Features

Buddhism and Ahimsa

Published

11 months ago

2025/01/13

Thilina Walpola

The Buddha showing compassion towards Angulimala. (Image courtesy Buddha Weekly)

by Dr. Justice Chandradasa Nanayakkara

The word Ahimsa, derived from Sanskrit, means non-harm or non-injury and is often translated into English as non-violence. The dictionary defines it as “the ethical principle of not causing harm to other living beings.”

From its very inception, Buddhism has had a deep commitment to non-violence. Ahimsa represents a profound ethical principle in Buddhist thought just as in many other religious traditions. The Dhammapada states “Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal”. The first precept in buddhism emphasises the importance of avoiding harm to all living beings. It advocates nonviolence and asserts that violence toward others contradicts the teachings of the Buddha. This principle involves refraining from causing injury to life and includes abandoning all forms of weapons that can inflict harm or destroy life. In a positive context, it promotes compassion and empathy for all living beings. Therefore. In an age of hatred and discord ahimsa (non-violence) should become an ideal for all beings.

Buddha’s stance on violence was unequivocal. He was not a theologian but a liberator who sought to guide individuals toward inner peace. For Buddha, nonviolence was not a social or political philosophy. The Buddha famously stated, “There is no greater happiness than peace.” In Christianity, Jesus expressed similar sentiments and declared “Blessed are the peacemakers” The ultimate goal for a Buddhist is to attain a serene state of nirvana, and the means to achieve this must be inherently peaceful. Moreover, the Dhammapada emphasises that “All tremble at violence, all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”

Buddha’s teachings have influenced the lives of millions of people worldwide. Buddhists are expected to radiate metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) which are vital tenets of Buddhism to fellow human beings and to all the elements that constitute Mother Nature. These tenets teach that loving kindness toward one another is essential for peace and harmony in society. Further, the interconnected and interdependent nature of all phenomena in the world underscores that our well-being depends fundamentally on cultivating a peaceful environment free from violence and hatred.

While religions can contribute positively to society, they can also exert a pernicious influence. Religions have, at times, served as agents of violence, providing a cover of legitimacy to unbridled violence and aggression in virtually every heterogeneous society. Many atrocities have been perpetrated and cruel wars have been waged by followers of one religion ruthlessly persecuting those belonging to other faiths in the name of religion.

Buddhism is not exempt from this reality. Despite its peaceful teachings that explicitly condemn war and violence -regardless of whether they are defensive or aggressive- the fact remains that violence has disrupted the political and social landscapes of many Buddhist countries. These countries have grappled with various forms of violent conflicts, fostering a climate of mutual distrust and animosity. In many of these societies, stark disparities and gross injustices have driven individuals to such violence. Conflicts are an inescapable aspect of human existence, ranging from minor inconveniences to serious confrontations, affecting individuals and nations and not unique to Buddhist countries.

There have been many instances where despite Buddhists being committed to radiating metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) toward all beings participating in violence in places like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, and several other countries. These clashes often arise when people fail to tolerate each other’s moral, religious, or political differences. All religions have their accepted dogmas and beliefs that followers must accept without question, which leads to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. When individuals display blind religious zealotry and adopt absolutist and dogmatic attitudes toward their religion can also provoke powerful irrational impulses that destabilise society. When individuals feel overwhelmed by their irrational emotions, normal behaviour breaks down. Similarly, the interpretation of vague dogmas and scriptures has led to varying interpretations resulting in conflictual situations. Moreover, there is the tendency of religious nationalists to view their religion as intimately tied to their nation or homeland, so a threat to one is perceived as a threat to the other. Religious fundamentalists who are primarily driven by dissatisfaction with modernity too have produced extremist sentiments in many countries. It is indeed unfortunate that violence has become so entrenched in our societies, overshadowing the profound wisdom of non-violence that Buddhism seeks to promote.

What happens in these countries in no way represents Buddha’s teachings It is the perversion of his core teachings. No matter what the Buddha taught, there have always been and will be people who will misinterpret the teachings, and resort to violence and killing. It is the fault of the people and not the teachings. While every religious tradition has experienced instances of violence, this phenomenon highlights more about human nature than it does about religion itself. This is particularly so when the world is composed of diverse people with varying tendencies; some are naturally peaceful while others are prone to violence. These popular portrayals of religions often reinforce the view of religion as conflictual and violent.

The Buddha’s teachings are generally pacifist and peaceful, but some contend violence may be justified in certain circumstances. They believe that a certain amount of violence may be acceptable if the end goal is noble. However, the overarching message of Theravada Buddhism remains clear. Non-violence which is intrinsic to Buddhist philosophy, applies to all spheres of life and rejects physical violence even to achieve social or political change. Buddhism is inherently a peaceful tradition and sets its moral bar very high and nowhere in its teachings does one find any evidence in support of violence whether in word , thought or deed. Therefore, all teachings and practices are geared towards the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) for the benefit of oneself and others. Buddha once declared: Even bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even an at that would not be doing my bidding”.

Buddhists who are committed to peace believe that they cannot take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. True Buddhists are not expected to kill even a small insect let alone kill a human being. If a Buddhist insults another let alone kill or use violence toward others he does not follow buddhas teachings. The irony lies in the fact that history has demonstrated that the use of violence, no matter how justifiable it may seem, often leads to a cycle of further violence.

Another fundamental aspect of Buddhism that is allied to this idea is the doctrine of consequences or Kamma. Buddha said volition is karma Cetanaham, bhikkhave kamman vadimi . Cetayitiva kammam karoti kayena, vacaya, manasa (Intention, oh monks, I call karma, intending one does karma by way of body, speech, and mind. Buddhism just like many religions teaches that human beings are responsible for their actions and must face the repercussions—whether in this life, the next life, or the afterlife. Dhammapada states “An evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, just as milk curdles not at once; like smouldering fire covered with ashes, evil deeds follow the fool”.

When we delve deeply into the root causes of conflict and tension, they lie in the unhappiness and suffering born of greed, hatred, and delusion as identified in the Buddha’s teachings. We can only truly foster a harmonious world by embracing the principles of non-violence as enunciated in many religious traditions overcoming hatred and discord.

For Buddhist countries, maintaining armed forces poses the dilemma of protecting their citizens’ rights and lives without violating the principle of non-violence. Similarly, some Buddhists may find it difficult to conceive of serving in the military whilst adhering to the ethos, values and standards of Buddhism. Although Buddha himself was a member of the warrior caste and had cordial relations with kings and delivered several discourses to kings he never advised them to abandon their responsibility of ruling with its attendant consequences and punishment for crimes, nor to abandon warfare and protection of their state when necessary.

Every Buddhist enlisted in the military is legally bound to protect and defend his country and countrymen. It is also natural for every living being to defend himself and attack another for self-protection, but the karmic effect of aggression depends on his mental attitude. For example, if a man dies accidentally in the course of a struggle at the hands of another who had no intention of harming him, according to Buddhism he will be absolved from the karmic reaction. On the other hand, if a man kills another without any provocation whatsoever then he will not be free from the karmic response; he has to face the consequences.

Therefore, there is no fundamental contradiction between adhering to ahimsa and being enlisted in the military service. What is important is how he sets about his task and what intentions he entertains while performing his duties.

In the Kalama sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha has told Kalama, how the three unwholesome roots of greed, hatred and delusion lead one to commit unwholesome actions like killing and causing violence and also to encourage others to do the same, result in long-term harm and suffering.

The renowned Srilankan Buddhist monk and scholar Venerable K. Sri Dhammanannda says, “Buddhists should not be aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence.

One of the challenges the world faces today is transforming the prevalence of violence in all its forms into a culture of peace, not merely the absence of war but also fostering an environment of compassion and karuna (loving-kindness).

All News Advertisement

Features

Sustaining good governance requires good systems

Published

9 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

A prominent feature of the first year of the NPP government is that it has not engaged in the institutional reforms which was expected of it. This observation comes in the context of the extraordinary mandate with which the government was elected and the high expectations that accompanied its rise to power. When in opposition and in its election manifesto, the JVP and NPP took a prominent role in advocating good governance systems for the country. They insisted on constitutional reform that included the abolition of the executive presidency and the concentration of power it epitomises, the strengthening of independent institutions that overlook key state institutions such as the judiciary, public service and police, and the reform or repeal of repressive laws such as the PTA and the Online Safety Act.

The transformation of a political party that averaged between three to five percent of the popular vote into one that currently forms the government with a two thirds majority in parliament is a testament to the faith that the general population placed in the JVP/ NPP combine. This faith was the outcome of more than three decades of disciplined conduct in the aftermath of the bitter experience of the 1988 to 1990 period of JVP insurrection. The manner in which the handful of JVP parliamentarians engaged in debate with well researched critiques of government policy and actions, and their service in times of disaster such as the tsunami of 2004 won them the trust of the people. This faith was bolstered by the Aragalaya movement which galvanized the citizens against the ruling elites of the past.

