Recently, I had the opportunity to watch a talk by Dr. Gayan J on the subject of life and living. His insights were valuable, though not revolutionary or “eye-opening” in a dramatic sense. He began by posing the question: “What is the most valuable thing in your life?” and proposed—almost as an absolute truth—that life itself is the most valuable possession anyone has. He also emphasized the significance of time and the heart as the most valuable organ. After all, what is the purpose of pumping blood (heart) if a being is unaware of its own existence (mind and/or brain)?

The criteria for assessing life as the most valuable asset vary largely across cultural contexts. Culture encompasses religions, traditions, rituals, beliefs, languages, the geopolitical environments, and even economic systems. In some cultures, individual life is considered secondary to broader, collective purposes. History has shown numerous instances where individuals have willingly sacrificed their lives for patriotism, even when the underlying motives remain ambiguous. Examples include suicide bombers and the practice of hara-kiri (Seppuku, also called hara-kiri, is a form of Japanese ritualistic suicide by disembowelment. It was originally reserved for samurai in their code of honour, but was also practised by other Japanese people during the Shōwa era to restore honour for themselves or for their families), and it is widely known that Japanese individuals who chose to end their lives by jumping onto enemy ships during World War II.

For others, life takes a backseat to faith, with the expectation of a more blissful existence in the afterlife. Some prioritize their partners’ well-being over their own due to extraordinary intimacy and love. These diverse perspectives highlight the complexity of valuing life, demonstrating that its perceived worth is deeply influenced by cultural, ideological, and emotional factors.

Naturally, for those in the medical profession, life itself is considered the most valuable asset.

The Philosophical Debate on Life’s Value

Therefore, the question of what the most valuable thing in life is deeply philosophical and varies based on individual perspectives, cultural backgrounds, and personal beliefs. Some philosophers, such as Thomas Nagel and Jean-Paul Sartre, argue that life itself is the most valuable asset, as without life, no other value or experience would be possible. This perspective aligns with existentialist thought, as Sartre pointed out that, where existence precedes essence, making life a fundamental prerequisite for any subjective or objective valuation. From a biological standpoint, survival and reproduction are fundamental evolutionary imperatives, reinforcing the intrinsic value of life.

However, another viewpoint suggests that time is equally, if not more, valuable. Time is finite and irreversible, making it the ultimate constraint on human existence. Time dictates the opportunities available for individuals to act, grow, and achieve meaning in life. Human beings construct meaning in response to the awareness of mortality, making the passage of time a defining element in determining value. In economic and philosophical discussions, time scarcity enhances its significance and wasting time equates to wasting life itself.

Cultural Determinants of Value

The criteria used to assess the value of life are largely dependent on cultural contexts, encompassing religion, traditions, language, geopolitical environments, and economic systems. Different cultures place varying degrees of emphasis on individualism and collectivism, significantly influencing the perceived value of life.

In highly individualistic societies, such as those in the Western world, life is regarded as an autonomous and personal entity, making personal well-being and longevity central concerns. In contrast, collectivist cultures, such as those in East Asia, often perceive life as part of a greater social or national identity, sometimes leading individuals to prioritize the collective over personal survival. This is evident in instances where individuals willingly sacrifice their lives for patriotism, such as Japanese kamikaze pilots during World War II and the historical practice of hara-kiri, which reflects a cultural valuation of honour over life itself.

The Paradox of Sacrificing Life

While life is commonly considered the most valuable possession, history and psychology demonstrate numerous cases where individuals willingly sacrifice their lives for a perceived greater cause. Religious and ideological convictions often shape these decisions. For example, the phenomenon of suicide bombers reflects the belief that religious or ideological goals transcend individual existence. Similarly, in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, the concept of an afterlife leads believers to view earthly life as transient and secondary to an eternal spiritual existence. Martyrdom in Christianity and jihad in Islam illustrate instances where individuals regard spiritual fulfillment or divine reward as more valuable than earthly life. Hindu and certain Buddhist beliefs conceptualize life as a transient stage in a cycle of rebirth, diminishing attachment to one’s current existence.

Love and the Willingness to Sacrifice Life

Extraordinary intimacy and love can also lead individuals to value another person’s life over their own. Psychological studies suggest that deep emotional bonds, such as those found in romantic relationships or parental care, can override self-preservation instincts. The concept of self-sacrificial love is widely explored in literature, such as in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, where love leads to the ultimate sacrifice. Similarly, cases of altruistic acts, such as firefighters risking their lives to save others, highlight scenarios where life is placed secondary to love, duty, or compassion.

Happiness vs. Life Itself as the Most Valuable Thing

The debate over what is most valuable in life often centres around two key perspectives: whether life itself is the ultimate value or whether happiness is the highest priority. While life is the foundation upon which all experiences—including happiness—are built, happiness is often seen as the ultimate goal that gives life meaning. A critical comparison of these perspectives involves examining their philosophical, cultural, and practical implications.

