Features

The Foreign Policy of the United States

Published

8 months ago

2025/09/14

(A talk given at The Bandaranaike International Training Institute on 09 September, 2025)

The topic I was invited to speak on today is the foreign policy of the United States. This is a very broad theme and to give you a detailed account of it, in the time at our disposal today, would be impossible. So, what I shall attempt to do is to give you a summary or a thumbnail sketch of the foreign policy of the United States from 1776 to the 1930s focusing in particular on two presidents who took charge of the foreign policy of the US during their terms of office: William McKinley and Woodrow Wilson. And thereafter reflect more closely on the period from 1941 to the present. It is believed that the farewell address of President George Washington outlined the foreign policy goals of the United States which included, among others, the cultivation of peace and harmony with all nations. It recommended the avoidance of permanent alliances with “any portion of the foreign world” and advocated trade with all nations. In the early years of the existence of the United States, the most important goal of its foreign policy was to balance the relations with Great Britain and France. Of the two major political parties at that time, the Federalist Party sought close ties with Britain but the Democratic-Republican Party favoured France.

Broadly stated, the striking feature of the history of US foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from isolationism before and after World War 1 to interventionism post-World War 11, especially during the Cold War period which lasted for about four decades and a half from 1947 to 1990/91 during which the United States played a hegemonic role in the world.

Isolationism usually describes a policy of non-interventionism: avoiding foreign alliances and conflicts and waging war only if attacked by an adversary. A characteristic feature noticeable in the history of US foreign policy has been a tension between the desire to withdraw from messy foreign problems and the belief that America should be the dominant force in world affairs- – “the indispensable nation”, as former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright put it.

Generally, it has been the Republicans who have preached withdrawal, though it was the Democrats who did so during the Vietnam War and its aftermath. US foreign policy over the years, has alternated between isolationism and interventionism. It should be noted that despite the election campaign rhetoric of then candidate Donald Trump, one cannot see the likelihood of an imminent US withdrawal from the world.

America’s Founders saw America’s geographical isolation from Europe as an ideal opportunity to develop the new nation in solitude. “Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course”, Washington said in his farewell address in 1796 (referred to above). Thomas Jefferson too, warned against “entangling alliances”. With the exception of the successful 1846-1848 Mexican War, which expanded US borders to include California and much of the American west, the US was disinclined to get involved in military adventures in other parts of the world. America does not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy”, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had declared in 1821.

A turning point, however, was the Spanish-American War. During Cuba’s revolt against Spain in 1898, President William McKinley sent the battleship Maine on a goodwill visit to Havana where it blew up in the harbour, killing around 250 US sailors. Certain American historians of today, are of the view that an internal explosion destroyed the ship, but at the time, Americans led by the American press took a position of extreme patriotism blaming Spain for the explosion and the US declared war. It ended with the surrender of Spain and the war made Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, who led the volunteer Rough Riders regiment, a national hero. When Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency after McKinley’s assassination in 1901, he pursued a robust and aggressive foreign policy. It was Roosevelt’s view that the US must “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. To promote US interests abroad- – commercial interests in particular – Roosevelt ordered the construction of the Panama Canal which connects the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and benefits the United States both economically and national security-wise, and negotiated the end of the war between Russia and Japan. It was Roosevelt, according to the historian Richard Abrams, who asked the Americans to assume the responsibility “to use their power for good internationally”.

In the 1890s, one notices a historic turn in US foreign policy. After emerging victorious in its war with Spain in 1898, the United States gained new territory in the Caribbean and the western Pacific. The then Assistant Secretary of State, John Bassett Moore observed that the nation has moved,

. . . from a position of comparative freedom from entanglements into the position of what is commonly called a world power . . . .

Moore’s boss, President William McKinley, presided over these changes. McKinley won the 1896 elections over the highly popular Democrat, William Jennings Bryan. According to Walter LaFeber (1989), “The affection Americans felt for McKinley ranked with the feelings they later had toward the popular Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower”. On becoming president in 1896, McKinley himself took control of formulating US foreign policy. Controlling foreign policy in the manner he did, McKinley became not only the first 20^th century president, but the first modern chief executive. He is known to have been adept at controlling the US Congress while he kept control of foreign policy in his own hands. McKinley expanded the Constitution’s Commander-in-Chief powers and was thus able to dispatch US troops to fight in China. Historians note that McKinley’s actions paved the way for the “imperial presidency” of the 1960s and 1970s.

McKinley won the presidency and moved to the White House in 1896, thanks largely to the splendid campaign organized by Marcus Hanna, fellow Ohioan and millionaire steel industrialist. McKinley rewarded Hanna by having him appointed to the Senate seat vacated by John Sherman who was named Secretary of State. In Hanna, McKinley had a trusted power broker in the Senate who was both loyal and obedient to the President. These two men built such a powerful political coalition so much so that only one Democrat presidential nominee would be elected president between 1896 and 1932. In 1900, McKinley defeated the Democratic nominee, Bryan more decisively than four years before. And McKinley is credited with having led the United States into the small select circle of great world powers. Yet, like Abraham Lincoln who did much for the United States before him, McKinley was assassinated in September 1901, a mere six months after his second inauguration.

