Midweek Review

Monks, the Law and the Future of the Buddhist Monastic Order

Published

3 months ago

2026/05/6

A file photo of some Buddhist monks, nabbed at the BIA, with narcotics, being taken to court.

As almost the whole country knows by now, a group of 22 Buddhist monks were arrested on 25 April 2026, by the Police Narcotics Bureau at the international airport in Katunayake carrying approximately 112 kilograms of Kush, a high-grade, potent strain of cannabis and Hashish with a street value of over LKR 1,100 million. It is supposed to be the largest drug haul of this kind at the airport and has made global news too.

Locally, and particularly on social media, it has opened a very vocal debate with two main streaks. One has already judged the monks as guilty, purely based on information and stories in free circulation on the internet. The other claims that these are not even monks, but are imposters planted to bring disrepute to Buddhism while some articulations within this streak even go to the extent of claiming government culpability, without offering an iota of evidence. Almost none of these discusses in any serious manner what this means in terms of the law of the land and its applicability to Buddhist monks, and why this level of criminality has occurred from within the clergy in the first place. Such reflection, however, is the only sensible thing that should come out of this unfortunate incident which had considerably dangerous consequences for society if the narcotics went undetected.

The law in our country seems to apply differently or at least very slowly when it comes to Buddhist monks. This suggests that they occupy some kind of undefined but privileged status above citizenship and its constituent responsibilities. People may have noticed that Buddhist monks do not stand when the national anthem is being sung even though it is standard etiquette across the world including in our country to do so. But this exception in practice does not seem to apply to other religious leaders.

When as a schoolboy in the 1980s, I asked one of my teachers, a Buddhist monk, whom I still hold in high esteem, why this was the case, his answer was, this was the tradition since the time of the Buddha. My classmates and I pointed out to him that at the time of the Buddha, there were neither nations nor national anthems, and this question would not have even arisen. But there are stories from Buddhist history and literature that might be interpreted as monks being treated differently and elevated in status even above rulers due to their spiritual attainment. But today, we are not dealing with remnants of a distant history and belief, but the present in vastly transformed social and legal conditions.

Obviously, this is a tradition born out of wrongful and selective interpretation of respect and veneration, and not a formal legal exemption. Partly, that veneration comes from narratives in Buddhist literature, such as the incident involving Emperor Asoka and the seven-year-old novice monk, Venerable Nigrodha, who it is said to have sat on the emperor’s throne, when invited to be seated. Whatever the actual sources of this veneration are, what it does in contemporary times, is to set apart Buddhist monks symbolically from other citizens with the indication that the law of the land applies differently to them and that too, favourably. In practice, unfortunately, this becomes a cover within which errant individuals can hide from the long arm of the law as well as common sense and ethics that apply to all others.

The cultural and political logic behind this practice assumes that Buddhist monks are beyond and above the law, which is meant for the laity, and that such noble individuals will not do anything wrong. But even in the time of the Buddha itself, this was not a fact as Buddhist history explains well. It is precisely this cultural logic that led some commentators to use two interesting words to describe the 22 monks arrested at the airport and another who was arrested later who was to be the recipient of the drugs. One word is chiwaradhaarin,

literally meaning those wearing robes without implying their possible belonging to any local ecclesiastical order. In contemporary usage, it is also a somewhat insulting term. The other word is, bhikshu prathirupakayin, literally meaning people masquerading as monks. The whole point here was to delink these errant monks from monkhood and therefore from Buddhism itself because the alleged crime was too serious.

The Mahanayaka Theras of the Siyam, Amarapura, and Ramanna chapters issued a statement on 26 April 2026, just one day after the arrests, referring to the arrested as bhikshu prathirupakayin (people masquerading as monks) who were misusing the robe and noted these acts were against Buddhism and called for the suspects to be duly punished and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. On 28 April, the President met the Mahanayaka Theras and other senior monks to discuss the fallout and possible future action including closer supervision of monks within the order. Ideally however, neither this statement nor the meeting with the President was necessary if monks were treated as a matter of routine like normal citizens when they violate the law of the land. It is precisely based on this principle that the police arrested them in the first place. But there is no doubt they receive special treatment everywhere in the country, including in the airport.

It is this sense of privilege under the law that needs to end. When I say this, I am not talking of individual respect to monks people might have, based on their knowledge of the dhamma, including myself. That is a matter of individual preference. I also do not mean disciplinary supervision, investigation of institutional malpractices and disciplinary or vinaya breaches and punishments which can be carried out by the religious organisations themselves if they have a workable system. But if monks, like any other citizen, violate the law of the land whether it is drug trafficking, rape, child abuse, financial irregularities, instigating violence and so on, then, they cannot be offered special treatment or leniency. They must be held accountable and prosecuted, but fairly, like all of us deserve. No exceptions can be made.

The sheer noise of the local debate also has not posed yet another pertinent question that is important in this context. That is, how has it become possible for monks to engage in such obviously illegal acts with massively negative consequences for the society which they are supposed to serve selflessly? What has gone wrong, where and why?

Ven. Gurugoda Siriwimala made the following observations in a Facebook post in Sinhala on 27 April, which outlines the prevailing situation very rationally and clearly:

“The Bhikkhu Sasana (The Buddhist Monastic Order) in Sri Lanka is part of the country’s own decline. When a nation falls into decay, it is impossible for one specific segment within it to remain unaffected. The most tragic aspect of this is that in a country like Sri Lanka, where the cultural fabric is heavily built upon religion, the clergy—who ought to be the ultimate role models—have descended into such a state of degeneration.

The Monastic Order in Sri Lanka has become mere puppets of political parties and the media. For ordinary monks like us—who travel in public buses and subsist on the alms provided by ordinary people—it has become a matter of such shame that we feel like we must hide our faces. But these are not issues to monks who hardly walk in the streets, who constantly hold press conferences and utter foolhardy things from political stages.

Political parties in Sri Lanka have divided the clergy among themselves, maintaining a group of prominent monks who would act according to party agendas. We see even at this very moment how they are being manipulated like puppets. A group of hollow, senseless fools with no spiritual sensibility whatsoever are making a mockery of themselves in front of the whole country by holding press conferences morning and night. These monks lack education; they possess no understanding—either at a national or international level—of the subjects they speak about …”

Ven. Siriwimala’s articulation is the clearest explanation of what is happening in the Buddhist monastic order that I have read in recent times. What is even more important is that it has come as a self-reflective critique from within. The drug-carrying monks are not an unusual occurrence or an anomaly when it comes to drug trafficking in the country in general or reported malpractices involving some other monks on numerous other occasions. According to publicly available reports, some monks have repeatedly insulted minority religious practices and sentiments. One example of this is the current case in which indictments have been served against one of these monks for a case from 12 years ago. His discourses of violence are matters of public record as are the records of others. Sexual violence and child abuse involving some other monks have also come to the forefront on and off including the case of a monk who was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault by the Isleworth Crown Court in London in 202 and placed on the UK Sex Offenders Register for life even though he is running a school close to Colombo. There are many such cases circulating in public discourse, but not all of these have been prosecuted. Much has been silenced by inaction.

As Ven. Siriwimala has rightly pointed out, many monks have become problematic mouthpieces for political parties and political interests. Even the manner of their public articulation and behaviour as well as the nature of political involvement have become shameful, to put it mildly. But almost none have faced consequences within the ecclesiastical order of institutional Buddhism.

What this overall situation has done is to bring the Buddhist ecclesiastical order into needless disrepute. And much of this has happened due to the unfortunate silence of the Mahanayaka Theras and other senior prelates when they should have campaigned for reform within their monastic orders and paved the path towards prosecution in the same way they have done in the context of the recent drug interdiction. Seen in this sense, the present issue is nothing new. It is merely one of the more visible examples of a much deeper malaise.

