Features
NO WINNERS IN WAR: Lessons the world refuses to learn from earlier conflicts
The growing tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran have once again brought the world dangerously close to a wider war in the Middle East. News reports, press conferences, and political speeches in recent weeks show a disturbing pattern — harsh language, open hostility, and an alarming readiness to escalate violence. Instead of patient diplomacy, we see anger. Instead of restraint, we see threats. Instead of a search for peace, we see preparations for war.
What is most shocking is not only the possibility of war itself, but the manner in which war is being discussed. In many press briefings and televised interviews, supporters of military action speak with a feeling of urgency that leaves little room for reflection. Words such as “strike,” “destroy,” “kill”, “eliminate,” and “retaliate” are used casually, as if war were a simple technical operation rather than a human tragedy.
Even more disturbing is the manner in which civilian suffering is often treated as an unavoidable side effect. When bombs fall, they do not distinguish between soldiers and children. When missiles are launched, they do not ask whether the target is guilty or innocent. Yet the language used in many discussions suggests that such consequences are acceptable, even inevitable, in the pursuit of national security or political dominance.
This atmosphere of impatience and anger reveals a deeper problem in modern international relations — the belief that power must be demonstrated quickly and forcefully, and that hesitation is a sign of weakness. The result is a world that moves from one conflict to another, without learning from the pain of the past.
Predictions for how this conflict may end
Military analysts propose several possible outcomes to the present confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran. None of them offers a true victory.
One possibility is a limited conflict, in which strikes and counter strikes occur but remain confined to a narrow geographical area. In such a scenario, both sides may eventually claim success while quietly stepping back to avoid a wider war. This is often described as the most realistic outcome, but even a limited conflict will cause loss of life, infrastructure damage, and long-term instability in the region.
A second possibility is regional escalation, where other countries and armed groups become involved. The Middle East is a complex network of partnerships and rivalries. If one nation enters the war, others may follow. What begins as a confrontation between a few states could easily spread across several countries, affecting global oil supplies, trade routes, and economic security. In such a situation, the entire world will suffer.
A third possibility is prolonged tension without formal war. This may include sanctions, cyber-attacks, covert operations, and occasional military incidents. While this may appear less destructive than open war, it creates a constant climate of fear and mistrust. Nations spend billions on weapons while poverty, hunger, and disease remain unsolved.
There is also the frightening possibility of miscalculation. History shows that wars often begin not because leaders intend them to, but because pride, misunderstanding, or political pressure prevents compromise. Once violence begins, it becomes difficult to stop.
In every one of these scenarios, there are no real winners.
The language of hatred
One of the most painful aspects of the current situation is the tenor of public discussion. In some press conferences, speakers appear more concerned with proving strength than with preventing suffering. Supporters of war speak with passion, but rarely with compassion.
We hear statements that justify bombing, that dismiss civilian deaths as unavoidable, and that portray the enemy as less than human. When hatred becomes acceptable language, violence soon becomes acceptable action.
This is not new. Every war in history has been preceded by words that made conflict seem necessary, even noble. Yet after every war, the world looks back with regret and asks why peaceful solutions were not tried more seriously.
The Vietnamese Buddhist monks, the flowers, and the contradiction
In one of the most quietly extraordinary acts of moral courage in recent American memory, 19 Vietnamese Buddhist monks completed a 15-week, 2,300-mile Walk for Peace from Fort Worth, Texas, to Washington, D.C., concluding at the Lincoln Memorial in February 2026 — only weeks before the bombs began falling on Iran.
Led by Venerable Bhikku Panaka, the monks walked largely in silence. They rose before dawn each day and sometimes covered between 20 and 32 miles through bitter winter weather. They carried no placards of anger, made no political demands, and issued no ultimatums. Their message remained simple: slow down, be mindful, and opt for compassion.
Their journey was not lacking in suffering — a grim foreshadowing of the suffering the world was soon to inflict on itself. In November, a support vehicle travelling with the group was involved in an accident. Two monks were seriously injured, and one lost a leg. Yet the walk continued.
Millions of people followed their progress on social media. In town after town, communities greeted them with flowers. Many people joined them along the route, walking beside them in silence, moved by something they perhaps could not fully explain — a deep hunger, lodged beneath the clamour of modern life, for a world that chooses a gentler path.
Some stood by the roadside with tears in their eyes. The tears were not only for the monks. They were for the world itself — for what it has become, and for what it might still be.
