Connect with us

Opinion

Buddhist meditation for the tech-savvy generation

Published

on

By Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

Meditation is a two-billion-dollar industry in the USA; it includes retreats, corporate training classes, apps, and many variations in between. It is estimated that 14% of adults have participated in meditation at least once in their lifetime. A survey found that 22% of the participants meditate to connect with their “true self” and 10% to connect with something larger than themselves, i.e., spiritual reasons. It is fair to assume that most of the Sri Lankan Buddhists would belong to this category. Another 16% meditate for health and enjoyment; the other reasons are improving energy, aiding memory or concentration, anxiety, stress, addiction, and depression (Science Reports 2016). The corporations do it to increase the productivity of their employees, i.e., to make more money.

While some participants have reported positive outcomes, others claim disappointments, misunderstandings, and undesired outcomes. Bhikkhu Sujato explained all this when he wrote: “While the intensive retreat has given many people, including myself, a crucial kick-start in their Dhamma practice, it is not without its drawbacks. It is normal that meditators will get a high on the retreat and then fall back to earth. The extreme exertion invites over-estimation, and such retreats are full of people who convince themselves they have attained jhāna or awakening. Even worse, intensive practice with inadequate preparation and guidance can trigger psychosis, which is extremely dangerous. Many meditation retreats are run without the grounding in psychological understanding to recognize or handle these breakdowns, and meditators may be told simply to continue, or even that their psychosis is a sign of insight” (Bhikkhu Sujato, Sutta Central 2013).

My meditating colleagues who know my Theravada background often ask about my opinion on the ‘Mindfulness” sessions we were offered. What miracle is expected to happen when you focus on your breath or some other object while sitting still, they ask. I am no meditation guru, and I am as conflicted as they are; as I understand it, the Buddhist meditation is based on the fundamentals of Buddha’s teaching. It has a clear goal, but no mystery or magic of any kind. Numerous other methods have been added over the years. It is no wonder that one can become confused if one gets into meditation without knowing the fundamentals. That is the case with most American meditators, just as Bhikkhu Sujato has explained, but are we Sri Lankans any better?

The Buddha’s mission was to eliminate doubts and mysticism from traditional explanations and theories of life that existed during his time, and his solution is expressed as “Seeing things as they really are” (yathabutha nanadassana). This is further elaborated as to “Understand the nature of the universe and the humans’ place in it, without subscribing to superhuman powers or mysticism” (Kalupahana 1992). Therefore, the goal is to understand this at the supreme level, which is Nibbana. The method is described in the Fourth Noble Truth, the Eightfold Path.

This is where the technologically savvy generation can step up. While earlier generations used perceptions and logical inferences to understand the nature of the universe and humans’ place in it, today, science is using experimental methods to achieve the same goal. This effort has generated a vast amount of information on subjects relevant to Buddhist meditation and described them in terms relatable to the present generation. Even high schoolers learn some of these facts, but unfortunately, they are not trained to see their relevance to real life beyond box checking at the examination. Therefore, the challenge for the tech savvy generation is to convert that information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom, or insight, a form of meditation, as I was told by my mentors.

The traditionalists will scoff at this idea, but the Buddha himself used parables, similes, and stories appropriate for the times to get the message across. He acknowledged that while there is only one truth, there are many ways to reach it. Today, scientific knowledge is the best and most accessible tool to relate to Buddha’s teaching. What is wrong with adding one more to the forty plus existing methods if it works? The Pali term bhavana means mental culture or mental development to be able to see things as they really are. Various methods for the development of mental concentration (samatha or samadhi) existed before Buddha’s time, which he practiced under various teachers before the enlightenment. Buddha found them to be unsatisfactory as they did not lead to the realization of the truth, so he discovered his own method, the insight meditation (vipassana).

There is one more point to remember. Most meditation practices being popularized were originally meant for monastics and not for the laity (Sujato, 2013), and others were developed by 20th century meditation experts. The Pali Canon and the exegesis are transmitted over the millennia by the male monastic community, and as a result, what was meant for the laity has been mostly deemphasized or completely omitted from current practices (B. Rahula 2008). Furthermore, those methods were developed based on conclusions drawn by applying critical thinking and reasoning to information available at the time. On the other hand, modern science has added vast amounts of empirical information about the nature of things that were not available to the previous generations, which can be used for meditation. That does not mean that the other methods are invalid, or the Buddhist thinking is inferior to science. It is quite the opposite: science is only beginning to rediscover what the Buddha described two and a half millennia ago, without the benefit of ‘sophisticated’ technology, especially about the human perception and mind. Therefore, scientific understanding of the human body, mind, and the universe offers the technologically savvy generation yet another way to relate to Buddhist ideals without subscribing to conjecture, mysticism or beliefs.

The Buddhist meditation is aimed at gaining insight, which is described as paying attention or observation (anupassana) into the true nature of the body (kaya), perception (vedana), mind (citta), and several other phenomena (dhamma) that include the three characteristics of life and factors governing morals or ethics (DN 22, and MN 10). Except for the subject of mind, science has explored and explained every detail of these subjects going down to subatomic particles level. While Buddhist teaching is way ahead in explaining the mind, science has made great advances in catching up during the last two decades, and their findings are astonishingly in agreement with what the Buddha taught.

The relevant facts that would emerge from the investigation of scientific information can be summarized as follows. All phenomena, animate and inanimate, in this universe, except one, arise due to causes and conditions, and as a result, they are all interrelated (hethuphala vada). Therefore, all such phenomena are in flux (anicca), and have no substance (anatta), i.e., they are all processes. The human sensory system is evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating their DNA, and as a result their perception (vedana) is imperfect and not suited for seeing the reality. The brain processes (citta) this incomplete information received as electro-chemical signals and constructs a mental image of the universe. We have no way of knowing how accurate that model is, except that it is good enough for the intended purpose, which is the propagation of DNA. This limitation of observing reality is further elaborated in quantum mechanics.

Humans are compelled to navigate through this world, of which they have only a mental construct of unknown quality, using tools built for different purposes. This is like a blindfolded man on a bullock cart with a broken axel is asked to navigate through a busy modern city. However unsatisfactory and beyond control the situation is, evolutionary processes have made humans cling to this situation (tanha). As a result of this clinging, humans continue to plod through it, assuming it is fun, again a trick of the DNA; this is referred to as the human condition (dukkha). While the immediate cause of this condition is the clinging, Buddha explained that the cause of clinging is ignorance (avijja), and the way to be free from this human condition is to eliminate ignorance and see things as they really are. The mental culture or development (vipassana bhavana) is the necessary mechanism to achieve this wisdom.

The Noble Eight-fold Path is interpreted by scholars as having two meanings: it is the way to become a noble, i.e., one with wisdom, and it is the way the nobles behave. As the name implies, the path has eight categories, which must be followed and practiced concurrently. These eight divisions belong to three types: wisdom (panna), mental discipline (samadhi), and ethical conduct (sila). Wisdom includes having the right thoughts (sankappa) and understanding, or view (ditthi) of the above-described processes. Having mental discipline includes striving (vayama) to be focused (samadhi) and mindful (sati) of all actions. In other words, know how the universe functions and ensure one’s speech (vaca), actions (kammanata), and livelihood (ajiva) are in harmony with the universe, which is ethical conduct.

None of the above processes have anything to do with beliefs, mysticism, or ideology. All these phenomena are explained based on empirical evidence by the theory of molecular evolution, biology, neuroscience, and physics. The premise is that one who understands these phenomena in wisdom will live a happy and a harmonious life as they know that all phenomena are interconnected and his or her actions have consequences, not only for the individual, but all beings. This is not a mere hypothesis but an empirically proven fact. Today, in this technologically advanced society, where information is freely available, individuals can access all the relevant information at levels befitting to their individual needs, including original publications in scientific journals. One does not have to retreat from daily life, sit in a particular posture, or take the words of someone else to verify these facts. Recall the Buddha’s advice to Kalalmas.