Whenever I hear of these issues and the relative silence from within the monastic order, I am constantly reminded of the Buddha’s own words in Aṅguttara Nikāya (Numerical Discourses) and particularly in Anāgatabhaya Sutta (Discourse on Future Dangers). The ‘future dangers’ that would lead to the corruption of the Sangha and the disappearance of the Saddhamma (True Dhamma) the Buddha articulated include the following, all of which have to do with monks: 1. Lack of training and discipline among monks and the resultant consequences; 2) consequences of monks stopping paying attention to the profound teachings of the Dhamma; 3) monks focusing on excessive materialism and luxury and distancing themselves from practices such as meditation and seeking liberation; 4) the emergence of conflict and factionalism as a result of which monks becoming argumentative and using the Dhamma as a weapon to attack one another rather than as a means to liberation; 5) all this would finally lead to the corruption of the teachings of the Buddha and monks would end up teaching what is not the Dhamma but present it as the Dhamma and will teach what is not the Vinaya but present it as the Vinaya.

Is it not this that is happening today? Aren’t the kind of examples of malpractices I have outlined above indicative of this situation which the Buddha himself foresaw in his own lifetime? If the April 2026 drug bust is to serve a purpose for the future, it should happen at two levels: 1) the government and the laity should not treat monks as privileged when they engage in wrong-doing and violate the law of the land. The government should make it very clear formally that the law enforcement and judicial systems must fully prosecute violators of the law without any exceptions; 2) Leaders within the Buddhist monastic order including the Mahanayaka Theras and other senior prelates as well as their lay supporters should establish and empower an urgent system of internally addressing issues within their own orders and organisations, which should include the identification of wrong doers on the basis of specific ecclesiastical or legal violations and their expulsion from their monastic orders. There should not be any exceptions.

If this bare minimum can be achieved without delay and that too with honesty, then, we can imagine a more sanguine future where Buddhism can play the role it is supposed to. If it cannot be done, then, the future will be what the Buddha has already predicted.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Three high-profile alleged suicides shaping key investigations

Published

23 hours ago

2026/07/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

Former IGP Chandana Deepal Wickramaratne, 63, succumbed to gunshot injury he received at his residence at Parakrama Mawatha, in Thalahena, Malabe, on 17 July. Wickramaratne, the 35th IGP (25 November, 2020, to 23th November, 2025), was pronounced dead at the Mulleriyawa Hospital.

The incident triggered speculation regarding the circumstances leading to the ex-IGP’s death. Some declared that Wickramaratne shot himself with a weapon issued to his bodyguard. Others alleged that Wickramaratne had been deeply depressed over divorce proceedings, involving his son and daughter-in-law, and accusations directed at his son over domestic violence. They claimed that the situation may have had unexpected bearing on Wickramaratne.

There are also lingering concerns regarding the impact of the ongoing investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, on Wickramaratne’s demise, the third such incident after the last presidential elections held in September, 2024.

Assistant Director of the External Resources Department of the Ministry of Finance, Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksa, 50, was found dead in the garden of his Kuliyapitiya home on 30 April, 2026. At the time of Rajapaksa’s alleged suicide, blamed on injuries he supposedly inflicted on himself using a knife, while he was under suspension over the USD 2.5 mn heist from the Treasury. He was the official who lodged a complaint with the CID regarding the unprecedented theft.

Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SriLankan Airlines, Kapila Chandrasena, 61, was found dead at No. 38, Pedris Road, Kollupitiya, on 8 May, 2026. Authorities declared Chandrasena died by hanging. Chandrasena was the prime suspect in the SriLankan Airlines bribery case, exposed by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), in a joint investigation carried out with US and French authorities. At the time of his death, he was out on bail but faced re-arrest over alleged violations of bail conditions.

The Finance Ministry official and ex-IGP died as a result of ‘incidents’ at their respective homes, while Chandrasena allegedly took his own life at the posh residence of his brother-in-law Aravinda de Silva. Their deaths are mired in controversy for obvious reasons. One of the major issues at hand is whether their deaths impacted the ongoing politically sensitive cases.

The USD 2.5 mn theft sent shockwaves through the National People’s Power (NPP) government, struggling to cope up with a spate of other sensitive developments, such as the massive coal scam that led to the resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody, and the controversial release of 323 red flagged containers from the Colombo port, without any checks, in addition to two containers carrying narcotics.

The police faced the challenging task of conducting transparent investigations into the deaths of Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksa, Kapila Chandrasena and C.D. Wickramaratne.

Although the Finance Ministry official’s death was caused by cardiorespiratory failure due to heavy loss of blood, many questioned how he inflicted grievous cut wounds on his legs and on his left wrist. The judicial post mortem report that was made available within 24 hours after the alleged suicide raised concerns. The Opposition expressed suspicions. A section of the media, too, weren’t satisfied with the way the government handled the case. The truth is in spite of a post mortem examination conducted by a four-member expert panel, suspicions remain regarding the Finance Ministry official’s death.

It would be pertinent to mention that The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga was stabbed to death though police and all others concerned initially claimed firearms attack caused his death. The Attorney-at-Law was killed inside his car that he was driving on the Attidiiya Road, Ratmalana, on 8 January, 2009. Over 17 years after the still unresolved killing of the one-time The Island staffer, the vast majority of people still believe Wickrematunga was shot dead. Wickrematunga’s case is just among several high profile investigations hampered by deliberate falsification of relevant autopsy reports.

Sarah Jasmine factor

Among those who paid their last respects to Wickremaratne at a funeral parlour in Colombo was former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Former Minister Sagala Ratnayake accompanied the UNP leader.

One of the issues that received public and media attention, following Wickremaratne’s demise, was the controversial third DNA test conducted in spite of two previous DNA tests confirming that Pulastini Rajendran, alias Sarah Jasmine, was not among the dead caused by a series of explosions at Sainthamaruthu, in the East, a week after the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage.

She was married to Achchi Muhammadu Mohammadu Hasthun, the National Thowheeth Jaamath (NTJ) operative who carried out the suicide blast in St. Sebastian Church, Katuwapitiya.

The CID questioned Wickremaratne as he served as the IGP at the time of the third DNA test. Controversy surrounds the decision to call for a third DNA test and, in addition to Wickremaratne, the CID questioned former Deputy IGP of the CID Prasad Ranasinghe in the second week of December last year. Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wiejapala commented on the issue at hand in Parliament in early June, 2025.

There had been contradictory claims on Sarah, a Batticaloa Tamil convert to Islam, who lived with the extremist group. In spite of investigations, controversy still surrounds her fate, though both Sri Lanka and Indian intelligence services investigated the circumstances of her ‘disappearance.’

There had been claims that she was taken out of the country by Indian intelligence. Let me remind you what the DSJB lawmaker Mujibur Rahuman said in Parliament on 10 November, 2022, during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency. Declaring that Sarah had taken refuge in India, the outspoken parliamentarian alleged that the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government was struggling to prove she died in the Sainthamaruthu blasts, on the night of 26 April, 2019.

Rajarathnam Kavitha, mother of Sarah, is on record as having told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) that her daughter had been with Zharan Hashim’s wife, Fatima, from early February, 2019, to 26 April, 2019, the day remnants of the NTJ group triggered the Sainthamaruthu blasts.

Sarah’s mysterious status remains a key factor in the overall investigation, with retired Major General Suresh Sallay named a suspect in the high profile case. Sallay served as the Director of State Intelligence Service (SIS) from November, 2019, to October, 2024. The CID arrested the one-time head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI/ 2012 to 2016) in late February 2026, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, recently filed an intervening petition before the Court of Appeal in respect of the petition filed by Sallay challenging his arrest and detention under the PTA. Cardinal Ranjith sought permission to make submissions regarding Sallay’s petition while requesting the court to dismiss the latter’s petition.

The Church intervened after several prominent Buddhist monks, religious and civil society organisations filed intervenient petitions seeking leave to intervene in Sallay’s writ application, filed by the retired top intelligence officer, challenging the legality of his arrest and detention.

They highlighted the following points:

• The Supreme Court and the PCoI identified Zahran Hashim and the ISIS-inspired NTJ as the perpetrators of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage while attributing responsibility to State officials for failing to act on prior intelligence.

• None of the official investigations or judicial findings implicated Sallay in planning or facilitating the Easter Sunday attacks.

• The PCoI recorded that Major General Sallay had warned authorities about the rise of Islamist extremism before the attacks.

• The intervening petitions expressed concerns that unsubstantiated allegations have created a public narrative suggesting a wider conspiracy involving Sinhala Buddhist military and intelligence officers, contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court and the PCoI.

