Thailand's blood protest: what does it actually mean?

Somtow says, include the Cambodian

"which states that pouring blood on the headquarters of the government is a Cambodian plot to ensure the return of Thaksin";which seems based on the legend that the 16th-century Thai king Naresuan once ordered his army to capture and behead the Khmer king Satha so he could "use his victim's blood to wash his feet in".

Pouring human blood on Thailand's government headquarters made news worldwide – but left many in the country baffled

• 
• • Jon Henley
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 March 2010

Supporters of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra make their bloody protest. Photograph: Sukree Sukplang/Reuters

It certainly looks spectacular, but what does it mean? According to the Bangkok Post, today's blood protest by Thai "Red Shirts" loyal to their country's multi- millionaire deposed prime minister,
Thaksin Shinawatra, saw "12 five-litre bottles, two large buckets and 50 syringes of blood" ceremonially splashed on the four gates of Government House and over the headquarters of the ruling Democrat party in a "ritual aimed at bringing down the government".

The blood had been collected from several thousand supporters by the opposition United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship. Red Cross officials objected, arguing that throwing 300 litres of human blood on assorted public buildings might not be the best possible use of such a valuable resource, and that in a country with a relatively high rate of HIV infection, its collection and disposal raised potential public health issues.

Again according to the Bangkok Post, three demonstrators, including a Hindu brahman and a man carrying a statue of Buddha, "walked to the first gate of Government House, where a religious rite was performed. The brahman cited spells and incantations, and poured an amount of blood in front of the gate." Next, "the brahman took some of the blood from the ground to write letters on the concrete posts of the gate." Other Red tactics aimed at removing the present premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who they claim came to power illegitimately following the coup that ousted Thaksin for alleged corruption and abuse of power in 2006, have included burning coffins, breaking a pot in front of the statue of King Taksin, and throwing plastic bags full of rotten fish.

Blood, a symbol of life (and death), features in religious and other rituals around the world. Australian Aboriginals exchanged blood and rubbed it over their bodies in secret ceremonies; the spilling of human sacrificial blood was an important part of Aztec and other Mesoamerican cultures; ancient Germanic tribes sprinkled blood on walls and on the statues of their gods (the process of smearing blood was known in Old English as bleodsian, a term apparently at the root of the Catholic term blessing). Catholics, obviously, believe consecrated wine becomes the blood of Jesus.

There appear, however, to be relatively few examples of blood being poured as a form of modern political protest. That's what it plainly is, though, for those leading Thailand's pro-Thaksin demonstrations – even if they're not entirely certain why. Nattawut Saikur, one Red leader, said the blood showed the movement's "commitment in calling for democracy", and was an "important curse ritual". If Abhisit refuses to step down, Saikur added, "even though he does not have blood on his hands, his feet will be bloodied with our curses".Another Red leader, Veera Musikapong, said the gesture was "a sacrificial offering . . . to show our love for the nation, to show our sincerity". A third, Somsak Janprasert, told AFP: "This is a very symbolic way to express that our blood, the people's blood, is power."

Experts on Thai culture and beliefs appear no less nonplussed: as SP Somtow, a Thai author and composer, relates on his entertaining and informative blog (somtow.org) that a recent televised debate between an authoritative panel of "Thailand's leading astrologers and magicians" failed completely to arrive at any meaningful conclusion as to the efficacy – or, indeed, the meaning – of the blood-spattering ceremonies, beyond observing that many Red supporters come from "the superstitious north".

Possible theories, Somtow says, include the Cambodian "which states that pouring blood on the headquarters of the government is a Cambodian plot to ensure the return of Thaksin"; the Astrologers, propounded by the chairperson of the Thai astrology society, which holds that blood-spilling is "simple sympathetic magic in order to gain victory, and the sort of thing anyone would do under the circumstances"; and the Historical, which seems based on the legend that the 16th-century Thai king Naresuan once ordered his army to capture and behead the Khmer king Satha so he could "use his victim's blood to wash his feet in".

So will the gory ritual work? Nothing, says Somtow, is less certain. According to the TV experts, "using your enemies' blood to ensure victory might be a logical example of sympathetic magic, but spilling your own could have the opposite effect." The Cambodian theory, too, could well backfire, "because you need to be 'pure of heart' to perform that rite . . . Without such doctrinal protection the magic would reverse itself, and the intended consequences would occur to the curser, not the cursee." And in any case, everyone agreed that "the entire ceremony can easily be negated by sprinkling some holy water from the Emerald Buddha Temple over the blood".

Magic spells, voodoo rituals, blood-spilling and fish-throwing, Somtow concludes, are unlikely to solve Thailand's immediate problems. But hey, if what you're after is the dissolution of the lower house of parliament, "when you have the all the resources of witchcraft and the supernatural at your disposal, why stoop to such mundane devices as, for instance, lobbying one of the smaller parties to switch sides so as to shift the balance of power?"