Features
What the world expects of Biden
US re-entering the Paris Agreement on Climate Change:
By Dr Janaka Ratnasiri
At the outset, let me congratulate President-Elect (PE) Joe Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris (KH) on their historic win at the recent Presidential election. PE Biden made history by receiving the highest ever number of popular votes in any presidential election, while KH made history by being the first woman to be elected as the US Vice President, particularly with South Indian and West Indies parentage. It was reported in media that PE Biden had stated that one of the first initiatives he would take as President of USA would be to re-enter the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (PACC) from which the US withdrew after President Donald Trump assumed office in 2017. The purpose of this write-up is to highlight the implications of the US withdrawal from the PACC and its re-entry.
UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The nations adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the UN Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to adopt collective measures to arrest the global warming caused by uncontrolled emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and, thereby, avoid any long-term climate change having many adverse impacts globally. In the UNFCCC, countries are divided into three groups, the first numbering 36 as listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC document, comprising developed countries as well as countries with transition economies (mostly Eastern European countries), the second numbering 25 comprising developed countries as listed in Annex II and the third comprising developing countries referred to as Non-Annex I counties.
The division into Annex I and Non-Annex I Parties was based on the Parties’ per capita emissions rather than on the total emissions, which are high in Annex I Parties than in Non-Annex I Parties. The UNFCCC requires the Annex I Parties comprising developed countries to take the lead in combatting climate change and its adverse effects, and to reduce their emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2000 through voluntary measures. Non-Annex I Parties comprising developing countries are required only to take climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, when formulating their social, economic and environmental policies, and employ measures with a view to mitigate or to adapt to climate change.
The UNFCCC also requires all parties to submit periodic national communications (NC) incorporating GHG inventories of sources and sinks, and description of measures taken towards mitigation and adaptation as well as information on training, research, capacity building and public awareness programmes on climate change. Annex I Parties are required to submit their NCs regularly while Non-Annex I Parties are required to submit their NCs as and when funds are made available for that purpose. Sri Lanka has submitted only two NCs so far, the Initial NC in 2000 and the second NC in 2011. The third NC is under preparation beginning 2016 and is expected to be finalized in 2020, for which the Global Environment Fund contributed USD 654,300 (UNDP Website). The Ministry of Environment is the National Focal Point for UNFCCC in Sri Lanka responsible for preparing the NCs.
KYOTO PROTOCOL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
With growing evidence of climate change coming from all parts of the globe by way of increased frequency of extreme climatic events such as floods, droughts, heavy storms; increasing rates of glacier melting; change of rainfall patterns and a significant increase in global average temperature in recent years, and recognizing that the commitment for developed countries to reduce their emission levels back to 1990 levels is insufficient, prompted the Parties to UNFCCC to adopt the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (KPCC) in 1997 which made it mandatory for Annex I Parties to reduce their GHG emissions to levels below their 1990 levels. Each country was assigned a specific reduction commitment to be achieved within the 5-year period of 2008-2012 below their 1990 levels of emissions, with an average reduction commitment of 5%.
During the 5-year period 2008-2012, many countries, particularly the European countries, were successful in reducing their emissions as required. It is noteworthy that several industrialized developing countries such as China, India and Brazil categorized as Non-Annex I Parties are exempted from any emission reduction commitments because they have low per capita emissions, while at the same time, they emit high overall amounts of GHGs. This was a thorny issue not acceptable to countries like USA, Canada and Japan who wanted these high emitting countries also to undertake reduction commitments, which countries like China and India vehemently opposed. This dispute resulted in these developed countries withdrawing from the KPCC.
COPENHAGEN ACCORD
At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) held in Copenhagen in 2009, UNFCCC was due to decide on the terms of extension of KPCC beyond 2012 and several proposals were in the agenda. Several developed countries including those in the European Union were willing to undertake enhanced reductions. A committee comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) was appointed to work out the details and present its recommendations to the Plenary. They had almost finalized a scheme recommending enhanced mandatory commitments to be undertaken by developed countries during the 5-year period 2013-2017 by closing time of the last day of the conference.
