Midweek Review
Anti-Terrorism Bill aims at creating fascist dictatorship
By Kalyananda Tiranagama
The Ranil-MaithriYahapalana government, which came to power in 2015 presented its ‘Counter Terrorism Bill’ in Parliament on October 9, 2018 in compliance with its commitments to the Geneva UN Human Rights Council under the Resolution on Sri Lanka co-sponsored by Sri Lanka together with 10 other countries headed by the United States of America in September 2015.
The Yahapalana government had given an undertaking to the UNHRC ‘‘to review the Public Security Ordinance and to review and repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to replace it with anti-terrorism legislation in accordance with contemporary international best practices.’’
Sri Lanka dealt with insurgent activities/terrorist crimes under the Emergency Regulations proclaimed under the Public Security Ordinance and /or the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) No. 48 of 1979. PTA was enacted to deal with groups of persons or associations advocating the use of force or commission of crime for seeking change of government and resorting to acts of murder and threats of murder of Members of Parliament and of local authorities, police officers, and witnesses to such acts and other law-abiding citizens and other acts of terrorism such as armed robbery, damage to state property and other acts involving actual or threatened coercion, intimidation and violence. Political activities and public agitations against the government were not dealt with under the PTA.
Offences under the PTA
Only the following acts were offences under the PTA: (a) Causing the death, grievous hurt, kidnaping or abduction of any specified person; (Specified persons are Judges, foreign diplomats, Members of Parliament and of local authorities, Court officers, police and army officers); (b) Causing the death, grievous hurt, kidnaping or abduction of witnesses to such acts and other law-abiding citizens; (c) Criminal intimidation of any such person; (d) robbery of government or public property; (e) causing mischief to government or public property; (f) importing, manufacturing or collecting firearms, offensive weapons or explosives without lawful authority; (g) having such material in possession in a security area; (h) causing commission of acts of violence or religious, racial or communal disharmony or feelings of ill-will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups ; (i) mutilating or defacing name boards or inscriptions on roads and other public places; (j) harbouring, concealing or hindering in manner apprehension of persons involved in terrorist acts.
No offence under the PTA is punishable with death. The maximum penalty even for murder (paragraph (a) & (b) above) under PTA is life imprisonment. A person convicted of any other offence is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a period not less than 5 years and not exceeding 20 years.
Though there is so much demand for its repeal, PTA did not pose any threat to democratic political activities, public protests or other organised political campaigns against the policies and activities of the government in power harmful to the people or the country.
The Counter Terrorism Bill was brought by the Yahapalana Government aiming at achieving 3 objectives:
a. To suppress all democratic dissent, public agitations and mass protests against its anti-national, anti-popular policies by declaring them as terrorist acts;
b. to surreptitiously creep into the Bill some of the Emergency Regulations brought into force when a State of Emergency is declared under the Public Security Ordinance as part of the normal law of the country;
c. To appease TNA, Tamil Diaspora and NGO Human Rights lobby by liberalising the provisions in the PTA required to deal with real terrorist threats posed against national security and territorial integrity of the country.
Suppressing Democratic Dissent
Replacing the Counter Terrorism Bill, now Ranil Wickremesinghe government has brought the Anti-Terrorism Bill, further strengthened with newly added provisions to more effectively curb democratic and fundamental rights of wider strata of people. Anti-Terrorism Bill has been published in the Govt Gazette of March 17, 2023. Before analysing and discussing the provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Bill, let us examine the provisions in the Counter Terrorism Bill, which had come before the Supreme Court, for a better understanding of the sinister motives of the movers of this Bill.
Most of the Provisions in the Counter Terrorism Bill and the Anti-Terrorism Bill have the effect of outlawing all legitimate political campaigns and public protests, branding them as terrorist acts punishable with long term jail sentences. This was the most dangerous, anti-democratic Bill ever presented to our Parliament in its history. It is inevitable that Sri Lanka will become a Fascist dictatorial state without any room for the people to conduct public protests against the government policies and activities however harmful they may be to the people and the country. No trade union, professional association, people’s organisation or an opposition political party will be able to carry on mass protest campaigns to compel the government to desist from acts harmful to the country and the people or to take necessary steps for the welfare of the people.
Horrendous Provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Bill
In the Counter Terrorism Bill (CTB) and the Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) the term ‘terrorist act’ has been described in such wide terms so as to bring in all legitimate, democratic, mass political and protest campaigns against government policies within the definition of terrorist act. Let us examine the relevant provisions of these Bills.
