The essay looks at the Buddhist Association of China (BAC), which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has promoted as an influential actor in Buddhist circles on the global stage, via one of its key instruments for influence in Chinese societies and abroad, the United Front Work Department (UFWD). This chapter argues that Buddhist actors who seek to shape the legal-political framework of their societies according to their values are facing increasing competition from a fellow influential Buddhist association that conveys the positions of its political mentor rather than shared religious values. The chapter contextualizes this issue by presenting the limited influence of Buddhism on legal thought in Chinese history. It then examines the BAC and the status of Buddhism in contemporary life, looks at the CCP UFWD influence on the BAC, and chronicles the BAC emergence as a major actor in Buddhist international organizations. It concludes on the significance of the BAC for Buddhists worldwide and constitutional law.

The creation of unified polities in Asia remains a daunting challenge because of the numerous claims made by nations within state boundaries. None of the states in the case studies included in this book can claim unmitigated success in achieving harmonious reconciliation between the demands of sub-state nations seeking recognition and the goal of the central government to forge polities that transcend differences between these groups. In fact, there is much variance among states in Asia with respect to the willingness to recognize or accommodate sub-state nationalities. Contributors to this book have traced the roots of this variance, as well as the common traits that characterize many Asian states. Together, they suggest broad patterns and explanatory factors that are rooted in the domestic arena, based on which we suggest tentative generalizations based on the Asian experience.

Although we have found that historical trajectories and domestic political factors provide the strongest explanation of similarities and differences among Asian cases, the international environment has also to some extent conditioned the willingness and ability of Asian states to recognize their multinational status. As many of the contributors have shown, colonialism had a determining influence on the institutional choices made by post-colonial states. The Cold War in Asia, which quickly came to the fore with events such as the Korean War (1950–1953) and the Taiwan Strait Crises (1954–1955, 1958), exacerbated or dampened conflicts within multinational states, as the Bangladesh crisis of 1971 has demonstrated.

Since Taiwan embarked on its democratic journey in 1987, close to 90 percent of its citizens have refused the offer from the Beijing authorities for peaceful reunification. They know that they will not be recognized as a nation within the People's Republic of China (PRC). They also know that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will never give Taiwan even the symbolic form of recognition of the kind Tibetans receive, let alone the substantive powers of a real autonomy. These misgivings are grounded in the reality of the CCP's repeated position on the issue of “reunification” with Taiwan, which denies the Taiwanese any right of self-determination and promises military intervention if Taiwanese leaders declare independence. The PRC authorities' response to the Taiwanese aspirations for recognition of their distinctiveness highlights the limitations of an authoritarian government peacefully managing a multination state. It also points to the difficulty of defining a national identity that is determined by narrow cultural criteria. Although the PRC is officially a multinational state, it is also a unitary state in which one nationality, the Han Chinese, stands above the others. This unequal relationship between the Han and the other fifty-five nationalities in China is addressed in Chapter 9. This chapter discusses an equally problematic dimension of the Chinese national identity: the narrow definition of Han identity itself.

Multination states have been unstable. The presence of more than one group seeking status as a “nation” within the boundaries of a single state has given rise to strong tensions that have generally been difficult to overcome. The means by which these tensions are addressed and the instruments available for seeking compromises between states and such groups largely determine the extent to which violence can be avoided.

In the worst cases, the world has witnessed long periods of violent conflict. The breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the subsequent war, as well as the long-standing conflict in Sri Lanka are two of the most glaring examples. More often than not, one group gains control of the state and imposes its own view of an overarching national identity. This is rejected by the other group, which sees itself as a distinct nation. The conflict often takes the form of a sub-state nationalist movement against the state, but in reality it reflects intense disagreements based on competing nationalist visions. While one group may make strong claims that the state represents a single nation that can be defined inclusively, it may clash with a group within the state that refuses to be encapsulated within that vision. As happened in Sri Lanka, such a single nation might even exclude a group entirely by defining itself in cultural, exclusivist terms.