Connect with us

Features

Going back to pre-2015 Geneva: Part II

Published

on

President Mahinda Rajapaksa with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in 2009

By Austin Fernando
(Continued from yesterday)

22/1 Proposal (2013-3-21)

A great responsibility was placed on the State officers to implement the proposals in the Resolutions. Unfortunately, the international community did not see this happen. Hence, it decided to submit the 22/1 Resolution on 21 March 2013 by way of registering its protest with Sri Lanka. What it, however, did not understand was that the government was planning to advance a presidential election, and, therefore, committing to implementing the UNHRC would be politically disastrous.

The 22/1 proposal acknowledged the constructive efforts such as the decision to hold the Provincial Council election in the North, infrastructural development, demining and facilitating resettlement of IDPs. However, the National Plan of Action proposed by the LLRC was considered inadequate to address all the findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission. It was also noted that States facing post-conflict situations should abide by international human rights and humanitarian laws. Nationalists did not oppose the earlier actions but resisted the latter which had to do with the military.

The 22/1 Resolution focused on the following salient points:

1 Encouraged the GOSL to implement the recommendations made in the UNHRC Report and to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable.

2 Called upon the GOSL to implement the constructive recommendations of the LLRC Report, and to take all additional steps to fulfill relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability, and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.

3 Encouraged the GOSL to cooperate with special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to all outstanding requests.

4 Encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the GOSL, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps.

5 Requested the Office of the High Commissioner, with input from relevant special procedure mandate holders, as appropriate, to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-fifth session.

The implementation of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Laws is the responsibility of any government. But those who duped themselves into believing that ‘internationals can be fooled’ did not want to protect Human Rights or uphold Humanitarian Laws. Although some IDPs were resettled, new military bases sprang up. From the perspective of the Tamils, their legal rights to private lands were denied.

The international community collected data from diplomatic and external sources. It was no secret that they were biased towards the needs and demands of the Tamil community. However, it had a clear understanding of the implementation of the proposals and was concerned about the tardy pace at which it was executed. They understood that the implementation of the proposals could not be expedited. Hence, they went before the UNHRC again.

25/1 Proposal (27.03.2014)

By 2014, the international community sadly believed Sri Lanka was an irresponsible, inert state. Hence the UNHCR, on 27 March 2014, passed the 25/1 Resolution titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’. The main points therein are as follows:

1.   Welcomed the oral update by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the UNHRC 24th Session and the subsequent report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and the recommendations and conclusions, including on the establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism and national reparations policy as an integral part of a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice.

2.  Called upon the GOSL to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, as applicable; to hold accountable those responsible for such violations; to end continuing incidents of human rights violations and abuses in Sri Lanka, and to implement the recommendations made in the reports of the OHCR.

3.  Reiterated the earlier call upon the GOSL to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the LLRC Report, and to take all additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitments to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability, and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.

4.  Urged the GOSL to investigate all alleged attacks by individuals and groups on journalists, human rights defenders, members of religious minority groups and other members of civil society, and all places of worship and urged the GOSL to hold perpetrators of such attacks to account and to take steps to prevent such attacks in the future.

5.  Called upon the GOSL to release publicly the results of its investigations into alleged violations by security forces, including the Weliweriya attack, and the report of the Army Court of Inquiry.

6.  Encouraged the GOSL to ensure that all Provincial Councils can operate effectively, in accordance with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

7.  Welcomed the visit by the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of IDPs in December 2013 and called upon the GOSL to facilitate the effective implementation of durable solutions for all IDPs.

8.  Welcomed the invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.

9.  Encouraged the GOSL to cooperate with other special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to all their outstanding requests.

10. Noted the recommendations and conclusions of the High Commissioner regarding ongoing human rights violations and the need for an international inquiry mechanism in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results, and requested the UNHRC:

(a) To monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and to continue to assess progress on relevant national processes.

(b) To undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the LLRC, and to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated to avoid impunity and ensure accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures mandate holders.