While the Buddha did not rule out the ability of laity to achieve insight at the supreme level, he gave a more pragmatic option for them: an ethical and moral code of conduct referred to as the Five Precepts, for leading a happy and harmonious life. There is a particularly important reason for giving two different prescriptions for monastics and laity. Laity must deal with a variety of responsibilities and chores constantly and require interacting with a larger community, whereas monastics remain mostly isolated from such hassles and chores. Therefore, for the laity to live a harmonious life, the entire community must abide by rules, regulations, and conduct accepted by the community. Buddhist ethics, especially the five precepts, are not based on some doctrinal principles, but are formulated for the welfare of the community at large and its needs and wants. These secular principles are based on the following rationale: If someone were to do “this thing to me,” I would not like it. But if I were to do it to them, they would not like it either. The thing that is disliked by me is also disliked by another. Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on another (SN 55.7).

Unfortunately, many Buddhists believe that the consequences of either following or breaking the five precepts will come to fruition only in the next life. That is not the case, they are related to the wellbeing of a society here and now. Imagine where Sri Lanka would be today if the elected officials and bureaucrats had observed the second precept of refraining from taking what is not given to them. What if the religious leaders had used their authority to stop these blatant violations or at least condemn them, instead of bestowing their blessings? If the same people had followed the fourth precept of refraining from false speech, would there be a need to fight for transparency? Following the five precepts can help solve most of the ills of society; but one must see the science behind it and act, accordingly, merely parroting them in a dead language will not help. Furthermore, it is necessary to interpret the Buddhist code of conduct in the current context. If the tech savvy generation cannot see it, what is the use of all that knowledge?

For example, most Theravadin Buddhists assume that eating meat does not violate the first of the five precepts: refraining from depriving a living being of its life. Their reasoning is that I did not kill the animal, and meat is always available in the market. That is an erroneous assumption; free market economist will explain that the animals are slaughtered specifically for the customers’ needs. The point is that the negative consequences of meat eating are severe and far reaching. It is an extremely inefficient way of gaining nutriment. It takes seven kilograms of grains to produce one kilogram of beef. The worldwide grain harvest used for animal feed is sufficient to feed ten billion people, which is the expected world population in the year 2050. The land and water use, deforestation, antibiotic use, habitat loss, and the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions of animal farming are already beyond sustainable levels.

The best and the easiest way to help reduce global warming is to reduce meat consumption so that burning of fossil fuels can be continued until an alternative is found. The negative health effects and associated costs, especially in societies that have taken up the habit due to newfound wealth, should be considered as well. The West has seen it, and they are acting on it. Practicing the first precept could be our only, and the least disruptive contribution to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

Sri Lanka is one of the most corrupt countries, we scored thirty-four out of one hundred (Transparency International 2023). It is not necessary to explain the consequences of not refraining from taking what is not given by others and false speech. Sadly, our culture has a long history of pleasing those in positions of power or authority (Knox 1681) and it has now become a national norm with disastrous results.

Sri Lanka’s alcohol consumption is 4.1 litres per capita. However, when corrected for the drinking population, which is 34.8%, it becomes a staggering number. This has been identified as a major obstacle to achieving the country’s Sustainable Development Goals (PLoS One. 2018; 13(6). Asides from adverse economic and health issues – no, there are no known health benefits from moderate drinking whatsoever, abuse of mind-altering substances can have devastating effects on families, especially children, friends, and the community in general. It is important to know that it is not only alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs that come under this category, but the harmless betel nut too can alter the mind to a certain degree; they all hinder the rational thinking ability, quite the opposite of culture or development of mind.

Next to the second and fourth precepts, the most damage to society results from disregarding the third precept: renouncing sexual misconduct. This is often interpreted as refraining from adultery, which is incorrect. English translations of the Pali verse use misconduct, illicit, unacceptable, and misuse; therefore, a better interpretation would be “not to use sexuality in any way that can cause harm to others, self, or society.” A number of other social ills prevalent in the country fall under this definition: According to a UN report, 90% of the women surveyed report being sexually harassed at least once in their lifetime. That number for late adolescent school children is 78%. A survey of men found that 28% of them were sexually abused during childhood. The actual numbers could be higher; many victims remain silent as they do not wish to re-live the trauma. This is a disgusting situation; how can a society function if half of its members must live in constant fear of the other half? That is a pathetic commentary for a nation claiming to have a proud civilization and be the protectors of the Buddha’s teaching. A civilization, really?

How did a society that has access to a wealth of information that is ahead of modern science get into this situation? It is a multifactorial issue. We carry a lot of baggage, and old habits are hard to change; for example, offering gifts to nobility to get things done is not new (Knox 1681), but now it has grown into a dangerous cancer consuming the nation. Recall that both giver and taker are committing crimes. In the context of this discussion, I attribute the responsibility to failures of the education system and the inability of the monastic society to accept and admit that their tradition has been hijacked by external forces and transformed it beyond recognition (Is the Buddha’s teaching lost on us? Island 05/12/2023). Teaching children to recite the five precepts in a dead language without emphasizing the science behind it serves no purpose. Only when one knows the true meaning of them, he or she will have no doubt about the validity of observing them to the letter.

The generation brought up with emphasis on STEM education has a chance to change the system; in reality, they have no other choice. Yes, the governance system must be changed, but ethics and morals cannot be legalized (legal positivism). Even though it is neglected and desecrated, they have access to the teachings of the greatest ethicists the world has known. Buddha’s teaching is a true user manual for the human. Unfortunately, it is used as a “manthra” that imparts good luck or mystic powers. Instead of memorizing Asvagosha’s poem, for example, the tech savvy generation must see the pragmatism of the Dhamma that gives the knowledge and the tools to deal with the mental and physical challenges humans face while navigating through the complex world they have inherited.

Buddha dhamma is an exploration of the universe and the humans’ place in it. It is a highly scientific explanation of the human body, mind, and other related phenomena, but one must see it in wisdom, without the mysticism, rituals, and misguided commentaries. The tech savvy generation has a wonderful opportunity to see the science behind it and gain the skill set to solve the problems at hand. As I was told, that is the Buddhist mediation is all about. If one can see the said processes that constitute the body and mind “without word or label,” they have succeeded. At that point, they will also see the relevance of morals in the Buddhist concept of continuity. Unfortunately, we cannot expect any help in this effort from those who advocate kayanu passana but oppose teaching children how to use their body and mind. To be fair, it is not reasonable for us to expect them to have an in-depth knowledge of biochemistry or neuroscience.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Act 2026 fails all affacted communities

Published

on

A protest against exploitation by microfinance companies

The Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Bill was passed into law by the Parliament of Sri Lanka on 4 March. According to Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning Dr. Anil Jayantha, the main object of the Act is to establish an Authority to “license and supervise the under-regulated microfinance and moneylending sector, aiming to protect borrowers from exploitation and ensure financial stability”.

However, the Yukthi Collective is saddened and disappointed that a government which pledged to take “measures to alleviate the burden of predatory microfinance loans with high interest rates on women” (NPP Manifesto, 2024: Page no. 44), will now add to their unbearable weight.

The new Act, as virtually all legislation enacted by Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government, is a legacy of the anti-working class Ranil Wickremesinghe regime. It evades the root causes of the microfinance trap, and ignores debt justice for women borrowers.

It fails in understanding the connections between household debt and public debt. The vicious cycle of national debt is sustained by lack of growth in economic activity because of poor access to affordable credit.

It fails to make equal representation of women mandatory in the new Authority. If representatives of women borrowers and their self-run organisations are not present in the regulatory body, how will its members know of their lived experiences and make decisions that value women’s unpaid and paid contributions to sustaining life?

System Change

Millions of indebted households voted for the NPP with hope and expectation of ‘system change’. But instead of honouring its manifesto promise to them, the government has let them down in the law-making process; as well as the focus and substance of the new Act.

It is appalling that NPP parliamentarians, including some of its women members, appear not to have read and understood the bill they enacted into law, nor spoke to the rural credit community providers in their electorates for their views.

