Buddhism to the health o f the nation, when in 1943 Colonel N. Saranupraphan, the Director of the Religious Department, confirmed that:
His Excellency the Prime Minister ardently wishes to promote and uphold Buddhism so that it will prosper and be esteemed in the highest possible fashion. The reason is...that the Nation and Buddhism cannot be separated.85
Moreover, he used Buddhism as a way to distinguish the Thai nation from others, most notably, Catholic Indochina, stating in October 1940 that: “Our Thai brothers in Laos and Cambodia are Buddhists but the French are followers of Catholicism” .86 Thus under the first Pibul regime religion evolved into an effective marker to distinguish Thais and non-Thais: Thais were Buddhists, non-Thais were not.
The anti-French sentiments also reflected contemporary international developments in the 1940s, historical grievances from the 1890s, as well as the government’s emphasis on a chauvinistic Thai identity. The conjunction o f the Buddhist emphasis and the anti-French attitude o f the government was to have disastrous consequences for the Catholic Missions in Siam. However, before 1940, these developments, while politically momentous, meant very little to the Church. Missionaries did record the passing o f major events, such as the 1932 coup d’etat, but they also noted that they had had little impact on the activities o f the Mission. As the annual report for 1932 stated:
I will only say a little about the sensational development for the country: the ‘coup d’etat’ o f 24 June 1932. The absolute monarchy has become
constitutional... This revolution was achieved in a surprising calm for those who do not know the mentality of the people of this country. Tranquillity
S;i Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, T h ailan d’s D u rable P rem ier: Phibun through Three D ecades, 1932-
1957 (Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1995), pp. 129-30.
continued to reign in Siam, for the good o f the people and the advancement o f the reign o f the divine Lord!87
Indeed, since the Church had enjoyed a renaissance and steady growth under Kings Mongkut (1851-68), Chulalongkom (1868-1910), Vajiravudh (1910-25), and Prajadhipok (1925-1935), there was little reason for the missionaries to believe that their activities would be affected by a change o f regime, especially considering how calm the whole process appeared to be.
However, in little more than a decade, the new regime had changed the name o f the country, and arguably much of society as well. By 1942, many Mission stations and parishes had been destroyed, arbitrarily seized, or vandalised.
Numerous foreign priests and nuns had taken refuge in French Indochina, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, and India, while those who remained were under increasing pressure to convert to Buddhism, a religion not previously known for such militant
fundamentalism. Congregations were also being forced to convert, even more so if members were in the civil service and wished to keep their jobs.ss Those who did not convert were assaulted or arrested and accused o f being unpatriotic Fifth Columnists. The lucky ones escaped with only minor injuries; others were given prison sentences or were executed in cold blood by state agents.
Paradoxically, while Pibul’s definition o f Thai identity was inclusive in its pan-Thai aspect, so much so that it potentially included those beyond the borders, it was also exclusive in tying this identity to Buddhism.8<> It was this emphasis on Buddhism as the religious cement for the pan-Thai nation that had the gravest implication for Catholics. Later scholars noted the social implications o f an over
87 M .E .P.A ., Compte-Rendu 1931-32.
88 Kobkua Swannathat-Pian, Thailand's D urable P rem ier, p. 130.
89 Pibul’s patronage o f Buddhism w as to becom e even m ore pronounced in his second regim e, albeit less militant than in his first government, see Thak Chaloemtiarana, Thailand: The P o litics o f
emphasis on Buddhism where, in the best case, minorities will merely feel alienated from society, as Keyes argued with reference to the southern Malay Muslims:
Insofar as equation o f being Thai with being Buddhist is a cornerstone of Thai official thinking, non-Buddhists could be denied access to participation in the national community. It could be predicted that such a policy would lead to increasing alienation...90
The argument is echoed by Tambiah: “The constant strain to identify the religion with the state and the Buddhist state, in turn, with a Buddhist society creates perpetual internal cleavages”.91 The worst case scenario is reflected in the Catholic experience o f the 1940s although even then, as well as subsequently, they were not the only group to become victims through being perceived as ‘un-Thai’.
Together with the regime’s emphasis on “Thailand for Thais”, the new concept o f national identity placed the foreign leadership of the Church in Thailand under increasing pressure. The experiences and eventual survival of the Church during this period was a reflection o f this contradiction o f intolerance within inclusiveness. In effect, the Church was akin to the company of actors in
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who were urged to “hold as ‘twere the mirror up to nature”, and reflect reality. Like the players, the missionaries acted as mirrors to the regimes they experienced. They inadvertently reflected the virtue of the absolutist regime, as much as they reflected the scorn o f the totalitarian regime, and by doing so they showed the very age and body o f the times they experienced.
90 C.F. K eyes, ‘Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand’, Asian Studies, 30, 3 (1971), p. 567. 91 S.J. Tambiah, W orld C onqueror a n d W orld Renouncer: A Study o f Buddhism a n d P o lity in