CTB – S. 3 (1) Any person, who commits any act referred to in subsection (2), with the
intention of: (a) intimidating a population; (b) wrongfully or illegally compelling the govt. of Sri Lanka or any other government, or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act; © preventing any such govt. from functioning; or (d) causing harm to the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country, – shall be guilty of the offence of terrorism.
(2) An act referred to in subsection (1) shall be – (a) murder, attempted murder, grievous hurt, hostage taking or abduction of any person;
(b) endangering the life of any person; Causing serious damage to property, including public or private property, any place of public use, a state or govt. facility, any public or private transportation system, or any infrastructure facility or environment;
(d) Causing serious obstruction or damage to essential services or supplies;
(e) Committing the offence of robbery, extortion or theft in respect of the state or private property;
(f) Causing serious risk to the health and safety of the public or section thereof;
(g) Causing obstruction or damage to, or interference with any electronic or automated or computerised system or network or cyber environment of domains – assigned to Sri Lanka;
(h) Causing obstruction or damage to, or interference with any critical
infrastructure or logistic facility associated with any essential service or supply;
(g) Causing destruction or damage to religious, cultural property or heritage.
The above provision in S. 3 of the CTB has been included in the ATB, further strengthening it with several changes so as to encircle a wider group of people within the net. The changes made are shown underlined in italics.
ATB – S. 3 (1) Any person, who commits any act or illegal omission referred to in subsection (2), with the intention of:
Now not only doing an act, but refraining from doing or failure to do an act also becomes a terrorist act.
(a) intimidating public or section thereof ;
In the CTB, it is intimidating a population – an act affecting a large group of people. Now it can cover any act affecting even a very small group of people.
(b) wrongfully or illegally compelling the govt. of Sri Lanka or any other government, or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act; © unlawfully preventing any such govt. from functioning; or (d) violating the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country,
(e) propagating war or advocating national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence – shall be guilty of the offence of terrorism.
This item (e) which was not in the CTB, may have been added with a view to silencing the patriotic groups clamouring against the granting of 13+ and other unreasonable demands of extremists and separatists.
Another item which was not in the CTB, has been added to the list of terrorist offences in S. 3 (2) of the ATB, rendering every participant in a public protest, or agitational campaign liable to be indicted for committing terrorism.
(l) Being a member of an unlawful assembly for the commission of any act or illegal omission set out in the above paragraphs.
If the Galle Face struggle for the ouster of the President or Govt. conducted at a time after this Bill has become law, all those lawyers and other public figures who visited Gotago Gama in support of the struggle would have, not only lost their jobs, but ended up as terrorists serving long term jail sentences.
New Offences introduced by ATB targeting at all Media – Encouragement of Terrorism
Two new offences, having the effect of controlling all media, which were not in the CTB, have been introduced by ATB – Encouragement of Terrorism – S. 10 and – Disseminating Terrorist Publications – S.11’
S, 10 –(1) Any person (a) who publishes or causes to be published a statement, or speaks any word or words or makes signs or visible representations likely to be understood by some or all members of the public as a direct or indirect encouragement or inducement for them to commit, prepare or instigate the offence of terrorism; and
(b) Such person – (i) intends directly or indirectly to encourage or induce the public to commit, prepare or instigate the offence of terrorism; (ii) is reckless as to whether the public is directly or indirectly encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate the offence of terrorism
(2) The above provision shall apply to any person (a) who publishes or causes to be published a statement referred to above using (i) print media; (ii) internet; (iii) electronic media; or (iv) other form of public notice.
(3) For the purpose of this section, (i) a ‘’statement’’ includes every statement (a) which glorifies the commission of the offence of terrorism or preparation for the offence of terrorism.
(4) For the purpose of this section, the question as to how a statement is likely to be understood and what the members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer from it shall be determined, having regard both to – (a) the contents of the statement as a whole; and (b) as to the circumstances and manner of its publication.
(5) if any person proves to the satisfaction of the High Court that a statement referred to above neither expressed his views nor had his consent or approval for publication in all the circumstances of its publication, the Court may order that he is not guilty of an offence under this section.
* Burden of proof of innocence is shifted to the accused.
