Features
Kachchativu and its maritime boundary ignore international law
By Neville Ladduwahetty
Issues relating to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries come alive with the approach of elections in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the practice of competing political parties in Tamil Nadu has been to pressure the Union Government of India and even legally through the Supreme Court of India to claim sovereign rights to Kachchativu and with it, shift the Maritime Boundary in a manner that would disproportionately favour the interests of Indian fishermen in the hope of capturing their votes. Now Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also joined the fray. Against this background, it is appropriate to revisit the issue of Kachchathivu, not from the perspective of historical claims of India or Sri Lanka as is the practice, but from the stand point of recognized International Law “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”.
For instance, it is reported that starting with the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Karunanidhi, the political leadership of Tamil Nadu is disappointed by the statement issued by the Central Government of India to India’s Supreme Court that “…no Indian territory, including Kachchativu, was ceded to Sri Lanka, and the question of retrieval does did not arise” (The Island, September 2, 2013). The hope of Tamil Nadu is that the Supreme Court would do justice by them and retrieve Kachchativu because of their flawed notion that it was ceded to Sri Lanka by India under the 1974 Agreement out of goodwill in the interest of furthering bilateral relations.
The issue of Kachchativu was dealt with comprehensively by the late Mr. W. T. Jayasinghe, starting with the history during colonial times and culminating with the 1974 Agreement between India and Sri Lanka (KACHCHATHIVU: AND THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF SRI LANKA, 2003). In the Preface to his publication he states categorically, “Kachchathivu was at no time the property of India, as Sri Lanka had been exercising sovereignty over that island from early times”. The fact that Kachchativu was part of Sri Lanka’s territory was also accepted by both delegations representing Colonial India and Colonial Ceylon during the Conference of 1921.
Apart from the fact that Kachchativu “at no time was the property of India” and the fact that Britain accepted that the island was part of Sri Lanka’s territory during their colonial administration, it is a matter of serious concern and disappointment, why independent Sri Lanka did not take full advantage to exploit provisions of Internationally accepted Doctrine of Uti Possidetis that recognizes the legality of colonial boundaries during negotiations with decolonized India. Had Independent Sri Lanka taken such an initiative, Sri Lanka would have been entitled to retain the limit of three miles West of Kachchativu instead of ceding the boundary to one mile West as reportedly agreed upon later.
The material presented below repeats material from an Article titled “KACHCHATIVU in the CONTEXT of INTERNATIONAL LAW”, (September 4, 2013).
THE CONFERENCE OF 1921
In order to avoid over-exploitation of maritime resources and the possibility of competition between the fishermen of India and Sri Lanka in the same waters for their catch, the colonial Governments of Madras and Colombo agreed to delimit the waters in the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay. The two parties met in Colombo on October 24, 1921. The Indian team was led by Mr. C.W.E.Cotton and the team representing the government of Ceylon was headed by Hon. B.Horsburg.
Both parties accepted the “principle of equidistant and the median line could be the guiding factor”. However, since at Kachchathivu the principle of equidistant “would considerably narrow the area of operations for the Indian fishermen”, the Ceylon delegation proposed a line that was three miles west of the island “so that there would be an equitable apportionment in the fisheries domain for both Sri Lanka and India”. The proposal by the Ceylon delegation was based on the fact that “Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Kachchathivu was never in question, was beyond any doubt and was not a matter for negotiation. He (Hon. B. Horsburg) quoted from the correspondence that the Survey Department and the Department of Public Works in Colombo had exchanged with the counterparts in India, in which the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over Kachchativu had been taken for granted by the Indian authorities… After discussion the delimitation line was fixed three miles west of Kachchativu”(Jayasinghe, p. 14,15).
Agreement between the two parties is reflected in the letter from the head of the Indian delegation Mr. C.W.E.Cotton in which he states: ” …we unanimously decided that the delimitation of the new jurisdiction for fishing purposes could be decided independently of the question of territoriality. The delimitation line was accordingly fixed, with our concurrence, three miles west of Kachchativu and the Ceylon representatives thereupon agreed to a more orderly alignment south of the island than they had originally proposed…” (Ibid, p. 130).
What is relevant from all of the above is that regardless of the basis for establishing a boundary under colonial rule, such boundaries morph into territorial boundaries of independent states under the International Law “Doctrine of Uti Possidetis”.
DOCTRINE of UTI POSSIDETIS
According to Black’s Law Dictionary the legal Doctrine of “Uti possidetis juris” is defined as: “The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence (Hansal & Allison, “The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability”, p. 2; quoting Garner 1999).
The principle behind this doctrine dates to Roman times. The principle first emerged in the modern sense with the decolonization of Latin America when each former Spanish colony agreed to accept territories that were “presumed to be possessed by its colonial predecessors” (Ibid). The same Doctrine was accepted by former colonies in the African continent. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has “argued for its relevance across the world” (Ibid).
