Connect with us

Features

TRUMP – IF YOU GO FOR ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU

Published

on

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

On Tuesday, August 3, 2023 Donald Trump was indicted, arrested and released on conditional bail on four felony counts for his role in inciting the January 6 insurrection, in an attempt to unconstitutionally and violently overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty on all counts.

During the indictment, Washington D.C. Magistrate Judge Moxilla Upadhyaya, who presided over Trump’s arraignment, directed the prosecution and defense to file proposed trial dates. Trump’s counsel John Lauro, in response to the Judge’s directive, asked for an extended period of time before the first trial date, saying, “In a case of this magnitude, we expect to vigorously address every issue in this matter on behalf of Trump and the American people”.

That’s strange. The American People are the plaintiffs in this case, whose interests are being vigorously addressed by Special Counsel, Jack Smith.

Lauro is merely trying to mislead the public right from the start, parroting Trump’s oft-repeated lie: “They’re not coming after me, they are coming after you”, implying that the defendant is really the American people, when the American People, represented by Special Counsel Jack Smith, are prosecuting criminal defendant Donald Trump.

Lauro has already failed spectacularly in his first and basic role of a defense counsel, that of controlling his client. Trump had ranted at a campaign rally in New Hampshire that Special Counsel, Jack Smith, is deranged. When Chuck Todd of Meet the Press asked Lauro if he also thought that Smith was deranged, Lauro was speechless. He is too afraid to control defendant Trump, who keeps on spewing hateful, racist and pornographic lies against judges, prosecutors and witnesses.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, a most experienced and accomplished judge, known as a consummate, no-nonsense, professional, has been randomly assigned to preside over this case. She is most unlikely to be fooled by these tactics. She is also unlikely to be intimidated by the filth that Trump spews.

Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya imposed conditions of his release, the most important of which were: Trump must not violate federal, state or local law while on release; he shall not communicate facts of the case with any individual known to be a witness, except in the presence of counsel; he cannot influence a juror or try to threaten or bribe a witness or retaliate against anyone. Any contravention of these conditions of release could lead to more severe conditions, even detention for the duration of the trial.

As expected, it did not take the demented Trump long to violate the conditions of his release. Within 24 hours, Trump ranted and raved personal insults against Special Counsel Smith and Judge Chutkan. He posted on his Truth Social media, in block capitals, the chilling threat, IF YOU GO FOR ME, I’M COMING FOR YOU. A Mafia style threat, probably aimed at both the Judge, the Special Counsel and any witnesses he may perceive to be against him. Both Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan have already had numerous death threats. Their security details have been enhanced.

Immediately after this threat of retaliation and witness tampering, prosecutors requested Judge Chutkan to issue a protective order. The prosecution was concerned that Trump and his counsel may violate the conditions of his release, by sharing evidence with the public the prosecution would be obliged to give to the defense during the trial. Such revelations of confidential evidence to the public may cause the trial to be conducted in the court of public opinion, instead of a trial of justice in the courts. Judge Chutkan gave the defense counsel time till 5 p.m. on Monday, August 7 to respond to the protective order. She indicated she plans on hearing competing proposals before the end of the week, and expects to schedule a trial date by August 28.

Trump will be served with a fourth indictment next week, when Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney, Fani Willis is likely to go before a Grand Jury to present her case against Trump for interference and witness tampering in the 2020 Georgia State election.

Willis has a pretty good case, with a recorded telephone call from Trump to Georgia District Attorney Brad Raffensperger, threatening him with criminal action unless he “finds” 11,780 votes, that would win him the state of Georgia. Raffensperger refused, and made public the damning telephone call. Trump has a sound defense, though. At a campaign event in New Hampshire last Tuesday, he leveled a baseless accusation against D.A. Fani Willis of being a “reverse racist who, while investigating a gang member, ended up sleeping with him”! Willis would be well advised to immediately dismiss the case in the face of such a bulletproof defense.