Disseminating Terrorist Publications
S, 11 – A person commits an offence under this Section, if he (a) distributes or circulates; (b) gives, sells or lends; (c) offers for sale a terrorist publication; (d) provides a service enabling others to obtain, read, listen to or look at a terrorist publication; (e) transmits contents of it electronically (f) keeps a terrorist publication in his possession , (i) intending directly or indirectly to encourage or induce the public to commit, prepare or instigate the offence of terrorism; or (ii) being reckless as to whether the public is directly or indirectly encouraged or induced by the publication to commit, prepare or instigate the offence of terrorism; using (i) print media; (ii) internet; (iii) electronic media; or (iv) other form of public notice.
(3) For the purpose of this section, (i) a publication includes every publication (a) which glorifies the commission of the offence of terrorism or preparation for the offence of terrorism and (b) from which public may infer that what is glorified is the conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.
If this law remained in force at the time of the Galle Face struggle, there is no doubt that most of the print, electronic and social media personnel who gave publicity through their media to men and women playing a leading role in the struggle would have ended up in jail by now.
Penalties for offences under S. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11
S.13 (1) – Any person convicted by High Court of any offence under Ss. 6,7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 – Rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years and fine not exceeding one million rupees.
– (2) on conviction for any of these offences High Court may order forfeiture of all movable and immovable property in the possession of that person which the Court considers to be connected with the commission of the offence.
S. 14 (1) – Penalty for attempt, abetment, conspiracy or doing any preparatory act for the commission of the above offences – Rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and fine not exceeding one million rupees.
Failure to provide information an Offence
S. 15 – Any person (a) knowing or having reason to believe that (i) another person has committed an offence under the Act, or (ii) is making preparation, attempting, abetting or conspiring to commit an offence, fails to report to the OIC of the nearest PS; (b) having information about a person who has committed an offence under the Act fails to provide such information, or gives false or misleading information to a Police officer – guilty of an offence and liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and fine not exceeding Rs. 500,000.
Disobeying Lawful Orders – an Offence
S. 16 – Any person who (a) violates or acts in contravention of any lawful directive or order made in terms of the Act; (b) willfully fails or neglects to comply with a direction made in terms of the Act; (c) fails to provide information or provides false or misleading information in response to a question put to him by a Police Officer conducting an investigation under the Act – commits an offence liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years and fine not exceeding Rs. 500,000.
(To be continued)
Midweek Review
Three high-profile alleged suicides shaping key investigations
Former IGP Chandana Deepal Wickramaratne, 63, succumbed to gunshot injury he received at his residence at Parakrama Mawatha, in Thalahena, Malabe, on 17 July. Wickramaratne, the 35th IGP (25 November, 2020, to 23th November, 2025), was pronounced dead at the Mulleriyawa Hospital.
The incident triggered speculation regarding the circumstances leading to the ex-IGP’s death. Some declared that Wickramaratne shot himself with a weapon issued to his bodyguard. Others alleged that Wickramaratne had been deeply depressed over divorce proceedings, involving his son and daughter-in-law, and accusations directed at his son over domestic violence. They claimed that the situation may have had unexpected bearing on Wickramaratne.
There are also lingering concerns regarding the impact of the ongoing investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, on Wickramaratne’s demise, the third such incident after the last presidential elections held in September, 2024.
Assistant Director of the External Resources Department of the Ministry of Finance, Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksa, 50, was found dead in the garden of his Kuliyapitiya home on 30 April, 2026. At the time of Rajapaksa’s alleged suicide, blamed on injuries he supposedly inflicted on himself using a knife, while he was under suspension over the USD 2.5 mn heist from the Treasury. He was the official who lodged a complaint with the CID regarding the unprecedented theft.
Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SriLankan Airlines, Kapila Chandrasena, 61, was found dead at No. 38, Pedris Road, Kollupitiya, on 8 May, 2026. Authorities declared Chandrasena died by hanging. Chandrasena was the prime suspect in the SriLankan Airlines bribery case, exposed by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), in a joint investigation carried out with US and French authorities. At the time of his death, he was out on bail but faced re-arrest over alleged violations of bail conditions.
The Finance Ministry official and ex-IGP died as a result of ‘incidents’ at their respective homes, while Chandrasena allegedly took his own life at the posh residence of his brother-in-law Aravinda de Silva. Their deaths are mired in controversy for obvious reasons. One of the major issues at hand is whether their deaths impacted the ongoing politically sensitive cases.
The USD 2.5 mn theft sent shockwaves through the National People’s Power (NPP) government, struggling to cope up with a spate of other sensitive developments, such as the massive coal scam that led to the resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody, and the controversial release of 323 red flagged containers from the Colombo port, without any checks, in addition to two containers carrying narcotics.