The next to make a significant contribution to US foreign policy was Woodrow Wilson the 28^th president of the United States, who was the sole Democrat to be elected president between 1896 and 1932, as referred to above. He was also the first native Southerner to reach the White House since 1849. He is also the only US president to hold a doctorate which he obtained from Johns Hopkins University in 1886. He served as president of Princeton University from 1902 -1910. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1920 for his contribution to ending World War 1 and for creating the League of Nations. Many later presidents including Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, looked back to Wilson as the Chief Executive whose vision of the nation’s future was far-seeing, and one who had confronted challenges which have continued to worry the United States.

Wilson’s contribution as president from 1913 to 1921, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy, was impressive. What revived US isolationism during the second term of Woodrow Wilson was America’s horrified response to World War 1. The US entered the “war to end all wars” in 1917 with intense patriotic fervour, influenced perhaps by Wilson’s desire, “to make the world safe for democracy”, a phrase Wilson used in a speech to Congress. But the carnage in Europe- – 17 million dead and another 20 million wounded, according to available statistics, sparked another withdrawal into isolationism.

And the Americans then withdrew into the pursuit of material wealth and fun during the 1920s (described as the ‘Roaring Twenties’) and continued to be a world power, indeed the greatest economic power at that time. By 1933, however, the dollar had collapsed. The delicate treaty structure the US had built, fell on top of it (LaFeber, 1994). In the words of the historian, John M. Carroll, “The foundations of economic and political stability” laid during the 1920s were simply “swept away during the economic crisis of the 1930s” consequent to the Great Depression that began in 1929. Washington’s response now came from the newly elected president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who entered the White House in 1933. The banking system had collapsed, unemployment was rife and there was political chaos internationally with Hitler and the Japanese expansionists beginning to shape world politics. And if these challenges were not enough, Roosevelt was confronted at home by an “isolationist Congress”. US isolationism, however, was challenged by the outbreak of World War 11. Roosevelt was strongly supportive of the allies from 1932 to 1938, and the United States began to provide military equipment to them without entering the war. Things changed dramatically in 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in December of that year.

The attack by the Empire of Japan on Pearl Harbour was totally unexpected. It targeted the United States’ Pacific fleet at its naval base in Hawaii on 7 December, 1941. The provocation for this surprise Japanese attack is believed to be due to what Japan perceived to be US interference in Japan’s affairs. Japan declared war on the US and the British on 8 December, and on the same day, both the United Kingdom and the United States declared war on Japan. Although there were no formal obligations for them to do so, both Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, at which point the United Kingdom and the United States retaliated by declaring war on Germany and Italy.

The year 2025 may be looked back upon by future historians, as the end of the Atlanticist era, according to Robert Lyman, the British military historian in his article, The end of the Atlanticist era. This era, begun in 1941, was one in which the United States took on from the United Kingdom, the “White Man’s burden” of keeping the world safe for democracy. Unlike the previous era, which began after World War 1 in 1918, when the United States was steadfastly isolationist, post 1941, the US embarked on being the global guarantor of the Atlantic Charter. This was a signed agreement which committed the two countries to a new set of global security imperatives that would eventually make the United States a super power once Hitler and German fascism had been defeated. But we need to bear in mind that what really motivated the United States to come out of its self-imposed isolationism was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Pearl Harbour not only led the United States to formally enter World War 11, but it encouraged President Roosevelt to expedite the construction of the atomic bomb which was code-named the Manhattan Project. The Bomb altered the subsequent history of the United States as Gary Wills notes in his Bomb Power The Modern Presidency and The National Security State (2010). Wills also observes that the Manhattan Project which was carried out in secret and was secretly funded at the behest of President Roosevelt, was “a model for the covert activities and covert authority” of the government of the United States since 1942. The US Congress was unaware of the Manhattan Project and even Vice President Harry Truman was kept in the dark. It was only when he succeeded Roosevelt as President that he came to know of it. The executive power in the United States since World War 11 has basically been “Bomb Power”, according to Gary Wills.

The United States became a leading economic, political and military power at the end of World War 11 in September, 1945. It considered itself to be the leader of the free world. Soon however, there began a period of geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. Begun in 1947, the Cold War, ended in December, 1989, when President Bush and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev declared so at the Malta Summit. Some others considered the end of the Cold War to be two years later in December, 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Let us now look at the United States and its performance on the foreign policy front after 1945. In August of 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings reportedly killed between 150,000 and 246,000 civilians with many others suffering long- term effects of radiation. This event marked the beginning of the nuclear age. Some historians claim that Japan was on the verge of surrender at this time and thus the decision of the Truman administration to go ahead with the bombings remains a historical and moral debate to-date.