In this context, the long delay to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has earned notoriety for its abuse especially against ethnic and religious minorities, has been a disappointment to those who value human rights. So has been the delay in appointing an Auditor General, so important in ensuring accountability for the money expended by the state. The PTA has a long history of being used without restraint against those deemed to be anti-state which, ironically enough, included the JVP in the period 1988 to 1990. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), published in December 2025, is the latest attempt to repeal and replace the PTA. Unfortunately, the PSTA largely replicates the structure, logic and dangers of previous failed counter terrorism bills, including the Counter Terrorism Act of 2018 and the Anti Terrorism Act proposed in 2023.

Misguided Assumption

Despite its stated commitment to rule of law and fundamental rights, the draft PTSA reproduces many of the core defects of the PTA. In a preliminary statement, the Centre for Policy Alternatives has observed among other things that “if there is a Detention Order made against the person, then in combination, the period of remand and detention can extend up to two years. This means that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being charged with a crime. Such a long period again raises questions of the power of the State to target individuals, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long periods of remand and detention, which has contributed to abuse and violence.” Human Rights lawyer Ermiza Tegal has warned against the broad definition of terrorism under the proposed law: “The definition empowers state officials to term acts of dissent and civil disobedience as ‘terrorism’ and will lawfully permit disproportionate and excessive responses.” The legitimate and peaceful protests against abuse of power by the authorities cannot be classified as acts of terror.

The willingness to retain such powers reflects the surmise that the government feels that keeping in place the structures that come from the past is to their benefit, as they can utilise those powers in a crisis. Due to the strict discipline that exists within the JVP/NPP at this time there may be an assumption that those the party appoints will not abuse their trust. However, the country’s experience with draconian laws designed for exceptional circumstances demonstrates that they tend to become tools of routine governance. On the plus side, the government has given two months for public comment which will become meaningful if the inputs from civil society actors are taken into consideration.

Worldwide experience has repeatedly demonstrated that integrity at the level of individual leaders, while necessary, is not sufficient to guarantee good governance over time. This is where the absence of institutional reform becomes significant. The aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah in particular has necessitated massive procurements of emergency relief which have to be disbursed at maximum speed. There are also significant amounts of foreign aid flowing into the country to help it deal with the relief and recovery phase. There are protocols in place that need to be followed and monitored so that a fiasco like the disappearance of tsunami aid in 2004 does not recur. To the government’s credit there are no such allegations at the present time. But precautions need to be in place, and those precautions depend less on trust in individuals than on the strength and independence of oversight institutions.

Inappropriate Appointments

It is in this context that the government’s efforts to appoint its own preferred nominees to the Auditor General’s Department has also come as a disappointment to civil society groups. The unsuitability of the latest presidential nominee has given rise to the surmise that this nomination was a time buying exercise to make an acting appointment. For the fourth time, the Constitutional Council refused to accept the president’s nominee. The term of the three independent civil society members of the Constitutional Council ends in January which would give the government the opportunity to appoint three new members of its choice and get its way in the future.

The failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General has created an institutional vacuum at a critical moment. The Auditor General acts as a watchdog, ensuring effective service delivery promoting integrity in public administration and providing an independent review of the performance and accountability. Transparency International has observed “The sequence of events following the retirement of the previous Auditor General points to a broader political inertia and a governance failure. Despite the clear constitutional importance of the role, the appointment process has remained protracted and opaque, raising serious questions about political will and commitment to accountability.”

It would appear that the government leadership takes the position they have been given the mandate to govern the country which requires implementation by those they have confidence in. This may explain their approach to the appointment (or non-appointment) at this time of the Auditor General. Yet this approach carries risks. Institutions are designed to function beyond the lifespan of any one government and to protect the public interest even when those in power are tempted to act otherwise. The challenge and opportunity for the NPP government is to safeguard independent institutions and enact just laws, so that the promise of system change endures beyond personalities and political cycles.

by Jehan Perera

Features

General education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?

Published

9 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

A new batch arrived at our Faculty again. Students representing almost all districts of the country remind me once again of the wonderful opportunity we have for promoting social and ethnic cohesion at our universities. Sadly, however, many students do not interact with each other during the first few semesters, not only because they do not speak each other’s language(s), but also because of the fear and distrust that still prevails among communities in our society.

General education reform presents an opportunity to explore ways to promote social and ethnic cohesion. A school curriculum could foster shared values, empathy, and critical thinking, through social studies and civics education, implement inclusive language policies, and raise critical awareness about our collective histories. Yet, the government’s new policy document, Transforming General Education in Sri Lanka 2025, leaves us little to look forward to in this regard.