Willis has received death threats after Trump’s scurrilous lies, and her security detail has also been enhanced. One of these days, Trump’s inflammatory, racist, sexist lies against judges, prosecutors, political rivals and witnesses will get someone killed. The sooner this maniac is gagged by the courts from making veiled death threats against his enemies, the better. This type of vituperation is not Free Speech, it is criminal intimidation, inciting his goons to violence, in direct contravention of the conditions of his release.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump’s case.

In fact, just last Wednesday, FBI special agents, armed with a search warrant, attempted to arrest a Utah man, Craig Robertson, who was facing federal charges for making death threats against President Biden. He pulled a gun on the agents during the arrest, and was shot dead. The incident occurred on the eve of a visit to Utah by President Biden.

Trump counsel, John Lauro, lost no time in making the Sunday morning television rounds, presenting the main argument behind Trump’s defense – Free Speech. He stated that whatever Trump said at political rallies and campaign meetings, true or false, were covered by the First Amendment. When Trump said that the election was rigged, that the Justice Department was weaponized by President Biden, who had initiated all cases against him, these statements, true or false, were all within his First Amendment rights.

Page 2, paragraph 3 of the indictment agrees with the defense. “The defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election, and even to claim, even falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election that he had won”.

The criminal charges in the indictment, however, are not based on speech. They are based on criminal conduct.

Trump spoke at a rally before thousands of his supporters at the Ellipse, minutes away from the Capitol, on the day Congress had convened to certify the constitutional election of President Biden. He ranted, “We must fight, We must fight like hell or we won’t have a country. I will be right there with you”. This speech, inflammatory as it was, was covered by Free Speech.

What is not covered by the First Amendment are his actions after he made this speech. He did not accompany the mob to the Capitol. Instead, he went back to the White House and enjoyed his favorite bucket of KFC and Ketchup, gleefully watching on TV the violence at the Capitol as it was unfolding. He did nothing for 187 minutes, while people were being killed and maimed, while members of Congress were being rushed to safe places, their lives and those of his own Vice-President and his family under threat, with his supporters shouting “Hang Mike Pence”. A gallows had already been constructed on Capitol grounds. He watched TV for over three hours, twiddling his thumbs, when only he could have stopped the violence.

On January 4, Trump held a meeting with Trump attorney John Eastman, Vice-President Pence, his Chief of Staff and Counsel. Trump stated, based on his (false) knowledge that the election was rigged, the Vice-President should reject the legitimate Electoral College votes certified by Congress and send them back to the state legislatures, rather than count them on January 6, as was his constitutional duty.

When Pence refused this request on the grounds that such an action was not constitutional, Trump paid him the worst insult in his vocabulary – that Pence was “too honest”.

Eastman then gave Pence another alternative, to pause the voting for 10 days, allow state legislatures to have one last look and make a determination as to whether the elections were handled fairly. Eastman lied that “this was constitutional law, this wasn’t criminal activity”. This wasn’t and this was. Pence wisely rejected this illegal advice.

These attempts by Trump and his counsel at “persuading” and “asking” Pence to commit an action in direct contravention of the Constitution, are covered under the First Amendment. If it stopped at that. But it didn’t. Their words resulted directly in an insurrection which had Pence and his family nearly hanged, the lives of members of Congress threatened, and hundreds of police officers and insurrectionists wounded and killed. That was not Free Speech, that was sedition.

When Hitler ranted against the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, with the false allegation, his Big Lie, that Germany lost World War I because they were betrayed by the Jews, that was Free Speech. But when this Big Lie resulted directly in the holocaust, where six million Jews and those of “impure blood” were murdered, that was not Free Speech, that was genocide.

Ten Republican candidates, including Trump, have now qualified for the first presidential debate to be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on August 23. The debate, to be held under the aegis of the Republican National Committee (RNC), will be aired by Fox News, moderated by Fox news hosts, Brett Baier and Martha MacCallum. In addition to Trump, the field includes Ron DeSantis (Trump’s closest pursuer in the Republican polls), and eight other hopefuls who have met the qualifications to participate in the debate but are polling in single digits.

As Trump dominates the field, the debate may be an opportunity for his rivals to make their cases in front of a national audience. However, Trump and some of the qualified candidates have already indicated that they will not take the loyalty pledge the RNC insists they sign before participation: that the candidates affirm they will “honor the will of the primary voters and support the Republican nominee” elected in the Republican primaries. The debate could well be abandoned for this reason.

Republicans will be in a terrible bind if, as seems likely, Trump keeps on losing his popularity as his criminal, even treasonous behavior becomes public during the many trials he is currently facing. He may even be convicted of sedition and/or espionage long before November 2024. But on current polls, he is the likely Republican presidential nominee, by a large margin.

Republicans will then have no choice but to field a convicted felon as their flagbearer in 2024. Their opponent is likely to be incumbent President Biden. If, for any reason, Biden falters in the Democratic primaries, they have accomplished candidates like Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg in the wings. Democrats will also have the advantage of running on the back of an extremely successful first term of progressive bipartisan legislation enacted by President Biden.



Features

Revolt in the Temple: Poverty as Structural Control

Published

on

The underlying issue in Anuradhapura is a struggle between a few families who, for years, have waged a quiet cold war over control of the Udamaluwa. Similar situations exist in Mihintale as well. These places, among others, are treated as treasures of Buddhism but, in practice, function as tightly controlled economic centres. The same pattern repeats in Kandy around the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic and in Kataragama at the shrine of God Kataragama. Variations of it exist across religious spaces of Islam, Catholicism, and Hinduism too, where institutional authority becomes indistinguishable from localised power networks. What is presented as sacred order often operates as inherited control.

It is indeed devastating to see situations where parents have no alternative but to expose their children to predators in robes for survival. This has nothing to do with religion itself, but with human pathology in the context of survival. These are the questions that demand answers, not superficial responses that treat symptoms while ignoring the conditions that produce them. What is more shocking and disturbing is not the tragedy itself, but the reactions to it. Social media has overwhelmed us, not towards understanding, but towards a fragmented cognitive state with no exit route.

A friend of mine in Nairobi used to keep all his electronic devices at home and go into the forest once a month, spending days there before returning. He called it “detoxification”, but in reality it was an escape from a system that no longer allows uninterrupted thought. Daily life is now saturated with unnecessary content, and attention itself has become a commodity extracted, processed, and sold back to us. This is where we have become unable to understand what really drives certain tragedies we endlessly react to, while remaining blind to the systems that quietly manufacture them.

Multi-dimensional poverty

Poverty is structural, poverty is political, and poverty is functional; it is a tool and a manoeuvring force of power. The question is no longer whether poverty exists, but who benefits from its persistence, and who is forced to survive within it. From education to medicine to basic food supply chains, countries like Sri Lanka are not simply mismanaged; they are structurally captured by a small number of actors who remain stable regardless of who is formally in power. Small-scale enterprises and NGO circuits that circulate foreign funding to “solve structural issues” often operate as hollow administrative performances, producing reports rather than transformation.

Poverty is not merely the absence of money. It is the absence of bandwidth, absence of protection, absence of time, and absence of cognitive stability. As Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir state, “Scarcity captures the mind. Just as the starving subjects had food on their mind, when we experience scarcity of any kind, we become absorbed by it.” This is a description of how human cognition is structurally reorganized under constraint. Scarcity does not sit outside the person; it occupies them.

They also state, “Scarcity leads us to borrow and pushes us deeper into scarcity.” That is the mechanism that must be confronted without euphemism. Poverty is not only deprivation; it is a self-reinforcing trap in which survival decisions generate the next layer of crisis. Once a society crosses a certain threshold of scarcity, it stops producing long-term reasoning as a default condition. It produces short-term survival logic, often mistaken by outsiders for irrationality.