Predatory lending exists in the formal and informal sectors. Within this ecosystem, the Act fails to understand, identify, and prohibit predatory lending and recovery practices. It is a cover for the Central Bank’s failure to properly regulate ‘Licensed Finance Companies’ in the interests of citizens.

The biggest offenders are the big finance companies, in which some parliamentarians are deposit-holders. Therefore, some lawmakers benefit from excess profitmaking through exploitative practices, at the expense of poor mostly rural women.

Where law reform should discipline the bullies and thugs in credit delivery, it will instead wipe out, through over-regulation, community-based and managed lenders such as death donation societies, farmer associations, and urban and rural women’s collectives, which have been a lifeline for vulnerable working-class women and a defence from harmful recovery practices.

Structural Adjustment Programmes

The motivation for this new law are the market- and capital- friendly structural reforms insisted by International Financial Institutions; not the concerns and needs of those at the mercy of predatory lenders.

From the Microfinance Act 2016, to the 2023 version of the Ranil Wickremesinghe regime, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) through its loans has been a promoter of these regressive reforms.

The 2026 Act, with some changes suggested by the Supreme Court in 2024 and hardly any of the changes demanded by affected communities, has been moved forward by the NPP government in line with ADB loan conditionalities.

The path of de-regulation for banking, finance, trade, and investment; and over-regulation of poor people’s savings and credit institutions, smacks of the bias to big capital, which the NPP in opposition once criticised.

Reforms needed

The financial and banking reforms we want to see are to make credit from state banks and public funds accessible and affordable to women producers in agriculture and micro and small business operators; with decent wages and social protection for workers; that improve household opportunity for a dignified livelihood and decent lives.

Yukthi is a forum supporting working people’s movements and people’s struggles for democracy and justice in Sri Lanka.

by Yukthi Collective

Continue Reading

Opinion

Illegal Bus Halt at Gate Number 11 of NHSL

Published

on

There is an unofficial bus halt at Gate Number 11 of the National Hospital at the 90-degree bend at the Prof. Nandadasa Kodagoda Mawatha (Old Norris Canal Road) which creates traffic jams at peak hours. Especially at the school opening and closing times at Carey College and hospital visiting hours.

Prospective passengers stand by the bend and then the busses stop suddenly on the middle of the road. The motorcycle in the picture is put into danger. The next bus halt is a few yards further near Carey College and Medical College Junction.

The problem is that illegal practices such as these, end up as approved procedure in our neck of the woods!

It must be nipped in the bud.

G. Fernando

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

Naval hostilities close to a neutral coastal state: Legal assessment of a submarine attack on an Iranian warship near Sri Lanka

Published

on

SLN rescue operation to save the IRIS Dena survivors of the US submarine attack. (Handout picture from the government of Sri Lanka)

A submarine attack on an Iranian destroyer proximate to Sri Lanka represents more than a discrete naval engagement; it signals a potential horizontal escalation of conflict into the wider Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Historically, confrontations between Iran and Western powers have been largely confined to the Persian Gulf and adjacent regional waters. A strike near Sri Lanka, however, shifts the operational theatre from a semi-enclosed regional sea into the open Indian Ocean. This globally vital maritime space encompasses critical trade routes, energy supply corridors, and strategically sensitive naval zones.

This geographic expansion carries multiple strategic implications. First, it demonstrates the long-range maritime strike capabilities and blue-water operational reach of the belligerent forces. Second, it functions as a form of deterrence signalling, conveying a willingness to project force beyond traditional conflict zones. Third, it widens the theatre of operations, increasing the probability of third-party entanglement and amplifying regional instability.

Beyond its immediate military and strategic dimensions, the incident raises complex legal questions under both jus ad bellum—the body of law governing the use of force between states—and jus in bello, encompassing international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflict at sea. The central questions addressed in this paper are:

a. Lawfulness of Force:

Whether the use of force against the Iranian warship was lawful under the United Nations Charter, including considerations of self-defence and Security Council authorisation.

b. Compliance with International Humanitarian Law:

Whether the attack adhered to the principles and norms of international humanitarian law governing naval warfare, including the lawfulness of the target, proportionality, distinction, and obligations toward shipwrecked personnel.

c. Neutrality and Coastal State Rights:

Whether Sri Lanka’s rights and obligations as a neutral coastal state were violated, particularly within its territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

d. Operational and Geostrategic Implications:

The broader implications of conducting military operations within or near neutral maritime zones, and the interplay between legal permissibility, maritime security, environmental obligations, and regional stability.