• The petitions argued that such unsupported narratives risk undermining public confidence, damaging communal harmony, and unfairly tarnishing the reputation of individuals and institutions without credible evidentiary foundation.

Ex-IGP’s statement

In his statement to the CID, Wickremaratne explained that he directed the senior police officer, in charge of Ampara, to secure the military and STF backing for the Sainthamaruthu operation that led to the death of some inner remnants of Zahran’s group. The Ampara-based officer, identified as Samantha Wijesekera, had got in touch with the Department’s number two officer, as IGP Jayasundera couldn’t be contacted over the phone. That statement dealt with the measures taken by them to ascertain Sarah’s status and the final assertion on the basis of the Government Analyst’s findings (third DNA test) that she was among those who perished in the Sainthamaruthu suicide blast.

The then Police Spokesman DIG, Nihal Thalduwa, has been directed by Wickremaratne to issue a press release confirming Sarah’s death. In his statement to the CID, Wickremaratne explained the deep interest shown by the head of the Indian Intelligence, based in Colombo, regarding Sarah’s status, underscoring their requirement to know whether she was dead or alive. The Indian official has repeatedly emphasised the pivotal importance of establishing Sarah’s status and, according to Wickremaratne, never tried to hide their interest in knowing her fate.

Did India accept the findings of the third DNA test? The possibility of Sarah being an Indian informant cannot be ruled out as India was able to alert Sri Lanka of the impending attacks. SJB Colombo District MP Rahuman has often commented on this possibility. Or, perhaps, India knew of Sarah’s status but raised the issue with Wickremaratne in a bid to indicate they, too, weren’t aware. Perhaps, we’ll never know the truth.

Sri Lanka received three specific warnings on 4, 20 and 21 April regarding impending dastardly NTJ operation. The last warning was received several hours before the NTJ struck hotels and Churches in Colombo, Katana and Batticaloa. The blasts killed 270 persons and wounded about 500.

At the time of the NTJ operation, the DMI was headed by Brigadier Chula Kodituwakku, who appeared alongside President Maithripala Sirisena when he met the media at the Janadhipathi Mandiraya, several days after the attacks. Now retired, Kodituwakku, in his testimony in courts, declared that the SIS refrained from sharing foreign intelligence with the DMI. In fact, Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, who also addressed the media, explained the difficulties experienced by the Army due to refusal on the part of the SIS to cooperate with the DMI.

According to an appeal filed against an order of the High Court-at-Bar, in terms of the Section 451 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, as amended, read with Article 128 of the Constitution, in the Supreme Court, India issued the following warning: “As per an input, Sri Lanka based Zahran Hashim of National Thowheeth Jamath and his associates are planning to carry out suicide terror attack in Sri Lanka shortly. They are planning to target some important churches. It is further learnt that they have conducted reconnaissance of the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka and it is one of the targets for the planned attack.”

No holds barred investigation is required to establish the truth. The Opposition has repeatedly questioned the handing over of the investigation to retired Shani Abeysekera, who had been the Director, CID, at the time of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, and accommodating Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne as the Secretary Public Security Ministry. They had been accused of failing to act on specific intelligence received from the SIS.

Both Abeysekera and Seneviratne, as members of the Retired Police Collective, backed the NPP campaigns in the run-up to the presidential and parliamentary polls, in 2024. Abeysekera, who retired on 30 June, 2021, was recalled and officially reappointed as the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), on a contract basis, by the NPP.

Political factors

There had never been a case as politicised as the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. Immediately after the massive security lapse, and negligence on the part of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, facilitated the NTJ operation, the Church threw its weight behind Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s 2019 presidential bid.

The Church backing made a significant difference on the ground. That prompted SJB’s Harin Fernando to directly accuse Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith of ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory at the expense of Sajith Premadasa. Since the SJB’s highly publicised June, 2020, accusations, there had been contradictory statements regarding the Easter Sunday attacks.

In February, 2021, on behalf of the JVP/NPP, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa (current Health and Media Minister) declared that India masterminded the Easter Sunday attacks.

This accusation was made just a few weeks after the PCoI handed over its report to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who, for some strange reason, appointed a six-member committee, consisting of SLPP lawmakers, headed by his elder brother Chamal, than requesting the Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, to act on the recommendations.