However, at the 11th hour, in an unprecedented move, USA President Barack Obama barged into the closed room where the BRICS committee meeting was held and made an intervention, which no one else would dared to have done. He announced that USA would pledge to get developed countries to mobilize funds to the extent of USD 100 billion a year by 2020 to finance projects in developing countries that would reduce their emissions. Trusting President Obama’s word, both China and India changed their stance hitherto held and agreed to undertake voluntary reduction commitments.
President Obama took a step further and proposed that even the developed countries should undertake only voluntary emission reductions rather than mandatory reductions as decided by KPCC. Surprisingly, the BRICS committee agreed to this proposal without raising any objection. He emphasized that developed countries should be left to decide to what extent they should reduce carbon emissions without being prompted by the KPCC. It may be noted that Annex I Parties had collectively reduced GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning from 30,950 MtCO2Eq in 1990 to 25,647 MtCO2Eq in 2018, a 17.1% reduction, with 11 Parties non-complying (UNFCCC website).
The intervention made by President Obama was tabled at the Plenary where it was taken note of, but was incorporated into the COP15 report which said that “developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (GCF) to be established”. This arrangement was referred to as the Copenhagen Accord (CA). It was further decided that the modality of implementation of this Accord should be completed by 2015.
PARIS AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
With the proposal made at COP15 in 2009, UNFCCC took 6 years of negotiations for a consensus to be reached on the modality of implementing the CA. Finally, a decision was made in this regard at COP21 held in Paris in 2015, resulting in the adoption of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (PACC). This incorporated the mandate given in the CA for undertaking voluntary emission reductions applicable to all countries. Developing countries agreed for undertaking these commitments on the understanding that they would receive adequate financial assistance for implementing projects that would reduce their emissions. This was clearly evident from speeches made by Heads of States at the Paris conference including Sri Lanka’s.
The key aim of PACC is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise within this century well below 2 degrees Celsius (C) above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5o C. To reach this goal, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework are expected to be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries, in line with their own national objectives.
During the COP21, many heads of states made pledges for providing finances during 2016-2020, totaling USD 48 billion. Among the key contributors are Japan (USD 10B), EU (USD 11B), UK (USD 8.7B), France (USD 6.6B), Italy (USD 4 B) and USA (USD 4B) (Ref: UNFCCC website). It is noteworthy that USA which spearhead the abolition of mandatory emission reductions by developed countries and getting developing countries on board with them on the promise of mobilizing USD 100 billion annually by 2020, pledged only a paltry USD 4 billion contributions up to 2020. However, according to UNFCCC website, the actual amount received from USA to date amounted to only USD 1 billion.
In addition, several multilateral banks operating in Asia, Africa and globally pledged finances up to USD 160 billion by 2020. In addition, the European Investment Bank provided €3 billion in climate finance to developing countries in 2018. To date, the GCF is supporting 143 projects in countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia-Pacific covering mitigation, adaptation and cross-cutting sectors, for which USD 21 billion has been allocated. However, the actual amount collected to date is only USD 10 billion (GCF Website).
WITHDRAWAL FROM PARIS AGREEMENT BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
President Donald Trump who assumed duties in January 1917 felt that the PACC is disadvantageous to USA bringing benefits to other countries at the expense of American tax payers. He said this in a press briefing held at the White House Rose Garden on 01.06.2017. He further said that Americans stand to lose over 2.5 million jobs by 2025, reduced wages, shuttered factories affecting the economy badly if USA stayed in the PACC. He also said that under the PACC, China and India will be allowed to build more coal power plants while USA is debarred from building any, and that USA’s vast energy resources will have to be kept under lock and key without being able to generate employment for people in exploiting these resources.
One assertion made by President Trump was that no one knows where the money collected from developed countries go to. The Green Climate Fund’s website lists exactly 143 projects that are underway in Non-Annex I countries. The total amounts for each are listed, along with the anticipated benefits. It is obvious that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the PACC is based on misinformation which probably would have been provided by his advisers.