Life as the Most Valuable Thing

Biologists, like Richard Dawkins, highlight survival as the primary evolutionary imperative, suggesting that the drive to preserve life is deeply ingrained in human nature. From a cultural perspective, many traditions and religious beliefs uphold life as sacred. For example, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism emphasize the sanctity of life, sometimes even placing it above individual desires, including happiness. Additionally, in medical and ethical discussions, preserving life is often prioritized, even if it does not necessarily lead to happiness (e.g., life-support cases where patients may not have quality of life).

However, valuing life above all else can present contradictions. If mere existence is the ultimate value, does this mean that all suffering must be endured simply because one is alive? This perspective does not account for individuals who may find life unbearable due to terminal illness, severe suffering, or psychological distress, raising ethical questions about euthanasia and the right to die.

Happiness as the Most Valuable Thing

An alternative view suggests that happiness, rather than life itself, is the highest value. Thinkers like Aristotle (384–322 BCE) argued that eudaimonia—often translated as flourishing or deep happiness—is the ultimate goal of human existence. Similarly, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill proposed that maximizing happiness (or pleasure) is the guiding principle for ethical decision-making.

Quality of Life or Just Life

In this perspective, the value of life is determined by its quality rather than its mere existence. A life filled with suffering and devoid of happiness may not be seen as inherently valuable. This is reflected in contemporary discussions on well-being, where psychological research suggests that happiness—measured by emotional well-being and life satisfaction—is a key indicator of a meaningful life.

However, prioritizing happiness over life itself can also present dilemmas. Happiness is subjective and often fleeting, and what brings joy to one person may not apply universally. Moreover, an exclusive focus on happiness may lead to hedonism or short-term gratification at the expense of long-term well-being. If happiness is the ultimate goal, would it justify actions such as drug-induced euphoria or avoiding responsibilities that may bring long-term fulfillment but short-term discomfort?

Critical Comparison and Conclusion

Both perspectives offer compelling arguments, but they also have limitations. Life is a prerequisite for all experiences, including happiness, but mere survival without fulfillment may not be meaningful. Conversely, happiness is often seen as the purpose of life, but prioritizing it above existence itself can lead to ethical and philosophical challenges.

The valuation of life is not absolute but contingent on cultural, religious, and personal beliefs. While life itself is inherently valuable as a prerequisite for all experiences, various cultural and ideological frameworks may lead individuals to prioritize values other than their own existence. Whether driven by nationalism, faith, or love, the perception of life’s worth remains complex and multifaceted, varying across individuals and societies. The willingness to sacrifice life for ideological, religious, or emotional reasons suggests that the definition of value is fluid and context-dependent. Therefore, what is deemed most valuable is not an absolute truth but a product of the cultural and personal lenses through which individuals perceive their existence.

A balanced view might integrate both perspectives—recognizing that life is inherently valuable while also emphasizing the importance of living a fulfilling and meaningful existence. Instead of treating them as mutually exclusive, a nuanced approach would seek to enhance the quality of life so that it is both sustained and enriched with happiness.

by Jehan Perera

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva have regularly been a focal point of controversy for Sri Lanka. Since 2009, the year the thirty-year internal war ended, the country has been the subject of multiple resolutions aimed at addressing human rights violations and war crimes committed during and after the war. These resolutions have been met with strong resistance from successive Sri Lankan governments, which have accused the UNHRC of double standards and external interference in the country’s internal affairs. Nationalist political factions have often used the UNHRC’s actions as a rallying point to stir anger against the international community and ethnic minorities within Sri Lanka, further deepening divisions within the country.

However, the ongoing UNHRC sessions have seen a notable shift in Sri Lanka’s approach. Unlike in previous years, where government delegations clashed openly with UNHRC representatives, the government representatives delivered speeches that emphasised Sri Lanka’s commitment to international human rights norms. Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s commitment to independent and credible domestic mechanisms within the constitutional framework to address post-war issues of national reconciliation. He emphasised that institutions such as the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), Office for Reparations (OR), and Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) will be strengthened.

Foreign Minister Herath also said, “The Government led by President Anura Kumara Disanayaka is firmly and sincerely committed to working towards a unified Sri Lanka that respects and celebrates the diversity of its people with no division or discrimination based on race, religion, class and caste. We will not leave room for a resurgence of divisive racism or religious extremism in our country. The fundamental and longstanding principles of democracy and freedom enshrined in our Constitution will be fully respected and safeguarded while protecting the human rights of all citizens. Every citizen should feel free to practice their religion, speak their language, and live according to their cultural values without fear or discrimination. No one should feel that their beliefs, culture, or political affiliations will make them targets of undue pressure or prejudice.”

NAWAZ COMMISSION

However, while the speech did Sri Lanka proud, it largely revolved around broad commitments to human rights rather than addressing specific allegations of war crimes, enforced disappearances, and militarisation in the North and East of the country.  For instance, UNHRC Resolution 25/1, adopted in 2014, mandated the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to conduct an independent investigation into allegations of human rights violations during the final phases of the war. More recently, in 2021, a resolution was passed that granted the UN human rights office a mandate to collect and preserve evidence of war crimes for potential future prosecutions. Successive Sri Lankan governments have rejected these resolutions, viewing them as politically motivated and unfairly targeted at the country’s military and political leadership.

