Defying Darkness: Sri Lanka’s 15-Year Victory Over Terror

When a bullet was put through megalomaniac Velupillai Prabhakaran’s head on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on the morning of May 19, 2009, the terrorist movement’s fate was sealed. 

by Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka brought the war against separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to a successful conclusion on May 19, 2009 – fifteen years ago.

The New Delhi-sponsored group, that turned its guns on the Indian Army during the latter’s deployment in the Northern and Eastern regions here (July 1987 to March 1990) was once considered invincible by its covert and overt backers, until then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s Army brought back Kilinochchi under government control in the first week of January 2009.

Sri Lankan military supporting the wounded civilians during the conflict in North [Photo Credit: Sri Lanka Army]

The recapture and military consolidation of the Elephant Pass-Kilinochchi stretch of the Kandy-Jaffna A9 road, in a matter of days, effectively restricted the LTTE to the Mullaithivu district. Once highly mobile conventional LTTE units were trapped as several Army fighting formations closed in on them from all directions.

Within months what had been once considered to be impossible for the Sri Lankan military to defeat the conventional military power of the LTTE, was reduced to tatters. That wouldn’t have been possible if not for the unprecedented parallel success achieved by Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda’s Navy in the high seas, destroying much of the LTTE floating arsenal, while Air Marshal Roshan Goonetilleke’s Air Force, too, proved its superiority by speedily supplying urgent military needs, while evacuating casualties from whatever battlefront, as well as engaging LTTE targets from the air based on specific intelligence deep inside enemy run territory.

When a bullet was put through megalomaniac Velupillai Prabhakaran’s head on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon on the morning of May 19, 2009, the terrorist movement’s fate was sealed.

Unfortunately, as we are about to celebrate Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism 15 years ago, various interested parties continue to cause turmoil here. The issues at hand cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the presidential polls scheduled for later this year.

Never again

One-time Norwegian International Development Minister Erik Solheim, who previously spearheaded the catastrophic and sham Norwegian peace effort here, is back. The 69-year-old former politician is President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s advisor on climate change. Although we will not go to the extent of finding fault with the President for appointing Solheim as his climate advisor, but the latter shouldn’t be allowed to get involved in local politics ever again for the simple reason Norwegians were never the honest broker of peace here. Haven’t we learnt enough from their duplicitous behaviour in the recent past just as our naive forefathers learnt the hard way the vile ways of colonial powers after inviting one after another from Portuguese to Dutch and then the British?

And this country is certainly not the inheritance of President Wickremesinghe to do any more dangerous experiments with crafty pale faces the way he blindly signed a one sided peace agreement with the LTTE, prepared by the Norwegians.

Solheim himself couldn’t have forgotten, under any circumstances, what far right extremist Anders Breivik, who had been influenced by the LTTE, did in July 2011. The Norwegian diplomat’s son murdered 77 persons, mostly children in two attacks carried out within hours.

The writer dealt with Solheim’s recent declarations regarding post-war Sri Lanka ahead of Norwegian Ambassador May-Elin Stener’s visit to the North where she met Northern Province Governor P.S.M. Charles. Stener met Charles on May 6 whereas Solheim held talks with her on April 30 in Jaffna. It was Soheim’s second meet with Charles since he received appointment as President Wickremesinghe’s climate advisor renewing old friendship. In the fresh avatar they first met in Colombo on Nov 20, 2023.

Against the backdrop of Norwegian Ambassador Stener meeting JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa in Colombo, it would be pertinent to also discuss the possibility of Norway eyeing a larger role here once again. Those who represent the interests of Western powers sometimes operate in not so mysterious ways knowing how gullible some of our leaders are on seeing white skins. Perhaps, Solheim is an exception. The international news agencies reported how Solheim, in his capacity as the UN environmental chief, promoted the China-led Belt and Road initiative as well as Chinese investments in Africa. Solheim should be able to explain the circumstances he threw his weight behind China, when the West in general is so hostile to Beijing.

Amidst that controversy, the Norwegian was compelled to resign several years ago following serious allegations of him squandering funds on overseas travel. The UN found itself in an untenable situation when some countries withheld funds for the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) in a bid to pressure the global organization. So, Solheim’s latest project here seems somewhat surprising and questionable. What Solheim really wants or whom he is now working for are two issues that needed to be addressed by the powers that be.

An expert opinion

Solheim’s latest foray should be analysed meticulously taking into consideration the crucial presidential polls, the first national election after the change of government through unconstitutional means in 2022. Does Solheim still believe that he could play a role in consensus building among Tamil political parties?

Eyebrows were raised when Solheim recently met EPDP leader Douglas Devananda who is also the Fisheries Minister.

But let me repeat author of ‘To End a Civil War’ Mark Salter’s response to my last week’s piece ‘Solheim is back’ published on May 8, 2024, edition of The Island. Salter, who began as a radio journalist for the BBC, subsequently specialised in Central European, West African and most recently South Asian affairs. Salter launched ‘To End a Civil War’ – a detailed description of the Norwegian peace role here in Colombo in early March 2016. Salter’s narrative should be examined, taking into consideration ‘Evaluation of Norwegian Peace Efforts in Sri Lanka (1997 -2009)’ produced by a team consisting of Gunnar M. Sørbø, Jonathan Goodhand, Bart Klem, Ada Elisabeth Nissen and Hilde Selbervik.

Salter found fault with the writer for not paying sufficient attention to what he called factual details. Pointing out the failure on the part of the writer to properly deal with the process leading up to the CFA, its aims and objective, etc., Salter countered the following assertions:

(a) “There is no doubt Solheim was one of those ill-advised diplomats or a deliberate hatchet man, who repeated their mantra that the LTTE couldn’t be militarily defeated.”

Simply not true – and in fact tendentious in its description of Solheim, whose views on the military balance at this point were derived chiefly from discussions with Delhi at this early point. Multiple evidence from the time indicates that the view that ‘the LTTE couldn’t be militarily defeated’ was essentially the view of, for example, both the Sri Lankan and Indian governments (Later is a different matter). This conclusion being chiefly based on readings of the prevailing military situation in the Vanni.

Adherence to this reading of the situation was a key factor in bringing the GoSL – in particular CBK and Kadirgamar – around to the idea of seeking facilitated talks with the LTTE.

(b) “The CFA was meant to create a separate region under LTTE control in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.”