It is precisely here that public discourse becomes intellectually dishonest. Everything is translated into moral language because moral language is easier than structural analysis. But morality without structure becomes theatre. It produces outrage, not understanding, and repetition, not reform.

It is indeed brutal when an individual wearing religious insignia—whether robe, symbol, or institutional identity—is accused of acts that fundamentally contradict the moral authority attached to that position. It is equally brutal when institutions that depend entirely on trust begin to function as shields rather than safeguards. But the deeper question is not shock. The deeper question is what kind of social condition produces families who see placement within such institutions not only as devotion, but as a survival strategy under constraint.

Ethical decision-making

That is where the argument collapses into its most uncomfortable form. Poverty does not produce ethical decision-making environments. It produces constrained optimization under pressure. When food insecurity, debt, and social instability converge, institutional spaces that appear stable become transactional destinations for survival rather than moral choices. To interpret this as purely cultural failure is to deliberately ignore the structural compression of options.

Mullainathan and Shafir describe this clearly: “Instead of saying that scarcity ‘focuses,’ we could just as easily say that scarcity causes us to tunnel: to focus single-mindedly on managing the scarcity at hand.” That tunnelling effect is not abstract. It is visible wherever long-term planning collapses under immediate pressure. Systems then misread this as irresponsibility, when it is in fact cognitive overload produced by structure.

What is rarely acknowledged is how deeply this extends into governance itself. Institutions increasingly operate as if they are managing rational, unconstrained individuals. In reality, they are interacting with populations whose cognitive bandwidth is already structurally taxed. The result is policy failure interpreted as public non-compliance, enforcement interpreted as moral correction, and reform interpreted as communication failure rather than design failure.

Social media has intensified this distortion. It does not merely spread information; it destroys sequencing. Structural problems require temporal depth. Social media removes that depth and replaces it with instantaneous judgment. Every event becomes a surface object, detached from causality. The outcome is a society permanently reacting and never diagnosing.

Poverty, in this environment, becomes invisible in its real form. It is not seen as a continuous structural condition but as episodic failure. A scandal appears, is consumed, and disappears. Another replaces it. Nothing accumulates into understanding because attention itself is exhausted before synthesis can occur.

Modern Condition

The modern condition reflects a reversal of earlier social organization, where human relationships are embedded within abstract systems of finance, law, and administration that often fail to recognize the lived constraints of those they govern. In this disembedded state, institutions increasingly misinterpret human behaviour as their capacity for structural understanding weakens. At the same time, attempts to resolve systemic failures through expanding administrative complexity produce diminishing returns: more regulation, oversight, and reporting generate less coherence. Over time, institutions shift from functional effectiveness to symbolic performance, maintaining the appearance of control rather than achieving it.

This is why public outrage repeatedly fails to translate into structural change. Outrage is not a tool of reconstruction. It is a signal of system fatigue. It circulates, intensifies, and dissipates without altering the underlying architecture. Meanwhile, the conditions that produce repetition remain intact.

The most persistent illusion is that these are separate problems: poverty here, institutional misuse there, media distortion elsewhere. They are not separate. They are expressions of a single condition in which scarcity, complexity, symbolic authority, and fragmented enforcement interact without coordination. The system does not fail in one place; it fails in the gaps between these layers.

Symbolic systems

What makes this condition more severe is that symbolic systems continue to operate at full strength even when structural systems degrade. Religious identity remains powerful. Political rhetoric remains strong. Cultural symbolism remains intact. But enforcement capacity, institutional coherence, and social trust degrade beneath them. That gap is where instability grows. Until that gap is addressed at the level of structure rather than sentiment, repetition remains inevitable. New scandals will emerge, new interpretations will circulate, and new cycles of outrage will follow. Nothing resolves because nothing is being reconstructed beneath the surface of reaction.

