Opinion

Of religion, religions and harmony

Published

3 years ago

2023/06/12

One should think it quite odd to hear a term like “religious violence” given that religion is said to be all about promoting love and peace. what on earth is religious violence? Isn’t it pathetic or even preposterous that we often hear of religion-based violence, when religion is popularly known, in all cultures, to be the most humanising agent in the world? And, how about terms like religious intolerance, religious strife, religious persecution, religion-based genocide, etc.? These terms which combine the adjective ‘religious’ with all the wrong words like persecution and genocide, appear to be replete with irony. Of course, one would understand, for example, terms like tribal intolerance, tribal violence, tribal genocide, etc. because ‘tribal’ is disparagingly used to mean crude, unrefined or violent. Consider a term like ‘tribal instincts’, which conjures images of aggression and violence. How about the term ‘religious instincts’? Can you ever associate them with violence? Certainly not. Then how are we so accustomed to consider the adjective ‘religious’ being used in association with intolerance, strife and persecution in the same way we do ‘tribal’? curious to say the least!

What has trained us to consider as normal and live with this patent incongruity- that any term signifying cruelty being so complacently linked with the word ‘religious’ as in, for example, ‘religious persecution’ is that we have, pathetically, a history which has been bloodied by religion-based atrocities. How can religion give rise to animosity, cruelty or bloodshed? If religions have made people broadminded, intelligent and sensitive, how can we live in a world where we take something like ‘religious intolerance’ as quite normal? How can we not feel perplexed by such terms? Surely, each religion has given us a divisive and irreconcilable brand or label, which is pathetic.

Of course, every religion is supposed to promote goodwill and fellowship; but how about “religions”? When we move from the singular to the plural; that is, from “religion” to “religions”, the relevant connotations begin to take a U-turn from love, compassion and altruism to intolerance, otherness and antagonism! If we think of our living experience with religion, it has never existed in the singular; ours has always been a world of religions, which have alienated us rather than unite. That’s the unpalatable truth. It would be a futile journey if one were to set out to find a society where religions have functioned as a unifying factor instead of an alienating factor. Can there possibly be an ingrained element in all organised religions – an element, which makes us feel insecure and threatened by the presence of other faiths?

As if ‘religious strife’ were not ironic enough, today we are also talking about ‘peaceful coexistence’ in multireligious societies, as if religious groups are naturally hostile, and badly in need of discipline and intelligence that have to be brought from outside of religion. Isn’t this a sorry state of affairs? How ridiculous it would be, if we were compelled to consider communities of different religions- those who are supposed to be refined by their respective religions, in the same way we do those tribal groups that destroyed each other in those dark ages?

Hence, isn’t it quite important to tease out the component in religion which makes people think in terms of “us” and “them”? Time and time again, human history has given evidence to the fact that “The more, the merrier” doesn’t ring true in matters of religions. Conversely, the world has shown that when it comes to religion, what applies is, “The more, the scarier”. Woeful, isn’t it? Religions have pathetically divided societies into camps where sparks of enmity lay dormant beneath deceptive calmness – only to emerge at the drop of a word. And, we jubilantly call that brittle state “religious harmony” as if it is an uncommonly jolly state of affairs, giving the impression to a cosmic guest on our planet that human religions are naturally seditious and hence, for them- the earth dwellers, a short spell of the so-called religious harmony is something worth partying.

The word religion works like a mantra or magic on most of us. It casts a spell on us and makes us think and behave quite differently from our normal conduct. It is a realm of experience in which we are made to feel self-righteous in how we think and act, and, interpret the world. It’s the only discipline in which death is not considered as final but as a door to an ‘afterlife’. If anyone ever referred to afterlife seriously in any of the hundreds of ordinary human interactive situations or disciplines i.e., interviews, academic/business discussions, law, medicine, psychology, business, economics, engineering, education, etc., he would do so only at the risk of inviting scornful laughter. For example, no court of law would consider mitigating a punishment in consideration of the punishment a ‘sinner’ is deemed to suffer in afterlife, either in hell or in any other so-called life forms. Let alone considering the possibility of retributive justice in afterlife, even a mere suggestion of such a prospect would be treated as a sign of unbelievable naivety. Yet, the very same people, if gathered at their respective holy place- temple, church or mosque, will believe afterlife as more concrete than the lived life. But this is quite normal and sane, you know!