There’s a straight confusion here. The CFA was not intended to create anything in a territorial sense. It simply sought to provide an agreed territorial basis for the ceasefire. LTTE control over the N&E was achieved via earlier LTTE military gains – not the CFA.

(c) The LTTE always had its way until President Mahinda Rajapaksa decided to put an end to the separatist terrorism.

Evidence to back this claim? The Lankan military retaking Jaffna 1995, for example: is that an example of the LTTE ‘always having its way’? Overall – and as often – these are the kinds of loose generalizations that I feel skew your whole approach.

Let me explain my stand on the above matters towards the end of this piece.

On May 2, the media received an email from the EPDP Office. Titled an urgent meet, the two-page statement in Sinhala, sent by EPDP leader Douglas Devananda’s longstanding Media Secretary, Nelson Edirisinghe, disclosed the Fisheries Minister meeting Solheim at the Colombo Hilton.

Edirisinghe, who had been with Devananda in the days he carried weapons, without hesitation revealed that the meeting was meant to discuss the current political situation. Why on earth the leader of a political party discuss current political situation with the President’s climate advisor?

The EPDP contested the last parliamentary polls, conducted in August 2020, on its own. It won two seats – one in Jaffna and another in Vanni. However, the EPDP accepted Cabinet portfolio from ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The EPDP continues to retain the Fisheries portfolio and recently declared its support to President Wickremesinghe’s candidature at the next presidential poll.

Devananda-Solheim meet

The EPDP statement declared its decision to go with President Wickremesinghe at the presidential poll.

This was the day after Devananda appeared with war-winning President and SLPP leader Mahinda Rajapaksa on their May Day stage at the Campbell Park. Interesting. Isn’t it?

Let me stress in point form what Devananda told President Wickremesinhe’s advisor Solheim:

(1) President Wickremesinghe is the only leader capable of successfully overcoming political and economic challenges experienced by Sri Lanka (2) Wickremesinghe has received international recognition (3) The incumbent President is committed to properly addressing problems faced by the Tamil speaking people (4) reminded Solheim how he (DD) warned the then Norwegian International Development Minister, 28 years ago, that peace couldn’t be achieved through violence (5) Wickremesinghe’s continuation as President would be beneficial to the Tamil speaking community as well as all other communities (6) Under Wickremesinghe’s leadership, the country could achieve rapid development.

Finally, Minister Devananda asked Solheim’s intervention with the Norwegian government on behalf of the fishing community here. MP Himanshu Gulati (Progress Party), son of Indian migrants, accompanied Solheim.

It would be pertinent to ask Solheim whether he in anyway represented the government of Norway.

During the Norwegian-spearheaded peace talks, the LTTE never accepted the right of other Tamil political parties to engage in politics. By then, the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has been compelled to recognize the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people. In addition to Norway, peace co-chairs consisting of the US, Japan, EU, as well as Norway, accepted the LTTE’s status. Otherwise, the LTTE wouldn’t have accepted none of them as co-chairs. That was the reality.

The LTTE hold on the TNA was such, its candidates for the 2004 General Election and its National List had to be cleared by the LTTE. By then, the LTTE had been divided with its Eastern cadre (Batticaloa-Ampara sector), led by Vinayagamoorty Muralitharan alias Karuna, switching allegiance to the government.

The post-2004 General Election report, issued by the European Union Election Observation Mission, in no uncertain terms disclosed the sordid relationship between the LTTE and the TNA. The EU asserted that the TNA secured 22 seats in the Northern and Easter Provinces, with the direct backing of the LTTE that resorted to violence and stuffing of ballot boxes in support of R. Sampanthan’s grouping.

One shouldn’t forget that by the time the LTTE declared Eelam War IV in August 2006, the Northern Province has been exclusively inhabited by Tamils as Muslims were driven away in Oct/Nov 1990 during Ranasinghe Premadasa’s tenure as the President and the Sinhalese much earlier. That had been one of the key factors that influenced the young Norwegian to go on the rampage in Norway in 2011.

A war that can’t be won…

Having held talks with the LTTE in February (Oslo) June (Oslo) and October (Geneva) under Norwegian facilitation without any success, the Rajapaksa government decided to go ahead with an all-out combined security forces campaign. The LTTE adopted an extremely hard and uncompromising stand as it quite confidently believed the military could be overwhelmed. (The Directorate of Military Intelligence gave the writer access to Kumaran Pathmanathan alias ‘KP’ a few months after the conclusion of the war in May 2009.

During the long interview, ‘KP’ asserted that the LTTE, at the time the war began, believed the military could be overwhelmed in the North within two years).

Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa hadn’t been hesitant when he told a top Norwegian delegation that the conflict could be settled through military means. Gotabaya Rajapaksa made that declaration during quite an early stage of the war. Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts-in Sri Lanka, 1997-2009 acknowledged that statement.

Retired Maj. Gen. Kamal Gunaratne in his ‘Ranamaga Osse Nanthikadal’ (Road to Nanthikadal) revealed that Army Commander Lionel Balagalle during Norway arranged CFA said that the LTTE couldn’t be militarily defeated.

Dr. Rohan Gunaratne, too, during quite an early stage declared that the LTTE couldn’t be defeated. The writer had highlighted Dr. Gunaratne’s assertion on several occasions. On March 22, 2007, the Bloomberg news agency quoted Gunaratne as having said that Sri Lanka’s war couldn’t be won by either side. A story headlined ‘Sri Lanka, Tamil Tiger Rebels Fight a War That Can’t be Won,’ by Colombo-based Anusha Ondaatjie, quoted head of terrorism research at Singapore’s Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Gunaratna as having asserted: “Continuing the current spate of violence is not going to bring about a different outcome, or change the status quo. Both parties have developed significant support to be able to recover from losses, but this type of warfare is protracted.” Gunaratna declared: “What is needed is a negotiated settlement to the conflict.”

Just three months after Dr. Gunaratne stressed the need for a negotiated settlement, the military liberated the entire Eastern Province.

The then Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Store, who had been involved in the Sri Lankan initiative, in May, 2007, asserted that all observers believed that the conflict couldn’t be won by military means, and the majority was of the opinion that the government wouldn’t be able to defeat the LTTE militarily.