The Cold War led the United States into a number of overt conflicts and covert operations. Among the former are the Korean War (1950-1953) which was armed conflict between North Korea and South Korea. The former was supported by China and the Soviet Union, while the latter, by the United Nations Command (UNC) led by the United States. This was really one of the first proxy wars during the Cold War because, although the it was ostensibly the UNC which went to the defense of South Korea, it was the United States which provided around 90% of the military personnel. Then came the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, after he nationalized the oil industry in 1953. The CIA under the orders of the Eisenhower administration, with the backing of Britain’s MI6, accomplished this task. The goal was to restore the pro-Western Shah’s dictatorial rule and thereby maintain Western control over Iranian oil. This fact was exposed in a film titled, ‘Coup ‘53’ directed by the Iranian Taghi Amirani. For the record, let me note that the British government has never admitted its role in the Mossdegh affaire.

The Vietnam War lasted from 1955-1975. North Vietnam, a communist state, and the southern-based Viet Cong (or the National Liberation Front) fought alongside North Vietnam and their stated goal was to unify Vietnam. And South Vietnam, a non-communist state, was supported by the United States. Australia, South Korea, Thailand and New Zealand joined the United States in support of South Vietnam while the Soviet Union and China backed North Vietnam. In the 1950s, the US provided military and economic aid to South Vietnam. The US viewed the Vietnam War, as with the Korean War earlier, from the perspective of the Cold War and the “domino theory”. Successive presidents of the United States and innumerable pundits created the “domino theory”. As goes Vietnam so goes the whole of Asia, like a cascade of dominoes falling into the communist camp. Public debate was structured around the ‘fear factor’, the epic struggle with the “evil empire” or the global communist conspiracy. No US president actually believed in this scare story. The greatest problem of presidents from Eisenhower to Johnson and beyond was contending with their own national security bureaucracy who, in concert with the public and political mood, planned and sought to operate as if the scare story were fact.

There are allegations that the United States and its allies sponsored and facilitated state terrorism and mass killings on a significant scale during the Cold War. The justification given by some for this was that it was to contain Communism, but others say, it was also a strategy by which to buttress the interests of the business elites of the United States and to promote the expansion of capitalism and liberalisation. This reminds us of the immortal words of President Eisenhower, who in his farewell address of 1961 warned his fellow Americans of the Military- Industrial Complex. The most notorious of the post- Cold War conflicts was the US-led coalition’s attack on Iraq in March 2003, that centred around false claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Sadam Hussein was supporting Al- Queda. The UK, Australia and Poland were members that joined the US in forming that coalition. Of the present conflicts, the Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine war are conflicts in which the US is on the side of Ukraine and Israel.

The American interventions were not confined to Asia alone. Patricia McSherry, a professor of political science at Long Island University, states that, ‘hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans were tortured, abducted or killed by right-wing military regimes as part of the US-led anti-communist crusade’, which included support for ‘Operation Condor’ and the Guatemalan military during the Guatemalan civil war. We could add to this list, the US covert interventions in Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay and Argentina.

Contemporary research and declassified documents demonstrate that the United States and some of its western allies directly facilitated and encouraged the mass murder of a large number of suspected communists in Indonesia during the mid -1960s. According to the American journalist and author, Glenn Greenwald, the strategic rationale of the US support for brutal and genocidal dictatorships around the globe has been consistent since the end of World War 11. This is in keeping with American threats to impose sanctions on officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) because it issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant over suspected war crimes in Gaza. Some defenders of the post- 1945 US foreign policy argue that a policy of rhetoric, while doing things counter to that rhetoric was necessary in the sense of realpolitik. According to these defenders, such a policy helped secure victory against the dangers of tyranny and totalitarianism, even though such justification runs counter to the ideology of the rules-based liberal order that the US and its allies in Western Europe introduced after the end of World War 11.

Godfrey Hodgson, a shrewd and highly-respected British commentator, in a fine if provocative book titled, The Myth of American Exceptionalism (2009), offers a bracing critique of America’s view that it has an obligation to redeem other nations. He argues that the idea that the United States is destined to spread its unique gifts of democracy and capitalism to other countries, is dangerous for Americans and for the rest of the world. Furthermore, he asserts that America is not as exceptional as it would like to think; its blindness to its own history has bred a complacent nationalism and a disastrous foreign policy that has alienated it from the global community.

Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies posed the following apt questions in their book, Will America Change? (2008): Is what’s good for America, good for the world? Or does the world long for America to participate in collective decision-making based on listening to and learning from others, acknowledging thereby the equal validity of different interests and opinions? They go on to say that America’s problem with the world is inseparable from defining and understanding the world’s problems with America. Unless one knows the problem, there can be no effective solution. And the problem lies in how the United States comes to terms with the realities of an increasingly inter-connected and inter-dependent world.