The policy document points to several “salient” features within it, including: 1) a school credit system to quantify learning; 2) module-based formative and summative assessments to replace end-of-term tests; 3) skills assessment in Grade 9 consisting of a ‘literacy and numeracy test’ and a ‘career interest test’; 4) a comprehensive GPA-based reporting system spanning the various phases of education; 5) blended learning that combines online with classroom teaching; 6) learning units to guide students to select their preferred career pathways; 7) technology modules; 8) innovation labs; and 9) Early Childhood Education (ECE). Notably, social and ethnic cohesion does not appear in this list. Here, I explore how the proposed curriculum reforms align (or do not align) with the NPP’s pledge to inculcate “[s]afety, mutual understanding, trust and rights of all ethnicities and religious groups” (p.127), in their 2024 Election Manifesto.

Language/ethnicity in the present curriculum

The civil war ended over 15 years ago, but our general education system has done little to bring ethnic communities together. In fact, most students still cannot speak in the “second national language” (SNL) and textbooks continue to reinforce negative stereotyping of ethnic minorities, while leaving out crucial elements of our post-independence history.

Although SNL has been a compulsory subject since the 1990s, the hours dedicated to SNL are few, curricula poorly developed, and trained teachers few (Perera, 2025). Perhaps due to unconscious bias and for ideological reasons, SNL is not valued by parents and school communities more broadly. Most students, who enter our Faculty, only have basic reading/writing skills in SNL, apart from the few Muslim and Tamil students who schooled outside the North and the East; they pick up SNL by virtue of their environment, not the school curriculum.

Regardless of ethnic background, most undergraduates seem to be ignorant about crucial aspects of our country’s history of ethnic conflict. The Grade 11 history textbook, which contains the only chapter on the post-independence period, does not mention the civil war or the events that led up to it. While the textbook valourises ‘Sinhala Only’ as an anti-colonial policy (p.11), the material covering the period thereafter fails to mention the anti-Tamil riots, rise of rebel groups, escalation of civil war, and JVP insurrections. The words “Tamil” and “Muslim” appear most frequently in the chapter, ‘National Renaissance,’ which cursorily mentions “Sinhalese-Muslim riots” vis-à-vis the Temperance Movement (p.57). The disenfranchisement of the Malaiyaha Tamils and their history are completely left out.

Given the horrifying experiences of war and exclusion experienced by many of our peoples since independence, and because most students still learn in mono-ethnic schools having little interaction with the ‘Other’, it is not surprising that our undergraduates find it difficult to mix across language and ethnic communities. This environment also creates fertile ground for polarizing discourses that further divide and segregate students once they enter university.

More of the same?

How does Transforming General Education seek to address these problems? The introduction begins on a positive note: “The proposed reforms will create citizens with a critical consciousness who will respect and appreciate the diversity they see around them, along the lines of ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, and other areas of difference” (p.1). Although National Education Goal no. 8 somewhat problematically aims to “Develop a patriotic Sri Lankan citizen fostering national cohesion, national integrity, and national unity while respecting cultural diversity (p. 2), the curriculum reforms aim to embed values of “equity, inclusivity, and social justice” (p. 9) through education. Such buzzwords appear through the introduction, but are not reflected in the reforms.

Learning SNL is promoted under Language and Literacy (Learning Area no. 1) as “a critical means of reconciliation and co-existence”, but the number of hours assigned to SNL are minimal. For instance, at primary level (Grades 1 to 5), only 0.3 to 1 hour is allocated to SNL per week. Meanwhile, at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), out of 35 credits (30 credits across 15 essential subjects that include SNL, history and civics; 3 credits of further learning modules; and 2 credits of transversal skills modules (p. 13, pp.18-19), SNL receives 1 credit (10 hours) per term. Like other essential subjects, SNL is to be assessed through formative and summative assessments within modules. As details of the Grade 9 skills assessment are not provided in the document, it is unclear whether SNL assessments will be included in the ‘Literacy and numeracy test’. At senior secondary level – phase 1 (Grades 10-11 – O/L equivalent), SNL is listed as an elective.

Refreshingly, the policy document does acknowledge the detrimental effects of funding cuts in the humanities and social sciences, and highlights their importance for creating knowledge that could help to “eradicate socioeconomic divisions and inequalities” (p.5-6). It goes on to point to the salience of the Humanities and Social Sciences Education under Learning Area no. 6 (p.12):

“Humanities and Social Sciences education is vital for students to develop as well as critique various forms of identities so that they have an awareness of their role in their immediate communities and nation. Such awareness will allow them to contribute towards the strengthening of democracy and intercommunal dialogue, which is necessary for peace and reconciliation. Furthermore, a strong grounding in the Humanities and Social Sciences will lead to equity and social justice concerning caste, disability, gender, and other features of social stratification.”