In May, 2021, Dappula, after having failed to convince President Rajapaksa to extend his term by one year, alleged that the Easter Sunday attack was a grand conspiracy. In spite of growing doubts regarding the delay in implementing the PCoI recommendations, the Church tried to convince the President to act on them. In July 2021, the Church wrote to President Rajapaksa. Against the backdrop of the SLPP’s continuing indifference, by the end of that year, the Church reached a consensus with those opposed to the government.

The Church openly backed the protest campaign, against President Rajapaksa, and remained committed to the operation until the very end.

Two sons of wealthy spice merchant and JVP National List MP, at the 2015 general election Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s sons Ilham Ahamed and Imsath Ibrahim, carrying out suicide attacks, on behalf of the NTJ, made no difference. Ibrahim was later released on bail, in May, 2022, during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. Ilham Ahamed’s heavily pregnant wife detonated an explosive vest, inside their Dematagoda mansion, when the police surrounded the place, soon after the attacks. Did the spice trader know about the despicable NTJ strategy? Zaharan Hashim’s wife Abdul Cader Fathima, who survived the Sainthamaruthu blast too was granted bail in March, 2023, during Wickremesinghe’s presidency.

The Church, at one point, demanded that the Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. Aruna Jayasekera be removed pending conclusion of the investigations. The Church claimed that as Jayasekera served as the Eastern Commander at the time of the Sainthamaruthu blasts, he should give up the Defence portfolio for the time being. The government ignored that demand.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

‘The Play’s the Thing’, in Shakespeare

Published

23 hours ago

2026/07/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

Shakespeare. Image courtesy NYT

Exposing Complexities of the Human Condition in Man’s Quest for Power

Shakespeare believed that drama could illuminate truths about human nature more effectively than argument or philosophy. The famous line, “The play’s the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king,” expresses not merely Hamlet’s strategy but Shakespeare’s own artistic philosophy – that theatre exposes hidden moral realities and awakens the human conscience.

Shakespeare and the Human Condition

Shakespeare displayed an extraordinary understanding of the human mind, long before psychology emerged as a formal discipline. He possessed an unparalleled gift for revealing human experience through vividly drawn characters and situations they create. He drew from Renaissance historical material as they provided a rich source of dramatic material, and chose themes that reflected musings of the Elizabethan era he lived in, taking his audiences with him.

Complexities of the human condition, regardless of culture, nationality or historical period have endured. As his fellow playwright, Ben Jonson famously proclaimed over four hundred years ago: “He [Shakespeare] is not of an age, but for all time”. He continues to alert our senses and raise our conscience about humanity with all its strengths and weaknesses by way of dramatic expression. Shakespeare is our contemporary.

I have endeavoured to examine the great playwright’s work in relation to the treatment of psychological and moral complexities surrounding humanity’s pursuit for power, in order to demonstrate how these works continue to speak with remarkable urgency to our own time. The enduring relevance of this idea becomes apparent in the following three Shakespeare’s plays: Henry V, Macbeth and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, I have chosen to illustrate my argument.

Henry V: Leadership and the Cost of Glory

It is a reflection on Shakespeare’s stature that he portrays triumphalism of leadership and the anguish of those who pay with their lives in war, in equal measure. In his Historical play, Henry V. King Henry of England makes a claim to the French throne, egged on by church leaders who wish to distract him from domestic issues. Feeling mocked by the French response, Henry declares war. He invades France displaying strong leadership despite hardship and heavy loss of life. On the eve of the pivotal battle of Agincourt, on St. Crispin’s day, he delivers an inspiring speech to his outnumbered troops. The long and poetic speech, which came to be known as the St. Crispin’s day speech – one of the best known in all Shakespeare – strengthened his powerful status in the play.

“…This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember’d.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition …”

Against the odds, the English defeat the French at Agincourt. The play ends with a note of political and personal triumph, as Henry woos and marries Princess Catherine of France, securing peace between the two nations, at an immense cost to human life.