The police faced the challenging task of conducting transparent investigations into the deaths of Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksa, Kapila Chandrasena and C.D. Wickramaratne.
Although the Finance Ministry official’s death was caused by cardiorespiratory failure due to heavy loss of blood, many questioned how he inflicted grievous cut wounds on his legs and on his left wrist. The judicial post mortem report that was made available within 24 hours after the alleged suicide raised concerns. The Opposition expressed suspicions. A section of the media, too, weren’t satisfied with the way the government handled the case. The truth is in spite of a post mortem examination conducted by a four-member expert panel, suspicions remain regarding the Finance Ministry official’s death.
It would be pertinent to mention that The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga was stabbed to death though police and all others concerned initially claimed firearms attack caused his death. The Attorney-at-Law was killed inside his car that he was driving on the Attidiiya Road, Ratmalana, on 8 January, 2009. Over 17 years after the still unresolved killing of the one-time The Island staffer, the vast majority of people still believe Wickrematunga was shot dead. Wickrematunga’s case is just among several high profile investigations hampered by deliberate falsification of relevant autopsy reports.
Sarah Jasmine factor
Among those who paid their last respects to Wickremaratne at a funeral parlour in Colombo was former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Former Minister Sagala Ratnayake accompanied the UNP leader.
One of the issues that received public and media attention, following Wickremaratne’s demise, was the controversial third DNA test conducted in spite of two previous DNA tests confirming that Pulastini Rajendran, alias Sarah Jasmine, was not among the dead caused by a series of explosions at Sainthamaruthu, in the East, a week after the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage.
She was married to Achchi Muhammadu Mohammadu Hasthun, the National Thowheeth Jaamath (NTJ) operative who carried out the suicide blast in St. Sebastian Church, Katuwapitiya.
The CID questioned Wickremaratne as he served as the IGP at the time of the third DNA test. Controversy surrounds the decision to call for a third DNA test and, in addition to Wickremaratne, the CID questioned former Deputy IGP of the CID Prasad Ranasinghe in the second week of December last year. Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wiejapala commented on the issue at hand in Parliament in early June, 2025.
There had been contradictory claims on Sarah, a Batticaloa Tamil convert to Islam, who lived with the extremist group. In spite of investigations, controversy still surrounds her fate, though both Sri Lanka and Indian intelligence services investigated the circumstances of her ‘disappearance.’
There had been claims that she was taken out of the country by Indian intelligence. Let me remind you what the DSJB lawmaker Mujibur Rahuman said in Parliament on 10 November, 2022, during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency. Declaring that Sarah had taken refuge in India, the outspoken parliamentarian alleged that the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government was struggling to prove she died in the Sainthamaruthu blasts, on the night of 26 April, 2019.
Rajarathnam Kavitha, mother of Sarah, is on record as having told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) that her daughter had been with Zharan Hashim’s wife, Fatima, from early February, 2019, to 26 April, 2019, the day remnants of the NTJ group triggered the Sainthamaruthu blasts.
Sarah’s mysterious status remains a key factor in the overall investigation, with retired Major General Suresh Sallay named a suspect in the high profile case. Sallay served as the Director of State Intelligence Service (SIS) from November, 2019, to October, 2024. The CID arrested the one-time head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI/ 2012 to 2016) in late February 2026, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, recently filed an intervening petition before the Court of Appeal in respect of the petition filed by Sallay challenging his arrest and detention under the PTA. Cardinal Ranjith sought permission to make submissions regarding Sallay’s petition while requesting the court to dismiss the latter’s petition.
The Church intervened after several prominent Buddhist monks, religious and civil society organisations filed intervenient petitions seeking leave to intervene in Sallay’s writ application, filed by the retired top intelligence officer, challenging the legality of his arrest and detention.
They highlighted the following points:
• The Supreme Court and the PCoI identified Zahran Hashim and the ISIS-inspired NTJ as the perpetrators of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage while attributing responsibility to State officials for failing to act on prior intelligence.
• None of the official investigations or judicial findings implicated Sallay in planning or facilitating the Easter Sunday attacks.
• The PCoI recorded that Major General Sallay had warned authorities about the rise of Islamist extremism before the attacks.
• The intervening petitions expressed concerns that unsubstantiated allegations have created a public narrative suggesting a wider conspiracy involving Sinhala Buddhist military and intelligence officers, contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court and the PCoI.