Let’s look for some more examples to understand how a multitude of things being considered absurd in real life are treated as holy truths in the area of religion. The followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions consider heaven and hell as real places. As we know, even Buddhists believe in heaven and hell although they talk about being reborn on this planet in any of the numerous animal forms, not excluding other realms like the so-called pretha loka. However, strangely, none of these believers hope to discover where the heaven or hell is located; no globetrotter has ever evinced any interest in paying a visit to either heaven or hell to see those places and their inhabitants. Nobody who is not out of his mind would hope to find them using a telescope or by digging the earth, though heaven and hell are sure to be somewhere in the sky and in the dark depths of the earth, as we have been made to believe, respectively, from infancy.

Our ancestors literally believed in the existence of these two terrains, heaven and hell, when religion was an indivisible part of their day-to-day life, just as science and scientific thinking are inseparable from modern life. They had never doubted the existence of either heaven or hell although they couldn’t see them. However, with science shedding more and more light on areas of knowledge over which religion had used to wield absolute authority, people have begun to be torn between new knowledge, questioning those religious claims, on one hand, and their long-preserved faith in unverified ‘realities’, on the other hand.

Today, as Sri Lankans, we have become much more sophisticated than we used to be with regard to, not only religion, but also ordinary issues like, for example, politics. People’s maturity was tested recently when in two instances, Buddhism was supposedly slighted by two persons. People are practicing tolerance thanks to secular discourse. Therefore, the relative calm with which the general public have begun to treat religion, i.e., as something increasingly being exploited as a divisive tool by unscrupulous politicians and their sycophants for political gain, we can be optimistic about ushering in a society of enduring peace, resulting from a more objective understanding of this phenomenon called religion.

More importantly, people in general, have realised that their lives have become topsy-turvy because of wily politics and that they have to engage in real life issues instead of the “other worlds”, which politicians are most keen to transport us to, with the promise of unparalleled luxury.

The bottom-line is, no human institution, principle, ideology or concept by itself – be it race, religion, nation, democracy, etc., however much idolized or sanctified it may be, is above human beings and their collective wellbeing. All else are means to it, not ends.

Susantha Hewa

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:harmony punishment religion

Up Next

A fungal disease threatens rubber cultivations in high rainfall areas

Don't Miss

JUSTICE FOR ALL

Click to comment

Opinion

Ministerial resignation and new political culture

Published

2 hours ago

2026/04/21

Thilina Walpola

Kumara Jayakody

The resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody comes after several weeks of controversy over his ministerial role. The controversy sharpened when the minister was indicted by the Commission on Bribery and Corruption for a transaction he was involved in ten years ago as a government official in the Fertiliser Corporation. The other issue was the government’s purchase of substandard coal from a new supplier. Minister Jayakody’s resignation followed the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate coal and petroleum purchases. The minister who resigned, along with the Secretary to the Ministry of Energy, Udayanga Hemapala, stated that they did not wish to compromise the integrity of the investigation to be undertaken by the Commission of Inquiry.

The government’s initial resistance to holding the minister accountable for the costly purchase was based on the argument that the official procedure had been followed in ordering the coal. However, the fact that the procedure permitted a disadvantageous purchase which has come to light on this occasion suggests a weakness in the process. The government’s appointment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to examine purchases as far back as 2009 follows from this observation. In this time 450 purchases are reported to have been made, and if several of them were as disadvantageous as this one, the cost to the country can be imagined. The need to investigate transactions since 2009 also arises from the possibility that loopholes in official government procedures in the past would have permitted private enrichment at a high cost to the country.

Concerns have been expressed in the past that the purchase of coal and petroleum, often on an emergency basis, enabled the use of emergency procurement processes which do not require going through the full tender procedures. The government has pledged to eradicate corruption as its priority. As a result, the general population would expect it to do everything within its power to correct those systems that permitted such corruption. Accountability is not only forward looking to ensure non-corrupt practices in the present, it is also backward looking to ensure that corrupt practices of the past are discontinued. This would be a matter of concern to those who headed government ministries and departments in previous governments. Those who have misapplied the systems can be expected to do their utmost to resist any investigation into the past.