(c) To present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its 27th session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its 28th Session.

11. Encouraged the UNHRC and relevant special procedure mandate holders to provide, in consultation and the concurrence of the GOSL, to provide advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps.

12. Called upon the GOSL to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner in the implementation of the present resolution.

The government did not proceed to implement these recommendations. It chose to ignore Section 10 in particular. The international community, therefore, opted for a strong response at the March 2015 UNHCR meeting. Moves were even afoot to impose economic sanctions.

‘Yahapalana ‘Government and the UNHRC

On 9 January 2018, the ‘Yahapalana’ President was sworn in and Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera asked for more time to implement the UNHRC recommendations. Most of us avoid discussing this background of the UNHCR proposals of 01 October 2015. Even today they discuss, misinterpret, and misrepresent facts.

These proposals did not fall from the sky. They were the result of the unilateral proposals first made on 27 May 2009 by the Rajapaksa government, its failure to implement them, and its lethargic, cavalier attitude and negligence. This led to the ratification of a new set of proposals recommended jointly by a core group of members of the UNHCR and the ‘Yahapalana government, to address the failures of the Rajapaksa government (2009), which was responsible for the 2009 UNHRC resolution.

The international community complied with the Yahapalana government’s request for more time. Had the Rajapaksa government responsible for Resolution 11/1 implemented the recommendations therein in an acceptable manner and responded to the feedback proposals, the country would not have faced the prospect of economic sanctions.

International pressure mounted from 2011-2014 as regards the 11/1 Resolution, and the Yahapalana government had to cooperate as regards the new proposals with the countries that supported Sri Lanka at the UNHCR. It should also be mentioned that such give-and-take policies don’t come without some disadvantages, the accountability mechanism in the 30/1 Resolution being a case in point.

The conceptual basis of the 2015 UNHCR Proposal

The 2015 proposals were based on the internationally accepted principles of reconciliation. As a first step towards initiating the truth and reconciliation process, it was proposed to establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ and an “Office on Missing Persons.” Secondly, the importance of demonstrating accountability towards the crimes endured by the affected communities was highlighted. Thirdly, it was required to establish a mechanism for reparation for the victims. Fourthly, it was proposed that constitutional guarantees by Parliament would ensure that such cruelty would not be repeated. Those were the ‘four pillars of reconciliation’.

These proposals were handed over to Prince Al Hussein, UNHCR High Commissioner by GOSL before Resolution 30/1 was tabled.

Withdrawal from UNHRC Resolution 30/1

In a way, it is unfair to blame the Yahapalana government for co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1 at the UNHCR in October 2015 although some people have taken exception to that course of action.

The current SLPP government has withdrawn from the 30/1 proposal and UNHRC’s 34/1 and 40/1 Resolutions—both more of technical nature and adopted without voting. We cannot withdraw from the resolutions or decisions taken between 2011-2014 because they are derived from the 11/1 Resolution. I believe (subject to correction since I am not a lawyer) that GOSL may argue the legality of other proposals if it wishes to withdraw from 11/1. It is the prerogative of the UNHRC to accept such a withdrawal. Even if we presume that such action is possible, the understandings reached in 2009 are still valid.

The question is whether the incumbent GOSL is still committed to implementing the 11/1 and the 27 May 2009 understandings. Since the 11/1 Resolution was unilaterally placed before the UNHRC by the GOSL after the war victory, it cannot argue that it was done under LTTE’s duress. If GOSL feels that 11/1 is now irrelevant, why doesn’t it say so? Did GOSL make the 11/1 proposal to hoodwink the UN Secretary-General? Or, was it another Medamulana ruse?

Two UNHRC resolutions call for the implementation of the LLRC’s constructive recommendations. The lack of commitment on the part of the Rajapaksa government to do so is unjustifiable.

Following the March 2021 Resolution in Geneva, the UNHRC has been empowered to “consolidate, analyze and preserve information and evidence” for “future accountability processes for gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law, to advocate for victims and survivors, and to support relevant judicial proceedings in the Member States with competent jurisdiction.”