Veteran Canada-based political and defence analyst, D.B.S. Jeyaraj, in late Dec. 2008, declared that the LTTE had the wherewithal to roll back the Army on the Vanni east front. In an article titled WAR IN WANNI: WHY THE TIGERS ARE DOWN BUT NOT OUT, Jeyaraj maintained the circumstances under which the LTTE could inflict massive defeat on the Army on the Vanni east front.

Less than two weeks later, the Army captured Kilinochchi. The liberation of Kilinochchi, on January 1, 2009, effectively ended the possibility of an LTTE fight back. The capture of Kilinochchi and the A9 road, northwards up to Elephant Pass, sealed the fate of the LTTE, with several fighting formations rapidly surrounding the remaining LTTE units operating in the Vanni east.

In fact, the UNP, as well as the JVP, too, believed the LTTE would ultimately strike back and roll-back the Army. The media, too, propagated that the LTTE tactics were far superior to that of the military

Gen. Sarath Fonseka declared during drinks and dinner at his Baudhaloka Mawatha official residence of the Army Commander in January 2008 that he wouldn’t leave the war unfinished. A smiling Army Chief with a drink in his hand declared:

“My term of office is coming to an end this year and I will not leave this war to the succeeding Army commander”.

So unlike all the self-proclaimed experts who generally toed the Western lies by wooing for Tigers, while pretending to be independent analysts, only to be proved wrong soon before the whole world, Fonseka’s words were far more prophetic. Have we not seen a similar repeat in Ukraine where all the Western military experts on mainstream media were predicting a Russian defeat there and even a dismemberment of Russia while the opposite is happening.

The writer was present on this occasion when the Sri Lankan Army Commander made that almost prophetic pronouncement and no doubt when it came to prosecuting a war he certainly had a sixth sense, whether it be during fighting the ruthless Tigers or even JVP terrorists. Though Fonseka’s Army couldn’t finish off the LTTE before the end of 2008 it achieved the most unexpected just five months later. The rest is history.

At the time Eelam War IV erupted in 2006, the entire Northern and Eastern Provinces hadn’t been under its control. The Jaffna peninsula and neighbouring islands had been under military control whereas a large section of Vanni remained under LTTE. In the Eastern Province, the military controlled major towns though there were frequent attacks. The LTTE never managed to secure total control of the two provinces through military means.

The LTTE pursued Eelam dream regardless of consequences. In a way, it always had its way regardless of the consequences though from time to time it suffered setbacks. The LTTE adopted a similar style when it dealt with India. When the LTTE realized that Indian strategy didn’t facilitate its own, it declared war on the Indian Army, then secured financial and military support from the then Premadasa government to wage war against the Indian Army and then ultimately assassinated former Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991. Gandhi’s crime was deploying his Army in Sri Lanka.

When the relentless Sri Lankan military drive forced the LTTE to retreat in all fronts, it dragged the civilian population to the Vanni east as a human shield where it made its last stand. Let me finish this by reproducing a letter written by wartime Norwegian Ambassador here. It explains the mindset of the LTTE.

Ambassador Hattrem’s note, dated Feb 16, 2009, to Basil Rajapaksa, revealed Norway’s serious concern over the LTTE’s refusal to release the civilians. The Norwegian note, headlined ‘Offer/Proposal to the LTTE’, personally signed by Ambassador Hattrem, underscored the developing crisis on the Vanni east front. The following is the text of Ambassador Hattrem’s letter, addressed to Basil Rajapaksa:

“I refer to our telephone conversation today. The proposal to the LTTE on how to release the civilian population, now trapped in the LTTE controlled area, has been transmitted to the LTTE through several channels. So far, there has been, regrettably, no response from the LTTE and it does not seem to be likely that the LTTE will agree with this in the near future.”

There wasn’t been any positive LTTE response and the military went ahead with the final phase of the operation which was completed 15 years ago this month.

Shamindra Ferdinando is a Deputy Editor of a Colombo-based daily newspaper, The Island.

Read More

Adani Energy Deal: Masters and Their Apologists-in-Chief

Sri Lanka needs at least 2 gigawatts of wind power urgently. I am all for it. But like the wind, it must be transparent.

by Rohan David Pethiyagoda

In his article, “Electricity sector: Without investment we will be in the dark again” (Daily FT, 7 April, 2024), Professor Rohan Samarajiva, evidently the latest apologist for India’s Adani Group, writes, “An eminent public intellectual, Rohan Pethiyagoda, bemoans the fact that a unit of electricity produced by the wind power facility proposed by Adani will cost more than wind-produced electricity in the US and in India.” He goes on, in the manner of a gifted prestidigitator, to cite a litany of excuses that argue for waiving the rules to help Adani cream of more than $ 700 million in excess profits from Sri Lankan electricity consumers. Much of what he writes consists purely of smoke and mirrors. But let’s cut to the bone.

Dealers have no conscience; they can destroy everything, even flamingos in Mannar. [File Photo]

Samarajiva bemoans the fact that wind projects in Sri Lanka must pass an environmental impact assessment whereas those in India need not. And that is somehow a good thing? How come I haven’t seen him out and about arguing for the repeal of Article 27(11) of the Constitution (“The State shall protect, preserve and improve the environment for the benefit of the community”)? Or for repealing the National Environmental Act (NEA)? Why is he coming out to argue against environmental safeguards only when the Adani’s interests are at stake?

Let me be clear about my principal objections to the Government’s award of the 250-megawatt wind power project to Adani last week. The price agreed to by the Government is USD cents 8.26 per unit. This is 250% higher than the price Adani charges from its wind projects in India. Correctly noting that insolvent Sri Lanka is a high-risk market, Samarajiva argues, “The higher the risk, the higher the expected return”. I agree. What I do question is how that risk premium is estimated. In my view, this can be done only through open competitive bidding. That, after all, is transparent. However, for Adani’s Mannar wind project, there was no such bidding process: instead, the government accepted an unsolicited offer from Adani, claiming it to be a government-to-government transaction, which it manifestly is not (unless it claims, perhaps accurately, that Adani and the Government of India are synonymous). 