The world today is very different from what it was in 1945. As a former prime minister and foreign minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, in a recent essay titled, Farewell America: Trump’s isolationism leaves a widening void in world order (2025) writes,

To be sure, America’s power and influence have already waned. For decades after World War 11, the United States could shape the global system to serve its own purposes; and during the brief ‘unipolar’ moment that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, its status was unrivaled. But other powers have since grown in stature and are pursuing global ambitions. While China is the most obvious example, Europe too, is seeking the unity required to assert itself as a serious global player, and many middle powers want to raise their profiles as well

.Following up on Carl Bildt’s above observations, I’d like to believe that we are on the verge of a more inclusive new world order, in which the voices and interests of the Asian and African states are accommodated. Common challenges facing the world today like climate change, disease, poverty, nuclear proliferation, wars and inequality between peoples and nations require cooperation and coexistence. China and India are at the forefront of a battle to seek a more balanced international system and the likelihood of them combining their resources to seek that balance seems to be in the offing. In this likely new world order, it is envisaged that the hegemony of any one power will be challenged. In this context, the recent meeting of minds at the Shanghai Corporation Organisation (SC0) Summit held in Tianjin, China, the largest summit in SCO’s history, is an encouraging sign. The enlarged BRICS group, so the economists tell us, are already catching up with the G-7 in terms of purchasing of power parity (PPP). The SCO’s areas of action include internal security, counter-terrorism, economic cooperation and military cooperation. In combination with the association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN), the BRICS group and the SCO should form a formidable bloc. And if the members of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (also known as the Barcelona Process), a Union of EU member states and 16 southern Mediterranean countries built for economic integration were to join this bloc, then we are closer to a new international order based on multilateralism where the United States, given its greater military strength may have primacy but not hegemony as it has had in the post-1945 world to date.

References

Understanding Power The Indispensable Chomsky,

edited by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel (2003).

The American Age US Foreign Policy At Home and Abroad Volume 2-since 1896

, Walter LaFeber (1994).

American Foreign Policy Since World War 11,

John Spanier (1989).

The Myth of American Exceptionalism

, Godfrey Hodgson, (2009).

The Fire This Time U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf

, Ramsey Clark, (1992).

Bomb Power The Modern Presidency And The National Security State

, Gary Wills, (2010).

Will America Change?,

Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, (2008).

The Disuniting of America Reflections on a Multicultural Society

, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., (1992).

Perilous Power The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War and Justice,

Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar, (2007).

The Unfinished Nation A Concise History of the American People

, Alan Brinkley, (1997).

The Unfinished Journey America Since World War 11

, William H. Chafe, (1996).

Democracy in America

, Alexis de Tocqueville, (translated by George Lawrence and edited by J.P. Mayer), 1988.

by Tissa Jayatilaka ✍️

All News Advertisement

Features

Building a sustainable future for Sri Lanka’s construction industry

Published

2 days ago

2026/05/8

Thilina Walpola

Sri Lanka’s construction industry has long been a central pillar of sustainable development. From roads and bridges to homes, schools, and hospitals, construction shapes the country’s physical landscape and supports economic progress. As the nation continues to rebuild and modernise, the demand for construction materials and infrastructure keeps rising. However, this growth also brings a significant environmental cost. Cement, steel, bricks, aggregates, and timber all require energy, resources, and transportation, contributing to carbon emissions and environmental damage. If Sri Lanka continues with traditional construction practices, the long-term impact on the environment will be severe.

The encouraging news is that Sri Lanka has many opportunities to adopt more sustainable construction practices while still maintaining the highest standards of quality and safety. Sustainable construction does not mean weaker buildings or lower standards. It means using sustainable materials, reducing waste, improving design, and choosing methods that protect the environment. Many countries have already moved in this direction, and Sri Lanka has the potential to follow the same path with solutions that are practical, affordable, and suitable for local conditions.

A promising option

One promising option is the use of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB), which are different from the concrete blocks commonly used in Sri Lanka for the past 25 years. CEBs are made from soil mixed with a small amount of stabiliser and pressed using machines. Unlike traditional fired clay bricks, CEBs do not require high-temperature kilns, which consume large amounts of firewood or fossil fuels. This makes CEBs a low-carbon alternative with a much smaller environmental footprint. In Sri Lanka, CEBs are already used in eco-resorts, community housing projects, and environmentally focused developments. They offer good strength, durability, and thermal comfort, making them suitable for many types of buildings. By expanding the use of CEBs, Sri Lanka can reduce energy consumption, lower emissions, and promote locally sourced materials.

Recycled aggregates also offer significant potential for sustainable construction. These materials are produced by crushing concrete, demolition waste, and construction debris. In Sri Lanka, recycled aggregates are already used in road construction, particularly for base and sub-base layers. They are suitable for non-structural building work such as pathways, garden paving, drainage layers, landscaping, and backfilling. Using recycled aggregates reduces the need for newly quarried rock and aggregates, decreases landfill waste, and lowers transportation emissions. With proper quality control and standards, recycled aggregates can become a reliable and widely accepted material in the construction industry.

Timber and sustainability

Timber is another important area where sustainability can be improved. In the past, timber for construction was often taken from natural forests, leading to deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Today, this approach is no longer sustainable. Instead, the focus must shift to legally sourced timber from managed plantations. Sri Lanka’s plantation-grown teak, jak, and kubuk can provide high-quality, legally sourced timber for construction while protecting natural forests and supporting rural economies. Using plantation timber ensures that harvesting is controlled, trees are replanted, and the supply chain remains legal and ethical.

Beyond materials, sustainable construction also involves better design and planning. Buildings that are designed to maximise natural ventilation, daylight, and energy efficiency can significantly reduce long-term operating costs. Simple design improvements such as proper orientation, shading devices, roof insulation, and efficient window placement can reduce the need for artificial cooling and lighting. These measures not only lower energy consumption but also improve indoor comfort for occupants. Sri Lanka’s tropical climate offers many opportunities to incorporate passive design strategies that reduce environmental impact without increasing construction costs.