 Despite these criticisms, the international community has continued to push for accountability. The extension of the OHCHR’s Sri Lanka Accountability Project in October 2024 highlighted the international perception that Sri Lanka has not done enough to ascertain the truth of what happened in the past and to take action against those who perpetrated war crimes and gross human rights violations during the war period.  Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath’s response to this was to say in Geneva, “The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalization to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans.”

The solution of a truth and reconciliation commission is a concept that has taken root and evolved from within the country. The recommendations of the Presidential Commission to Investigate Findings of Previous Commissions of Inquiry on Human Rights chaired by Supreme Court Justice A.H.M.D. Nawaz makes this clear.  This Commission was entrusted with the huge task of evaluating the findings of previous Presidential Commissions of Inquiry and assessing their implementation. The Commission’s interim reports, published in 2022 and 2023, and its final report, submitted in January 2024, provide a comprehensive analysis of Sri Lanka’s human rights landscape. The report provides a clear answer—Sri Lanka must establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to formally address past injustices, provide justice for victims, and prevent future conflict.

OVERCOMING MISTRUST

The pivotal recommendation from the Nawaz Commission is the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As articulated in paragraph 1043 of the report: “Undoubtedly, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission can provide a historical record of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and influence institutional reforms in law and practice to promote and protect human rights. Critically, they assist in ensuring accountability for serious violations, which is fundamental in order to prevent potential violations, promote compliance with the law, and provide avenues of justice and redress for victims.” By establishing an authoritative historical record, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission can dispel misinformation, acknowledge the suffering of victims, and pave the way for meaningful reforms.

Sri Lanka’s history is replete with numerous commissions of inquiry, each established with the intent to investigate specific incidents or periods of unrest. The Nawaz report goes painstakingly into them. Notable among these are the Three Presidential Commissions of 1994, which investigated violations from 1987 to 1990 but were prematurely halted; the All-Island Presidential Commission of 1998, which built on the earlier inquiries and issued a report in 2002, calling for judicial action; The 2001 Presidential Truth Commission on Ethnic Violence (1981-84), which investigated the 1983 riots. While some victims received compensation in 2004, there was no accountability for perpetrators; The 2006 Udalagama Commission, which investigated cases like the Trincomalee five students and the 17 ACF humanitarian workers but lacked follow-through; The 2010 Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), which reviewed events from 2002 to 2009 and made many recommendations that were not implemented; The 2013 Paranagama Commission, which examined missing persons and civilian casualties during the final years of the war and led to the setting up of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) in 2016.

 The recurring theme across these commissions is a pervasive sense of disillusionment among victims and the broader populace. As the Nawaz Commission which went through them in detail poignantly observes, “Our island nation has had a surfeit of commissions. Many witnesses who testified before this commission narrated their disappointment of going before previous commissions and achieving nothing in return.”  This sentiment highlights the critical need for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that not only investigates but also ensures the implementation of its recommendations, thereby restoring public trust in transitional justice mechanisms. The Nawaz commission being an internal one, entirely funded and supported by the Sri Lankan government, documented and analysed material that was also gathered by other national commissions. This would dispel any notion of an international conspiracy behind it.

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS

The government’s recent approach at the UNHRC suggests a willingness to engage diplomatically. However, for its credibility to grow and for trust to develop, this engagement must be backed by concrete action and be more inclusive in its scope to include key stakeholder groups. The government also needs to move beyond general statements and take tangible steps to address the concerns raised by the international community. Key steps could include Returning Land to Displaced Communities.  Many communities in the Northern and Eastern provinces remain displaced due to land occupied by the military. The government should expedite the process of returning these lands to their rightful owners to restore livelihoods and promote reconciliation.

This needs to be buttressed by Releasing Long-Term Detainees.  A significant number of individuals remain in detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), some without formal charges. Ensuring due process and releasing those against whom there is no credible evidence would demonstrate a genuine commitment to justice and human rights.  Finally, the government also needs to set about Reducing Military Presence in the North and East. The continued military presence in civilian areas fuels tensions and undermines reconciliation efforts. Demilitarization, along with empowering local governance structures, would be a crucial step toward normalizing life in these regions.

The government needs to back up its diplomatic engagement with the UNHRC and other international and national stakeholders with real, measurable actions. Addressing core issues such as land restitution, the release of detainees, and demilitarisation would not only help rebuild trust with the international community but also contribute internally to national unity and reconciliation.  This needs to be followed by the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is established in consultation with all stakeholders and is genuinely implemented.

Usually, stakeholders are limited to victims and survivor groups and some government institutions. Ideally, stakeholders should also include, the media and journalists, judiciary and legal institutions, CSOs, NGOs and religious and community leaders, who recognise the need for a Truth and Reconciliation process.  The Nawaz Commission Report has laid the groundwork for this vital initiative, and it is up to all of them to ensure its success. Sri Lanka has the potential to be the voice of conscience in a world that is increasingly troubled by the breakdown of international norms. Sri Lanka can do its part to contribute to healing processes in the world.