OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T71
Related Research Case IDs: F71 – Transitional Custodianship Model Case
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T66–T70, T53–T56, H96–H100, MoU / donation templates]
Cluster: F – HGT Conflicts (Cases 66–85)
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Case file code (office): _____________________________________________
Completed by / Role: ________________________________________________
Office / Unit: ______________________________________________________
Country: ____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality Level:
[ ] Internal only [ ] Restricted (leadership / ethics) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form:
[ ] New transitional custodianship being created
[ ] Existing transitional custodianship being reviewed / renewed
[ ] Retrospective documentation of past transitional custodianship
1. BASIC CASE & ARRANGEMENT OVERVIEW
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Transitional Custody of Tooth Relics from X to Neutral Custodian Y”)
Case type (tick all that apply):
[ ] Core conflict-resolution arrangement
[ ] Temporary holding for safety / security
[ ] Bridge before final MoU / donation
[ ] Neutral third-party custodianship
[ ] Cross-border / international transitional custody
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Purpose of transitional custodianship
Short statement of purpose (2–4 sentences):
-
Why is a transitional custodian needed?
-
What problem / risk is this arrangement trying to reduce?
1.3 Timeframe & status
Start date of transitional custodianship: ____ / ____ / ______
Anticipated end date or review date: ____ / ____ / ______
Current status:
[ ] In design (not yet active)
[ ] Active transitional custodianship
[ ] In review / renegotiation
[ ] Completed and closed (for archival)
Short current-status note:
2. KEY PARTIES & ROLES
2.1 Original custodian / donor
Name / code: ____________________________
Role (monk / lay / institution): ____________________________
Relationship to relics / items before T71 arrangement:
(Owner? Trustee? Informal holder? Representative of temple / state?)
2.2 Transitional custodian (neutral party)
Name / code: ____________________________
Role (individual / committee / institution): __________________
Institutional base (temple / museum / state / NGO):
Reason they are appropriate as transitional custodian (short):
2.3 Long-term / final custodian (if already known)
Name / code: ____________________________
Type (temple / museum / state / lineage / other): ____________
Is final destination confirmed?
[ ] Yes – written agreement exists
[ ] Yes – agreed verbally, not yet documented
[ ] No – still under discussion
[ ] Not relevant – transitional custodian may become permanent
Short note:
2.4 Other key stakeholders
List major stakeholders (donors, senior monks, state bodies, families, etc.):
| Code / Name | Role (monk / lay / official / donor / staff / other) | Link to relics / case |
|---|---|---|
3. MANDATE OF THE TRANSITIONAL CUSTODIAN
3.1 Rights and responsibilities
Tick and specify what the transitional custodian may do:
[ ] Hold and safeguard relics / items in secure location.
[ ] Display relics / items under agreed conditions.
[ ] Organise limited ceremonies (describe): __________________________
[ ] Arrange insurance / security measures.
[ ] Coordinate with state / partners for protection / research.
[ ] Other allowed actions: ___________________________________________
Short summary of positive mandate:
3.2 Explicit limitations
Tick and specify what the transitional custodian may not do:
[ ] May not duplicate relics / items.
[ ] May not sell, trade, or commercialise relics / items.
[ ] May not claim permanent ownership.
[ ] May not relocate relics outside agreed area without consent.
[ ] May not speak in the name of other institutions without mandate.
[ ] Other limitations: _______________________________________________
Short limitations summary:
3.3 Conditions for ending transitional custodianship
Conditions under which the transitional custodianship ends, e.g.:
-
Signature of final MoU / donation letter;
-
Decision of committee / state body;
-
Health / capacity changes of key persons;
-
Completion of specific project (building, stupa, museum).
4. RELIC / HERITAGE INVENTORY
4.1 Items covered by this T71 arrangement
| Item Code | Description (e.g. tooth relic, fragment, casket) | Quantity | Previous custodian | Transitional custodian | Notes (origin / doubts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.2 Special conditions for specific items
Note if certain items have extra conditions (e.g. cannot leave a country, must stay with a particular lineage, temporary testing agreement, etc.):
5. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
5.1 Key concepts shaping transitional custodianship
Tick what applies:
[ ] dhātu – relics as shared supports for Buddhānussati.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to the Dhamma, not to relic property.
[ ] dāna – generosity as voluntary, not under fear.
[ ] sacca / sammā-vācā – truthfulness in all agreements and claims.
[ ] anicca / anattā – non-attachment to status, ownership, control.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for stressed parties in conflict.
[ ] ahiṃsā – non-violence in speech, action, and structure.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
Short doctrinal note (3–6 sentences):
5.2 Trustee-not-owner self-check
Tick and comment:
[ ] Does the transitional custodian clearly recognise they are not the owner?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are donors and partners informed that this is transitional custody?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are ceremonies and language consistent with trusteeship (not ego or prestige)?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
6. PEACE & CONFLICT-TRANSFORMATION LENS
6.1 Conflict background
Short note on conflict / tension that made transitional custody necessary
(link to T66–T70 if relevant):
6.2 Galtung’s triangle
Contradictions (C) – what structural problems is transitional custody addressing?
Attitudes (A) – key feelings among donors, custodians, institutions (fear, mistrust, relief, hope):
Behaviours (B) – main behaviours before and after T71 arrangement (pressure, mediation, ceremony, cooperation):
6.3 Peace goals & indicators
Tick and briefly explain:
[ ] Reduce direct pressure on any one person (e.g. stressed custodian).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Prevent escalation to courts / media / public scandal.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Create neutral “cooling-off” space for decisions.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Protect faith of devotees by reducing rumours and confusion.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
How will we know if T71 is working as a peace tool?
(Indicators: fewer conflicts, calmer relationships, clear communication, etc.)
7. GOVERNANCE & SDG LENS
7.1 Governance framework for T71
Tick and comment:
[ ] Written MoU / agreement exists for this transitional custody.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Institutional policy recognises transitional custodianship as an option.
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Committee / board oversight exists (minutes, decisions).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] No formal structure yet (risk: future disputes).
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
7.2 SDG connections
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(How does T71 protect relics / heritage in the short and long term?)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(Transparency, accountability, fair procedures in transitional custody)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(Partnerships between temples, museums, states, international bodies)
Other SDGs (optional):
8. TIMELINE OF CUSTODY
(Include key moments before, during, and after T71 arrangement.)
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event (e.g. initial approach, first meeting):
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event (e.g. ceremony, MoU signed, relic transfer):
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event (e.g. review, extension, final handover):
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Event:
Chronology attachment file code (if any): ____________________________
9. RISK, SAFEGUARDS & EXIT SCENARIOS
9.1 Key risks
Tick if present:
[ ] Confusion later about who is owner vs trustee.
[ ] Transitional period becomes indefinite without clarity.
[ ] Changing politics / leadership disrupts the arrangement.
[ ] Security risk (movement, theft, disaster).
[ ] Reputational risk if arrangement is misunderstood.
[ ] Emotional / health risk for any person involved.
Short risk note:
9.2 Safeguards
Tick and describe:
[ ] Clear written agreement attached to this file.
[ ] Joint signatures (donor, transitional custodian, witnesses).
[ ] Regular reviews scheduled (every ___ months).
[ ] Neutral mediator / advisor involved.
[ ] Security measures (storage, insurance, access control).
[ ] Communication plan for relevant communities.
Safeguards note:
9.3 Exit scenarios
List realistic exit scenarios and what must happen in each (signatures, ceremonies, notifications, etc.):
Scenario 1: __________________________________________________________
Steps required: ______________________________________________________
Scenario 2: __________________________________________________________
Steps required: ______________________________________________________
Scenario 3: __________________________________________________________
Steps required: ______________________________________________________
10. DOCUMENT INDEX (T71 MODEL)
10.1 Key documents
| Code | Date | Type (MoU / letter / ceremony record / email / minutes) | Description | Status (draft / signed / archived) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F71_D01 | ||||
| F71_D02 | ||||
| F71_D03 |
(Add more rows as needed.)
10.2 Access & sensitivity
Tick and comment:
[ ] Some documents can be shared with wider community.
[ ] Some documents are restricted to leadership / ethics group.
[ ] Some documents are sacred-restricted (ritual / donor wishes).
Notes:
11. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“Does this transitional custodianship show humble trusteeship and non-greed, or does it hide new forms of ego, control, or fear?”
11.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what is ethically strong in this T71 arrangement):
Risky elements (where ego, fear, confusion, or injustice may still hide):
11.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / relic security risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, museum, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
12. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
12.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace / legal 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 transitional custodianship and how it protected relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
