In the case of Muslims, though there may be different schools or sects, there is still one body of Islamic Law for all Muslims. The same applies to the body of Hindu Law for all Hindus. However, “Buddhist” is a much wider term and may be somewhat misleading in the context of law, as it includes many nationalities other than Burmese. There is no Buddhist law for all Buddhists, although the Vinaya7 has remained largely the same throughout Buddhist countries. Although this is largely concerned with the life of Buddhist monks and nuns who in prac- tice keep aloof from worldly affairs, it would be a mistake to think of the Vinaya as nothing more than minutiae about monastic dress and monastic eating times. Samantapasadika (CPD 1.2, 1)8 is the great 5th century commentary on the Vi- naya, allegiance to which practically defines what it means to be a Theravada Buddhist. One third of it is devoted to the discussion of just three of the 227 rules of the Patimokkha9, those concerning theft, murder and unlawful sex. As long as Southeast Asian authors of law texts have been interested in regulating these three activities, they have borrowed from the Vinaya.
If the Buddhist Law for those living outside the monasteries, as accepted by the Courts of Burma, was Burmese Buddhist Law10, there is the legal question as to whether it would be obligatory on the part of the courts in Burma to apply it to Buddhists from other countries.11 And then there is another legal question, con- cerning the difference between the terms Burman and Burmese. “These two Eng- lish terms were used interchangeably in colonial times. It was only in 1935 when a distinction arose. ‘Burman’ came to be the designation of the ethnic majority and ‘Burmese’ that of inhabitants of the country as a whole”.12
Although Burmese Buddhist Law has undergone changes, the original content remained basically the same. Under British colonial rule it did not extend be- yond the Buddhist people to whom it applied. Most ethnic minorities in Burma were under a separate judicial and administrative system; they had their own substantive and procedural laws in contradiction to the laws that applied else- where in Burma. According to the Burma Laws Act of 1898, for example, the civil, criminal and revenue administration of each of the Shan States was vested in the respective Chief of the State.13 British judges responsible for the administration of civil justice in Burma did not always fully understand Buddhist Law. Therefore they often used a two-volume reference work of Burmese legal treatises called “The 36 Dhammathats”.14 Sir John Jardine, the Judicial Commissioner of British Burma, researched the area of Buddhist Law even further.15 Eventually his work proved invaluable to Brit- ish judges in Burma. In his law research he found that the Buddhist law called Manugye was most complete. It was written in Burmese prose and was translated by the Principal Assistant to the Commissioner of Tenasserim, Richardson. It was published in 1847 in both English and Burmese versions. It was thus the first translation in English and one of the fullest compilations of Burmese Bud- dhist Law, existing even before the occupation of Lower Burma. In 1951, dur- ing a case before the Supreme Court, the reliability and viability of the Manugye were finally challenged. Due to errors in the translations of the Manugye, the Court had great difficulty to appraise the authority of Buddhist Law.16

Burma was annexed by the British through the three wars in 1824-1826, 1852- 1853 and 1885-1886. When colonial rule started, it was British policy (as in other British colonies) not to interfere with local religion. The British did not want to create further confrontations. If they had not adopted this policy, there would have been more uprisings and more discontent among the people. And that would have endangered the position of the British. The policy reflected the experience of the colonial administrators in the implementation of colonial rule in India in the 18th century.
The experience gained was included in the provision of the Charter of Mayor Courts granted in 1753. This Charter indicated a reservation to the native resi- dents in the British territories in India of their laws and customs.1 The policy was repeated in the provision of Warren Hastings’ 23rd rule of 1772. It said with regard to civil rights that in cases of marriage, inheritance, caste, and other reli- gious usages the laws of the Koran with respect to Muslims, and those of the Shaster with respect to Hindus, should be invariably adhered to.
This guideline of colonial policy was included in the Act of Settlement in 1781. The Act confirmed the preservation of the religious laws of Hindus and Mus- lims. It directed that all matters relating to inheritance, succession and contract were to be determined for Muslims and Hindus by their own respective laws; and where only one of the parties was a Muslim or Hindu by the laws of the defendant.
The Charter Act of 1833 referred to such laws. It declared that they should be ascertained, enacted, consolidated and amended wherever necessary. In this re- gard a Law Commission was established. This Commission knew that it would be unattainable to bring all people in India under the same law. Therefore the principle of the Commission was “uniformity where you can have it, diversity where you must have it, but in all cases certainty”.2 However, the task of codifi- cation was never completed.
Provisions with respect to religion were found in most of the Acts of the several provinces of India.3 Religious customs having the force of law were also recog- nized in the laws of the Punjab.4 The policy was again put into force in the Government of India Acts of 1914 and 1935. So the preservation of laws in the area of religion was not a new concept when colonial rule began in Burma.