and pressure that harms a custodian’s well-being?

---

2. Buddhist Doctrinal–Ethical Lens

Key Pāli terms / doctrines relevant here

• Dhātu / dhātu-parinibbāna – relics as finite, shared heritage, not private property.

• Anicca, anattā – impermanence and non-self; no one can “own” relics in an absolute sense.

• Sīla, sammā-vācā, musāvāda-veramaṇī – moral discipline, right speech, abstaining from false speech, gossip and manipulation.

• Dhammadāyāda – being heirs to the Dhamma, not to material wealth.

• Lobha, dosa, moha – greed, ill-will and delusion; core roots visible in many Cluster F conflicts.

• Mettā, karuṇā, appamāda – loving-kindness, compassion, diligent care for vulnerable persons (e.g. stressed custodians).

How should a trustee, not an owner, act in this situation?

• Non-ownership: Treat the tooth relics as dhātu belonging to the Buddha and the wider sāsana, not to Mr A, Mr B, or Hswagata. Decisions must aim at the welfare of the community and long-term protection of the relics, not personal victory.

• Truth and right speech: Refuse to repeat or endorse claims about royal letters, ministry orders or laboratory tests without verifiable evidence. Avoid public blaming language; focus on behaviour and documents, not personal attacks.

• Care for persons: Recognise Mr A as a pressured custodian who later needed medical care. Offer pastoral support, reduce pressure, and avoid any action that could deepen trauma or guilt.

• Letting go: Accept ritual and legal solutions (e.g. water-pouring transfers and written donation letters) as expressions of non-attachment—handing relics into neutral or state custody when this lowers conflict and protects faith.

Template-specific Buddhist question for Case 66:

How does an H96-type custodian transform lobha, dosa, moha in this conflict into alobha (non-greed), adosa (non-hatred), and amoha (clarity) through their words and decisions?

---

3. Peace, Conflict & SDGs

Is there any direct (negative) or structural/cultural violence in this situation?

• Direct violence: No physical violence is recorded, but there is psychological pressure and intimidation via a misleading Viber message and repeated requests that Mr A hand over relics.

• Structural violence:

  • Lack of clear complaint mechanism within HGT.

  • Unclear rules about document verification and use of state symbols.

  • Power imbalance between a confident claimant (Mr B) and a stressed custodian (Mr A).

• Cultural violence:

  • Use of royal and ministerial images to give “sacred” weight to unverified claims.

  • Possible narrative that “national property” language can override personal conscience or institutional procedures.

How can this action support positive peace (justice, harmony, safe relationships)?

• By clarifying truth: checking letters and screenshots directly with the palace, UK bodies, and the ministry; recording their denials to reduce confusion and fear.

• By offering mediation between Mr A and Mr B, focusing on restoring safe relationships where possible and avoiding public humiliation.

• By strengthening structures (H97): clear rules on document use, standard MoUs, donation protocols, and no-gift / anti-corruption principles.

• By protecting vulnerable custodians: formal duty-of-care procedures for any custodian facing harassment, including rest, medical support, and shared decision-making so they are not isolated.

SDG links (tick and note):

• ☑ 11.4 – Protecting cultural heritage (tooth relics) through neutral custodianship and documentation.

• ☑ 16 – Promoting just, transparent, trauma-aware institutions (truth-telling about forged documents; fair processes for both Mr A and Mr B).

• ☑ 17 – Building partnerships with state bodies, labs, Saṅgha councils and media for ethical relic governance.

• ☐ Other: ______

---

4. Governance, Roles & Procedures

Institutions/teams involved (Saṅgha, lay committee, state, museum, donors, etc.).

• HGT / Hswagata Buddha Tooth Relics Preservation Museum – museum and network where the conflict surfaced and where relics were temporarily held.

• Office of Siridantamahāpālaka – neutral custodian, researcher and later reform leader.

• Mr A – lay custodian holding many relics; pressured, later donor and key victim.

• Mr B – lay claimant to 11 tooth relics; central opponent; sender of suspicious screenshot.

• Mr D – associate who prepared the PowerPoint with alleged tests and letters.

• Mr F, Venerable Ashin Idaka, Sitagu Sayadaw, Ministry of Religious Affairs – witnesses, moral authorities and alleged state stakeholder; some became victims of impersonation or misinformation.

Relevant rules/policies

• 15 Principles of Hswagata – no-gift policy, anti-corruption, structured donation procedures, respect for ownership, accountability.

• H96 custodian profile – sīla, non-greed, right speech, trauma awareness.

• H97 institutional framework – security, fairness, participation, conflict management indicators.

• Relic testing and documentation SOPs from Cluster E – to be used to assess claims of DNA and C-14 tests.

• Standard MoU / donation templates (F85) – clarify ownership vs custodianship and attach the 15 Principles.