These questions form the analytical framework that will guide the discussion throughout this paper, providing a structured lens for examining the legal, humanitarian, and strategic dimensions of the incident.

Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello:

Legality of the Use of Force

The legality of a submarine attack against a commissioned warship during an armed conflict must be assessed within a structured framework of international law comprising the jus ad bellum regime under the United Nations Charter, the corpus of international humanitarian law (IHL), and customary principles of naval warfare as reflected in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

At the threshold level, the UN Charter governs the lawfulness of the use of force between states. Article 2(4) establishes a general prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, subject only to narrow exceptions. These exceptions include the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 and actions authorised by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII.

Accordingly, if an Iranian warship were torpedoed by a submarine, the attacking state would be required to demonstrate that the action was undertaken either pursuant to a valid claim of self-defence, necessitated by an armed attack or imminent threat, or as part of an already existing international armed conflict. Absent such justification, the attack could constitute an unlawful use of force in violation of the Charter’s collective security framework.

Where an international armed conflict is already in existence, the analysis shifts from jus ad bellum to Jus in bello, namely the rules governing the conduct of hostilities.

Jus in bello

: Naval Warfare and Attack Against an Iranian Naval Ship

Where an international armed conflict exists between the United States and Iran, the analysis shifts to jus in Bello. Commissioned warships form part of a state’s armed forces and constitute lawful military objectives. Under customary naval warfare law, as reflected in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, enemy warships may be attacked, including by submarine-launched torpedoes, without prior warning. An Iranian destroyer operating as part of Iran’s navy would therefore constitute a legitimate military objective in principle.

However, the legality of a torpedo attack by a United States submarine remains subject to the foundational principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and precautions in attack. The principle of distinction requires that the target be military in nature; proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental harm excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage; and military necessity demands that the force employed be directed toward achieving a legitimate military objective.

These obligations are particularly significant in maritime theatres characterised by dense commercial traffic, such as the sea lanes south of Sri Lanka. Incidental harm to neutral merchant vessels, offshore installations, or third-state interests must therefore be carefully assessed in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.Submarine warfare, though technologically sophisticated and strategically consequential, remains subject to these enduring normative constraints, which seek to balance operational effectiveness with humanitarian considerations in the maritime domain.

Customary humanitarian law further requires that feasible measures be taken to search for and rescue the shipwrecked, wounded, and dead following an engagement. In this respect, any action by the Sri Lanka Navy to rescue surviving sailors and recover bodies from the destroyed vessel represents a prudent and legally consonant exercise of humanitarian responsibility. Such conduct reflects long-standing maritime tradition and aligns with the duties recognised under the law of armed conflict and the broader law of the sea, without compromising Sri Lanka’s neutral status.

Sri Lanka’s Legal Position Concerning the Torpedoed Iranian Vessel

Sri Lanka’s legal position is largely determined by the maritime location in which the submarine attack occurred. Should the hostilities have taken place within Sri Lanka’s territorial sea, defined as extending up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, such conduct would constitute a breach of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and a violation of the law of neutrality, which forbids belligerent states from engaging in hostilities within neutral waters and imposes a duty on the coastal state to prevent such actions within its jurisdiction. In that circumstance, Sri Lanka would be entitled to issue a diplomatic protest and potentially pursue reparative claims.

By contrast, as the engagement took place within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the analysis is more nuanced under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The EEZ confers sovereign rights for resource exploitation rather than full sovereignty, and prevailing state practice accepts that military operations, including naval manoeuvres, are not per se unlawful in another state’s EEZ. While such an engagement would not automatically breach international law, it would nonetheless generate significant security concerns, including risks to navigational safety, potential environmental damage, and heightened regional instability. Should the sinking result in oil discharge, hazardous material release, or debris affecting shipping lanes, obligations under UNCLOS to protect and preserve the marine environment would be engaged.