• The petitions argued that such unsupported narratives risk undermining public confidence, damaging communal harmony, and unfairly tarnishing the reputation of individuals and institutions without credible evidentiary foundation.
Ex-IGP’s statement
In his statement to the CID, Wickremaratne explained that he directed the senior police officer, in charge of Ampara, to secure the military and STF backing for the Sainthamaruthu operation that led to the death of some inner remnants of Zahran’s group. The Ampara-based officer, identified as Samantha Wijesekera, had got in touch with the Department’s number two officer, as IGP Jayasundera couldn’t be contacted over the phone. That statement dealt with the measures taken by them to ascertain Sarah’s status and the final assertion on the basis of the Government Analyst’s findings (third DNA test) that she was among those who perished in the Sainthamaruthu suicide blast.
The then Police Spokesman DIG, Nihal Thalduwa, has been directed by Wickremaratne to issue a press release confirming Sarah’s death. In his statement to the CID, Wickremaratne explained the deep interest shown by the head of the Indian Intelligence, based in Colombo, regarding Sarah’s status, underscoring their requirement to know whether she was dead or alive. The Indian official has repeatedly emphasised the pivotal importance of establishing Sarah’s status and, according to Wickremaratne, never tried to hide their interest in knowing her fate.
Did India accept the findings of the third DNA test? The possibility of Sarah being an Indian informant cannot be ruled out as India was able to alert Sri Lanka of the impending attacks. SJB Colombo District MP Rahuman has often commented on this possibility. Or, perhaps, India knew of Sarah’s status but raised the issue with Wickremaratne in a bid to indicate they, too, weren’t aware. Perhaps, we’ll never know the truth.
Sri Lanka received three specific warnings on 4, 20 and 21 April regarding impending dastardly NTJ operation. The last warning was received several hours before the NTJ struck hotels and Churches in Colombo, Katana and Batticaloa. The blasts killed 270 persons and wounded about 500.
At the time of the NTJ operation, the DMI was headed by Brigadier Chula Kodituwakku, who appeared alongside President Maithripala Sirisena when he met the media at the Janadhipathi Mandiraya, several days after the attacks. Now retired, Kodituwakku, in his testimony in courts, declared that the SIS refrained from sharing foreign intelligence with the DMI. In fact, Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, who also addressed the media, explained the difficulties experienced by the Army due to refusal on the part of the SIS to cooperate with the DMI.
According to an appeal filed against an order of the High Court-at-Bar, in terms of the Section 451 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, as amended, read with Article 128 of the Constitution, in the Supreme Court, India issued the following warning: “As per an input, Sri Lanka based Zahran Hashim of National Thowheeth Jamath and his associates are planning to carry out suicide terror attack in Sri Lanka shortly. They are planning to target some important churches. It is further learnt that they have conducted reconnaissance of the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka and it is one of the targets for the planned attack.”
No holds barred investigation is required to establish the truth. The Opposition has repeatedly questioned the handing over of the investigation to retired Shani Abeysekera, who had been the Director, CID, at the time of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, and accommodating Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne as the Secretary Public Security Ministry. They had been accused of failing to act on specific intelligence received from the SIS.
Both Abeysekera and Seneviratne, as members of the Retired Police Collective, backed the NPP campaigns in the run-up to the presidential and parliamentary polls, in 2024. Abeysekera, who retired on 30 June, 2021, was recalled and officially reappointed as the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), on a contract basis, by the NPP.
Political factors
There had never been a case as politicised as the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. Immediately after the massive security lapse, and negligence on the part of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, facilitated the NTJ operation, the Church threw its weight behind Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s 2019 presidential bid.
The Church backing made a significant difference on the ground. That prompted SJB’s Harin Fernando to directly accuse Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith of ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory at the expense of Sajith Premadasa. Since the SJB’s highly publicised June, 2020, accusations, there had been contradictory statements regarding the Easter Sunday attacks.
In February, 2021, on behalf of the JVP/NPP, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa (current Health and Media Minister) declared that India masterminded the Easter Sunday attacks.
This accusation was made just a few weeks after the PCoI handed over its report to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who, for some strange reason, appointed a six-member committee, consisting of SLPP lawmakers, headed by his elder brother Chamal, than requesting the Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, to act on the recommendations.
In May, 2021, Dappula, after having failed to convince President Rajapaksa to extend his term by one year, alleged that the Easter Sunday attack was a grand conspiracy. In spite of growing doubts regarding the delay in implementing the PCoI recommendations, the Church tried to convince the President to act on them. In July 2021, the Church wrote to President Rajapaksa. Against the backdrop of the SLPP’s continuing indifference, by the end of that year, the Church reached a consensus with those opposed to the government.