President Obama, on the other hand, said at the COP21 meeting where the PACC was adopted that USA had taken many initiatives to reduce carbon emissions including building many renewable energy projects such as wind and solar energy plants, adopting energy efficiency systems and introducing standards on power plant emissions and phasing out fossil fuel use, and that these activities have created a large number of new employment opportunities while at the same time keeping the environment clean.
Though President Trump wanted to withdraw from the PACC with immediate effect as announced at the press briefing held in June 2017, the official notification of withdrawal was submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat only on 04.11.2019. As such, the withdrawal took effect only on 04.11.2020, as per PACC provisions. On this occasion, Chile, France, Italy, UK and UN Climate Change issued the following joint statement on 04.11.2020.
“On 12 December we will be celebrating the five-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement. We must ensure that it is implemented in full. We note with regret that the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has formally come into effect today. As we look towards COP26 in Glasgow, we remain committed to working with all US stakeholders and partners around the world to accelerate climate action, and with all signatories to ensure the full implementation of the Paris Agreement” (UNFCCC website).
PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN’S DECISION TO RE-ENTER PARIS AGREEMENT
The international community would welcome the decision made by PE Biden to re-enter the Paris Agreement. He should be conscious of the fact that the entire group of developing countries gave their consent to undertake emission reductions placing trust on President Obama’s assurance that he would mobilize USD 100 billion annually up to 2020 to meet the costs incurred by them in undertaking projects that will reduce carbon emissions.
If this pledge is kept, by now there should be USD 500 billion collected in climate funds, but the amount collected so far does not come anywhere close to this figure as described before. With President Trump withdrawing from the PACC, all these developing countries who undertook commitments were left high and dry. PE Biden will therefore have to take off from where President Obama left for collecting funds for climate financing. To honour the pledge given by President Obama, PE Biden has an obligation to make a substantial contribution towards the climate fund from USA sources including the private sector.
Even within USA, emission reduction targets made by President Obama set in 2009 in Copenhagen, as announced in his speech made at COP21 meeting, that USA will reduce its carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 has not been kept. According to GHG emission data on fossil fuel burning posted in the UNFCCC website, the reduction between 2005 value of 7,392 MtCO2Eq and 2018 value of 6,676 MtCO2Eq (the latest available) is only 9.67% which is far below the target. Though he has set a new target of 26 – 28 % reduction below 2005 levels by 2025, it is unlikely this target would be met, unless PE Biden makes a concerted effort to enhance the emission reductions.
CONCLUSION
Biden’s decision to re-enter the PACC and continue its original financial commitments will certainly restore the confidence the developing countries had in the US as a leading partner in making the planet Earth a safe place for the future generations. People should be able to live without fear of adverse impacts of climate change such as flooding, land-slides, draughts and sea level rise inundating low-lying coastal habitats. These impacts are felt in all countries irrespective whether they are developed or developing, but the developing countries lack the adaptive capacity to meet the adverse impacts.
The international community looks forward to seeing Biden take initiatives to fulfill the commitments made by the US and expects him to meet these commitments pledged by President Obama in encourage the developing countries to undertake reduction commitments. The US could also demonstrate its commitment to prosperity of nations while ensuring rights of people to live in peace by removing unjust trade sanctions imposed on countries having different ideologies. Biden could bring about a change and make history.
Features
Concept of living wage and cost of living
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.)
Features
Buddhist philosophy and the path to lasting peace
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.”)
Features
Peace march and promise of reconciliation
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
-
News6 days agoLanka faces crisis of conscience over fate of animals: Call for compassion, law reform, and ethical responsibility
-
News5 days agoWhistleblowers ask Treasury Chief to resign over theft of USD 2.5 mn
-
News5 days agoNo cyber hack: Fintech expert exposes shocking legacy flaws that led to $2.5 million theft
-
News2 days agoBIA drug bust: 25 monks including three masterminds arrested
-
Business3 days agoNestlé Lanka Announces Change in Leadership
-
News2 days agoBanks alert customers to phishing attacks
-
News3 days agoHackers steal $3.2 Mn from Finance Ministry
-
News6 days agoUSD 2 mn bribe: CID ordered to arrest Shasheendra R, warrant issued against ex-SriLankan CEO’s wife