Waste reduction is another key component of sustainable construction. Construction sites often generate large amounts of waste, including concrete, timber offcuts, packaging, and soil. By adopting better site management practices, recycling materials, and planning construction sequences more efficiently, contractors can reduce waste and save money. Proper waste segregation and recycling can also reduce the burden on landfills and minimise environmental pollution.

Promoting sustainable construction

Public projects such as schools, hospitals, and government buildings can play a leading role in promoting sustainable construction. When government projects adopt greener materials and designs, the private sector follows. This creates a positive cycle where environmentally responsible choices become the industry standard. Public sector leadership can also encourage local manufacturers to produce sustainable materials, improve quality standards, and invest in new technologies.

Sri Lanka also carries a proud and remarkable history in construction, with achievements that continue to inspire the world. The engineering brilliance behind Sigiriya, the advanced urban planning of Polonnaruwa, the precision of the Aukana Buddha statue, and the sophisticated water management systems of ancient tanks and reservoirs all demonstrate the deep knowledge our ancestors possessed. These historic accomplishments show that innovation is not new to Sri Lanka; it is part of our identity. As the world moves toward 2050 with increasing sustainability challenges, Sri Lanka can draw strength from this heritage while embracing modern technologies and sustainable practices. With the combined efforts of skilled professionals, industry experts, academic researchers, and strong government support, the country can introduce new systems that improve efficiency, reduce environmental impact, and strengthen resilience. By working together with determination and sharing knowledge across generations, Sri Lanka’s construction industry can build a future that honours its past while leading the way in sustainable development.

Foundation of sustainable development

Sri Lanka’s construction industry has always been a foundation of sustainable development. Today, it also has the chance to take a leading role in sustainability. By choosing sustainable materials, reducing waste, improving design, and supporting responsible sourcing, the country can build a future that is both modern and environmentally responsible. Sustainability is essential for Sri Lanka’s long-term goals of reducing carbon emissions and limiting the impacts of global warming. As Sri Lanka moves forward, the construction industry must embrace sustainability not only as an environmental responsibility but also as an opportunity to create stronger, smarter, and more resilient buildings for future generations. Sri Lanka has the talent, the heritage, and the technical capacity to shape a more sustainable future, and with the right national direction, the construction industry can become a model for the region. If professionals, policymakers, and communities work together with a shared vision, the country can transform its construction sector into one that protects the environment while supporting long-term progress.

About the Author: P.G.R.A.C. Gamlath Menike,

BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying (University of Reading, UK), MSc Quantity Surveying (University College of Estate Management, UK), MCIArb, Doctoral Student, Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, is a Senior Quantity Surveyor: Last Project (2022 -2025) Hong Kong International Airport Terminal 2 Construction Project, Gammon Engineering Construction (Main Contractor).

By P.G. R. A. C. Gamlath Menike

Features

Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – 1

Published

2 days ago

2026/05/8

Thilina Walpola

Palm leaf manuscripts

Palm leaf manuscripts have been in existence in Sri Lanka since ancient times. The two oldest palm-leaf manuscripts found in Sri Lanka today are the Cullavagga Pâli manuscript of the H. C. P. Bell collection, which is held at the Library of the National Museum, Colombo, and the Mahavagga Pâli manuscript in the University of Kelaniya collection. Photocopies of both are available at the Library of the University of Peradeniya. Both are dated to 13 century. Cullavagga manuscript has wooden covers richly decorated in lac with a design of flowers and foliage.

Karmmavibhâga

However, the oldest known Sinhala palm leaf manuscript in the world is the Karmmavibhâga which was found in a Tibet monastery in 1936 by the Indian scholar Rahul Sankrityayan. Rahul Sankrityayan, (1893–1963) former Kedarnath Pandey, was an Indian polymath, who searched out rare Buddhist manuscripts on his travels abroad. Sankrityayan visited Sri Lanka as well. Vidyalankara Pirivena is mentioned.

Sankrityayan visited Tibet several times to collect manuscripts from the Buddhist monasteries there. In May 1936 on his second visit to Tibet, Sankrityayan visited the Sa-skya monastery. The Chag-pe-lha-khang Library in this monastery was specially opened for Sankrityayan.

He stated in his autobiography that when the clouds of dust which greeted this rare opening of its doors had subsided, they beheld rows of open racks where volume on volume of manuscripts were kept. “After rummaging around, I came across palm-leaf manuscripts. They were not wrapped in cloth, but were tied between two wooden planks with holes through them.” Sankrityayan found several important manuscripts he had been looking for, in that collection.

Sankrityayan catalogued fifty-seven manuscripts bound in thirty-eight volumes. The thirty-seventh volume was written in the Sinhala script. Sankrityayan records that this volume contained ninety-seven palm- leaves each of which measured 18 1/4 by 1 1/4 in. (46 x 3 cm.) and that there were seven lines of writing on each folio.