Although the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development does not explicitly regulate armed conflict, its principles highlight an increasing expectation for states to protect the environment during hostilities. Similarly, UNCLOS mandates that states protect and preserve the marine environment. Consequently, should the sinking of the Iranian destroyer cause an oil spill, the release of hazardous materials, or navigational hazards, specific environmental liabilities would be triggered. Strategically, a submarine strike near Sri Lanka signals more than a discrete tactical engagement. It reflects the projection of great-power naval capabilities into a strategically sensitive maritime space through which a substantial proportion of global trade transits.

Sri Lanka occupies a pivotal geostrategic position astride the principal East–West Sea Lines of Communication linking Gulf energy supplies, East Asian manufacturing centres, and European markets via the Suez Canal. A substantial proportion of global container traffic transits south of the island, rendering these waters acutely sensitive to instability. Even a limited naval engagement can elevate war-risk insurance premiums, disrupt commercial routing, and indirectly affect port operations in Colombo and Hambantota.

From a jus ad bellum perspective, geographic expansion does not in itself render hostilities unlawful; yet it complicates assessments of necessity and proportionality and increases the risk of escalation affecting neutral states.

The torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in maritime zones proximate to Sri Lanka necessitates a carefully layered legal assessment situated at the confluence of jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and the law of the sea. As this paper has demonstrated, the legality of the incident ultimately turns on four interrelated determinations:

(a) whether a lawful basis for the use of force existed under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, grounded in self-defence;

(b) whether the attack complied with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity under international humanitarian law;

(c) whether the engagement occurred within Sri Lanka’s territorial sea, thereby infringing its sovereignty and violating the law of neutrality; and

(d) whether the obligations owed to survivors, shipwrecked personnel, and the marine environment were respected in accordance with the law of armed conflict at sea and relevant maritime conventions.

If the attack did not occur within Sri Lanka’s territorial sea, it would not amount to a violation of sovereignty or a breach of the law of neutrality capable of engaging state responsibility on that ground.

By contrast, where the engagement occurred beyond the territorial sea whether within the Exclusive Economic Zone or on the high seas prevailing interpretations of the law of naval warfare, reinforced by consistent state practice, suggest that the operation may be regarded as legally defensible, provided that the cumulative requirements of necessity, proportionality, distinction, and humanitarian obligation were satisfied.

Nevertheless, legal permissibility does not equate to strategic prudence. The deployment of a United States submarine to conduct kinetic operations in proximity to a neutral coastal state within the Indian Ocean underscores the increasingly complex convergence of naval power projection, humanitarian norms, environmental obligations, and coastal state rights within the contemporary maritime domain.

Even where consistent with international law, the extension of submarine warfare into the wider Indian Ocean carries destabilising implications for regional security, commercial shipping, and the safety of neutral coastal states situated along critical sea lines of communication. The geographic expansion of hostilities into this maritime space heightens the risks of miscalculation, escalation, and unintended third-party involvement.

For Sri Lanka, the incident underscores the delicate equilibrium between maintaining neutrality, safeguarding maritime security, and upholding the international legal order. The actions undertaken by the Sri Lanka Navy in conducting rescue and recovery operations for surviving sailors and deceased personnel reflect the discharge of well-established humanitarian duties under international law and exemplify responsible conduct at sea.

Ultimately, this episode illustrates the increasingly complex convergence of naval power projection, international humanitarian norms, and coastal state rights within the contemporary maritime domain. In an era marked by intensifying great-power competition and expanding operational reach in the Indian Ocean, the preservation of legal clarity, strategic restraint, and respect for neutral maritime spaces remains essential to sustaining regional stability and safeguarding the integrity of the international maritime order.

by REAR ADMIRAL (RTD.) JAGATH RANASINGHE
VSV, USP, psc, MSc (DS) Mgt, MMaritimePol (Aus),
PG Dip in CPS, DIP in CR, FNI (Lond), Former Govt Fellow GCSP

Continue Reading

Trending