This is no longer repairable through adjustment or rhetoric. It is a form of decay that persists until it exhausts itself, because the mechanisms meant to correct it are now part of the same failure. It continues until rupture, not reform. At that point, instability ceases to be episodic and becomes structural. Pressure will accumulate into breakdown, and what follows will not be managed transition but forced reversal. The responsibility lies with those who govern these institutions to prevent that trajectory, not through language, but through change. The drama is ending; farce is over; what we are witnessing is tragedy unfolding with unprecedented consequences.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

Continue Reading

Features

Are threats to Buddha Sasana external or from within?

Published

on

As Sri Lanka celebrates the birth, Enlightenment and the Parinibbana of the Buddha, almost a month after the rest of the Buddhist-world did so, there is widespread discussion about threats to Buddha Sasana provoked by some recent incidents. Regarding the views expressed about postponing Vesak celebrations in my article ‘May Day and postponement Vesak 2026’ (The Island, 25 May), my very good friend Dr Upali Abeysiri has sent me the following comments: “The Mahanayakas have a good reason to postpone Vesak. The dawning of the full moon has to be on the same constellation (nekatha) as when the Buddha was born and attained enlightenment. Although Adhi Poya is reckoned as the second full moon arising in the same calendar month, this is supposed to be an odd exception.” Though it would have been ideal if a consensus could have been reached prior to the split of celebrations, perhaps, it does not matter very much as celebrations occur on a symbolic rather than an actual date, there being no historical or archaeological evidence confirming exact dates.

Whilst there are no direct threats to Buddha Dhamma, as the expanding horizons of science continue to confirm the fundamentals of Buddha Dhamma, there is no doubt whatsoever that there are threats to Buddha Sasana. However, these threats become important as the Buddha Sasana performs the pivotal role in protecting and propagating the Dhamma and, hence, become an indirect threat to Dhamma itself. Therefore, it should be the concern of all Buddhists and it is in this spirit I am making some comments which some may interpret as disrespectful to the Maha Sangha. I can reassure that my intentions are entirely directed towards the preservation of the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana. Though the Buddha proclaimed that the Sasana consists of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Upasaka and Upasika, for all practical purposes Sasana had been led by Bhikkhus, often at the expense of others.

There is hardly any doubt that there are external forces at play in Sri Lanka and even some Buddhists seem to object to Sri Lanka being called a Buddhist country. Interestingly, no one seems to object to countries like the UK and the USA being called Christian counties. I

There is no registration or baptism in Buddhism and there are no rewards for Buddhists for conversions. As I pointed out in a previous article, ‘How does the Buddha differ’ (The Island, 1 May) unlike most other religions, Buddhism is not a ‘high-demand’ religion, nor ‘law-based’ religion and is not exclusivist. Perhaps, it is this liberalism, pacifism and gentleness, which are the real strengths, that are being exploited as weaknesses by others.

There will always be external threats and the Buddha too faced many during his lifetime. Before addressing those, is it not more important to address the threats within? One of the most important problems seems to be the breakdown of discipline. Bhikkhus are bound by Vinaya rules, laid down by the Buddha and some recent incidents highlight total deviations. Though there were many previous incidents like unsubstantiated claims of Arahanthood, Bhikkhus attacking each other on YouTube and Bhikkhus conducting YouTube channels, not for the propagation of the Dhamma but for the accumulation of rupees, attention was focused after the detection of 22 young monks carrying narcotic drugs.

Though many commentators were quick to condemn the Sangha on this account, we need to go deeper. Narcotic menace has become a huge problem in Sri Lanka and it looks as if the drug lords would resort to anything to achieve their objectives. Though it looks as if some gullible young monks had been duped by drug lords, we need to question why it was possible. Is it due to the lack of supervision of these novices by their seniors that allowed them to accept a request in a WhatsApp group? Should there be checks and balances on foreign travel by Bhikkhus?