Then there’s the matter of price. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, page 233, para 5) submitted by the Sustainable Energy Authority, an agency under the Minister of Power and Energy, states “Consequently, the main environmental benefit to the economy is the 25-year commitment to zero emissions at a price of USD cents 4.6 per kWh.” That was in January 2024, since when the risks have not changed. The government, however, has now decided to pay Adani USD cents 8.26 per unit. Into whose pocket is the extra USD cents 3.66 going? For the 1,000 gigawatt-hours Adani plans to generate from Mannar, that amounts to $ 36.6 million per year for 20 years: a staggering Rs. 220 billion, which is about as much as the national education budget. I wonder how the Good Professor is going to wriggle out of that one.

There’s a plethora of defects in the EIA, but I will highlight just two. First, Section 33(b) of the NEA stipulates that the EIA must include “a description of alternative to the activity which might be less harmful to the environment together with the reasons why such alternatives were rejected”. The EIA contains no such discussion of alternatives; neither does it state why they were rejected. This alone invalidates the EIA in its entirety. It violates the National Environmental Act and so must be rejected. The NEA is unambiguous in this regard: no ifs, no buts. 

Additionally, the EIA (and indeed, its terms of reference) are defective in that there is no consideration, or even mention, of the process or costs of decommissioning these structures when they reach end of life. Who will be liable for that? Certainly not Adani, and so the poor people of Mannar will have to carry the can for that, too. 

I fully understand Prof. Samarajiva’s anxiousness to lead the cheer squad for Adani, but he would do well to balance his enthusiasm with the fact that this project will violate numerous laws, regulations, procedures and procurement guidelines. Although Samarajiva is apparently oblivious to it, Sri Lanka is a notoriously corrupt country. It has been slipping steadily down the Corruption Barometer of Transparency International ever since 2020 (www.transparency.org/en/countries/sri-lanka). What’s more, Bloomberg News reported as recently as 15 March that the “US [is] Probing Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani and His Group Over Potential Bribery the Adani Corporation” (www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-15/us-prosecutors-widen-investigation-into-adani-group-focus-on-potential-bribery?embedded-checkout=true). 

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just yesterday, the CEB closed bids for 50 megawatts of wind power. The prices quoted in those two-envelope bids will be read out only about a month from now, but I will eat my hat if at least some of those bids don’t fall below the USD cents 8.26 the Government is paying Adani. And remember, a 50 MW project is much smaller than Adani’s 250 MW. It doesn’t enjoy the economies of scale and all the breaks that Adani is getting from the government. Question is, will Samarajiva eat his hat if I am right? Come on, professor, put your money where your mouth is. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if those second envelopes are never opened…

Our country became insolvent, a global pariah, because we allowed politicians to break the rules. Just two years ago, our youth evicted a disastrous president and demanded a system change. The failed ideology of that regime was crafted by eminent intellectuals such as Professor W.D. Lakshman, Professor Channa Jayasumana, Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya and Professor Priyantha Yapa. By espousing and turning apologist-in-chief for a multibillion-dollar deal that is notoriously untransparent if not downright illegal, Professor Rohan Samarajiva risks a similar fate.

Sri Lanka needs at least 2 gigawatts of wind power urgently. I am all for it. But like the wind, it must be transparent.

Rohan David Pethiyagoda is a Sri Lankan biodiversity scientist, amphibian and freshwater-fish taxonomist, author, conservationist and public-policy advocate.

Read More

Elizabeth’s Caution: Rejecting Hegemonic Interference in Sri Lanka

The United States must desist from interfering in Sri Lanka's internal affairs and abide by the principles of non-alignment and national sovereignty.

Editorial

From the outset, it’s evident that external forces seek to impose their will upon  Sri Lanka, brazenly disregarding international norms. The audacious declaration of intent, even before setting foot on  Sri Lankan soil, to pressure the nation into undermining its partnerships, is a blatant violation of the Vienna Convention, representing a flagrant affront to sovereign rights.

[Cartoon: Mohammad Sabaaneh]

The recent rhetoric emanating from the US nominee to Sri Lanka, Elizabeth K. Horst, epitomizes a concerning pattern of foreign interference, encroaching upon the sacred domain of sovereign nations. Under the guise of economic collaboration and security enhancement, the United States persistently imposes its influence upon  Sri Lanka, flouting the principles of non-alignment and national autonomy with impunity. 

Sri Lanka has historically stood firm in its commitment to neutrality, eschewing allegiance to any particular geopolitical faction. Yet, this dedication to independence is incessantly undermined by external actors, particularly the United States, which seeks to advance its self-serving agenda under the guise of promoting democracy and prosperity.

Horst’s avowal to counter Chinese investments in  Sri Lanka epitomizes this egregious interference. By portraying the US as a superior alternative to Chinese engagement, Horst disregards Sri Lanka’s inherent right to forge alliances based on its own national interests. By coercing  Sri Lanka to impose restrictions on Chinese research vessels and peddling purportedly ‘superior models,’ the US nominee flagrantly undermines Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and autonomy in policymaking.

Furthermore, Horst’s ostensible commitment to champion marginalized communities and advocate for accountability and justice rings hollow in light of US actions within Sri Lanka and around the globe. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s commendation of Ambassador Julie Chung, despite her controversial involvement in internal political matters, underscores the double standards inherent in US foreign policy. Ambassador Chung’s complicity in the removal of a democratically elected leader underlines the United States’ blatant disregard for democratic norms and sovereign prerogatives.

It is imperative to acknowledge that  Sri Lanka’s internal affairs should be entrusted solely to its citizens and elected representatives. Foreign intervention, whether through economic coercion or political manipulation, poses a grave threat to the democratic processes and sovereignty of the nation. The aspirations of the  Sri Lankan people for self-determination and autonomy must be respected and fiercely defended.

Moreover, the susceptibility of certain politicians in  Sri Lanka to external influences for personal gain underscores the urgent imperative of safeguarding national interests from foreign encroachments. Sri Lanka’s trajectory towards reconciliation and prosperity must be steered by the aspirations and self-determination of its populace, free from external impositions and ulterior motives.

The United States must desist from interfering in  Sri Lanka’s internal affairs and abide by the principles of non-alignment and national sovereignty. Genuine collaboration and partnership should be predicated on mutual respect, equality, and the shared interests of both nations. The time has come for Sri Lanka to assert its independence and unequivocally reject foreign meddling in its sovereign domain.