Required approvals / signatures

• Siridantamahāpālaka (case owner, museum custodian).

• Hswagata Advisory Committee / Central Committee (governance oversight).

• Relevant Saṅgha advisors (e.g. Sitagu Sayadaw or equivalent senior monks) for moral guidance, not factual verification.

• Legal / heritage advisor if state donation or MoU signatures are involved.

---

5. Actions / Decisions & H96 Reflection

Actions decided (who will do what, by when)

1. Evidence verification

   • Contact palace, UK institutions and ministry directly to confirm whether any letters or lab reports are genuine.

   • Keep written replies in the case file (F66_D0x) and cross-reference in training materials.

2. Neutral custodianship & transfers

   • Accept certain relics into temporary neutral custody at Hswagata, based on Mr A’s written and ritual consent (linked to F70 water-pouring and donation letters).

   • Where appropriate, prepare donation letters to state or other institutions to reduce future disputes, using standard MoU clauses.

3. Communication & teaching

   • Document the core conflict (F66) as an anonymised teaching case for peace and governance training.

   • Prepare simple explanations for devotees about why some claims were rejected and how truthfulness protects relic faith.

4. Support for affected persons

   • Provide ongoing pastoral and practical support to Mr A and any other affected custodians (linked to F69).

   • Ensure that no internal or public statement blames individuals in a way that increases trauma or stigma.

H96 check: “What would a peace-oriented H96 custodian do here?”

• Speak truthfully but gently, focusing on evidence and procedures rather than personal attacks.

• Refuse unethical shortcuts (no use of forged or unverified documents, no pressure via fake state messages).

• Prioritise safety and well-being, especially of those already under stress.

• Use this painful case as a learning tool, strengthening structures (H97) so similar conflicts are less likely.

Are we acting as trustees of the relics and community, not as owners?

Yes, in this record the Office commits to:

• Hold relics in trust pending clear decisions;

• Involve wider stakeholders (state, Saṅgha, partners) when necessary;

• Accept that some relics may be better entrusted elsewhere for long-term peace and protection.

---

6. Risk & Safeguards

Key risks (faith, safety, reputation, legal, heritage, conflict)

• Faith risk: Devotees may lose trust if they hear about conflicting stories, forged documents, or public quarrels about relics.

• Safety / health risk: Continued pressure on custodians can lead to anxiety, burnout and serious health problems.

• Reputational risk: HGT / Hswagata could be seen as untrustworthy if conflicts are mishandled or if media reports highlight internal divisions.

• Legal / policy risk: Misuse of ministry names or royal symbols could create legal or diplomatic problems.

• Heritage risk: If relic ownership is unclear, relics might be moved secretly, lost, or commercialised.

Mitigation measures (documentation, transparency, joint-signature, mediation, etc.)

• Documentation: Maintain a complete case file (F66_D01–D0x) with all letters, screenshots, and verification replies.

• Joint signatures: Ensure that any major relic transfer or donation involves multiple signatories (Siridantamahāpālaka, donor, witnesses) and, where relevant, state or Saṅgha representatives.

• Mediation and complaint channels: Offer clear, written channels for complaints and mediation within HGT / Hswagata, reducing the temptation to use pressure tactics or social media.

• Training: Use Case 66 and linked cases in regular H96/H97 training to build digital literacy (recognising fake messages) and trauma-aware communication.

---

7. Follow-up & Learning

Next review date and follow-up actions.

• Next review date: 01 / 03 / 2026 (or earlier if new evidence, media reports, or legal developments arise).

• Follow-up actions:

  1. Integrate Case 66 into the H96 checklist training for custodians and committee members.

  2. Finalise and adopt standard MoUs and donation templates (F85) for all major relic transfers.

  3. Report one concrete institutional improvement per year under H97 (e.g. new complaint procedure, clarified testing SOP).

Lessons learned for future cases (link to case ID and training materials).

• Lesson 1 – Friendship is not enough: Reliance on personal trust without written rules made this conflict possible. Future custodians must insist on clear documentation and MoUs even among close friends. (Linked to F66, F75, F85.)

• Lesson 2 – Verify before you amplify: Any claim involving state, royal or scientific authority must be verified directly before being repeated, especially in sermons, media or fundraising. (Linked to F67–F68, Cluster E.)

• Lesson 3 – Care for the custodian: Peacebuilding includes duty of care for stressed custodians; without this, structural violence grows even if relics remain safe. (Linked to F69, H96.)

• Lesson 4 – Turn conflict into pedagogy: By documenting and anonymising this case, Hswagata can transform a painful episode into a training tool that strengthens future relic governance and supports SDGs 11.4, 16 and 17. (Linked to H96–H100, thesis synthesis.)