And yet, within weeks of those same people pressing flowers into the monks’ hands, opinion polls in the United States showed significant public support for military strikes against Iran. The same country that had received men who had taken a vow of non-violence was, in its political discussions and public debates, preparing itself for war.
How do we interpret this contradiction? How can a nation be moved to tears by peace one day, and support bombing the next?
Perhaps the answer is that human beings carry both impulses within them — the capacity for great compassion, and the capacity for anger and vengeance. Which of these impulses becomes stronger often depends on who controls the public conversation.
The monks had silence, discipline, and flowers. The advocates of war had television studios, press conferences, political speeches, and the powerful language of national security. One message appealed to the heart. The other appealed to fear.
When people walked beside the monks, they experienced the truth of peace in their bodies. When they returned home and turned on the news, they heard a different story — a story of threats, enemies, danger, and the need to show strength. And, as has happened so often in history, the louder voice began to dominate.
This may be one of the most troubling features of modern political life: we are capable of being deeply moved by peace, yet still ready to support war. Not because people are cruel, but because the institutions of power give far greater strength to the language of conflict than to the language of compassion.
The monks had no lobbyists, no defence contracts, and no political influence. They had only their feet, their silence, and their willingness to suffer for what they believed.
It was not enough.
But the fact that it was not enough should trouble every one of us — especially those who stood by the roadside with tears in their eyes, placed flowers in the hands of men who walked for peace, and then returned home to support the very violence those monks had walked 2,300 miles to prevent.
A lesson from Sri Lanka, the world should remember
At the San Francisco Conference, held after the end of the Second World War, many countries demanded reparations from Japan for the destruction caused during the war. The anger was understandable. Cities had been destroyed, millions had died, and bitterness was strong.
At that conference, Sri Lanka — then Ceylon — was represented by J. R. Jayewardene, who made one of the most remarkable speeches in modern diplomatic history.
Quoting the words of the Buddha, he said:
“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but by love alone; this is an eternal truth.”
Instead of demanding punishment, he declared that Sri Lanka would not seek reparations. He argued that the world should help Japan to rise again rather than keep it in humiliation. His view was that peace built on revenge would not last, but peace built on goodwill could create stability.
History proved him right. Japan rebuilt itself and became one of the most peaceful and prosperous nations in the world. The moment of generosity laid the cornerstone for long-term peace in Asia.
One cannot help asking — where are such voices today?
The cost of choosing war again and again
Another tragic feature of modern conflict is the enormous cost.
The billions spent on weapons, missiles, and military operations could feed millions of hungry people, build hospitals, educate children, and fight disease. Instead, resources that could uplift humanity are used to destroy it.
War also leaves scars that cannot be measured in money. Families lose loved ones. Children grow up with fear. Nations remain divided for generations.
There has never been a war in which humanity as a whole became richer, happier, or more secure.
The alternative path
Peace is no weakness.
It requires more courage to negotiate than to fight.
It requires more patience to listen than to attack.
It requires more wisdom to forgive than to retaliate.
The example of the Buddhist monks and that given by J. R. Jayewardene remind us that another path always exists — but it must be chosen deliberately.
If nations continue to believe that superiority must be proved through force, the world will move from one conflict to another, growing poorer in spirit and heavier in sorrow.
If instead the world learns again the simple truth spoken long ago:
Hatred does not cease by hatred, but by love alone,
Then, even in this dangerous moment, there is still hope.
Because in war, there are no winners.
Only survivors — and too often, only victims.
Sunil G. Wijesinha
is a Consultant on Productivity and Japanese Management Techniques
Former Chairman / Director of several listed and unlisted companies
Former President of the National Chamber of Commerce, and former Chairman of the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon.
Recipient of the APO Regional Award for Promoting Productivity in the Asia-Pacific Region
Recipient of the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Rays – Government of Japan
Email: bizex.seminarsandconsulting@gmail.com
by Sunil G. Wijesinha
Features
Putting people back into ‘development’ – a challenge for South
Should Sri Lanka consider an 18th IMF programme? Some academicians exploring Sri Lanka’s development prospects in depth are raising this issue. It is yet to emerge as a hot topic among policy and decision-making circles in this country but common sense would sooner rather than later dictate that it be taken up for discussion by the wider public and a decision arrived at.
