Vietnam: Why Did We Go? – By Avro Manhattan
Chapter 14 Religious Persecutions and Suicides by Fire
Contents
The gravity of Diem’s policy of religious repression can best be judged if we remember that Christianity in Southeast Asia was a minority, and furthermore, that the Catholic Church was a minority of a minority.
In Vietnam, out of a total population at that time of between 10 to 11 million peoples, only 1,500,000 were Roman Catholics. Of these, two thirds were refugees from the North, whereas the other Christians, mostly Baptists or Seventh Day Adventists, numbered approximately 50,000. The rest of the country was solidly Buddhist or professed religions derivatives from Buddhism.
This meant that the Catholics made up a mere 12 to 13 percent of the whole of South Vietnam. The equivalent would be, as if a mere 12 to 13 per cent of Buddhists, or Hindus, or Moslems should attempt to terrorize the 230 million people of the U.S., the great bulk of whom are Christian.
His campaign of erosion and of direct and indirect elimination of the religious and political influence of Buddhism, of course, had run concurrently with the creation of a police state, and with the increasing acceleration of his Catholicization of the state, of the army and of the police force.
While so engaged, Diem’s anti-Buddhist activities had been astutely kept in the background. This policy was justified, since, before dealing with the problem, he had first to strengthen his political and police apparatus.
The spark was ignited when the sectarian volcano which had been simmering under the surface for some time finally burst out into the open on June 5, 1963. The Roman Catholics celebrated the day to honor Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, Diem’s brother. In their elation, they flew the flag of the Vatican at Hue, a predominately Buddhist city. There was no opposition or any violent protest on the part of the Buddhists.
Three days later, the whole of South Vietnam prepared itself to celebrate the 2,507th birthday of Buddha. The celebration centered in Hue, the center of Buddhist culture during more than 2,000 years. The Buddhists asked permission to fly the Buddhist flag. The Diem government’s answer: a resounding No/When the day arrived, thousands of Buddhists protested the government’s refusal. In addition Diem, two days before, had issued an ordinance which forbade the carrying of religious banners. The ordinance became known only after the Catholics had flown the Vatican’s flag. Diem troops fired on the crowd and killed nine Buddhists. As a result of such blatant Catholic sectarianism, demonstrations took place all over South Vietnam. Buddhist leaders went to see Diem, asking for an end of such discrimination. Diem refused to pay indemnities for the victims, refused responsibility, and to cap it all, refused to punish those who had been responsible for the killings.
The Buddhist leaders, undeterred, gathered 400 monks and nuns, and on May 30 sat down for four hours before the National Assembly in the heart of Saigon. Then, since nothing happened, they declared a 48 hour hunger strike. The hunger strike spread elsewhere. After a token gesture during which he discharged three of his officials, Diem stated that the killings had been caused by – communist agitators.
The hunger strike spread to the general population, until – over 10,000 individuals participated in Saigon alone. To add to the solemnity of the mass protest, the giant gong tolled incessantly from its principal tower, the gong of Xa Loi Pagoda. In the other Buddhist capital, Hue, the peaceful demonstration took a violent turn and fighting broke out. The violence was so unrestrained, that the main pagoda of Tu Dam was left almost in ruins.
The Buddhist tolerance finally gave way to concrete anger. A Buddhist crowd took the law into their own hands and burned to the ground a whole Catholic village next to Da Nang. In Hue, as violence recurred, the authorities imposed martial law. As a result, a Buddhist crowd, led by students, demonstrated before the house of government delegates who called in troops. Blister gas was used and over 77 individuals were hospitalized with blister burns.
More Buddhist demonstrations followed. All in vain. Finally, an elderly Buddhist monk, Superior Thich Quang Duc, sent a message to President Diem. The message: “enforce a policy of religious equality.” Thereupon, having calmly sat down in a main street of Saigon, poured gasoline on himself and burned himself to death. It was June 2, 1963. The self-immolation caused enormous reaction within and outside South Vietnam. The world at large could not understand what was going on, the media having knowingly or unknowingly given muddled and contradictory reports about the true state of affairs. Diem, however, did not budge. Other Buddhist monks followed Thich Quang Duc’s example. Within a brief period, six of them burned themselves to death as a protest.
Diem and most of his Catholic supporters were unimpressed. Indeed some of them even jested about the monks self immolation. Madame Nhu, Diem’s sisterin- law, for instance, commented about the Buddhists “barbecuing” themselves.
Buddhist demonstrations continued during the following month. On July 30, 30,000 participated in protests at Saigon and Hue. In the latter city, August 13, there was quite uncontrollable violence. Another young Buddhist monk, Thich Thanh Tuck, burned himself to death in the Phuc Duyen Pagoda, following the example of yet another, a few days before, Thich Mguyen Huong, who had done the same on August 4. Then on August.1S, a woman, a Buddhist nun, Dieu Quang, immolated herself in the courtyard of the Tu Dam Pagoda.
Following such individual and mass Buddhist demonstrations, Diem finally took off the mask, promulgated a siege of the whole country by declaring a state of martiallaw. Diem’s police were let loose. They occupied, sealed and plundered pagoda after pagoda in the capital, in Hue, Hkanhhoa, Da Nang and other towns. They put down demonstrations with the utmost brutality and beat many Buddhist monks. Finally an order was issued to close all the pagodas. The order was greeted with collective anger. Riots occurred. In the city of Hue alone, on August 21, no less than one hundred Buddhists were killed by Diem police, thirty of them Buddhist students.
The massacre was followed by mass arrests. Buddhist monks and nuns were detained by the thousands all over South Vietnam. Diem’s agents shot at random or organized truncheon rampages against the Buddhist crowds. Special forces, under the aegis of Ngo Dinh Nhu, arrested any Buddhist leaders they could find. Prominent Buddhists were tortured by special police. Pagodas were besieged. 200 students were arrested with another 6,000 individuals on August 25. Two days later, the 27th, 4,000 more were detained. On September 3, 5,600 pupils demonstrated at schools. On September 15, 6,000 more pupils demonstrated at Dalat, and in other places.
In early October, thousands of Buddhist students were arrested and tortured by Nhu’s agents. Buddhist leaders went into hiding, one of the most prominent, Thich Tri Quang, seeking safety within the walls of the American Embassy itself. It is to the credit of many Americans in the civil and military administrations, that they expressed their horror at what they were witnessing with their own eyes. Most of them, although confused as to the basic issues of the religious-political conflict, nevertheless were highly shocked at the ruthlessness of the Diem regime. At Washington, the feelings were no less deep. There were recriminations and criticism. The South Vietnam religious persecutions were threatening the domestic peace within the U.S. itself. Besides, the rest of the world was beginning to take notice of the events by openly asking awkward questions as to the real objectives of the U.S. presence in Southeast Asia.
Finally the U.S. issued a declaration, ” … it appears that the government of the Republic of Vietnam, has instituted serious repressive measures against the Vietnamese Buddhist leaders … The U.S. deplores repressive actions of this nature.”
Notwithstanding this, and the worldwide publicity, the media of America remained strangely silent about the whole issue. When they were forced to report the news of the religious persecutions of the Buddhists by the Catholic Diem, either they gave them the smallest coverage, or minimized the whole issue when not slanting the news altogether. The Catholic-CIA-Diem lobby saw to it that the whole picture became effectively blurred, lest the American people take action.