According to Sankrityayan, these Sinhala texts originally belonged to a Sri Lankan monk called Anantaśrî who had come to Tibet in the time of ŚSrî Kîrttidhvaja (Kirti Sri Rajasinha). Analysts noted that Sankrityayan does not give the source of this information and the manuscript makes no mention of Anantaśrî.

Sankrityayan had taken with him to Tibet, one Abeyasinghe, (Abhayasimha) to help him with copying manuscripts. They made hand-copies of the important manuscripts. Abhayasimha had copied about 250 to 350 strophes each day. But he fell ill due to the extreme cold and was sent home in June. Abeyasinghe had written letters home during his stay in Tibet.

Photographs of the manuscripts found during Sankrityayan’s expeditions in Tibet are preserved at the National Archives in Colombo. There is also a copy in Vidyalankara pirivena library The Historical Manuscripts Commission In its 1960/1961 report, drew attention to this manuscript, known as Sa-skya Codex, describing it as “a unique document.” (Annual Report of the Government Archivist 1960/61, 1963)

Sinhala scholar P.E.E. Fernando examined photographs of the Sa-skya Codex at the request of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and assigned it to the 13th century. The Historical Manuscripts Commission, dated it to either twelfth or the thirteenth century.

The Historical Manuscripts Commission observed that this manuscript was of great value for the study of the development of the Sinhala script. Ven. Meda Uyangoda Vimalakîrtti and Nähinne Sominda in their edition of the Karmmavibhâga published in 1961 agreed that the Sa-skya Codex represented an early stage in the evolution of the Sinhala language.

Mahavamsa

The Mahavamsa is considered a unique historical document. There is nothing like it in South Asia, and probably all Asia, with the exception of China. Mahavamsa provides a historical account of events, with emphasis on chronology and dating. This, it appears, was rare at the time.

However, Mahavamsa is not a political history, though that is the popular perception of it. It is a religious history. It was written to record the introduction and entrenchment of Buddhism in the country. Other Buddhist countries, such as Cambodia, Burma and Thailand value the Mahavamsa for this reason. They held copies of the Mahavamsa and used events from it in their temple frescoes.

But Mahavamsa is also an important reference source for reconstructing the political history of Sri Lanka. Political and social facts are included in the Mahavamsa narrative when describing religious events, and this makes the Mahavamsa important for historians. This tradition of history writing, beginning with the earlier Sihala Attakatha and Dipawamsa, it is suggested, started in Sri Lanka in 2^nd or 3^rd BC.

Today, the Mahavamsa has become a major source of historical information, not only for dating kings, temples and reservoirs, but also for reconstructing ancient Sinhala society. The fact that Kuveni was seated beside a pond, spinning thread has been used to indicate that there was water management and textiles long before Vijaya arrived. Dutugemunu (161-137 BC) paid a salary to the workers building the Maha Thupa. This shows that money was used at the time.

Copies of the Mahavamsa have been treasured and looked after in Sri Lanka for centuries. They have been copied over and over again. The manuscripts were held in temple libraries because the subject of the Mahavamsa was the entrenchment of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

The Mahavamsa manuscripts did not pop up suddenly during British rule as people seem to think. The British did not ‘discover’ the Mahavamsa. It was there. When the British administration started to take interest in the history of the island, the sangha would have directed them to the Mahavamsa, in the same way that they directed HCP Bell to the ruins in Anuradhapura and the Sigiriya frescoes. HCP Bell did not discover those either.

The British administrators saw the value of the Mahavamsa and copies were sent to libraries abroad. The Bodleian library, Oxford has a well preserved Mahavamsa manuscript, taken from Mulkirigala, which Turner used for his translation. Cambridge has two Mahavamsa manuscripts. The two copies at India Office library, and the copy in East India Library are probably in the British Library today. The Royal Library, Copenhagen, has a copy, consisting of 129 sheets, 12 lines to a leaf, written in good handwriting.

In Sri Lanka there are several copies of the Mahavamsa in the Colombo Museum Library. One copy, known as the ‘Cambodian Mahavamsa ‘is in Cambodian script. University of Peradeniya has at least three copies.

It is interesting to note that the Mahavamsa was known to the Sinhala elite and some had copies in their private libraries. The Historical Manuscripts Commission of the 1930s said in its first report that five copies of the Mahavamsa and a 19^th century copy of the Dipawamsa were found in private collections.

The temple libraries had many copies of the Mahavamsa. Some were of very high quality. Wilhelm Geiger had looked at the copies held at Mahamanthinda Pirivena, Matara and Mulkirigala vihara. Asgiriya, Nagolla Vihara and Watagedera Sudarmarama Potgul vihara, Matara, are three of the many libraries that held copies of the Mahavamsa.

Sirancee Gunawardene examined the copy at Mahamanthinda Pirivena, Matara, very closely. She says that it is a very old manuscript. According to its colophon, the manuscript was first copied 400 years ago. It is in a very good state of preservation. It has 232 folios. Each 50 cm long 6.25 wide. Nine lines on each side, in Pali metric verse.