However, some commentators opine that the Secretariat thus established will not be permitted to visit Sri Lanka like the Darusman Committee and that could hamper reporting. As stated earlier, information is freely available internationally. As a political columnist has aid recently, “it should not be forgotten that the Human Rights Commissioner’s office claims it already has trophy evidence which would be utilized.”

There are so many unanswered questions. But the demands made on behalf of the victims are still alive. Just a few days ago, didn’t MA Sumanthiran, MP, state so albeit in different words? It is these demands that drive the UNHCR and the European Union and even others to push GOSL against the wall.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Concept of living wage and cost of living

Published

on

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) now defines a living wage as the wage level necessary for workers and their families to afford a decent standard of living, given national circumstances, for normal hours of work. This standard of living is operationalised through the cost of essential goods and services, typically including food, housing, healthcare, education, transport, and a modest allowance for contingencies and social participation.

In contrast, “cost of living” in economics is a broader price index concept that tracks the overall prices of a representative consumption basket but is not inherently normative about what constitutes decency or dignity.

Living wage methodologies effectively translate a cost-of-living basket, specified for a given family size and living standard, into a monthly income requirement for workers, thereby linking real wages to human development objectives rather than only to market productivity.

Methodologies for computing a living wage

Most contemporary living wage estimates follow a structured “cost of a basic but decent life” approach built around three steps: defining a reference family, costing a normative consumption basket, and converting that cost into a wage per worker.

The Anker methodology, widely used in global supply chains and in Sri Lanka, is a leading example: it defines a model family (e.g., 2 adults and approximately 2–3 children), estimates the cost of a low-cost nutritious diet, adequate housing, and non-food essentials, and then allocates that cost over expected number of full-time workers per family.

Within the Anker framework, the food component is based on locally appropriate diets meeting caloric and nutritional norms, priced using local market surveys and adjusted for waste and home preparation.

Housing costs are derived from standards for minimally acceptable housing (e.g., durable materials, sufficient space, basic services), using rents or imputed rental values from empirical fieldwork. Other essential expenditures, health, education, transport, clothing, and a small margin for unexpected events, are typically estimated as a percentage mark-up over food and housing costs, derived from national household survey data.

Finally, the methodology sets a reference number of workers per family, divides total family living costs by this number to get a net living wage, and then adjusts to a gross living wage by adding payroll taxes and mandatory deductions. Periodic updates are made using consumer price indices (CPIs) to reflect inflation or deflation and, where necessary, new field surveys to capture structural shifts in prices and consumption patterns.

Sri Lanka’s living wage estimates and their link to cost of living (Anker Methodology)

Sri Lanka has been the subject of several living wage studies, notably for the tea estate sector and for urban and rural areas, using the Anker methodology.

In the tea estate sector, an updated 2024 Anker report estimates the cost of a “basic but decent” standard of living for a typical family at about LKR 78,067 per month (approximately USD 260), implying a gross living wage of LKR 48,584 per month (USD 160) and a net, take-home living wage of LKR 44,357.

For urban Sri Lanka, the Anker Living Wage Reference Value was originally set at LKR 84,231 per month in April 2022, corresponding to a net living wage of LKR 77,492 plus social security contributions. After cumulative inflation of about 36.9 percent between April 2022 and June 2025, the updated gross urban living wage is estimated at approximately LKR 115,291 per month (around USD 385), consisting of a net living wage of LKR 106,068 and social security contributions of LKR 9,223

These Sri Lankan figures are explicitly derived from cost-of-living calculations: they incorporate the cost of food, housing, utilities, health, education, and other essentials at local prices and then convert these into wages per adult worker, assuming roughly 1.7–1.8 full-time earners per family. Because living wage estimates are indexed to actual price dynamics, periods of high inflation, as Sri Lanka experienced in 2022–2023, translate almost mechanically into sharp upward revisions in living wages, underlining the tight coupling between living wage levels and the evolving cost of living.