Read More

Bridging Buddha’s Teachings and Artificial Intelligence

If artificial intelligence promotes a different religion, it could pose a threat to Buddhism, so it’s crucial to consider this possibility.

by Ranil Wickremesinghe

Today, the world is confronted with a significant threat posed by climate change. The unprecedented intensity of sunlight we’re experiencing is unlike anything we’ve encountered before. We find ourselves in a challenging situation that requires focused efforts to mitigate climate warming. Additionally, we’re grappling with a substantial water scarcity issue. It’s essential to approach these challenges in alignment with the teachings of Buddha.

In the next two or three decades, climate change will emerge as one of the primary global challenges. According to Buddha’s teachings, this issue stems from civilization’s greed for rapid progress. The widespread desire for advancement has led to increased vehicle usage, resulting in significant environmental damage. Consequently, human society has inflicted considerable harm on the environment. Hence, it’s crucial to prioritize efforts to control climate change.

[Illustration based on Buddha Statue]

Today, the world is witnessing rapid technological advancements. Despite initial beliefs after the atomic bomb explosion in 1945 that technological progress might cease, there has been significant advancement across all sectors. Particularly, the IT sector has seen remarkable progress. During our school days, computers and mobile phones were non-existent, but with modern technological advancements, we now have access to Artificial Intelligence.

We are currently at the dawn of Artificial Intelligence, prompting questions about its trajectory over the next two decades. It’s essential to explore the relationship between artificial intelligence and Buddhism.

Buddha’s teachings emphasize the power of our minds in shaping our lives. By mastering our minds, we pave the way for progress; failure to do so leaves us with no future. This message was specifically intended for humanity, highlighting the importance of controlling our minds to overcome desires.

Now, artificial intelligence (AI) mirrors the capabilities of the human mind. AI can process vast amounts of information and operate accordingly. Therefore, it’s pertinent to explore the connection between Buddha’s teachings and AI, considering their shared focus on the mind’s control and its implications for our actions.

If artificial intelligence promotes a different religion, it could pose a threat to Buddhism, so it’s crucial to consider this possibility. Throughout history, Buddhism in Sri Lanka has been influenced by Hinduism, Mahayana and political influences. With the emergence of artificial intelligence, it adds another layer of influence. Therefore, we must contemplate whether AI might propagate alternative doctrines.

It’s essential for people to contemplate the implications of integrating Dhamma with the mobile devices they use. This issue extends beyond Buddhism to other religions as well.

Hence, we are implementing new regulations to oversee artificial intelligence. The Ministry of Technology has drafted legislation for technology development, including plans to establish an artificial intelligence centre. Countries like the United Kingdom and the European Union have already enacted laws to govern artificial intelligence, and we must follow suit.

Moreover, there are plans to allocate LKR 01 Billion next year for research on the interconnection between Buddha’s teachings and artificial intelligence. Although originally slated for this year, the initiative has been deferred to next year due to pending laws and regulations concerning AI oversight. Consequently, we anticipate introducing new legislation to kick-start these endeavours.

Ranil Wickremesinghe is a Sri Lankan politician who is the current president of Sri Lanka since 21 July 2022. He also holds the position of Minister of Finance of Sri Lanka. He has been the leader of the centre-right United National Party since 1994.

Read More

Russia’s New War Aim

Seeking the Breakup of Ukraine's Army

by Stephen Bryen

There is a large Russian operation going on in Ukraine focused on the Kharkov area.  At the same time, the Russians are also attacking elsewhere, primarily in Donbas but also in Zaphorize.  The threat in the north has compelled Ukraine to pull troops deployed elsewhere, including Chasiv Yar, to try and hold the line in the Kharkov* area. 

If it was Russia’s intention to force Ukraine’s army to move its troops northwards, then it looks like a success so far.  These troop movements will offer the Russian army the chance to do more damage to Ukraine’s army.

Ukraine troops who surrendered (Telegram)

The big question is what is the Russian objective. Military experts do not think Russia has enough new troops deployed (an additional 50,000) to actually take Kharkov. Some think maybe Russia will bring in additional forces to conquer Kharkov, but so far at least that has not happened. 

There seems to be a strong conviction in NATO circles that Kharkov is the target.  I am far less certain, and in fact it seems to me that is not the objective.  While it is true that a cauldron is being built by the Russians around the city, my own belief is they want to fight the Ukrainians more out in the open than inside a big city.  Kharkiv is Ukraine’s second largest city.

To my mind Russia’s objective is to force Ukraine’s army to chase after invading Russian units.  The idea is to cause heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side and, if all goes according to plan, either to split Ukraine’s army into two, or disintegrate it altogether.  In such a manner the idea is not just to take territory, but to destroy Ukraine’s ability to resist.

There are many indicators that Russia is having success in the ongoing operation.

The first is that the commander of Ukraine’s northern tier defense, Brigadier General Yuriy Halushkin, was fired by Zelensky on May 15th for his failure to properly organize the defenses in the Kharkov area.  He was replaced by  Major General Ihor Tantsyura.

Firing Halushkin changes nothing on the battlefield.

The second is that Ukraine’s defenses have not sufficed at all.  Mostly it is digging deep trenches.  There is little time to build cement bunkers.  In any case, Russia is bringing in more flamethrowers and artillery to destroy the trenches.  Reportedly Russian troops are going into trench fortifications and slugging it out with the defenders.  While we don’t know much about Russian casualties, we know the Ukraine’s dead and wounded are climbing.

The third point is that Ukrainian armor has not been effective.  One of the lessons of the Ukraine war is that armor is not any longer a front line weapon if armor can be destroyed by cheap drones, air launched mines, and antitank weapons.  Reportedly another Abrams and at least one more Leopard tank were knocked out in the past few days.  Large scale tank battles seem to be consigned to history.

The fourth point is that a larger number of Ukrainian troops are being captured, or are surrendering. For the most part these are hardened fighters, not recent conscripts, so the surrenders are psychologically significant.  Also there are reports of units unwilling to carry out offensive tasks, or who retreat without orders from their commanders.  The numbers are, as yet, not too high, but the Russians are doing their best to publicize them.

