In this book Schober explores the “conjunctures”, constellations between the state and the sangha in Myanmar that proved crucial for the subsequent position of the two agents towards each other The first chapter outlines the situation during the Konbaung period, Burma's last royal dynasty, and gives a brief introduction to the Buddhist economy of merit. She looks in detail at two kings, Bodawpaya (1784–1819) and Mindon Min (1853–79), who both attempted to reform the sangha. Bodawpaya succeeded (in part at least, but the quarrel continued as to whether monks should cover one or both shoulders when going out), whereas Mindon failed, as he lost control to the British over the order in Lower Burma. The second chapter investigates the impact of British rule on the traditional relationship. Chapters 3 and 4 advance the narrative to the early twentieth century, when the sangha became increasingly involved in the anti-colonial struggle and provided moral and organizational support to the people.

Chapter 5 addresses the first constellation in independent Burma, during the U Nu years. A devout Buddhist, U Nu not only invoked the traditional model of a just ruler (dhammaraja) to solidify his rule, but also sought to lead by example and re-entered the sangha on several occasions. Yet his attempts to give the sangha a higher organizational structure failed because many monks defied the jurisdiction of the religious courts created by the state. U Nu finally fell after an inept attempt to make Buddhism the state religion, thus alienating both leading Buddhists and the non-Buddhist minorities. Ne Win's attempts to control the sangha were likewise unsuccessful, as was borne out by the relatively small number of monks who registered their status as required (p. 83). The dissociation of the monks from the state culminated in their participation in the 1988 uprisings that brought down the Ne Win government (chapter 6). The subsequent military regime offered both carrot and stick to the sangha, cracking down on certain monasteries and monks' associations while simultaneously displaying their veneration of Buddhism by making donations to the sangha or attending Buddhist festivals, often wearing uniforms. Elevating Buddhism to this semi-official status, however, opened up new pathways for resistance to their co-religionists, especially in the form of meditation. Aung San Suu Kyi is Schober's foremost witness for this new form of political Buddhism.

The next chapter discusses the limits of Buddhist moral authority in a secular state, for which the encounter between the monks and the regime in 2007 formed the crucial moment. The conflict, in which the state exercised with brutal force its superiority, provides Schober with an example showing how monks regained power through social engagement. At this point, she returns to her central argument that Buddhist monks in Burma were never ascetics completely detached from worldly affairs as portrayed by Max Weber. This critique of Weber, and further general thoughts on current developments in Burma, set against a historical backdrop, form the theme of the final chapter, in which Schober argues that the modernization of Burma that began under colonialism remains an unfinished project, especially with regard to political and moral authority. Current developments such as economic liberalization and globalization, summarized in the concluding paragraphs of the book, do not seem to offer an easy solution to this struggle between the two agents.

The book outlines about 250 years of Burmese history, looking at religious and political developments. Schober argues that throughout this period, rulers and the sangha were set in a reciprocal relationship that could result in co-operation as much as it could produce conflict. The colonial and early postcolonial project of secularism (the segregation of state and Buddhist “church”) proved impossible, and now both the sangha and the rulers – be they the army or a civil government – will have to find and define their roles towards each other and towards society at large. While one cannot argue with this take on Burmese history, the book displays some features that require further comment. This concerns not only the factual errors – and there are a few of them – but also the principal approach to the sangha–state relationship in Burma. First, some of the factual errors mentioned shall be rectified. The Burmese word gaing (a monastic chapter) derives from Pali gana, not nikaya (p. 22); Rangoon was not ceded to the British in the Treaty of Yandabo (p. 35); Ratnagiri, where king Thibaw was exiled to, is south of Mumbai, not on the Indian east coast (p. 36); the Oriental languages department at Rangoon University initially taught only Pali and Burmese (p. 42); the Thuriya newspaper was never published in English and became a daily in 1913 (p. 71); the Ledi Sayadaw's treatise on the shoe question appeared in 1919 (p. 74); U Nu was never a member of the Thirty Comrades, while a staunch secularist like Nehru will hardly have advised U Nu to promote Buddhism (p. 79); U Ottama passed away in 1939, not 1930 (p. 103); Aung San Suu Kyi was not prevented from taking office as she had been barred from the 1990 elections (p. 108); and the proposals for dyarchy in British-India initially had nothing to do with the separation of Burma, but empowered native members of the provincial legislatures to serve as ministers (p. 180). Further mistakes would require lengthier explanations than space permits here.

Of greater concern is the relative vagueness of the “Buddhism” that encounters politics at the conjunctures explored. At times, this Buddhism is a monolithic block, while in other constellations “the sangha” or even individual monks become its representatives and agents. It is clear that Buddhism in Burma never became an organized institution comparable to a church in Western tradition. The sangha alone could be seen as an institution-like body, but it is highly compartmentalized, giving nikayas (lineages or fraternities) and individual monastic chapters a relatively large degree of independence, in addition to having a fluctuating membership – Burmese men can undergo temporary (re)ordination if they like – and therefore does not necessarily offer itself as a single actor facing the state at a certain conjuncture. This lack of structure also suggests that a single head of the sangha was the exception rather than the rule in Burmese history. Kings could appoint their preceptors or other monks famous for their erudition, saintliness or popularity as royal advisers, as heads of the metropolitan monasteries or, when required, to preside over councils and re-ordination ceremonies. Appointments were at the discretion of the king, which explains why these patriarchs bore different titles or appellations and why there were periods in classical Burma without them. The existence (or absence) of a head of the sangha only began to matter when the British started to regard the sangha as the representative of a church-like institution and recognized its head as a patriarch. Yet claiming that church and state were separate, the British declined to assume the full responsibilities of a Burmese ruler and declined to appoint a new head on the death of his predecessor. Schober is not always clear about who the peoples of the “Buddhism” were, i.e. who interacted with the state at the conjunctions she explores.

This leads to another question that surfaces repeatedly and is not dealt with satisfactorily. It concerns the inherent qualities required of an outstanding monk or successful ruler. Schober regularly uses the term “charisma”, e.g. for U Nu (pp. 79, 85), U Ottama (pp. 103, 105), Aung San Suu Kyi (p. 110), U Vinaya (p. 113), Saya San and U Wisara (p. 134). Curiously, “charisma” or “charismatic power” is a distinct Weberian category, denoting one of his types of legitimate political power. However, what is more intriguing here than Weber's covert re-entry is the fact that Schober does not utilize the Burmese equivalent for charisma, the concept of dago or pon-dago. She thus voluntarily forsakes a useful analytical tool: who acknowledges that a certain person does or does not have dago; what can a person credited with the possession of dago actually achieve? Not taking up these and related questions leaves the investigation of the conjunctures of Buddhism and politics in Myanmar a somewhat unfinished project.