What shocked Buddhists was what followed next; the arrest of the Nayaka of Atamasthana for allegedly having sex with a minor. Anuradhapura was our first capital and Sri Maha Bodhi is the longest surviving authenticated tree in the world. Ruwanweliseya and Jetawanaramaya were among the ten tallest man-made structures in the ancient world, Jetawanaramaya still holding the Guiness record for the largest stupa in the world. Cyberspace is full of theories. Whilst some have condemned the Nayaka Thero even before the conclusion of inquiries whilst others claim that this was a coup by another Nayaka Thera in an attempt of succession.

I was intrigued, reading in a Sri Lankan newspaper about the 80th birthday celebrations of a Nayaka priest, who was convicted in London in 2012 of historical child sex abuse and sentenced to seven years in prison. I remember the case very well as he was the head of the Vihara, we had our first contact on relocating to the UK. I also remember his devotees, who believed that he was wrongly accused, collecting over £50,000 for an appeal. In spite of being represented by one of the top Barristers in the UK, the conviction was upheld but the jail-term was reduced by a year. His name is still on the sex-offenders register in the UK and he is permanently prevented from association with children. One can argue that as he has served the sentence and not reoffended, this should not be held against him but what baffled me is that he is still being referred to as the Chief Sangha Nayaka. Should a person on the sex-offenders register be the Chief Sangha Nayaka?

It is high time we put our own house in order before fighting the external enemies. It is reported that the former president CBK has written to the Mahanayakas requesting urgent reform and we should be obliged to her for taking the lead.

There are many aspects that need urgent reform, the first being removal of caste barriers practiced by some Nikayas, which is the greatest insult to the Buddha who promoted equality. The second is the active encouragement of Bhikkhuni Sasana which has not happened in spite of the landmark ruling by the supreme court. The third is the establishment of proper disciplinary processes under a single Adhikarana Sangha Nayaka with powers and support than allowing the government to take over the control of even non-criminal Vinaya matters.

There are many other issues that need settlement like the controversy of the land of Buddha’s birth which seems to linger on. An expert committee should hear all evidence and settle this issue once and for all.

As I have pointed out on many occasions in these columns, it is high time a Dhamma Sangayana was held, as the last one was 70 years ago. Ideally, it should be different with active participation of lay experts as well. It is the duty of us Buddhists to ensure that the words of wisdom of the Buddha continue to enlighten generations to come.

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Features

Vijaya Kumar: Academic, Activist & Genial Fellow-Traveller

Published

on

Professor Vijaya Kumar

The University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, was in our time, a less-crowded residential university, where everybody knew everybody else or at least knew of everybody else.

I knew of Emeritus Professor Vijaya Kumar of the Department of Chemistry at Peradeniya, or Kumar, as we referred to him fondly, before I got to know him. His dear wife Savitri, also a member of the academic staff of the Department of Chemistry, was nicknamed Kumee, by some of their students (of which vintage is unknown to me) and the duo were thereafter referred to affectionately as Kumar and Kumee.

The Faculty of Science became a regular haunt of mine as I would go there in the company of my batchmates to attend lectures on Basic Mathematics given by Professor Maheswaran, as it was a requirement for our General Arts Qualifying Examinations. I would also go there to listen to some excellent talks under a programme that was held in the auditorium of the Science Faculty referred to as “Popular Science Gossip”. The “gossip” at these talks were not confined solely to science but were broad enough to include Literature, History and other branches of knowledge as well. I would often spot Kumar in the audience at these talks or bump into him in the corridors of the Science Faculty. But I got to know him personally only after he became the Warden of Arunachalam, my hall of residence, during my undergraduate years initially, and later, as a member of the academic staff of the Department of English.

Our Science Faculty undergraduate contemporaries, especially those at Arunachalam Hall and its immediate neighbour, Jayatilaka Hall, both within a stone’s throw away from the Science Faculty, shared many an anecdote about Kumar and their other lecturers. One of these anecdotes, had to do with a spectacular (motor car) driving feat of Kumar’s. Legend has it that he drove from his university bungalow-home to the Faculty of Science deploying only the reverse gear of his car! Kumar, on hearing of this, had told certain of his student friends, including some who became his colleagues later on, that this story is one of the biggest yarns he had heard in his life!