The fifth point is that at least two colonels in the palace protection force have been arrested and the head of Zelensky’s security team has been dismissed.  Zelensky says they were planning to kill him and other high officials, and he blamed the Russians.  It is doubtful the Russians would try and knock off Zelensky unless they had another candidate to replace him, which –if they do– is far from obvious.  If one looks at the war, the Russians have not targeted Zelensky although they may have tried to knock off Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s GRU (military intelligence). Two weeks ago Russia put Zelensky, Budanov and others on their “wanted” list for unspecified crimes.  The Russian list is not, as far as anyone knows, a kill list comparable to Ukraine’s kill list, although that is not certain. Probably Zelensky used this as an excuse to arrest the colonels and blame the Russians, but it is not at all certain if he is right.  It could just as well have been an attempted coup d’etat, and it could have been some of his NATO partners who have found Zelensky to be unpopular and problematic who were behind the operation.  Of course it isn’t convenient for Zelensky to say this, but the arrests and firing of the head of the service certainly sent out a clear message.

The final point is Zelensky and his army now know that the west is not going to send in troops to save him or Ukraine. I feel that my exposure of French troops, perhaps mercenaries (which Russia prefers to call them) and Macron’s increasingly angst-driven threats to send in the French army, are fake.  Washington has said no NATO troops.  NATO has said no NATO troops.  And now even Macron is saying he really didn’t mean it.  Forgive me for suggesting that my action helped contribute to shattering the immediate dream of NATO intervention, although it can’t be dismissed into the more distant future.

The video below is a captured French Foreign Legion soldier who says he is still on active duty and reports to the President of France. He says he and his cohorts operate drones and other equipment. While those in captivity generally want to please their captors, this is extraordinary because (a) the French insist they have no soldiers in Ukraine and (b) the Russians describe these soldiers as “mercenaries.” It would be nice if our esteemed news services, who said my claim was false, pay attention (but of course they won’t and even if they do they will rationalize it away). As a mom used to say, “forget about it.”

Quite possibly the Ukrainian army cannot stay in the fight even in the medium term.  There are not enough soldiers, and those still fighting are tired and some clearly dispirited. I believe Russia’s immediate aim is to discombobulate Ukraine’s army and is already well advanced.  

Next is what transpires in Kiev.

___________________________

*Kharkov is the Russian spelling. Kharkiv is the Ukrainian spelling.

Read More

Buddha’s Exact Teachings and the Paradox of Social Activism

The Buddha did not say much about political and social issues.

by Ian James Kidd

This marks the final installment of a series of articles by Ian James Kidd on Buddhism and social activism. We extend our gratitude to both the author and the editor of Daily Philosophy for granting us permission to reprint this series. – Editors

Engaged Buddhists understand the Dhamma to endorse kinds of social activism. Compassion and ‘overcoming suffering’ means an earnest collective effort to radically change the social and political conditions of human life. Justice, fairness, equality, and rights are all pursued by engaged Buddhists. ‘Climate action’ and rhetoric of ‘saving the planet’ fill Buddhist blogs and pamphlets. Thích Nhất Hạnh came to fame for his anti-war advocacy. My city has a ‘Buddhists for Extinction Rebellion’ group. All this is proof of a ‘sea-change’ in the global Buddhist tradition. For one distinguished scholar, ‘Buddhists have gotten up off their cushions, recognizing that collective sources of suffering in the world must be addressed by collective action’.

Buddha

In the first and second parts of this series, I tried to cast doubt on the actual fidelity of engaged Buddhism to the teachings of the Buddha. My aim isn’t ‘to do’ down Buddhism, nor impugn the moral seriousness of many of those causes. I only want to provoke doubts about whether the ethos of engaged Buddhism is consistent with what the Buddha taught. We can find perfectly good reasons to want to address racism, economic inequality, and unsustainable abuse of the environment. But few, if any of these will be drawn from the teachings of the Buddha.

I focus in this final piece on a neglected aspect of the teachings: the condemnation of social activism and political engagement.

Society and the Sangha

The Buddha did not say much about political and social issues. A handful of suttas discuss issues like rulership and the origins of the state. Generally, though, the Buddha was reluctant to say very much. Most of what he did say about politics was in response to the requests of the rulers who would occasionally consult him. As a general rule, the Buddha’s advice is straightforward – reward the capable, punish criminals but not too harshly, tax people but not too much, and so on. One scholar calls the Buddha’s political views a sort of ‘limited citizenship’. Insofar as we live in extended social communities, someone needs to be in charge, and so they should have a good moral character and a limited range of duties.

The great Buddhist king, Asoka, is often presented as the ideal – a wise ruler who abandoned warfare, made provisions for care of ill and aged people, instituted protections for animals, and so on. As rulers go, Asoka was admirable but also rare. An engaged Buddhist may point to his example as an argument for political participation and engagement. Should we not work to create a fairer and more compassionate social system, one able to systematically serve the needs of the vulnerable and advance such goals as social and economic justice?

Not quite. For one thing, the Buddha distinguishes the concerns proper to rulers and those of ordinary people – ‘householders’ or ‘worldlings’. Moreover, the Buddha accepted the hereditary monarchies standard in India at the time. For another thing, the actions of a ruler should be directed to the promotion of the Dhamma. Social justice isn’t part of the picture.

The Cakkavatti-Sihanda Sutta is one of the few suttas to deal in detail with political issues. It is often cited as evidence that a good king should ‘tackle’ poverty and promote equality. If we look closer, though, we find something rather different. While a king should reduce poverty, the motivation is to maintain social stability. One can’t follow the Dhamma properly if poor, hungry people keep rising up and rioting. Moreover, the deep point of the sutta is that good social conditions are impermanent – doomed to pass. Spiritually serious people therefore do not wait for, work for, or need, favourable social or economic conditions. They should be ‘islands unto themselves’, devoting their energies to self-transformation. I waste my energies by working hard to change the state of society. I might fail, and, even if I actually succeed, the change will never last. Pinning one’s goes on impermanent conditions is ‘heedless’, says the Buddha.

The Buddha did endorse one kind of communal social life: this is the monastic life made possible in the Sangha. Monasticism is the best kind of life available in saṃsāra. (Even better than those heavens inhabited by the devas, whose technicolour pleasures are too intoxicating). Along with the Dhamma and the Buddha, the Sangha is one of the ‘Three Refuges’ in which faithful Buddhists place their confidence. It is not always appreciated by modern Buddhists that the Sangha is not a way of life – an option among others. It is the best way of life – the ‘noble quest’ – and described as a ‘jewel’.

