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).

by Rajan Philips

The ideological Left and Right in Sri Lanka have staked out their positions on the country’s perennial rice crisis. In the view of the ideological Left, the country’s food crisis including the recent rice crisis is even traceable to the allegedly flawed IMF program. And the preferred solution is getting back to the future and achieving self-sufficiency in food based on a public distribution system that has been neglected and/or abandoned after 1977. What is conveniently forgotten is the scourge of shortages and the ridiculous restrictions on inter-district movement of rice before 1977 that set the political stage ready for the ideological and even habitual, but not at all pragmatically calibrated, launching of economic liberalization.

For the Right which is nowhere near what it was in 1977, the current and the recurrent September to December rice crisis is the cumulative result of the failed policies of price controls, import controls that were reintroduced after 2005, and the old self sufficiency mindset itself. Open up the market for locally produced rice to compete with imported rice and establish steady supplies and a price equilibrium. If prices occasionally rise to become unaffordable, people can eat bread until the hidden hand imposes a new price equilibrium. That is the gospel according to the Right.

Self-sufficiency in Rice

The fact of the matter is that based on annual production and consumption estimates, Sri Lanka has achieved self-sufficiency in rice, and this has been so for about three decades. That it happened under the open economy is not denied. In fact, pursuing self-sufficiency in rice has been a traditional UNP goal and not the SLFP’s. CP de Silva after an illustrious Civil Service career working under Prime Minister DS Senanayake, introduced self-sufficiency to the SLFP vocabulary after becoming a powerful Minister in the 1956 SWRD Bandaranaike government. He was quickly rebuked in parliament by his elder cousin, the LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva, that “one can achieve self-sufficiency only in one’s grave.”

Positive free trade has historically been the cry of the Left from the 19th century. Yet specific to rice and Sri Lanka, the balanced position articulated by Dr. Gamani Corea is a timeless advice, that “agricultural policies should not be guided entirely by considerations of comparative advantage,” … and that it would be “fool-hardy not to achieve a minimum self-reliance in basic food stuffs.” And none more so than in the areas paddy cultivation and rice production that have been so integral to Sri Lanka’s civilizational existence.

Rice in the Mill

At the same time, self-sufficiency in rice is not assured year after year due to adverse climate conditions. Alternating droughts and floods can upset all the self-sufficiency planning, as it happened in 2016. Now we know economic blunders such as the man-made fertilizer crisis can drastically impact our self-sufficiency as we saw in 2022. One would hope that the Rajapaksa history will never repeat itself, but weather disruptions can occur any year and every year. So, there has to be a well laid out Plan B for dealing with shortfalls in rice due to weather conditions.

But the recurrent September-December rice crisis is not due to weather but the manipulation of the supply-demand imbalance between the near constant monthly demand for rice and its biannual supply from the harvests of the Maha and Yala cultivating seasons. The well established seasonal pattern is that the main Maha season accounts for about 60% of local production and its harvest arrives in the mostly in the month of March every year. The harvest of the smaller Yala season brings the balance 40% usually during the month of August.

Monthly ‘Rice-Flow’

The paddy and rice statistics for the year 2023 indicate a total production of just over 3.0M metric tons of rice (out of 4.5M metric tons of paddy) and a total consumption of just under 2.5M metric tons, indicating a net surplus of about half a million metric tons. The monthly ‘rice-flow’ is conditioned by the steady monthly demand of approximately 205,000 metric tons of rice and its biannual points of supply of 1.8M metric tons of the Maha season rice in March-April, and 1.2M metric tons of the Yala season rice in August-September.

The Maha season supply of 1.8M metric tons alone can meet the monthly requirements until about the month of October. With the addition of the Yala supply of 1.2M metric tons by September, a positive ‘rice-flow’ can be maintained (with a surplus of 0.5M metric tons) until the next Maha harvest. This would usually be the case every year unless there is a weather disruption. The recurrent reality, however, is that supply levels drop, and prices increase during the months of September to December, causing rice shortages and price increases and forcing governments to rush in rice imports and exercise price control to avoid a political crisis. Usually, the governments’ remedies have been making matters worse.

The monthly retail price fluctuation is across the main paddy and rice types (samba, nadu, red rice etc.) and it has shown a generally consistent pattern of increasing prices from September to December, falling prices from January to March, slight increases in April, May and June, and ending with decreases over July and August. The highest retail price per kilogram of rice is registered in December and the lowest in March, with a Rs. 10 to Rs. 15 average difference between the two.

The general diagnosis is that the rising price from September to December and the falling price from January to March is the result of supply manipulation by a few large rice millers with large storage capacities who collude among them to restrict supply before December and glut the market after January. The main objective would seem to be not profiteering in the months of September to January but driving down the prices after January so that the millers can pay the minimum price to the farmers for purchasing paddy after the new Maha season harvest in March. The farmers are constantly in a bind no matter what the season is. They have no storage capacity and are constrained to turn over their harvest not to any miller or buyer, but generally to the one to whom they are invariably indebted to for obtaining seed paddy, purchasing fertilizer and other inputs.

The alternative explanation is that the rice stocks with millers go down during the year end months even as the demand for rice slightly goes up due to the increase in the number of tourists arriving in the country. When imports were freely allowed, the explanation goes, the recurring shortfalls were compensated by imported rice varieties so that rice supplies were maintained, and sharp price increases were avoided. This pattern was apparently broken after 2005 by the restriction on imports and high import duties and the impacts on the people became harder.

But the dispute over imports does not explain why rice stocks should fall below demand levels at any time during the year unless there have been weather disruptions. The additional demand attributed to tourist populations or beer production is likely to marginal at best. While there must be flexibility in turning to imports to deal with shortfalls in local production due to adverse whether conditions, relying on imports should not be the answer to supply manipulations by large rice millers.

Todate the problem of the market power of the large rice millers has been seen as more of a political problem but not as a technical as a technical challenge. At the political level, i.e., ministerial and cabinet level, the response to the rice crisis all these years has been one of inaction and overreaction. The inaction is by the government towards the widely acknowledged problem of a handful of large rice millers controlling the marketing and pricing of locally produced rice during the inter-seasonal months between end of the yala season harvest and the beginning of the maha season harvest. The overreaction is also by the government to address rice shortage and price increase by enforcing price controls and allowing rice imports.

For the present NPP government, unlike its recent predecessors, there is no evidence of there being vested interests to be served or having economic IOUs to anyone. On the other hand, every government this century – whether governments of the Rajapaksas by the Rajapaksas for the Rajapaksas, or the Sirisena-Ranil misadventure, or the Ranil-Rajapaksa caretaker regime – have been notorious for safeguarding vested interests and doling out IOUs. Or mostly IOUs in the case of the Rajapaksas.

As well, the NPP government notwithstanding its ideological prehistory is turning out to be the most practical government that this country has seen in a long time. By being practical in governing – I mean a governing approach to achieve results through actions based on evidence and information. Specific to the rice situation, Sri Lanka has gone through both the public distribution system and the private marketing system, and neither approach has by itself always produced the desired results.

Being practical in this instance would mean leveraging what works and under-using what does not. It also means that the government must rapidly work towards establishing a comprehensive database covering the rice milling industry, as well as a marketing information system for the rice sector at all levels. Agricultural Economists and Professionals have been calling for this for some time and it is a task that requires the government’s immediate attention.

(To be continued)