The Church openly backed the protest campaign, against President Rajapaksa, and remained committed to the operation until the very end.
Two sons of wealthy spice merchant and JVP National List MP, at the 2015 general election Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s sons Ilham Ahamed and Imsath Ibrahim, carrying out suicide attacks, on behalf of the NTJ, made no difference. Ibrahim was later released on bail, in May, 2022, during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. Ilham Ahamed’s heavily pregnant wife detonated an explosive vest, inside their Dematagoda mansion, when the police surrounded the place, soon after the attacks. Did the spice trader know about the despicable NTJ strategy? Zaharan Hashim’s wife Abdul Cader Fathima, who survived the Sainthamaruthu blast too was granted bail in March, 2023, during Wickremesinghe’s presidency.
The Church, at one point, demanded that the Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. Aruna Jayasekera be removed pending conclusion of the investigations. The Church claimed that as Jayasekera served as the Eastern Commander at the time of the Sainthamaruthu blasts, he should give up the Defence portfolio for the time being. The government ignored that demand.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Midweek Review
‘The Play’s the Thing’, in Shakespeare
Exposing Complexities of the Human Condition in Man’s Quest for Power
Shakespeare believed that drama could illuminate truths about human nature more effectively than argument or philosophy. The famous line, “The play’s the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king,” expresses not merely Hamlet’s strategy but Shakespeare’s own artistic philosophy – that theatre exposes hidden moral realities and awakens the human conscience.
Shakespeare and the Human Condition
Shakespeare displayed an extraordinary understanding of the human mind, long before psychology emerged as a formal discipline. He possessed an unparalleled gift for revealing human experience through vividly drawn characters and situations they create. He drew from Renaissance historical material as they provided a rich source of dramatic material, and chose themes that reflected musings of the Elizabethan era he lived in, taking his audiences with him.
Complexities of the human condition, regardless of culture, nationality or historical period have endured. As his fellow playwright, Ben Jonson famously proclaimed over four hundred years ago: “He [Shakespeare] is not of an age, but for all time”. He continues to alert our senses and raise our conscience about humanity with all its strengths and weaknesses by way of dramatic expression. Shakespeare is our contemporary.
I have endeavoured to examine the great playwright’s work in relation to the treatment of psychological and moral complexities surrounding humanity’s pursuit for power, in order to demonstrate how these works continue to speak with remarkable urgency to our own time. The enduring relevance of this idea becomes apparent in the following three Shakespeare’s plays: Henry V, Macbeth and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, I have chosen to illustrate my argument.
Henry V: Leadership and the Cost of Glory
It is a reflection on Shakespeare’s stature that he portrays triumphalism of leadership and the anguish of those who pay with their lives in war, in equal measure. In his Historical play, Henry V. King Henry of England makes a claim to the French throne, egged on by church leaders who wish to distract him from domestic issues. Feeling mocked by the French response, Henry declares war. He invades France displaying strong leadership despite hardship and heavy loss of life. On the eve of the pivotal battle of Agincourt, on St. Crispin’s day, he delivers an inspiring speech to his outnumbered troops. The long and poetic speech, which came to be known as the St. Crispin’s day speech – one of the best known in all Shakespeare – strengthened his powerful status in the play.
“…This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition …”
Against the odds, the English defeat the French at Agincourt. The play ends with a note of political and personal triumph, as Henry woos and marries Princess Catherine of France, securing peace between the two nations, at an immense cost to human life.
Macbeth: Ambition and Moral Corruption
In the reign of King Duncan of Scotland, General Macbeth who commands respect as a valiant soldier, returning home with his colleague Banquo following a victorious military expedition, is confronted by three witches who predict cryptically that he is destined to become King of Scotland. Macbeth is urged on by his wife, who, in an ‘’unquenchable desire to become queen’’, attempts to persuade her husband with ‘a humane disposition’ to assassinate the king while he is asleep as a royal guest in their home, and frame the two intoxicated royal aides. Malcolm and Donalbain, King Duncan’s two sons who accompanied him, fled to England.