The writer of the manuscripts said that his version was an improvement on the copy. He wrote, “I will recite the Mahavamsa which was compiled by ancient sages. [their version] was too long and had many repetitions. This version is free from such faults, easy to understand and remember. It is handed down from tradition, for arousing serene joy and emotion’ .

The Mahamanthinda manuscript records the continuous history of 23 dynasties from 543 BC to 1758 AD. It refers to the principle of hereditary monarchy as 39 eldest sons of reigning monarch succeeded their fathers to the throne. It highlights the fact that fifteen reigned only for one year, 34 for less than four years, 22 kings were murdered by their successors, 6 were killed during battles, 4 committed suicide, 11 were dethroned.

Mahawansa as a World Heritage document

An ola manuscript of the Mahavamsa, held in the Main Library of the University of Peradeniya has been recognised by UNESCO as a part of World Heritage. UNESCO announced In 2023 that it has included the Mahavamsa as one of the 64 items of documentary heritage inscribed in the UNESCO’s Memory of the World International Register for 2023. The manuscript is dated to the early 19 century.

The certificate declaring the Mahawansa as a world heritage document was handed to the Chancellor of Peradeniya University by UNESCO Director General, who visited the University in 2024 specially to do so. She also unveiled a plaque marking the declaration.

The story began much earlier. The National Library of Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Buddha Sasana had jointly appointed a 6-member committee headed by Prof Malani Endagamage, to find the best preserved copy of the Mahavamsa in Sri Lanka. This would have been in 2000 or so. For two years, this team had examined copies from over 100 temples nationwide.

Temples around the country yielded copies, crumbling to well-preserved, reported Sunday Times. There was one from the Ridi Vihara that almost made the cut, but four other copies were shortlisted. One from the Dalada Maligawa, Kandy and three manuscripts from the Main Library of the University of Peradeniya. Three academics from the University’s History Department, Professors K.M. Rohitha Dasanayaka, Mahinda Somathilake and U.S.Y. Sahan Mahesh examined the three Peradeniya manuscripts

Dasanayaka said, “We poured over the copies together, and it became clear that one copy stood out. While the other two had numerous inconsistencies, this one, written in a curvy hand, was neat and beautiful. After more than two centuries, the manuscript was still very attractive, with a ‘flaming cinnamon orange’ cover and elegant lettering.

The first section of the manuscript ends with Mahasen (274–301 AD), written by the monk Mahanama. The second part ends at 1815. The author is given as Ven. Thibbotuwawe Buddharakkhita but he was dead by 1815. The final part was probably done by an acolyte. He has done a very neat job, seamlessly adding his bit, concluded Dasanayake.

This manuscript was acquired by the Library of University of Peradeniya when K. D. Somadasa, was the Librarian (1964 – 1970). It is held in the Main Library and its Accession Number is 277587.

National Library & Documentation Services Board of Sri Lanka, which administers the National Library of Sri Lanka submitted a nomination to UNESCO on behalf of this manuscript. UNESCO responded positively to the application.

UNESCO said the Mahavamsa was recognized as one of the world’s longest unbroken historical accounts, presenting Sri Lanka’s history in a chronological order from the 6th century BCE. The authenticity of the facts provided in the document has been confirmed through archaeological research conducted in Sri Lanka and India.

It is an important historical source in South Asia, said UNESCO. It was the first of its kind in South Asia, initiating a mature historiographical tradition. It has contributed singularly to the identity of Emperor Asoka in Indian history. The existence of a number of manuscripts of the Mahavamsa in several countries as well as the transliteration and translation of the text to several Southeast Asian and European languages stand testimony to its immense historical, cultural, literal, linguistic and scholarly values, .” UNESCO press release said.

Further, UNESCO found that this manuscript was correctly conserved at the University Library. The university and its library maintained high standards in safeguarding the palm-leaf manuscripts, preventing deterioration, declared UNESCO. (Continued)

REFERENCES

https://archives1.dailynews.lk/2021/02/25/local/242520/ola-leaf-mahavamsa-be-declared-world-heritage

Sirancee Gunawardana Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka . 1977 p 41,44-47 , 253 290 292, ,

N. E. I. Wijerathne Methods, Techniques and Challenges in Deciphering the Sa-skaya Codex. Vidyodaya Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (2025), Vol. 10 (01) https://journals.sjp.ac.lk/index.php/vjhss/article/view/8571/6001

First report of the Historical Manuscripts Commision.1933 SP 9 of 1933. p . 53, 95, 96

https://journals.sjp.ac.lk/index.php/vjhss/article/view/8571/6001https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5572%200x00314cc3.pdf

https://leftword.com/creator/rahul-sankrityayan/

https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/comments/1oc5tc2/in_his_autobiography_meri_jeevan_yatra_rahul/

https://www.sundaytimes.lk/230910/plus/in-search-of-the-perfect-mahavamsa-531513.html

https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/Mahawansa-declared-a-world-heritage/108-287528

https://mfa.gov.lk/en/visit-of-unesco-dg/

https://sundaytimes.lk/online/education/UNESCO-ready-to-support-digitalisation-of-Ola-leaf-books/290-1146314

https://media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/mow001/53_131%252B.pdf

by KAMALIKA PIERIS

Features

A new Sherlock Holmes novel

Published

2 days ago

2026/05/8

Thilina Walpola

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 1

“The House of Silk” is set in a grim Victorian winter, and moves from Baker Street to a luxurious suburban villa, from dingy pubs to elegant London clubs, from a correction school for boys high on a hill to Dr Silkin’s House of Wonders, which provided noisy low life entertainment. Holmes and Watson went there in search of the House of Silk, a name they had heard when looking into the death of one of Holmes’ Baker Street irregulars (slum children who ferreted out information for him) .