Macbeth: Ambition and Moral Corruption

In the reign of King Duncan of Scotland, General Macbeth who commands respect as a valiant soldier, returning home with his colleague Banquo following a victorious military expedition, is confronted by three witches who predict cryptically that he is destined to become King of Scotland. Macbeth is urged on by his wife, who, in an ‘’unquenchable desire to become queen’’, attempts to persuade her husband with ‘a humane disposition’ to assassinate the king while he is asleep as a royal guest in their home, and frame the two intoxicated royal aides. Malcolm and Donalbain, King Duncan’s two sons who accompanied him, fled to England.

Macbeth, the play, portrays the tale of a man in pursuit of power destroying anyone on his way, bringing about a collapse in moral order, providing insights into everything inhumane about humankind. The character of Macbeth is first acknowledged as a ‘hero’; his innate desire for power is activated by the prophecy of the witches. But bound by his loyalty to his king, his ‘conscience’ would not allow him the thought of regicide: “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me/ without my stir”. Weighed down by fear and guilt, he drags his feet, but the valiant soldier succumbs to the “valour of his wife’s tongue”: “Your hand, your tongue look like th’ innocent flower/ But be the serpent under’t”. She herself did not have the courage to murder her royal guest with her own hand, but was persuasive: morality yields to the pressure of evil desire. Macbeth completes the task, and they feign their lament at the king’s death which they themselves brought about.

Power did not bring in peace, but inner turmoil: “In the affliction of these terrible dreams/ That shake us nightly; better be with the dead/ Whom we, to gain our peace, have sent to peace/ Than on the torture of the mind to lie/ In restless ecstasy”. Fear, guilt and repentance grip the usurper but pride would not allow their expression.

Fear and insecurity bred paranoia in Macbeth. The usurpers became preoccupied with protecting the throne and handing over sovereignty to their progeny which they were yet to produce. With the advice of the witches he arranges the murder of all they suspect would take over rule after him. First they get Banquo, his colleague, ambushed and killed; Fleance, who accompanied his father, escapes. He then learns that Macduff, the feudal lord of Fife, has fled to England to join Malcolm, the son of the slain King Duncan, and, together they are mobilising an army to attack Scotland with the intent of displacing him from the throne. An outraged Macbeth orders the slaughter of Macduff’s wife and children who remained in Scotland, and anyone related to the defector.

Malcolm and Macduff invade Scotland with a powerful army. Lady Macbeth, afflicted with intense guilt, took her own life. Macbeth was slain after a fierce battle and his severed head was presented to the newly crowned king, Malcolm, who proclaimed …”I should/ Pour the sweet milk of concord, into hell? Uproar the universal peace, confound/ All unity on earth”.

In Macbeth, Shakespeare places on stage a disturbing portrayal of humanity with all its base characteristics that compels us to see ourselves in.

Julius Caesar: Political Power, Hypocrisy and Betrayal

The theme of humans competing with each other for power, exercised inappropriately, provides a fertile ground for Shakespeare to explore the complexities of the human condition. Drawing from history, he gives dramatic expression to such a scenario in his popular play, ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, displaying the patterns of behaviour of the main characters, the focus for interpretation. The propensity to manipulate the truth in political machinations takes centre stage in the play. “Men may examine things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act 1]

Julius Caesar, the Roman military expansionist, emerged as a formidable leader of the territories, following his successful campaigns in Europe. The play begins with Caesar’s triumphant return to Rome after one of his military expeditions, accompanied by generals and political figures – Cassius, Brutus and Antony. They were welcomed by scores of cheering Romans for bringing ‘‘many captives home… whose ransoms, did the general coffers fill’’. The contention for leadership of the territories, in its entirety, between Caesar and Pompey resulted in a bitter civil war with Caesar emerging victorious.

Cassius and Brutus who too had leadership ambitions fought with Pompey against Caesar. Caesar in his magnanimity, while being merciful towards his defeated opponents, remained cautious about Cassius. There was growing concern amongst the common folk [plebeians] regarding their newly emerged leader “soar[ing] above the view of men”, and using his supreme power to establish a new monarchy. They were averse to the extravagant lifestyle and corrupt practices of their former monarchical rulers and feared that Caesar may override their desire to form a republican form of governance with greater representation by commoners.