The superiority of the monastic life

Why is a monastic life superior? Well, the disciplined, purified routines and ambience of monastic life makes it morally superior to being out among ‘worldlings’. The mainstream world consists of pressures and temptations that fuel attachments and desires – money, sexual gratification, power, pleasure. It is a realm driven by ‘craving’ and sustained by ‘delusions’. The Buddha denounces it as ‘burning’, ‘poisonous’ – ‘swirling streams’ of corrupt desires, its miserable inhabitants all ‘held fast by fetter and by bond’, and ‘afflicted with thick ignorance’.

A monastic community is different and better. A Sangha, for a start, is an ‘intentional community’ – one people elect to join for specific reasons. Spiritually-serious people take a decision to devote themselves to a way of life that offers superior conditions for meditative and moral action. Next, the Sangha lacks various features that in the outside world feed failings like anger, greed, lustfulness, and selfishness. Bhikkus and bhikkunis have uniform dress and appearance – shaven heads, standard-issue robes – and own only a few personal possessions (a robe, an eating bowl). Moreover, a strict code of celibacy is observed. The absence of these will not remove our problematic dispositions – to complete and seek pleasure – but they do weaken them. A further feature of the Sangha is that is is governed by a complicated set of rules and regulations, laid out in the Vinaya Pitaka. These are comprehensive – governing diet, daily routines, and so on. Such rules are enforced: violation of them can require a confession, forfeiture, or even expulsion.

Monastic communities can be more or less strict about these rules and regulations. Moreover, they are shaped by regional and cultural norms. Some monastics are happy to eat fish, others not, some are more relaxed about contacts with the world of ‘householders’. The point, though, is that the Buddha had good reasons for affirming the superiority of monastic life. It is a ‘refuge’ – a place of safety away from the corrupting forces of the social world, and a hospitable environment for earnest practice of the Dhamma. This is why the Buddha celebrates ‘withdrawal’ (viveka) from the world. Calming or ‘purging’ the appetites, desires, impulses and preoccupations that feed attachment and anxiety is a demanding task. ‘Giving up’ our obsessions requires huge moral self-discipline – like trying to balance a bowl of oil on one’s head. All this becomes a thousand times harder if one is also buffeted by the pressures and demands of social life. Eliminating our attachments and desires requires strict distancing from the world. A wise person is like ‘a deer in the wilds’ and – in a term that irritated Nietzsche – a ‘world-renouncer’.

The serene withdrawal of the monk in the face of the pulsing moral dangers of the world is nicely illustrated in the story of the tortoise and the jackal:

Once upon a time, monks, a hard-shelled tortoise was foraging for food in the evening along the shore of a lake. And a jackal was also foraging for food in the evening along the shore of the lake.

The tortoise saw the jackal from afar, foraging for food, and so — withdrawing its four legs, with its neck as a fifth, into its own shell — it remained perfectly quiet and still. But the jackal also saw the tortoise from afar, foraging for food, and so it went to the tortoise and, on arrival, hovered around it.

“As soon as the tortoise stretches out one or another of its four limbs — or its neck as a fifth — I’ll seize it right there, tear it off, and eat it.”

But when the tortoise didn’t stretch out any of its four limbs — or its neck as a fifth — the jackal, not having gotten any opportunity, lost interest and left.

Monks should be like the tortoise: ever-watchful for the prowling dangers of the world, able to quickly withdraw and protect themselves, utterly impervious to temptation, and utterly composed and self-controlled. Of course, this makes sense give the Buddha’s grim vision of the human world as ‘cloaked in the mass of darkness’, but it also will make it hard to reconcile monasticism with social activism. In fact, doubly hard, because the Buddha also condemned social and political engagement. It’s time to see why.

Quietism

The very idea of condemning social activism is liable to seem astonishing to many modern minds. Activism has now become built into many people’s ideas about what it means to be a morally-engaged person. ‘Saving the world’ and calls for ‘change’ and ‘action’ are entrenched in our moral vocabulary. Big issues – sexism, climate change, the evils of capitalism – dominate the moral agenda. Political and religious leaders speak the language of radicalism. Of course, not everyone endorses this activist ethos. Certain voices still speak of different styles of moral action, even if they are very much in the minority.

The Buddha’s moral ethos was quietist. It eschewed the radical, socially-engaged, world-changing kinds of activity. The focus was upon individual self-cultivation and on such quieter virtues as equanimity, humility, self-restraint, and modesty. I already discussed compassion and suffering in the first part of this series. At this point, though, we should explore how the Buddha’s quietism meant opposition to social activism.

First, though, a qualification. The Buddha was perfectly aware that the majority of people won’t be able to abandon the values and demands of the mainstream world. No matter how eloquent his discourses, most will default to their cravings and attachments. No matter how earnestly they affirm the value of humility, most will instantly return to their ambitious projects and goals. Only a few people are actually capable of following the Dhamma. This is why the Buddha constantly distinguishes his teachings into ones for monastics and ones for householders, where the latter tend to be simpler, watered-down versions. Monks, for instance, are told about the dreadfulness of rebirth in one of the hell-realms, whereas householders are told that bad actions will get one reborn ugly or poor. In practice, social activism and political participation are mainly condemned for monastics – those on the ‘Noble Quest’. ‘Worldlings’ will cling to their ‘causes’ just as much as to their ‘cravings’.

The quietist character of the Buddha’s teachings when it comes to the socio-political world is clear in many suttas. A group of Licchavis, a northern Indian people, came to ask the Buddha for advice on ‘non-decline’. What must they do to avoid the deterioration of their society? The Buddha’s advice was to obey their laws, pay their taxes, and honour their traditions and elders. Respectful conformity, and not reformist radicalism. Looking more widely, quietism runs through the specifications of the Eightfold Path, the set of guidelines for proper mental, physical, and social conduct. Consider the explanation of ‘Right Speech’ (samma vacca). ‘Abstaining from lying from divisive speech, from abusive speech’ all sounds very good, especially to those alarmed by slurs and ‘causing offence’.

Look further, though, and Right Speech also extends to political talk. The lists of the ‘lowly’, ‘unwholesome’ topics of conversation includes political, economic, and everyday social issues:

[S]ome brahmans … are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead.