The issue of an 18th IMF programme was raised with some urgency locally by none other than Dr. Ganeshan Wignaraja,Visiting Senior Fellow, ODI Global London, one of whose presentations, made at the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, was highlighted in this column last week, May 7th. An IMF programme is far from the ideal way out for a bankrupt country such as Sri Lanka but a policy of economic pragmatism would indicate that there is no other way out for Sri Lanka. Such a programme is the proverbial ‘Bird in the hand’ for Sri Lanka and it may be compelled to avail of it to get itself out of the morass of economic failures it is bogged down in currently.
While local economic growth possibilities are far from encouraging at present, such prospects globally are far from bright as well. Some of the more thought-provoking data in the latter regard were disclosed by Dr. Wignaraja. For example, ‘The IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook projects global growth slowing to 3.1 percent in 2026; with downside risks dominating: prolonged conflict, geopolitical fragmentation, renewed trade tensions, bearing down hardest on emergent and developing economies.’
However, as is known, an ‘IMF bailout’ is fraught with huge risks for the people of a developing country. ‘The Silver Bullet’ brings hardships for the people usually and they would be required by their governments to increasingly ‘tighten their belts’ and brace for perhaps indefinite material hardships and discontent. For Sri Lanka, the cost of living is unsettlingly high and 20 percent of the population is languishing below the poverty line of $ 3.65 per day.
These statistics should help put the spotlight on the people of a country, who are theoretically the subjects and beneficiaries of development, and one of the main reasons, in so far as democracies are concerned, for the existence of governments. Placing people at the centre of the development process is urgently needed in the global South and shifting the focus to other considerations would be tantamount to governments dabbling in misplaced priorities.
Technocrats are needed for the propelling of economic growth but a Southern country’s main approach to development cannot be entirely technocratic in nature. The well being of the people and how it is affected by such growth strategies need to be prime focuses in discussions on development. Accordingly, discourses on how poverty alleviation could be facilitated need urgent initiation and perpetuation. There is no getting away from people’s empowerment.
In the South over the decades, the above themes have been, more or less, allowed to lapse in discussions on development. With economic liberalization and ‘market economics’ being allowed to eclipse development, correctly understood, people’s well being could be said to have been downplayed by Southern governments.
The development issues of Southern publics could be also said to have been compounded over the years as a result of the hemisphere lacking a single and effective ‘voice’ that could consistently and forcefully take up its questions with the global powers and institutions that matter. That is, the South lacks an all-embracing, umbrella organization that could bring together and muster the collective will of the South and work towards the realization of its best interests.
This columnist has time and again brought up the need for concerned Southern sections to explore the potential within the now virtually moribund Non-Aligned Movement to reactivate itself and fill the above lacuna in the South’s organizational and mobilization capability. In its heyday NAM not only possessed this institutional capability but had ample ‘voice power’ in the form of its founding fathers, with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, for example, proving a power to reckon with in this regard. The lack of such leaders at present needs to be factored in as well as accounting for the South’s lack of power and presence in the deliberative forums of the world that have a bearing on the hemisphere’s well being.
The Executive Director of the RCSS, Ambassador (Retd) Ravinatha Aryasinha, articulated some interesting thoughts on the above and related questions at a forum a couple of months back. Speaking at the launching of the book authored by Prof. Gamini Keerewella titled, ‘Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective’, at the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, Colombo, Amb. Aryasinha said, among other things: ‘Historically, there is a precedent that has been realized by the Non-Aligned group of countries – unfortunately, rather than being reformed and modified at the end of the Cold War, it has been tossed away.’
The inability of the nominally existent NAM to come out of its state of veritable paralysis and voice and act in the name of the South in the current international crises lends credence to the view that the organization has allowed itself to be ‘tossed away.’ The challenge before NAM is to prove that it is by no means a spent force.
As indicted, NAM needs vibrant voices that could advocate value-based advancement for the global South. Moral principles need to triumph over Realpolitik. Such transformative changes could come to pass if there is a fresh meeting of enlightened minds within the South. Pakistan by offering to mediate in the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran, for instance, proved that there are still states within the South that could look beyond narrow self-interest and work towards some collective goals. Hopefully, Pakistan’s example will be emulated.
Along with Pakistan some Gulf states have shown willingness to work towards a de-escalation of the present hostilities in West Asia. This could be a beginning for the undertaking of more ambitious, collective projects by the South that have as their goals political solutions to current international crises. These developments prove that the South is not bereft of visionary thinking that could lay the basis for a measure of world peace. That is, there are grounds to be hopeful.
NAM needs to see it as its responsibility to make good use of these hopeful signs to bring the South together once again and work towards the realization of its founding principles, such as initiating value-based international politics and laying the basis for the collective economic betterment of Southern people.