Comparative living wages: Sri Lanka and other countries

Cross-country comparisons require careful normalisation because living wages reflect local prices, family structures, and social norms, but several datasets provide a structured basis for comparison. [asia.floorwage](https://asia.floorwage.org/living-wage/calculating-a-living-wage/)

The Asia Floor Wage Alliance, for example, publishes a regional living wage benchmark expressed in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, with a 2024 benchmark of 1,750.54 PPP dollars per month converted into local currencies using country-specific PPP exchange rates.

Using this PPP-based approach, the 2024 living wage equivalent for Sri Lanka is estimated at around LKR 158,353 per month, assuming a PPP exchange rate of about 90.5 Sri Lankan rupees per PPP dollar.

This PPP-normalised figure is substantially higher than the Anker 2024–2025 estate-sector and urban living wage estimates in nominal rupees, partly because the Asia Floor Wage benchmark is set to ensure a more harmonised standard across Asian garment-producing economies and uses a single PPP wage target.

These figures indicate that, within this PPP-based framework, Sri Lanka’s living wage in local currency is relatively high compared to countries such as India and Bangladesh, but the comparison reflects both different PPP exchange rates and domestic price structures.

From a cost-of-living perspective, this pattern is consistent with Sri Lanka being a lower-middle-income country with relatively higher prices for some essentials compared with low-income South Asian economies, especially after recent macroeconomic and inflationary shocks.

Global patterns and high-income economies

Global datasets covering more than 200 countries show that typical-family living wage levels, whether calculated in PPP or nominal terms, tend to correlate positively with national income levels, with North America, Western Europe, and Australia displaying the highest living wage values.

In this global distribution, living wages in middle- and low-income regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are lower in absolute terms, though the ratio of living wage to median wages or statutory minimum wages can be high, underscoring the gap between decent-work standards and prevailing labour market outcomes.

Interestingly, some studies note that rural living wage estimates can be relatively high in poorer countries because limited infrastructure and service availability raise the cost of accessing a given standard of living, such as safe water, transport, and education.

For Sri Lanka, rural Anker living wage benchmarks similarly reveal the importance of non-food costs, such as transportation to schools, health facilities, and workplaces, in shaping the total family budget, despite lower nominal rents in many rural areas.

Living wage, social policy, and Sri Lanka’s development trajectory

The emerging international consensus around a living wage is rooted in the human rights-based notion of a “decent life” rather than a subsistence minimum or an arbitrarily set statutory floor.

From a social science perspective, incorporating living wage benchmarks into wage-setting institutions, collective bargaining, and social dialogue reorients labour markets toward social reproduction, intergenerational mobility, and social cohesion, rather than merely cost competitiveness.

For Sri Lanka, where recent crises have eroded real wages and increased household vulnerability, living wage estimates such as the Anker urban and estate-sector benchmarks provide an analytically rigorous yardstick for evaluating whether current wage policies and social transfers are adequate relative to the actual cost of a basic but decent life.

Comparisons with regional PPP-based benchmarks like the Asia Floor Wage suggest that, while Sri Lanka’s living wage requirement in local currency is relatively high, the country also faces significant affordability challenges, especially for low-paid workers in export sectors and informal employment, whose earnings often fall short of these normative thresholds.

In policy terms, the living wage framework highlights the need for coordinated approaches that combine wage-setting reforms, inflation-sensitive social protection, and productivity-enhancing investments, so that rising living-cost-consistent wages do not simply translate into inflationary spirals or employment losses.