A friend of mine, reading this, glumly concluded that in effect ‘wrong speech’ was identical with all of everyday human discourse. He was right – most of what people discuss isn’t ‘wholesome’. The Buddha’s instruction was that one’s speech should be ‘factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others’. Nothing false, harsh, or likely to cause dissension and hostility. The ‘wholesome topics’ concern morality and liberation – modesty, contentment, seclusion, non-entanglement, virtue, concentration, and the nature and possibility of ‘right vision’ and mokṣa (release). All this is very far from activist and political discourse: there is nothing of Right Speech in angry denunciations, partisan polemics, divisive ‘us vs. them’ polarisations, scorn for opponents, and other depressingly familiar phenomena. Indeed, the desire to talk politics is a failure of Right Speech.

Distraction and entrapment

We could pile up examples of the Buddha’s quietism, but what would be more useful is a systematic account of his arguments against social activism. Unfortunately, he rarely offered one.

The Mugapakka Jataka tells the story of Temiya, an earlier rebirth of the Buddha, whose memories of hell motivate him to resist worldly powers and pleasures. Temiya’s desperate parents, the king and queen, resort to all sorts of temptations and torments to get Temiya to embrace his royal destiny. At every point, Temiya refuses, explaining that political life is corrupting and fixated on uncertain future conditions, all subject to decay and change. The rewards of the holy life are vastly superior to the alleged rewards of political life.

I think we can order the Buddha’s arguments against social activism under three headings. First, concern for social and political issues is a distraction from spiritual life. Anything which does not ‘conduce to Nibbana’ (extinguishment; literally, the blowing out of a candle) is a distraction that saps our limited concentration, energy, and focus. ‘Being political’ imposes a burdensome set of concerns and worries and things to keep up to date with – none of it concerned with mokṣa (release).

Second, activism and political participation entrap us within the social world and, therefore, within saṃsāra. Adopting activist identities and goals intensifies our attachments and desires – the very things we are meant to be weakening and eliminating. The problem is not just the fact of attachments and goals, though; it’s that most activists valorise very strong attachments. Being ‘passionate’, energetic in pursuit of grand goals, always animated by discontent or frustration – this is the inner emotional profile of some doomed to remain entrapped. (If activists to respond that their emotions reflect good motivations, like justice, the Buddha would reply that those reflect ‘false views’).

Distraction and entrapment are two of the problems of social activism identified by the Buddha. Our urgent task should be the soteriological one of achieving our own ‘release’. It’s already hard for people to grasp this. Few people have saṃvega – an acute sense of ‘spiritual urgency’ that sustains clarity, focus, and resolve. But the Buddha offers a third argument against social activism, too. It is corrupting – it feeds personal vices or failings. Recall that the Buddhist project is self-transformation. I should strive to live according to ‘the discipline and the Dhamma’. Cultivating virtues, following the Precepts, and following monastic regulations is one part; but the other is destroying our many ‘cankers’, ‘taints’, and ‘defilements’. These are deep failings which cause bad moral conduct and erode our spiritual abilities. Greed, delusion, selfishness, callousness, lack of self-control, dogmatism … all these and many others are detailed in the suttas.

The Buddha’s listings of our vices is almost certainly the most complex attempted in the history of world philosophy and religion. Social and political engagement fuels these vices. Conceitedness, dogmatism, dishonesty and manipulativeness, egotism, grandiosity, hubris, self-righteousness … all are sustained by the goals and methods of many political activists. Encouraging scorn for political rivals is a species of hatred. Feeding grand ambitions in an impermanent world is hubristic. Urging people to think they can collectively impose their will on the world and achieve lasting change is arrogance. None of this is consistent with the project of individual moral self-transformation central to the Buddha’s teachings.

A deeper sort of corruption can also be discerned. One of the most potent sources of dukkha is what the Buddha called ‘the conceit “I-am”, the distorted sense that we’re stable, potent agents. The ‘self’ the Buddha attacks isn’t a bad metaphysical model of personal identity, so much as it is a set of stubborn conceits. These conceits are fed by worldly ambition, desires for power, a determination to ’make my mark in the world’, and much else. Insofar as social activism energises these conceits, it sustains delusions, desires, and ‘false views’ that entrap and corrupt us.

‘May all beings be free!’

In this series, I’ve tried to challenge the modern image of Buddhism as a spiritual dispensation that encourages social activism. Contrary to ‘engaged Buddhist’ claims, very little in the suttas endorses radical social, political action. Closer attention to ‘key terms’, like ‘compassion’ and ‘suffering’, points to specific meanings that are too often effaced by strategic vagary. Careful examination of the Buddha’s condemnations and endorsements shows a moral outlook quite different from the predilections of many of his modern admirers. Finally, the Buddha was a moral quietist – the best life is one of refuge, restraint, and disciplined devotion to self-transformation. I think the Buddha had cogent, systematic reasons to discourage social activism, at least among those committed to ‘the path of peace’ leading to mokṣa. He understood the strong pull political concerns have for people, but saw it as symptomatic of the very attachments, desires, and cravings that fuel dukkha and prolong our subjection to samsara. For that reason, that ‘pull’ should be resisted, not indulged.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Karaniya Metta Sutta, the Discourse on Loving-Kindness. It’s contains a line often quoted by engaged Buddhist activists – ‘May all beings be free!’ But those who quote that line as their slogan never quote the rest of the verse. It explains ideal character and dispositions of a person devoted to ‘the path of peace’:

Let them be able and upright,

Straightforward and gentle in speech,

Humble and not conceited,

Contented and easily satisfied,

Unburdened with duties

and frugal in their ways.

Peaceful and calm and wise and skilful,

Not proud or demanding in nature.

This is not the profile of a social activist – someone typically severe in speech, ambitious, discontented, dissatisfied with anything less than radical outcomes, who willingly burdens themselves with grand duties, like saving the world or overthrowing patriarchy. Berating billionaires, screaming ‘How dare you!’ at political leaders, agitating for dramatic revolution, and other kinds of world-changing activism are not the acts of a person ‘skilled in the path of peace’. A Buddhist’s goal is release from the world, not reform of it, as we see in the last lines of the Metta Sutta:

The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,

Being freed from all sense desires,

Is not born again into this world.

Acknowledgments: My thanks to David E. Cooper for helpful comments on this piece.

Ian James Kidd is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Nottingham. He previously worked at the universities of Durham and Leeds, teaching philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and Indian philosophy. His current research interests include misanthropy, the ideal of moral quietism, and themes in south and east Asian philosophy. His website is www.ianjameskidd.weebly.com.

Read More