By Anushka Kahandagamage –

In appearance, he was a non-conventionally charismatic young man who kept to himself, silent but pleasant. That very nature of his made me want to talk to him, unpretentious and down to earth. So, we had our talks in the dorm kitchen, standing for hours, and two other fellow students who were political enough also joined us. We spoke of everything from the peace found in meditation to the devastation caused by world wars. He is Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, Thailand’s first conscientious objector. He became a prominent figure in Thai activism for his refusal to undergo mandatory military conscription, citing his Buddhist beliefs and commitment to non-violence. His stance sparked a national conversation about civil liberties, the role of the military in Thai society, and the right to dissent based on personal ethics. His refusal acted as a meditative absorption of the aggressive noise of recruitment, an awakening that forced a nation to look at the ethics of its own shadow.

Beyond the Silo Mindfulness

In a world where we are in constant search of heroes, Netiwit serves as a powerful example for generations to come of how to stand against violence, not only as a student activist, but as a Buddhist. In a world where many ‘performative’ Buddhists remain in their own silos, practicing mindfulness merely to prepare for a more functional neoliberal work week, Netiwit sets a different standard. He reminds us that being Buddhist is not just about personal mindfulness, it is about actively resisting the violent tendencies within society. In this commodified version of faith, meditation is a way to survive the system, not to question it.

In a world where meditation is often reduced to a spiritual sleeping pill for the neoliberal worker, Netiwit’s practice is a shattering alarm. He demonstrates that awakening isn’t about finding a comfortable way to sleep through a nightmare but about finding the courage to wake up and end it.

From the UN Charter to the Cakkavatti Sihanāda Sutta

Last week, he returned from Harvard to stand trial before the Constitutional Court of Thailand. In a unanimous ruling on May 12, 2026, the court decided against his right to choose not to serve, declaring that the Military Service Act is constitutional and does not violate personal or religious freedoms. The court argued that the duty of national defence is a fundamental obligation of all Thai citizens that supersedes individual conscientious objection. In its ruling, the court declared that Sections 27 and 45 of the Military Service Act, which mandate up to three years in prison for draft evasion, are entirely constitutional. However, the Constitutional Court’s unanimous ruling exists in a vacuum that defies global legal trends. While the Thai state views this as a matter of internal security, the international community views it as a violation of the ‘Social Contract.’ UN human rights bodies, including the Human Rights Committee and the UN Human Rights Council, have recognized the right of conscientious objection to military service as part of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). By forcing a choice between prison and a violation of conscience, Thailand is placing itself at odds with the very treaties it has ratified, ignoring a robust body of international law that views conscientious objection not as a crime, but as a protected human right. This legal vacuum is not only a violation of international law but also a departure from the core tenets of Buddhist statecraft. In the Cakkavatti Sihanāda Sutta, the Buddha describes the ideal society as one where the ruler governs not by force or the sword, but by righteousness.

Silo as a Butterfly Cocoon

However, if we imagine the apparently worst-case scenario, this courageous young man being imprisoned by the government for standing for his rights and the rights of future generations, we must ask what such a fate truly means for his life and career. The immediate, conventional imagination suggests that his life will be ruined, his academic career extinguished, and his voice silenced. Yet, history suggests a powerful paradox, for those who stand on principle, the prison cell often becomes the birthplace of their greatest influence. Prison often metamorphoses boys into men, then into heroes, and ultimately into the political leaders who lead nations and breaks shackles of thousands.

For leaders like Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela the prison cell was not a place of shame or a career-ending void, but a transformative incubator which prepared them for the great political lives ahead of them. Where armies failed, Gandhi succeeded, through silent suffering and the weapon of the fast, he shook the British Empire. Similarly, Mandela transformed his imprisonment into a force that eventually dismantled apartheid from the inside out. he walls of the prison cell could not contain the powerful human will but were forced to surrender to it. One cannot become the butterfly without first enduring the isolation of the cocoon; one’s imprisonment is not an ending, but the silent, necessary stage of a national awakening.

*Dr. Anushka Kahandagamage, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University