Macbeth, the play, portrays the tale of a man in pursuit of power destroying anyone on his way, bringing about a collapse in moral order, providing insights into everything inhumane about humankind. The character of Macbeth is first acknowledged as a ‘hero’; his innate desire for power is activated by the prophecy of the witches. But bound by his loyalty to his king, his ‘conscience’ would not allow him the thought of regicide: “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me/ without my stir”. Weighed down by fear and guilt, he drags his feet, but the valiant soldier succumbs to the “valour of his wife’s tongue”: “Your hand, your tongue look like th’ innocent flower/ But be the serpent under’t”. She herself did not have the courage to murder her royal guest with her own hand, but was persuasive: morality yields to the pressure of evil desire. Macbeth completes the task, and they feign their lament at the king’s death which they themselves brought about.
Power did not bring in peace, but inner turmoil: “In the affliction of these terrible dreams/ That shake us nightly; better be with the dead/ Whom we, to gain our peace, have sent to peace/ Than on the torture of the mind to lie/ In restless ecstasy”. Fear, guilt and repentance grip the usurper but pride would not allow their expression.
Fear and insecurity bred paranoia in Macbeth. The usurpers became preoccupied with protecting the throne and handing over sovereignty to their progeny which they were yet to produce. With the advice of the witches he arranges the murder of all they suspect would take over rule after him. First they get Banquo, his colleague, ambushed and killed; Fleance, who accompanied his father, escapes. He then learns that Macduff, the feudal lord of Fife, has fled to England to join Malcolm, the son of the slain King Duncan, and, together they are mobilising an army to attack Scotland with the intent of displacing him from the throne. An outraged Macbeth orders the slaughter of Macduff’s wife and children who remained in Scotland, and anyone related to the defector.
Malcolm and Macduff invade Scotland with a powerful army. Lady Macbeth, afflicted with intense guilt, took her own life. Macbeth was slain after a fierce battle and his severed head was presented to the newly crowned king, Malcolm, who proclaimed …”I should/ Pour the sweet milk of concord, into hell? Uproar the universal peace, confound/ All unity on earth”.
In Macbeth, Shakespeare places on stage a disturbing portrayal of humanity with all its base characteristics that compels us to see ourselves in.
Julius Caesar: Political Power, Hypocrisy and Betrayal
The theme of humans competing with each other for power, exercised inappropriately, provides a fertile ground for Shakespeare to explore the complexities of the human condition. Drawing from history, he gives dramatic expression to such a scenario in his popular play, ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, displaying the patterns of behaviour of the main characters, the focus for interpretation. The propensity to manipulate the truth in political machinations takes centre stage in the play. “Men may examine things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act 1]
Julius Caesar, the Roman military expansionist, emerged as a formidable leader of the territories, following his successful campaigns in Europe. The play begins with Caesar’s triumphant return to Rome after one of his military expeditions, accompanied by generals and political figures – Cassius, Brutus and Antony. They were welcomed by scores of cheering Romans for bringing ‘‘many captives home… whose ransoms, did the general coffers fill’’. The contention for leadership of the territories, in its entirety, between Caesar and Pompey resulted in a bitter civil war with Caesar emerging victorious.
Cassius and Brutus who too had leadership ambitions fought with Pompey against Caesar. Caesar in his magnanimity, while being merciful towards his defeated opponents, remained cautious about Cassius. There was growing concern amongst the common folk [plebeians] regarding their newly emerged leader “soar[ing] above the view of men”, and using his supreme power to establish a new monarchy. They were averse to the extravagant lifestyle and corrupt practices of their former monarchical rulers and feared that Caesar may override their desire to form a republican form of governance with greater representation by commoners.
Cassius, envious of Caesar’s might, instigates a plot to remove him from power. He hatches a plot to draw Brutus into the conspiracy to lend respectability to the project as Brutus is held in high regard by the populace. Brutus is faced with having to balance his personal friendship with Caesar against the “general good of the Republic”. He finally overcomes his ambivalence and joins the conspirators in a plot to assassinate Caesar. “Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy”…. “Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully/Let’s carve him as a dish for the Gods”. [Brutus: Act 2. Scene1]. Caesar is stabbed to death by the conspirators, one after the other, on the ‘ides of March’ – the first full moon of the New Year for festivities and sacrifice. Turning to his friend Brutus, Caesar uttered his last words: “et tu Brute?” [Even you Brutus?”].