Some of his one-time younger colleagues, now in retirement like Kumar, tell me that Kumar exuded warmth and friendliness in all of his professional and administrative interactions with others in the wider university community. But there was no warmth or mercy for those who indulged in the unsavoury pastime of student ‘ragging’. He was a very strong proponent of the need to ensure to all freshers an environment free of the menace of ‘ragging’. He remained ever-vigilant during the ‘ragging’ season. There are stories of his chasing ‘raggers’ and catching them. Professor Maheswaran, who later became an intimate friend and remains so after more than half a century, was another who was fiercely opposed to ‘ragging’. I was a personal witness to Mahes chasing a ‘ragger’ up and down the stairs of the main library to nab him. Yet another of his students has noted that Kumar’s office room in the Faculty was a total mess at all times. It had tables, piled so high with books and documents that one could not easily spot Kumar at his desk. He, however, had the knack of pulling out from amidst the clutter, any document that he needed at any given time. If anybody were to volunteer to help tidy his desk, Kumar would respond firmly with “Don’t you touch my desk!”.

Kumar, like several of his colleagues in the other faculties as well, had his own eccentricities. According to information received from reliable sources, Kumar who taught Organic Chemistry used to carry his lecture notes in his shirt or trouser pocket with ‘the entire lecture condensed in point form on a half-sheet or half of a half-sheet of paper’. The way he rummaged through his sling bag filled to the brim with stuff to find an item that he needed was another ritual that amused onlookers.

Kumar, interestingly enough is a Royal-cum-Thomian product, in that he had his primary education at S.Thomas’ Prep School, Kollupitiya and the entirety of his secondary education at Royal College, which he entered in 1953. In a note written by Kumar himself, he notes that despite having had excellent teachers at Royal, his was not a notable school career. He goes on to say that “the only achievement I could boast of was my being the joint-winner of the school General Knowledge Prize”. However, he had been active in a Scout Group outside of school (1st Port of Colombo, Sea Scouts) where he “was Queen’s Scout, Patrol leader, and later, Assistant Scout Master”.

Kumar entered the Faculty of Science of the University of Ceylon in 1961 and secured from it an honours degree in Chemistry in 1965. He joined the academic staff of the Department of Chemistry in the Faculty of Science, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya in 1965 and left the following year for Magdalen College at Oxford University, from which institution he obtained his doctorate in Chemistry. His entire teaching career was at Peradeniya, where in the period 2003-2006 he served as the Dean of the Faculty of Science, a position that his late father-in-law had held a few decades earlier.

Among the other highlights of his career are: Chairman of the Industrial Technology Institute (formerly the Ceylon Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, CISIR); Member (representing Sri Lanka) of the Geneva-based UN Commission on Science and Technology from 1999 to 2007 and its President from 2001-2003; President of the Sri Lanka Estate Workers Union from 1989 onwards; Member of the Politburo of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party from 1988 to 2014 and currently, a member of the Executive Committee of the National People’s Power (NPP).

Vijaya and Savitri Kumar are parents of daughters Shamala and Ramya, who are following in the footsteps of their parents: with the former teaching in the Department of Agricultural Economics in the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya and the latter, in the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Jaffna.

(I wish to thank the following who assisted me in the writing of this brief essay: Mr. Bandula Warnakulasuriya, Emeritus Professor Ratnayake Bandara, Professor Mahinda Wickramaratne, Professor Swarna Wimalasiri and Mr. Manik de Silva).

*Editor’s note: Prof. Vijaya Kumar, a member of the NPP’s National Executive Committee and is still active in politics turns 84 today. This article by Tissa Jayatilaka, former Executive Director of the United States – Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission for Mutual Academic Exchange, was written for an upcoming collection of essays on Kumar’s life by his friends.

(Colombo Telegraph)

By Tissa Jayatilaka

Continue Reading

Trending