Cassius, envious of Caesar’s might, instigates a plot to remove him from power. He hatches a plot to draw Brutus into the conspiracy to lend respectability to the project as Brutus is held in high regard by the populace. Brutus is faced with having to balance his personal friendship with Caesar against the “general good of the Republic”. He finally overcomes his ambivalence and joins the conspirators in a plot to assassinate Caesar. “Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy”…. “Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully/Let’s carve him as a dish for the Gods”. [Brutus: Act 2. Scene1]. Caesar is stabbed to death by the conspirators, one after the other, on the ‘ides of March’ – the first full moon of the New Year for festivities and sacrifice. Turning to his friend Brutus, Caesar uttered his last words: “et tu Brute?” [Even you Brutus?”].

In a funeral oration that followed, Brutus pacified an agitated crowd by stating that despite his love for Caesar, he loved Rome more, and that Caesar posed a danger to the liberty of the nation. The masses perceived his act of murdering Caesar as a deed of heroism! But, Mark Antony, a loyalist of Caesar, after skilfully negotiating with Brutus, delivers a stirring oration with the starting captivating lines, which lives on: “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” [Act 3, Scene 2]. In his speech replete with irony, while referring to Brutus as “an honourable man”, refuted the claim by Brutus that Caesar acted in ambition and self-interest. An enraged crowd drove away Cassius and Brutus.

The two exiled assassins, Cassius and Brutus, raise an army to combat a newly formed alliance of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius [adopted son of Caesar]. Undeterred by the suicide of his wife, in his absence, Brutus marched on to combat the enemy at Philippi. “There is a tide in the affairs of men/ Which take at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted on the voyage of their life,/ Is bound in shallows, and I miseries……[Act 4, Scene 2].

Following the poor performance at the Battle of Philippi, and facing defeat, Cassius gets one of his men to kill him with his own sword. Brutus learning about the death of Cassius, commits suicide by running through a sword held by a colleague. The power sharing alliance between Octavius, Antony and Lepidus ended following a struggle for supremacy.

Shakespeare and the Modern World

Shakespeare presents man’s quest for power as a lens through which the complexities of the human condition are revealed. Portraying such a pursuit as a powerful but destructive force, he reveals the tension between honour and ambition, rhetoric and reality, leadership and moral conflict and glory and human suffering – characteristics that are universal and timeless.

Shakespeare, like other great literary artists, does not lecture to us, nor does he offer solutions, but helps us broaden our sense in recognising the humanity we share with the good and the bad, and our desires that lead us into animosity.

We live in a volatile and unpredictable world marked by geopolitical tensions, economic competition, social discontent and armed conflict resulting in global instability. Contemporary societies are currently experiencing a sense of uncertainty, desperate to find answers to establishing world order and peace.

Alongside technological advancement, humankind has developed increasingly lethal weapons with which to wage war to gain power over one another. Warfare has transformed the battlefield from land to the skies, most recently through airborne long-range missiles targeted with the use of AI; and across the oceans both on the surface and beneath it through submarines, transforming the nature of combat at immense cost to human life and property. The loss of innocent civilians, including children, caught in these conflicts has given rise to the troubling yet widely invoked phrase ‘collateral damage’, a term that seeks to justify what remains profoundly deplorable. Powerful nations frequently evade meaningful accountability, despite widespread international condemnation. And, spirituality appears to have done little to awaken human conscience and humans continue to wage conflict over religious ideology.

Although art and literature do not intend to maintain order in the way the military, the laws and institutions do, their influence is subtle yet foundational in shaping how individuals and societies, and especially their leaders envisage justice, empathy and coexistence, and in lifting us out of the moral darkness we are in. Art, including dramatic art, has a transformative influence on humanity.

Conclusion

Human beings possess an enduring duality: they are capable of reason and irrationality, compassion and cruelty, cooperation and conflict, creation and destruction. These fundamental characteristics have remained remarkably constant across history, even as cultures and technologies have changed. Great literature – particularly Shakespeare’s plays – explores this universal human condition, revealing how love, ambition, fear, grief, honour, jealousy, and the desire for power continue to shape individual actions and the course of history.

by DR. Siri Galhenage, Psychiatrist [Retd.]
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]