For empirical research in Sri Lanka, these benchmarks open avenues for micro-level analysis of wage gaps, household coping strategies, gendered labour outcomes, and the distributional effects of macroeconomic adjustment, all anchored to a transparent and internationally recognised living wage methodology.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

Continue Reading

Features

Buddhist philosophy and the path to lasting peace

Published

on

Echoes of ‘The Walk for Peace’

The international Walk for Peace’ reaching Colombo, joined by a large number of monks and devotees, led by spiritual leader Ven Bhikku Pannakara, with the peace dog ‘Aloka,’ completing the 161 km journey.The walk commenced in Dambulla on April 22 following the main ceremony at the Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura.Pic by Nishan S.Priyantha

by Ven. Dr. Kirinde Assaji Nayaka Thero
Chief Incumbent, Gangaramaya Temple, Hunupitiya, Colombo

Throughout human history, one of the greatest and most complex challenges has been the establishment of lasting peace and the maintenance of harmonious coexistence. While peace is often understood simply as the absence of war or armed conflict, a deeper, spiritual perspective reveals it as a profound state of social and mental harmony. It is an ideal that must be cultivated within individuals as well as across societies.

Buddhism offers one of the most practical and timeless philosophies of peace. The teachings of the Buddha are rooted in non-violence and the four sublime virtues—loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. Central to this philosophy is the idea that true peace in the world begins with inner peace within the individual. Conflict, the Buddha taught, arises not on battlefields but within the human mind, driven by greed, hatred, and delusion. Without overcoming these negative forces, lasting peace in the external world remains unattainable.

In today’s world, marked by geopolitical tensions, economic competition, and social unrest—this inward approach to peace is more relevant than ever. Despite technological advancement, humanity continues to grapple with violence and division. The Buddha’s teaching points instead to an internal struggle: a battle against anger, jealousy, and ignorance. Rather than weapons of destruction, Buddhism promotes wisdom, compassion, patience, and discipline as the tools to overcome conflict.

The path to peace begins with understanding its causes. Just as muddy water becomes clear when left undisturbed, the human mind achieves clarity and calm when negative emotions are subdued. This principle is reflected in the Buddha’s intervention during a historic dispute between the Sakya and Koliya clans over water, where he reminded them of the greater value of human life, thereby preventing bloodshed.

In a world increasingly threatened by conflict over limited resources and political power, such lessons remain highly relevant. The Buddha also emphasised the principle of moral causation—actions have consequences.

Yadisaṃ vapate bijaṃ tadisaṃ harate phalaṃ
Kalyaāṇakariī kalyaṃ papakariī ca papakaṃ
Pavutthaṃ tata te bijaṃ phalaṃ paccanubhossasiti

“As one sows the seed, so does one reap the fruit.

The doer of good receives good results, and the doer of evil receives evil results.

Dear one, whatever seed you have planted, you will experience the corresponding fruit of it.”

At the heart of Buddhist ethics is respect for life. All beings fear harm and seek happiness, and therefore, violence against others cannot lead to true well-being. This message is particularly significant in an era where the race for power and advanced weaponry continues to overshadow compassion and humanity.

The fundamental moral discipline in Buddhism is respect for life and opposition to harming living beings. The Buddha taught that all beings desire happiness, and fear suffering, and that harming others will not lead to happiness.

Sabbe tasanti dandassa
sabbe bhayanti maccuno
attanam upamam katva
na haneyya na ghataye.

“All tremble at violence; all fear death. Comparing others with oneself, one should neither kill nor cause others to kill.”

Despite technological advancement, the world appears to be moving backwards in terms of compassion and peace. Power-driven politics and the race for advanced weaponry cannot provide lasting solutions. Global leaders, diplomats, and policymakers must urgently recognise the importance of the tolerant, balanced, and non-violent approach taught in Buddhism. Protecting the right to life of all beings, and acting with compassion beyond divisions of race, religion, or politics, is the only true foundation for world peace.

Sri Lanka, as a nation nourished by the essence of Buddhism, has long upheld this principle. The Sri Lankan tradition, rooted in boundless loving-kindness and compassion, strives to uphold human values even amidst the harsh realities of global politics. From the respect shown by King Dutugemunu towards King Elara, to Sri Lanka’s stance at the 1951 San Francisco Peace Conference invoking the words “Hatred is never appeased by hatred,” to recent humanitarian acts in rescuing sailors in distress—these all reflect a single philosophy: valuing human life above all divisions.