Features
Artificial Intelligence in Academia: Menace or Tool?
(The author is on X as @sasmester)
I have often been told by university colleagues how soulless and dangerous ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) is to academia and humanity. They lament that students no longer read anything as they can now get various AI programmes to summarise what is recommended which is mostly in the English language to Sinhala or Tamil or get easier versions in English itself. They get their assignments and even dissertations fully or partially written by AI. And I am led to believe that universities do not have reliable detection software to assess plagiarism and academic fraud that have been committed using AI beyond the software freely available on the internet with their own limitations. This is due to financial restrictions in these institutions. Even these common malpractices have been done mostly with the aid of free AI programmes which are readily available, which means cheating in this sense is free and mostly safe. For teachers, this is a ‘menace’ in the same way ‘copying’ once was. But its implications are far worse.
But given the global investments made over AI, it cannot be wished away despite the enormous negative impact its use has on the environment, particularly due to its massive demand for energy. So, AI is with us to stay, and it has a considerable role to play in human civilisation even though like most innovations and inventions, this too carries its own burden of negativity. In this context, instead of demonising AI and lamenting its replacement of human agency and ingenuity, one needs to think seriously about how to deal with and engage with it reflectively and pragmatically as there is much it can offer if people are intelligent enough to make rational and sensible choices.
When I am making these observations, I am restricting myself to a handful of practices involving only writing both in university-based examination processes and in the fields of creative writing.
My initial introduction to AI was through the Research Methods class I used to teach in New Delhi. In 2022, this class was supposed to go to Dharmshala in Uttar Pradesh for fieldwork training, and we needed to write a funding proposal quickly. One of the students in the class, already familiar with ChatGPT introduced by OpenAI as a free programme in 2022, did the proposal with its help before the two-hour class was over. I edited it soon after and sent it off to the university administration for funding which we received. That stint of field work was completed in five days and was the most detailed work undertaken as a training programme up to that time in the university which had considerable output ranging from a documentary film to a detailed ethnography based on the findings.
While the technical details, the format of the proposal and its basic writing were done by AI due to the time constraints the class faced, its fine-tuning was done by me and a few students. AI could not then and even now cannot undertake that level of specificity without close human intervention. But the film, the ethnography and the actual process of research had nothing to do with AI. It was the result of human labour, thinking, planning and at times creativity and ingenuity. This was an early example of how AI could coexist in an academic environment if its technical usefulness was clearly understood and potential for excesses was also understood. But this was a time, easily accessible AI was just emerging, and we did not know much about it. But I was fortunate enough to have intelligent students in my class who gave me a crash course into this kind of AI use, which I followed up with my own reading and experimentation later on. As a result, I am keener now to see how it can be used for the betterment of academic practice rather than taking an uncritically demonising position, which I know will not lead anywhere.
But how is this possible? The lamentations of my colleagues about the abuse of AI in academic practice is not unfounded. It is a serious threat that remains mostly unaddressed not only in our country but almost everywhere else in the world too. This is mostly because the advancements of AI even in day-to-day free usage have far exceeded any thoughts for actionable codes of ethics to ensure its practice is sensible and ethical. At the same time, I cannot see why a student should not use AI to correct his spelling and grammar in assignments. I also cannot see why a student cannot seek AI’s help to secure research material from secondary sources available online which I have been doing for years. For instance, the originals of specific books and rare manuscripts might not be available in any repositories in our part of the world. In such situations, what AI might find us is all we have access to in a world where we are restricted in our mobility due to semi-racist visa regimes of failed empires and former superpowers as well as our own lack of ability to travel due to our own unenviable economic conditions. But unfortunately, the materials we need are often only available in research centers and libraries in those nations.
Similarly, when it comes to academic prose, it makes no sense now to take years to translate works from multiple languages to Sinhala and Tamil. This has always been a time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive process. Non-availability of Sinhala and English translations of core originals in languages such as English, French, German and so on has been a long-term problem for our country. But this can now be done well – at least from English to our languages – quite quickly and with a very low margin for error by using specific AI programmes which are meant to do precisely this. What this means is a quick expansion of knowledge in local languages which would have ordinarily taken years to achieve or might not have been possible at all. But still, this needs significant human intervention and time towards perfection. However, I do not think AI-based translations work as well for fiction and poetry or creative works more generally. But the ability for AI to emulate nuance and feeling in language is fast emerging. These are two clear examples of improving technical abilities in research and writing in which AI can be of help.