Politically Astute

One of the main reasons for the government’s continuing popularity among the general population, as reflected in February 2026 public opinion poll by Verité Research, has been its willingness to address the problem of corruption. Public opinion studies have consistently shown that corruption remains one of the top concerns of citizens in Sri Lanka. The arrests and indictments of members of former governments have been viewed with general satisfaction as paving the way to a less corrupt society. At the same time, the resignations of Minister Kumara Jayakody and Secretary Udayanga Hemapala are an indication that not even government members will be spared if they are found to have crossed red lines. This is an important signal, as public confidence depends not only on holding political opponents to account but also on demonstrating fairness and consistency within one’s own ranks.

There appears to be a strategy on the part of the opposition to target government leaders and allege corruption so that ministers will be forced to step down. Organised protests against other ministers, and demonstrations outside their homes, are on the rise. The government appears not to want to give in to this opposition strategy and therefore delayed the resignation of Minister Jayakody until it had itself established the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry. It enabled the minister to step down without it seeming that the government was yielding to opposition pressure. In political terms, this was a calibrated response that sought to balance the need for accountability with the need to maintain authority and coherence in governance.

The demand by opposition parties to focus attention on the coal problem could also be seen as an attempt to shift the national debate from the corruption of the past to controversies in the present. The opposition’s endeavour would be to take the heat off themselves in regard to the corruption of the past and turn it onto the government by making it the focus of inquiries into corruption. The decision to set up a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry accompanied by the resignation of the minister and the ministry secretary was a politically astute way of demonstrating that the government will have no tolerance for corruption. It will also help to remind the general public about the rampant corruption of past governments which prevents the opposition’s corruption accusations against the government from gaining traction amongst the people.

New Practice

The resignation of a government minister who faces allegations but has not been convicted is still a relatively new practice in Sri Lanka. The general practice in Sri Lanka up to the present time has been for those in government service, if found to be at fault, to be transferred rather than removed from office. This is commonly seen in the case of police officers who, if found to have used excessive force or engaged in abuse, are transferred to another station rather than subjected to more serious disciplinary action. A similar pattern was seen in the case of former minister Keheliya Rambukwella, who faced allegations of corruption in the health field but was reassigned to a different portfolio rather than removed from government.

Against this background, the present resignation assumes greater importance. It signals a willingness to break with past practices and to establish a higher standard of conduct in public office. However, a single instance does not in itself create a lasting change. What is required is the consistent application of the same principle across all cases, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. This is where the government has an opportunity to strengthen its credibility. By ensuring that the same standards of accountability are applied to its own members as to those of previous governments, it can demonstrate that its commitment to good governance is not selective.

The establishment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry, the willingness to accept ministerial resignation, and the recognition of systemic weaknesses in procurement are all steps in the right direction. The challenge now is to ensure that these steps are followed through with determination and consistency. If the investigations are conducted impartially and lead to meaningful reforms, the present controversy could mark a turning point. The resignation of the minister should not be seen as an isolated event but as the beginning of a new practice. If it becomes part of a broader pattern of accountability, it can contribute to a new political culture and to restoring public trust in government.

by Jehan Perera

Opinion

Shutting roof top solar panels – a crime

Published

1 day ago

2026/04/20

Thilina Walpola

The Island newspaper’s lead news item on the 12th of April 2026 was on the CEB request to shut down rooftop solar power during the low demand periods. Their argument is that rooftop solar panels produce about 300 MW power during the day and there is no procedure to balance the grid with such a load.

We as well as a large academic and industrial consortium members have been trying to promote solar energy as a viable and sustainable power source since the early 1990’s. We formed the Solar Energy Society and made representations to Government politicians about the need to have solar power generation. This continuous promotional work contributed to the rapid increase in PV solar companies from three in the early 1990’s to over 650 active PV solar companies established today in the country. These companies have created tens of thousands of high-quality jobs, as well as moving in the right direction for sustainable development.

