136 C. ORJUELA and tactics of mobilisation and political activism of one movement can be greatly influenced by the strategies, victories and mobilisation of an opposing movement. Analysing local peace endeavours in Myanmar and Sri Lanka as social movements that oppose radical Buddhist nationalist movements – rather than as activities carried out by nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or civil society – thus enables us to see inter-movement dynamics, and place the peace activities in a context of broader societal change. The central role of religion in contemporary societies implies that the competition between social movements often concerns how religion should be interpreted and practiced. Religious peacebuilding has to a large extent focused on interfaith dialogue and cooperation. However, intra-religious struggles are often equally – or even more – significant. Religions are fragmented and internally differentiated; they are polycentric and full of internal struggles over power and interpretation. This means that ‘[o]ften the first task of religious peacemakers is to challenge or otherwise neutralize their belligerent coreligionists’ (Appelby 2008, 126). Frequently, religious peacebuilding presumes ‘that violent motifs constitute inauthentic or perverted interpretations of religion. In other words, the task of religious peacebuilding amounts to a recovery of good religion’ (Omer 2012, 7). In response to movements which frame religion as threatened and in need of protection, even with violence, opposing movements may hence also use religious frames and resources. The peace and interfaith movements in Myanmar and Sri Lanka need to be understood in relation to the Buddhist nationalist movements they strive to counter, as well as in relation to the state (cf. Zald and Useem 1987). There is also a global context which is important for their formation and functioning. An increased interest among Western powers, particularly the United States, to support interfaith peacebuilding (see Hayward 2012) has made economic and human resources available and encouraged mobilisation. However, the influx of donor funding has also been criticised for contributing to the creation of ‘artificial’ civil societies and a ‘peacebuilding industry’ focused more on its own perpetuation than on peace, and being accountable to outsiders rather than to local populations (see Orjuela 2008; Matelski 2016; Bächtold 2015). Methods and data While the literature on the recent upsurge of Buddhist nationalist movements in Myanmar and Sri Lanka has grown, little is written about civil society actors countering them. I have hence used secondary sources mainly when discussing the Buddhist nationalist groups. For the peace movements, I make use of media reports, but mainly rely on interviews with religious leaders, peace activists and NGO representatives. Interviews were conducted in Sri Lanka in January 2016 and in Myanmar in December 2016 and January 2017. In both cases, field work was carried out shortly after decisive elections had brought to power leaders less inclined towards Buddhist majoritarianism and anti-Muslim propaganda, but when Buddhist nationalist organisations were still active and hate speech flourished. Interviewees – in total 41 – were selected among individuals and organisations that were as central as possible in the interfaith and peace community. They included religious figures as well as peace NGOs, Muslim rights groups and activists working with social media. In Myanmar, interviews were carried out in and around Mandalay, Meiktila, Pyin Oo Lwin and Yangon (interviews 21–41), while in Sri Lanka they were conducted in and around Colombo, Galle and Kandy (interviews 1–20).3 Although interviews were not carried out in some of the most violence-affected areas