The presentation of a “Joint Declaration for Peace” by the Mahanayake Theros at Gangaramaya Temple recently reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s commitment to global peace. Despite global power struggles, Sri Lanka continues to stand as a symbol of compassion and peace, reminding the world that human kindness is more powerful than weapons.

Institutions such as the Gangaramaya Temple have played a vital role in fostering social harmony. Through charitable, educational, and cultural programmes, the temple has encouraged unity across religious and ethnic lines, while also promoting interfaith dialogue and cooperation.

The annual Navam Maha Perahera, organised by the temple, stands as a powerful symbol of national unity, bringing together people from diverse backgrounds in a shared celebration. Similarly, vocational training and educational initiatives have helped empower young people from all communities, strengthening social cohesion.

A recent “Walk for Peace,” led by Venerable Pannakara Thero and supported by the monastic community, further underscored this commitment. More than a physical journey, it represented a spiritual effort to cultivate peace within the human heart and spread a message of compassion to the wider world.

One of the most touching aspects of the event was the participation of a dog named “Aloka,” which accompanied the monks throughout the journey. This simple yet powerful image reflected the Buddhist teaching that all living beings value life and deserve compassion, highlighting the universal nature of peace.

Ultimately, the Buddha’s message remains clear: peace cannot be achieved through hatred or violence. True peace arises from self-discipline, moral conduct, and the cultivation of a pure mind. As the teaching states, avoiding evil, doing good, and purifying one’s mind is the path laid down by the Buddha.

Let us plant the seeds of peace within our hearts and nurture them with loving-kindness. (“Sabba papassa akarananṃ – kusalassa upasampadā – sacitta pariyodapanaṃ – etaṃ Buddhana sasanaṃ”)

In a time when global tensions continue to rise, this timeless message serves as a powerful reminder that lasting peace begins within each individual—and that compassion remains humanity’s greatest strength.

“Devo vassatu kalena – sassa sampatti hetu ca
Pito bhavatu loko ca – rajaā bhavatu dhammiko”

(“May the rains fall at the right time, bringing about abundant harvests.

May the world be joyful and prosperous.

May the ruler be righteous and just.”)

Continue Reading

Features

Peace march and promise of reconciliation

Published

on

Peace walk in progress

The ongoing peace march by a group of international Buddhist monks has captured the sentiment of Sri Lankans in a manner that few public events have done in recent times. It is led by the Vietnamese monk Venerable Thich Pannakara who is associated with a mindfulness movement that has roots in Vietnamese Buddhist practice and actively promoted among diaspora communities in the United States. The peace march by the monks, accompanied by their mascot, the dog Aloka, has generated affection and goodwill within the Buddhist and larger community. It follows earlier peace walks in the United States where monks carried a similar message of mindfulness and compassion across communities but without any government or even media patronage as in Sri Lanka.

This initiative has the potential to unfold into an effort to nurture a culture of peace in Sri Lanka. Such a culture is necessary if the country as the country prepares to move beyond its history of conflict towards a more longlasting reconciliation and a political solution to its ethnic and religious divisions. The government’s support for the peace march can be seen as part of a broader attempt to shape such a culture. The Clean Sri Lanka programme, promoted by the government as a civic responsibility campaign focused on environmental cleanliness, ethical conduct and social discipline, provides a useful framework within which such initiatives can be situated. Its emphasis on collective responsibility and shared public space makes it sit well with the values that peacebuilding requires.

government’s previous plan to promote a culture of peace was on the occasion of “Sri Lanka Day” celebrations which were scheduled to take place on December 12-14 last year but was disrupted by Cyclone Ditwah. The Sri Lanka Day celebrations were to include those talented individuals from each and every community at the district level who had excelled in some field or the other, such as science, business or arts and culture and selected by the District Secretariats in each of the 25 districts. They were to gather in Colombo to engage in cultural performances and community-focused exhibitions. The government’s intention was to build up a discourse around the ideas of unity in diversity as a precursor to addressing the more contentious topics of human rights violations during the war period, and issues of accountability and reparations for wrongs suffered during that dark period.