However, all these efforts appear to have been in vain since the CEB policy makers have continuously rejected solar energy as a viable alternative. Their power generation plans at that time did not include solar energy at all but only relied on imported coal power plants and diesel power generation. Even at the meetings where CEB senior staff were present, we emphasised the importance of installation of battery storage facilities and grid balancing for which they have done nothing at all over the past three decades. Now they have grudgingly accepted the need to include solar energy, which was an election promise of the present government. The government policy is that Sri Lanka should go for renewables to satisfy 70% of its energy needs by 2030 and soon move towards the green hydrogen technology by using solar and wind energy.

The question is why the diesel generators and hydropower stations cannot be shut off one by one to accommodate the solar power generated during the daytime. Unlike a coal-fired plant, diesel generators and hydro power plants can be shut off in a relatively shorter period of time. Norochchalai Lakvijaya power plant produces around 900 MW of power while the total country requirement is 2500 MW on a daily basis. The remainder is provided by diesel generators, hydro and other renewable energy sources.

The need for work to achieve this goal of grid balancing should be the primary responsibility of the CEB. Modern grid balancing systems are in operation in countries such as Germany where around 56% of its energy come from renewable sources. They also plan to increase this to reach 80% of the energy required through renewables by 2030. Our CEB is hell bent on diesel power plants. Who benefits from such emergency power purchases is anybody’s guess?

The Government and the CEB should realise that all roof top solar plants are privately financed through personal funds or bank loans with no financial burden on the Government. It is a crime to request them not to operate these solar panels and get the necessary credits for the power transmitted to the national grid. It appears that the results of CEB’s lack of grid balancing experience and unwillingness to learn over three decades have now passed to the privately-funded rooftop solar panel owners. It is unfortunate that the Government is not considering the contributions of ordinary individuals who provide clean power to the national grid at no cost to the Government. Over 150,000 rooftop solar panels owners are severely affected by these ruthless decisions by the CEB, and this will lead to the un-popularity of this new government in the end.

by Professors Oliver Ileperuma and I M Dharmadasa

Opinion

Nilanthi Jayasinghe – An Appreciation

Published

2 days ago

2026/04/19

Thilina Walpola

It was with shock that I realized that the article in the Sunday Island of April 5 about the winsome graduate gazing serenely at her surroundings was, in fact, an obituary about Nilanthi Jayasinghe, a former colleague who I had held in high esteem. I had lost touch with Nilanthi since my retirement and this news that she had passed away, saddened me deeply

I knew and had worked with Nilanthi – Mrs Jayasinghe as we used to call her – at the Open University of Sri Lanka in the 1990s. As Director, Operations, she was a figure that we as heads of academic departments, relied on; a central bastion of the complex structure that underpinned academic activities at Sri Lanka’s major distance education provider. Few people realize what it takes to provide distance education in an environment not geared to this form of teaching/learning – the volume of Information that has to be created, printed and delivered; the variety of timetables that have to be scheduled; the massive amount of continuous assessment assignments and tests that have to be prepared and sent out; the organization of a multitude of face-to face teaching sessions; the complex scheduling of examinations and tests – all this needed to be attended to for a student population of more than 20,000 and for 23 centres of study dotted across Sri Lanka.

It was an unenviable task but Nilanthi Jayasinghe with her flair for organization, handled it all with aplomb and a deep sense of commitment. If there were delays and inconclusive action on our part, she never reprimanded but would work with us to sort things out. Her work as Director, Operations brought her into contact with staff across the spectrum-from the Vice-Chancellor to the apprentice in the Open University’s Printing Press. Nilanthi treated everyone with dignity and as a result, was respected by all at the university. She was sensitive, kind-hearted, a good friend who would readily share problems and help to solve them. The year NIlanthi retired, I was out of the island. When I came back to the Open University, I felt bereft without the steadfast support of her stalwart presence .

The article in the ‘Sunday Island’ describes her life after retirement, looking after family members and enjoying the presence of a granddaughter.

After a lifetime of commitment to others, Nilanthi Jayasinghe truly deserved this happiness.

May she be blessed with peace.

Ryhana Raheem

Professor Emeritus
Open University of Sri Lanka.