“This principle was stated most directly in the ICJ’s 1986 decision in the Frontier Dispute/Burkina Faso Republic of Mali case. The ICJ had been asked to settle the location of a disputed segment of the border between Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which had been part of French West Africa before independence. In their judgment over the merits of this Frontier Dispute case the ICJ emphasized the legal principle of uti possidetis juris”:
“The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”:
“The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also derive from international frontiers which previously divided a colony of one State from a colony of another, or indeed a colonial territory from the territory of another independent State…There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula of uti possidetis” (ICJ 1986, Ibid).
CONCLUSION
There is a considerable body of historical evidence relating to Kachchativu written by commentators and scholars in India and Sri Lanka. This body of evidence has been relied upon by interested parties in India and Sri Lanka to justify their respective claims depending on whose interests are being advanced. Consequently, the evidence presented by each is selective and serves only to advance the perspectives each decides to promote. However, among this body of historical evidence this writer has not come across a single document that justifies its claims on the Internationally recognized “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”, which in essence is the international acceptance and recognition given to Colonial Boundaries as International Boundaries of decolonized Independent Sovereign Nation States.
In this background it is indeed inexplicable and disappointing why a decolonized Sri Lanka did not exploit provisions of International Law as provided in the Doctrine of UTI POSSIDENTIS to establish its sovereign rights to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries, despite its clear advantage arising from the acceptance and recognition given to its provisions by the International Court of Justice, when it stated: “The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”, instead of relying on selective archival historical evidence that could be challenged.
Had Sri Lanka adopted such an approach, the issue of the sovereignty of Kachchativu as being an integral part of Sri Lanka’s territory would have been indisputable and the fact that the Maritime Boundary was three Miles West of Kachchativu would ipso facto have followed. Furthermore, no grounds would have existed to foster the flawed notion that the Government of India had ceded Kachchativu to Sri Lanka.
The same stubborn reluctance to exploit provisions of Customary International Law prevails in the manner Sri Lanka has been addressing accountability issues relating to Sri Lanka’s Armed Conflict. Despite the fact that the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka (OISL) contains several provisions that are favourable to address accountability, no Government has exploited any of them to Sri Lanka’s advantage.
For instance, commenting on the applicability of International humanitarian law, Paragraph 182 of the OISL Report states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees to the treatment of civilians…contained therein. Common Article 3 binds all parties to the conflict AND Paragraph 183 state: “the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.
If according to the opinion of the OISL, “the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike to relevant rules of customary international law”, it must follow that issues of accountability should be responsibility of the Government and the LTTE and those who accepted the LTTE as their leaders. Furthermore, if “all parties to the conflict are bound to respect the guarantees to the treatment of civilians”, the LTTE and those who accepted them as their leaders should be held accountable for taking civilians hostage and compromising their safety by putting them in harm’s way. Since no Government has officially brought this fact to the attention of the UN Human Rights Commission, Sri Lankan Governments have inherited the sole responsibility of addressing issues relating to accountability by default.
The two examples cited above, one relating to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries and the other relating to accountability, are two instances where successive Governments have ignored International Law provisions to the disadvantage of Sri Lanka’s interests. The plea to this Government is that it critically and objectively evaluates the opinions presented above for the sake of restoring the dignity of the Sri Lankan Nation.
Former Chief Minister Karunnidhi is reported to be disappointed by the submission of the Central Government of India to the Supreme Court that no Indian territory including Kachchativu was ceded to Sri Lanka and therefore, the question of retrieval does not arise. The political establishment in Tamil Nadu is hoping that the Supreme Court of India would determine otherwise. The Supreme Court of India cannot be unaware of the International Law Doctrine of “uti possidetis”, not to mention the force of the agreement signed in 1974 by the respective Heads of State of India and Sri Lanka. Despite all of the above, if the determination by the Supreme Court is prejudicial to Sri Lanka’s interests, Sri Lanka would have no option but to appeal to the International Court of Justice. Sri Lanka should stand firm on this issue because of the shift of the International Maritime Boundary with its attendant loss of territory would result in many consequential disadvantages to Sri Lanka.
Attempts by the Tamil Nadu political establishment to retrieve Kachchativu through the Central Government of India and/or the Supreme Court must mean that they are either not aware of the Doctrine of uti possidetis (a fact that is difficult to accept), or while being aware and recognizing that it is a lost cause, is pursuing it in order to demonstrate that they have tried their best to protect local electoral interests despite the odds stacked against them. Whatever the case may be Sri Lanka is on solid ground as far as Kachchativu is concerned.
Features
Revolt in the Temple: Poverty as Structural Control
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
Features
Are threats to Buddha Sasana external or from within?
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
Features
Vijaya Kumar: Academic, Activist & Genial Fellow-Traveller
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
-
News7 days agoPolice probe underway to ascertain links between criminals deported from UAE and local politicians
-
News6 days agoEaster Sunday carnage: Court told Maulana’s statement cannot be accepted without cross-examination
-
News2 days agoIMF urges Lanka not to meddle with exchange rate
-
News6 days agoUK passport holder hiding here wants to have deportation order rescinded to leave without blemish
-
Opinion6 days agoUndermining the democratic political framework
-
Features3 days agoThe Division Bell Mystery
-
News7 days agoDickoya double murder suspect arrested
-
Midweek Review5 days agoIsraeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador

