Third World Quarterly 147 mobilisation enabled. In a pre-social media era, social movement literature noted that (traditional) mass media encourages the emergence of countermovements through its logic of presenting claims and counter-claims (Meyer and Staggenborg 1996, 1642). Social media, on the other hand, enables fast dissemination of hateful messages, and creates filter bubbles where opposing views and source criticism are averted. Mobilising for peace on social media thus requires new skills often not held by peace activists. Further research could usefully refine the theories of movement–countermovement dynamics by identifying and studying the interplay in different arenas, including in the quickly changing social media sphere. Including Myanmar and Sri Lanka in the same study has enabled us to uncover similarities in the patterns of mobilisation and counter-mobilisation. We have noted the similar timing and messages of the Buddhist nationalist movements in the two countries. At the same time, the conditions for social movement mobilisation and the role of Buddhism differ greatly. In Myanmar, Buddhist monks are placed outside of politics and are not allowed to vote, but have still played a pivotal role in both challenging and legitimising the military regime. At the same time, authoritarian rule restricted the development of a free civil society, and gave rise to courageous mobilisation for democracy. The hesitant democratisation has triggered conflicts, but also provided some limited space for a new peace movement to mobilise. Civil society in Sri Lanka has a longer history. There, controversies over the role of Buddhist monks in society have circled around their involvement in political parties. In their efforts to counter contemporary Buddhist radicalisation, peace activists and religious leaders hence draw on different traditions and experiences, while navigating counter-attacks and the lack of democratic freedom. Additional research is needed to more fully understand how these contextual differences condition mobilisation for peace. Literature on religious conflicts and peacebuilding has often taken its point of departure in the two faces of religion, highlighting how religious figures, resources and discourses can justify violence – or motivate peace work. This study of Myanmar and Sri Lanka sheds light on the contested interpretations of Buddhism and its role in society. While the Buddhist nationalist groups emphasise the need to protect Buddhism, peace activists use the legitimacy of religious leaders, Buddhist ideas of non-violence and ethics shared across religious divides to counter them. The ambivalent role of religion in peace and conflict hence finds an expression in and becomes a mobilising force for opposing movements concerned with shaping the future of religiously diverse, Buddhist-majority countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the three anonymous reviewers, as well as Maj-Lis Follér, Gustaaf Houtman, Carolina Ivarsson Holgersson and Bart Klem for constructive comments on earlier versions of the article. Special thanks also to Dhammika Herath for comments and collaboration. Funding Research funding from the Swedish Research Council (grant number 2014-05962) is gratefully acknowledged.