Sadly, the seemingly progressive philosophy guiding has not moulded the new curriculum. Subjects that could potentially address social/ethnic cohesion, such as environmental studies, history and civics, are not listed as learning areas at the primary level. History is allocated 20 hours (2 credits) across four years at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), while only 10 hours (1 credit) are allocated to civics. Meanwhile, at the O/L, students will learn 5 compulsory subjects (Mother Tongue, English, Mathematics, Science, and Religion and Value Education), and 2 electives—SNL, history and civics are bunched together with the likes of entrepreneurship here. Unlike the compulsory subjects, which are allocated 140 hours (14 credits or 70 hours each) across two years, those who opt for history or civics as electives would only have 20 hours (2 credits) of learning in each. A further 14 credits per term are for further learning modules, which will allow students to explore their interests before committing to a A/L stream or career path.

With the distribution of credits across a large number of subjects, and the few credits available for SNL, history and civics, social/ethnic cohesion will likely remain on the back burner. It appears to be neglected at primary level, is dealt sparingly at junior secondary level, and relegated to electives in senior years. This means that students will be able to progress through their entire school years, like we did, with very basic competencies in SNL and little understanding of history.

Going forward

Whether the students who experience this curriculum will be able to “resist and respond to hegemonic, divisive forces that pose a threat to social harmony and multicultural coexistence” (p.9) as anticipated in the policy, is questionable. Education policymakers and others must call for more attention to social and ethnic cohesion in the curriculum. However, changes to the curriculum would only be meaningful if accompanied by constitutional reform, abolition of policies, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (and its proxies), and other political changes.

For now, our school system remains divided by ethnicity and religion. Research from conflict-ridden societies suggests that lack of intercultural exposure in mono-ethnic schools leads to ignorance, prejudice, and polarized positions on politics and national identity. While such problems must be addressed in broader education reform efforts that also safeguard minority identities, the new curriculum revision presents an opportune moment to move this agenda forward.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna).

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

by Ramya Kumar

Features

Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs

Published

9 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

Certain songs become ever-present every December, and with Christmas just two days away, I thought of highlighting the Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs.

The famous festive songs usually feature timeless classics like ‘White Christmas,’ ‘Silent Night,’ and ‘Jingle Bells,’ alongside modern staples like Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You,’ Wham’s ‘Last Christmas,’ and Brenda Lee’s ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree.’

The following renowned Christmas songs are celebrated for their lasting impact and festive spirit:

* ‘White Christmas’ — Bing Crosby

The most famous holiday song ever recorded, with estimated worldwide sales exceeding 50 million copies. It remains the best-selling single of all time.

* ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ — Mariah Carey

A modern anthem that dominates global charts every December. As of late 2025, it holds an 18x Platinum certification in the US and is often ranked as the No. 1 popular holiday track.

Mariah Carey: ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’

* ‘Silent Night’ — Traditional

Widely considered the quintessential Christmas carol, it is valued for its peaceful melody and has been recorded by hundreds of artistes, most famously by Bing Crosby.

* ‘Jingle Bells’ — Traditional

One of the most universally recognised and widely sung songs globally, making it a staple for children and festive gatherings.

* ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ — Brenda Lee

Recorded when Lee was just 13, this rock ‘n’ roll favourite has seen a massive resurgence in the 2020s, often rivaling Mariah Carey for the top spot on the Billboard Hot 100.

* ‘Last Christmas’ — Wham!

A bittersweet ’80s pop classic that has spent decades in the top 10 during the holiday season. It recently achieved 7x Platinum status in the UK.

* ‘Jingle Bell Rock’ — Bobby Helms

A festive rockabilly standard released in 1957 that remains a staple of holiday radio and playlists.

* ‘The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)’— Nat King Cole

Known for its smooth, warm vocals, this track is frequently cited as the ultimate Christmas jazz standard.

Wham! ‘Last Christmas’

* ‘It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year’ — Andy Williams

Released in 1963, this high-energy big band track is famous for capturing the “hectic merriment” of the season.

* ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ — Gene Autry

A beloved narrative song that has sold approximately 25 million copies worldwide, cementing the character’s place in Christmas folklore.

Other perennial favourites often in the mix:

* ‘Feliz Navidad’ – José Feliciano

* ‘A Holly Jolly Christmas’ – Burl Ives

* ‘Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!’ – Frank Sinatra

Let me also add that this Thursday’s ‘SceneAround’ feature (25th December) will be a Christmas edition, highlighting special Christmas and New Year messages put together by well-known personalities for readers of The Island.