Positive Response

The invitation to the international monks appears to have emerged from within Buddhist religious networks in Sri Lanka that have long maintained links with the larger international Buddhist community. The strong support extended by leading temples and clergy within the country, including the Buddhists Mahanayakes indicates that this was not an isolated effort but one that resonated with the mainstream Buddhist establishment. Indeed, the involvement of senior Buddhist leaders has been particularly noteworthy. A Joint Declaration for Peace in the world, drawing on Sri Lanka’s own experience, and by the Mahanayakes of all Buddhist Chapters took place in the context of the ongoing peace march at the Gangaramaya Temple in Colombo, with participation from the diplomatic community. The declaration, calling for compassion, dialogue and sustainable peace, reflects an effort by religious leadership to assert a moral voice in favour of coexistence.

The popular response to the peace march has also been striking. Large numbers of people have been gathering along the route, offering flowers, water and support to the monks. Schoolchildren have been lining the roads, and communities from different religious backgrounds extend hospitality. On the way, the monks were hosted by both a Hindu temple and a mosque, where food and refreshments were provided. These acts, though simple, carry a message about the possibility of harmony among Sri Lanka’s diverse communities. It helps to counter the perception that the Buddhist community in Sri Lanka is inherently nationalist and resistant to minority concerns that was shaped during the decades of war and reinforced by political mobilisation that too often exploited ethnic identity.

By way of contrast, the peace march offers a different image. It shows a readiness among ordinary people to embrace values of compassion and coexistence that are deeply embedded in Buddhist teaching. The Metta Sutta, one of the most well-known discourses in Buddhism, calls for boundless goodwill towards all beings. It states that one should cultivate a mind that is “boundless towards all beings, free from hatred and ill will.” This emphasis on universal compassion provides a moral foundation for peace that extends beyond national or ethnic boundaries. The monks themselves emphasised this point repeatedly during the walk. Venerable Thich Pannakara reminded those who gathered that while acts of generosity are commendable, mindfulness in everyday life is even more important. He warned that as people become unmindful, they are more prone to react with anger and hatred, thereby contributing to conflict.

More Initiatives

The presence of political leaders at key moments of the march has emphasised the significance that the government attaches to the event. Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya paid her respects to the peace march monks in Kandy, while President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is expected to do so at the conclusion of the march in Colombo. Such gestures signal an alignment between political authority and moral aspiration, even if the translation of that aspiration into policy remains a work in progress. At the same time, the peace march has not been without its shortcomings. The walk did not engage with the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, regions that were most affected by the war and where the need for reconciliation is most acute. A more inclusive geographic reach would have strengthened the symbolic impact of the initiative.

In addition, the positive impact of the peace march could have been increased if more effort had been taken to coordinate better with other civic and religious groups and include them in the event. Many civil society and religious harmony groups who would have liked to participate in the peace march found themselves unable to do so. There was no place in the programme for them to join. Even government institutions tasked with promoting social cohesion and reconciliation found themselves outside the loop. The Clean Sri Lanka Task Force that organised the peace march may have felt that involving other groups would have made it more complicated to organise the events which have proceeded without problems.

The hope is that the positive energy and goodwill generated by this peace march will not dissipate but will instead inspire further initiatives with the requisite coordination and leadership. The march has generated public discussion, drawn attention to the values of mindfulness and compassion, and created a space in which people can imagine a different future. It has been a special initiative among the many that are needed to build a culture of peace. A culture of peace cannot be imposed from above nor can it emerge overnight. It needs to be nurtured through multiple efforts across society, including education, religious engagement, civic initiatives and political reform. It is within such a culture that the more difficult questions of power sharing, justice and reconciliation can be addressed in a constructive manner.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Trending