But looking for sources of information with help the help of AI or using it as a tool to undertake essential translations from one language to another is quite different from simply using it without ascertaining the accuracy of collected information, getting AI to do all your work without any reflection or without any hard work at all, including engaging AI to do the final product in a writing assignment — be that a term paper or a work of fiction. If one proceeds in this direction, as many unfortunately do nowadays, then, our ability to think and be creative as a species will become diminished over time and our sense of humanity itself will take a toll. This is what my colleagues worry about when they say AI is making younger generations soulless.
It is here that ethical practices on how to use AI responsibly without compromising our sense of humanity must play a central role. But these ethical practices must be formally written and taught, followed by viable programmes for detection and publication if unethical practices are followed. This needs to be the case particularly in teaching institutions as well as the broader domain of creative writing. After all, what is the fun in reading a novel or a collection of poetry written by AI?
It is time people began to think about what AI can do in their own fields without falling prey to its power and their own laziness. This brings to my mind Geoffrey Hinton’s words: “There is no chance of stopping AI’s development. But we need to ensure alignment; to ensure it is beneficial to us …” Similarly, as Yann LeCun observed, “AI is not just about replicating human intelligence; it’s about creating intelligent systems that can surpass human limitations.” In this sense, it is up to us to find our edge in creativity and common sense to find the most sensible way forward in using AI.
Features
Engelbert’s 90th birthday bash
The legendary Engelbert Humperdinck, who is known for his hit songs such as ‘A Man Without Love’, ‘Release Me’, ‘Spanish Eyes’, ‘The Last Waltz’, ‘Am I That Easy To Forget’, ‘Ten Guitars’ and ‘I Can’t Stop Loving You’, turned 90 on 02 May, 2026, and there were some lovely Hollywood-related celebrations.
Before his birthday, Engelbert’s new single ‘I’ve Got You’ was released – on 23 April – and Engelbert had this to say: “‘I’ve Got You’ is especially close to my heart. It speaks to love, loyalty, and the quiet strength we find in one another”.
The main birthday event was held at The Starlight Cabaret, in Los Angeles, California, and Sri Lankan Raju Rasiah, now based in the States, and his wife Renuka, who are personal friends of Engelbert, were invited to participate in the celebrations, along with Ingrid Melicon – also a Sri Lankan, now domiciled in America.
The invitation said “An evening of music, memories and celebration. Let’s make it a night to remember!” And it certainly turned out to be a night never ever to be forgotten!

Invitees experienced a “magical entrance” with Engelbert’s name lighting up the screen and showing him performing his hit songs.
The invitees were also presented with a unique gift – a necklace with Engelbert’s face, engraved with the words “Remember, I Love You.”
Engelbert’s son, Bradley Dorsey, sang a tribute song ‘Only You’ for his dad, while Eddy Fisher’s daughters, Tricia and Joely, also got on stage to entertaining the distinguish gathering.
Engelbert didn’t perform but got on stage for the cutting of the birthday cake.
There was also a video compilation of birthday wishes from fellow celebrities, and the lineup included Gloria Gaynor, Micky Dolenz, Wayne Newton, Pat Boone, Lulu, Judy Collins, Deana Martin, Angélica María, Rupert Everett, Matt Goss, and more.

Birthday boy Engelbert Humperdinck
At 90, Engelbert is still performing. He’s on THE CELEBRATION TOUR for his 90th year, with over 50 international dates in 2026, including Australia, Germany, the US, and Canada. He’ll be at Massey Hall in, Toronto, on 06 October, 2026. He said: “The stage is my home… Canada has always been a highlight”.
He performed 60+ concerts, worldwide, in 2025, and says karaoke keeps his songs fresh: “Most of my songs are on karaoke because people love to sing them”.
-
News4 days agoLanka Port City officials to meet investors in Dubai
-
News1 day agoEx-SriLankan CEO’s death: Controversy surrounds execution of bail bond
-
News5 days agoSLPP expresses concern over death of former SriLankan CEO
-
Editorial6 days agoThe Vijay factor
-
News5 days agoPolice inform Fort Magistrate’s Court of finding ex-CEO of SriLankan dead under suspicious circumstances
-
Features2 days agoHigh Stakes in Pursuing corruption cases
-
Features2 days agoWhen University systems fail:Supreme Court’s landmark intervention in sexual harassment case
-
Features6 days agoPalm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – 1