I do not think highly of sequels to books written by highly regarded writers, though I must admit that this dislike is based on just a few samples. But while in England I was given by my former Dean, with a forceful recommendation, a book about a Sherlock Holmes mystery, supposedly written by Dr Watson. I began on it soon after I got back home, and found it difficult to put down, so I suppose I will not look on Anthony Horowitz as an exception to my rule. I may even look out for his efforts at continuing the adventures of James Bond, though I suspect Fleming’s laconic style will be less easy to emulate.

“The House of Silk” is set in a grim Victorian winter, and moves from Baker Street to a luxurious suburban villa, from dingy pubs to elegant London clubs, from a correction school for boys high on a hill to Dr Silkin’s House of Wonders, which provided noisy low life entertainment. Holmes and Watson went there in search of the House of Silk, a name they had heard when looking into the death of one of Holmes’ Baker Street irregulars (slum children who ferreted out information for him). They had asked Holmes’ brother Mycroft for help in finding what and where this was, but he had warned them off, having been himself told by someone very senior in government that it might involve those in very high positions, and further inquiries might prove dangerous.

Needless to say, Holmes does seek further, and is lured to an opium den where he is drugged, to be found outside with a gun in his hand and the body of a girl beside him, the sister of the murdered boy Ross. A passer-by swears he had seen Holmes fire the shot, and the owner of the opium den and a customer swear that Holmes had taken too much opium and left the den in a demented condition. A police inspector who had been passing promptly arrests Holmes and Watson, and even their old acquaintance Inspector Lestrade finds it difficult to get access to him.

Watson eventually gets to see him when he is in the infirmary, after he has been told by a mysterious man that Holmes was going to be murdered before his case could be taken up. The man said he had earlier tried to get Holmes to investigate the House of Silk by sending him a white silk ribbon, such as had later been found tied round the hand of the murdered boy. But, as a criminal himself, he said, he could not reveal more, though he himself was horrified by the business of the House of Silk, which gave criminality a bad name, which is why he wanted it all stopped.

Holmes escapes from the infirmary, with a little help from the doctor whom he had once assisted earlier, right under the nose of the nasty Inspector Harriman. He then joins up with Watson, and having with the help of Lestrade overcome the men designed to kill him at Dr Silkin’s House of Wonders, he sets off, with an even large posse of policemen, to the House of Silk.

After much suspense, the habitues of the House of Silk are arrested, the Inspector having broken his neck in the course of a chase downhill, having fled when his misdeeds were exposed. The mastermind claims that he will not face a trial because of the important people involved, but instead falls down a staircase while in prison and breaks his neck. One of the noblemen involved commits suicide, but another, and the medical man who had sworn he saw Holmes kill the young lady, get off without charge.

But then we revert to the original story, which had involved an art dealer who came to Holmes because he was being followed by someone he thought was an American gangster out for revenge. This was because he had shipped some pictures to an American buyer, and these had been destroyed when a train was held up by an Irish gang and the coach with the safe in it dynamited. The buyer and the dealer had got a private agency to investigate, and this had ended with the gang being killed in a shootout, though one of the twins who led it had escaped. The buyer had subsequently been killed, and Mr Carstairs feared that the twin who survived had followed him to England.

Holmes and Watson went to Carstairs’ house, where they met his wife, whom he had met on the boat back from America, and his sister. Their mother had died some months earlier, when gas had filled her room after the flame had gone out. It transpired that there had been a break in, and some money and a necklace stolen from a safe, and it was in tracing these, through a pawnbroker, that Holmes and Watson had found the American murdered in the hotel where he had been staying.

The leader of the irregulars had come to tell Holmes that they had traced the man to the hotel, and Ross had been left on guard. He seemed terrified when Holmes and Watson and Carstairs turned up, but said he had seen nothing. When the boys had been dismissed, and the room opened up, the man was found dead, the murderer obviously having gained entrance through a window.

Holmes assumed the boy had seen someone he recognized, but he could not be traced, until he was found dead, horribly tortured. The silk band around his wrist then led Holmes to pursue the House of Silk. One of the boys at the school where Ross had been mentioned that he had a sister at a pub, and she, when confronted, asked in fear if they were from the House of Silk and then, having lunged at Watson with a knife, ran off – herself only to be found dead outside the opium den, which prompted the arrest of Holmes.

After the drama at the House of Silk, Holmes and Watson go to the Carstairs household, where he explains exactly what had taken place, identifying the murdered man as not a member of the gang but the head of the private agency which had investigated them. As my Dean told me, Horowitz then ties up all the loose ends with consummate skill, connecting with a fine thread all the malefactors, of various kinds.