OFFICE OF SIRIDANTAMAHĀPĀLAKA / HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELICS PRESERVATION MUSEUM – INTERNAL USE
Template No.: T76
Related Research Case IDs: F76 – Multi-Stakeholder Partnership for Truth & Relic Governance
Linked Templates / Cases: [e.g. T53–T56, T66–T75, F66–F75, H96–H100]
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 / legal / media) [ ] Sacred-Restricted
Use of this form:
[ ] Designing a new partnership / platform
[ ] Reviewing an existing partnership / platform
[ ] Retrospective documentation of a past partnership
1. BASIC CASE & PLATFORM OVERVIEW
1.1 Case title & type
Short case title:
(e.g. “Multi-Stakeholder Truth Platform for Relic Claims”)
Case type (tick all that apply):
[ ] Multi-stakeholder truth / fact-checking platform
[ ] Palace / ministry / lab / university engagement
[ ] Media oversight & ethical communication mechanism
[ ] SDG 16 & 17 alignment instrument
[ ] Post-conflict institutional reform tool
[ ] Other: _____________________________
1.2 Purpose of this partnership / platform
Short statement of purpose (2–4 sentences):
-
Why is this multi-stakeholder mechanism needed?
-
Which types of claims / conflicts is it meant to address?
1.3 Timeframe & status
Start date (or planned start) of partnership: ____ / ____ / ______
Current status:
[ ] Planning / concept note stage
[ ] Pilot phase (testing the mechanism)
[ ] Fully active and functioning
[ ] Under review / restructuring
[ ] Closed (for archival learning only)
Short status note:
2. KEY STAKEHOLDERS & PARTNERS
2.1 Institutional partners
List each partner in the platform:
| Code | Institution (palace / ministry / lab / university / museum / media / NGO) | Country | Role (verification / advice / communication / other) |
|---|---|---|---|
Short note on why these institutions were chosen:
2.2 Internal HGT / Hswagata actors
Internal units / persons directly involved:
[ ] Siridantamahāpālaka / chief custodian
[ ] Museum board / committee
[ ] Ethics / peace / media subcommittee
[ ] Archives / documentation team
[ ] Youth / volunteer representatives
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
Short internal-role note:
2.3 Primary “users” of the platform
Who will use this mechanism?
[ ] Monks / custodians needing fact-checking.
[ ] Staff / volunteers preparing media or PPTs.
[ ] Researchers / students.
[ ] Devotees / donors with questions.
[ ] External journalists / partners.
Short note:
3. SCOPE OF THE PLATFORM
3.1 Types of issues covered
Tick what this platform is meant to handle:
[ ] Alleged royal / palace letters.
[ ] Alleged ministry / government letters.
[ ] Claims about foreign lab tests (DNA, C-14, etc.).
[ ] Claims about relic origin / lineage.
[ ] Public interviews and media pieces citing such evidence.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
Short description (3–6 sentences):
3.2 What the platform does not cover
Tick and explain:
[ ] Does not judge personal morality or private disputes.
[ ] Does not certify doctrinal / spiritual claims.
[ ] Does not replace police / court functions.
[ ] Other limitations: _______________________________________________
Short limitations note:
4. BUDDHIST DOCTRINAL–ETHICAL LENS
4.1 Key teachings guiding the platform
Tick what applies:
[ ] sacca – truthful speech and integrity of evidence.
[ ] sammā-vācā – right speech in media and public space.
[ ] musāvāda – avoidance of false / misleading claims and documents.
[ ] Dhammadāyāda – heir to Dhamma, not to false prestige.
[ ] mettā / karuṇā – compassion for those confused or misled.
[ ] hiri-ottappa – wise shame / fear of wrongdoing when using sacred / state names.
[ ] anicca / anattā – letting go of ego and image to accept correction.
[ ] Other: _____________________________________________
4.2 Ethical self-check for the platform
Tick and comment:
[ ] Does the platform encourage humble acceptance of correction?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Are we transparent about limits of knowledge and evidence?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Do we protect individuals from unnecessary shaming while correcting facts?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
[ ] Does the mechanism itself avoid greed, ego, and power-abuse?
Notes: ___________________________________________________________
Short doctrinal reflection (3–6 sentences):
5. PEACE, CONFLICT & HARM REDUCTION
5.1 Galtung’s triangle – what F76 addresses
Contradictions (C) – key problems this platform is meant to solve (e.g. forged letters, misuse of science, institutional rivalry):
Attitudes (A) – intended shift (from fear / ego / denial to honesty / humility / trust):
Behaviours (B) – behaviours to reduce (e.g. sharing unverified claims) and behaviours to promote (e.g. fact-checking, joint statements):
Short integrated note (3–6 sentences):
5.2 Types of violence / harm the platform aims to reduce
Tick if relevant:
[ ] Harm to faith (devotees misled by false claims).
[ ] Harm to individuals (reputational damage, stress, burnout).
[ ] Structural harm (abuse of power using sacred / state names).
[ ] Cultural harm (symbols used to justify manipulation).
Concrete examples (from linked cases):
5.3 Peace & reconciliation opportunities
Opportunities created by this platform:
[ ] Offer safe way to correct past mistakes without humiliation.
[ ] Create common ground between institutions that previously clashed.
[ ] Provide model for other temples / museums.
[ ] Use as teaching tool in H96 training.
Short peace-opportunity note:
6. GOVERNANCE, PROCEDURES & SDGs
6.1 Governance structure
Tick and describe:
[ ] Steering committee (names / roles recorded elsewhere).
[ ] Clear terms of reference (ToR) for the platform.
[ ] Written SOPs for receiving and processing cases.
[ ] Confidentiality and data-protection guidelines.
[ ] Mechanism for periodic review and reform.
Short governance note:
6.2 Main procedures
Outline main steps (can reference T53–T56):
-
Intake – how a question / claim reaches the platform:
-
Verification – who checks, with which tools:
-
Decision / conclusion – how findings are agreed and recorded:
-
Communication – how results are shared (internal / public):
-
Appeal / review – how disagreements are handled:
6.3 SDG links
SDG 11.4 – Heritage protection
(How this platform protects relic narratives and institutions)
SDG 16 – Peace, justice & strong institutions
(Transparency, anti-corruption, verification, complaint paths)
SDG 17 – Partnerships
(Multi-stakeholder cooperation: palaces, ministries, labs, universities, media, NGOs)
Other SDGs (optional): _______________________________________________
7. RISK & SAFEGUARDS
7.1 Risks of the platform itself
Tick if present:
[ ] Being perceived as “policing” or attacking others.
[ ] Being captured by one faction or ego group.
[ ] Becoming too slow / bureaucratic to be useful.
[ ] Being ignored; people still use unverified claims elsewhere.
[ ] Security / privacy risks for sensitive documents / testimonies.
Short risk note:
7.2 Safeguards
Tick and describe:
[ ] Clear, published mandate and limitations.
[ ] Balanced representation of partners on the committee.
[ ] Anonymous or protected reporting channels.
[ ] Independent review or advisory group.
[ ] Documentation and archiving policies.
Safeguards note:
8. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE INDEX (F76 PLATFORM)
8.1 Foundational documents
| Code | Date | Type (MoU / ToR / concept note / letter) | Description | File location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F76_D01 | ||||
| F76_D02 | ||||
| F76_D03 |
8.2 Case files processed through this platform
(Just list codes – details stored in each case’s own template.)
| Code | Related case (T / F) | Date received | Short description | Status (open / closed) |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
8.3 Public communications
| Code | Date | Type (statement / clarification / FAQ / media) | Description | File location |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
9. OPTIONS, DECISIONS & DEVELOPMENT
9.1 Options considered when designing / reforming F76
Possible options (tick those discussed):
[ ] Very small, internal-only mechanism.
[ ] Joint platform with a few trusted external partners.
[ ] Broader public-facing platform with website and reports.
[ ] Time-limited project vs permanent structure.
[ ] Hosting under Hswagata vs independent foundation / consortium.
[ ] Other: _____________________________
Short description of main options and their pros/cons:
9.2 Decisions taken
Final or current decision(s):
Date(s) of decisions: ____ / ____ / ______ and ____ / ____ / ______
Who decided? (names or roles):
9.3 Follow-up actions & indicators
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success (e.g. number of cases processed, clarity gained):
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
-
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______ -
Action: ___________________________________________________________
Purpose: __________________________________________________________
Indicator of success: _____________________________________________
Responsible: __________________ Deadline: ____ / ____ / ______
10. H96 REFLECTION & RISK RATING
H96 guiding question:
“If a peace-oriented H96 custodian looked at this multi-stakeholder platform, would they see humble trusteeship and courage to face truth – or a new layer of ego, fear, and control?”
10.1 Reflection notes
Wholesome elements (what is ethically strong in F76):
Risky elements (where ego, politics, or injustice could still hide):
10.2 Risk rating (current situation)
A. Doctrinal / ethical risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
B. Peace / conflict risk (local, national, cross-border):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
C. Heritage / relic narrative risk:
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
D. Reputational risk (temple, museum, Saṅgha, partners):
[ ] LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH
Notes: _______________________________________________________________
11. SIGN-OFF & ARCHIVE
11.1 Sign-off
Prepared by:
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
Reviewed / Approved by (abbot / chief custodian / ethics / peace / legal / media committee):
Name: _______________________________ Role: _________________________
Signature: __________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
11.2 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 F76 partnership and how it helped protect truth, relics, faith, relationships, and peace?)
