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
Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century
In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.
Ceasefire Hopes
Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.
Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.
Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.
In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”
Subversion from the Right
The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.
The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.
In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.
Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.
In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.
Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.
The rise and fall of Viktor Orban
Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.
At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.
To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.
Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.
During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.
Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.
The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.
Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.
For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.
The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.
EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.
by Rajan Philips
Features
ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries
Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.
ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.
At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.
By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.
Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.
Exhibition Details:
Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5
Features
Our Teardrop
BOOK REVIEW
Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)
Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3
The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.
On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.
Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.
Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.
However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.
There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.
There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.
L S M Pillai
-
Latest News7 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT arrive in Colombo
-
Latest News6 days agoPrasidh, Buttler set up comfortable win for Gujarat Titans
-
News4 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
Latest News5 days ago“I extend my heartfelt wishes to all Sri Lankans for a peaceful and joyous Sinhala and Tamil New Year!” – President
-
Latest News6 days agoHeat Index at Caution level’ in the Northern, North-central, North-western, Western and Southern provinces and in Trincomalee district.
-
Latest News5 days agoUS blockade of Iran would worsen global energy crisis, analysts say
-
News1 day agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News6 days agoSalt and Patidar power RCB past Mumbai Indians