In a funeral oration that followed, Brutus pacified an agitated crowd by stating that despite his love for Caesar, he loved Rome more, and that Caesar posed a danger to the liberty of the nation. The masses perceived his act of murdering Caesar as a deed of heroism! But, Mark Antony, a loyalist of Caesar, after skilfully negotiating with Brutus, delivers a stirring oration with the starting captivating lines, which lives on: “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” [Act 3, Scene 2]. In his speech replete with irony, while referring to Brutus as “an honourable man”, refuted the claim by Brutus that Caesar acted in ambition and self-interest. An enraged crowd drove away Cassius and Brutus.
The two exiled assassins, Cassius and Brutus, raise an army to combat a newly formed alliance of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius [adopted son of Caesar]. Undeterred by the suicide of his wife, in his absence, Brutus marched on to combat the enemy at Philippi. “There is a tide in the affairs of men/ Which take at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted on the voyage of their life,/ Is bound in shallows, and I miseries……[Act 4, Scene 2].
Following the poor performance at the Battle of Philippi, and facing defeat, Cassius gets one of his men to kill him with his own sword. Brutus learning about the death of Cassius, commits suicide by running through a sword held by a colleague. The power sharing alliance between Octavius, Antony and Lepidus ended following a struggle for supremacy.
Shakespeare and the Modern World
Shakespeare presents man’s quest for power as a lens through which the complexities of the human condition are revealed. Portraying such a pursuit as a powerful but destructive force, he reveals the tension between honour and ambition, rhetoric and reality, leadership and moral conflict and glory and human suffering – characteristics that are universal and timeless.
Shakespeare, like other great literary artists, does not lecture to us, nor does he offer solutions, but helps us broaden our sense in recognising the humanity we share with the good and the bad, and our desires that lead us into animosity.
We live in a volatile and unpredictable world marked by geopolitical tensions, economic competition, social discontent and armed conflict resulting in global instability. Contemporary societies are currently experiencing a sense of uncertainty, desperate to find answers to establishing world order and peace.
Alongside technological advancement, humankind has developed increasingly lethal weapons with which to wage war to gain power over one another. Warfare has transformed the battlefield from land to the skies, most recently through airborne long-range missiles targeted with the use of AI; and across the oceans both on the surface and beneath it through submarines, transforming the nature of combat at immense cost to human life and property. The loss of innocent civilians, including children, caught in these conflicts has given rise to the troubling yet widely invoked phrase ‘collateral damage’, a term that seeks to justify what remains profoundly deplorable. Powerful nations frequently evade meaningful accountability, despite widespread international condemnation. And, spirituality appears to have done little to awaken human conscience and humans continue to wage conflict over religious ideology.
Although art and literature do not intend to maintain order in the way the military, the laws and institutions do, their influence is subtle yet foundational in shaping how individuals and societies, and especially their leaders envisage justice, empathy and coexistence, and in lifting us out of the moral darkness we are in. Art, including dramatic art, has a transformative influence on humanity.
Conclusion
Human beings possess an enduring duality: they are capable of reason and irrationality, compassion and cruelty, cooperation and conflict, creation and destruction. These fundamental characteristics have remained remarkably constant across history, even as cultures and technologies have changed. Great literature – particularly Shakespeare’s plays – explores this universal human condition, revealing how love, ambition, fear, grief, honour, jealousy, and the desire for power continue to shape individual actions and the course of history.
by DR. Siri Galhenage, Psychiatrist [Retd.]
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]
Midweek Review
Stubbornly Staying Posers
Forty three years and counting,
Big posers remain unanswered –
For instance, couldn’t the state,
See the bloodletting coming,
When restive young hands of the North,
Opted for the gun and not the ballot?
Couldn’t it be seen that counter-violence,
Would only lead to a wasting conflict,
Wherein ordinary folk of both halves,
Would be cruelly cut down in the cross fire,
And dumped in graves still being opened?
That hands of good will and friendship,
Extended warmly in statesman like fashion,
Over the divide that was seen as enduring,
Would have laid the basis for reconciliation?
Will only ‘the peace of the graveyard’,
Be made to reign in the pauperized Isle?
By Lynn Ockersz
-
Midweek Review5 days agoThree high-profile alleged suicides shaping key investigations
-
News2 days agoFort Magistrate orders arrest of MP Archchuna
-
Editorial2 days agoAn indictment of all parties
-
News5 days agoCustoms asked to resume probe or face legal action
-
Editorial6 days agoWelcome bid to tackle rolling death traps
-
Opinion3 days agoUkraine’s power struggle spills on to the streets
-
News2 days agoNational-level cybersecurity facility Lab established
-
News7 days agoMerchant Shipping Secretariat probes bribery scandal
