Connect with us

Midweek Review

Breaking the Cocoon: The Duality and Unity of a Dancer’s Body

Published

on

By Dr Saumya Liyanage

Dance is an elusive art form. It is elusive in the sense that any type of dance form uses the human body as its expressive tool, and the art and the artist are one and the same. Dance is in a way similar to the actor’s art because the dancer uses her body as the means of expression. The actor and the dancer share this common ground where their art and the artistic tool are nonetheless inseparable and tightly intertwined. In order to understand the meaning of dance, one may need to separate the dancer’s body from dance but as stated the inseparability of the dancer from dance poses ontological questions as to who the dancer is and what dance is. Therefore, marking a boundary between the body and the work of dance is always blurred.

It is difficult to explain why people dance and how dance is differentiated from non-dance. Celeste Snowber writes that whether we dance and move our bodies, or whether our bodies are static and still, we always dance. She further argues that ‘we are all dancing and as we are all living, whether it is walking or running, swimming or hopping, jumping or being still. There is a dance of blood and fluid circulating in our bodies, and the expressivity of gestures is a daily activity’ (Snowber cited in Leavy, 2018, p. 247). In this analysis, Snowber broadly defines and blurs the distinction between dance and non-dance challenging us to rethink the way we define dance in the contemporary context.

Yet, Sri Lankan dance scholarship is still practised and confined within a particular school of thought that favours dance as a refined, codified body of movement. The learning of dance needs assiduous practice and dedication under a specific training regimen. Moreover, the dancer’s body should be physically trained and aesthetically beautiful to be able to perform and bring meanings to spectators. Hence traditional dance training and performance is purely cultivated through guru-shishya parampara (Teacher-disciple model) where the repetition and execution of learnt scores are supremely important. Very little space is allowed for the novice to explore physical possibilities beyond the regimented body. However, I am not skeptical about the skills and capacities that a traditional dancer possesses. Yet, this long assiduous practice and the regimentation of bodies along with cosmic teaching pertaining to demons and deities would undoubtedly affect and discipline not only the learner’s physicality but their thought process as well. Therefore, these pedagogical systems do not allow the learner to explore various expressions or movement culture.

In this article, I am going to discuss about an emerging dancer and choreographer Kanchana Malshani and her recent work titled, Talking Silambu performed, at the Royal Taprobanian cultural hub in Navinna, Maharagama. In this piece of dance work, Kanchana raises several questions worthy of discussion through the current practice of dance pedagogy in Sri Lanka and ontological questions of what dance is, and who a dancer is. Further her work explores how dance can be a self-exploratory journey for those who seek alternative avenues through breaking their links to traditional forms and regimented bodies.

Kanchana

Kanchana Malshani has studied traditional Sri Lankan dance forms from various teachers since her childhood until she graduated from university. Kanchana is a graduate from Sripalee campus, University of Colombo and received a First Class honours degree. Being a student of traditional Sri Lankan dance forms such as Kandyan, Sabaragamuwa and Low country dance, Kanchana has developed her own style through her engagement with contemporary and experimental Sri Lankan dancers such as Venuri Perera and Umeshi Rajeendra. Learning and working with Venuri Perera and her influence on Kanchana’s reincarnation as a contemporary dancer is immense; in her ‘second life’ as a choreographer and dancer, she is being mentored by Venuri Perera. Her recent incarnation as a contemporary dancer signifies that she as a dancer needs a different life and expression within dance scholarship. Her recent work, Talking Silambu, shows a clear rebellious individuality that seeks to break the traditional codification and rebirth as a free bodied woman.

In 2017, Goethe Institute organised a Choreography Lab with dancer Venuri Perera, in Kalpitiya Sri Lanka. At this particular dance lab, Kanchana learnt contemporary dance from Yuko Kaseki, a Japanese Bhuto dancer, and Mahesh Umagiliya. Further, she learnt from Prof. Sandra Mathern-Smith, Professor of dance at Denison University, the USA, who has travelled several times to Sri Lanka as a Fulbright scholar. Her intervention in popularising and mentoring Sri Lankan dancers included a group of students at the University of the Visual and Performing Arts, Colombo, Sripalee campus, was also a turning point in her dance career. Dance teachers like Deepak Kurki Shivaswamy, Preethi Athreya, Maria Colusi have also helped Kanchana develop her skills. After receiving a half scholarship to visit a two-week-long dance camp at Sanskar Dance Festival India, she has been able to work with teachers such as Vittoria de Ferrari Sapetto and Roberto Olivan. Apart from her dance training, Kanchana has been working with one of the English Theatre companies, Stages Theatre, led by writer and director Ruwanthie De Chickera in Colombo. Kanchana may have undoubtedly learnt the value of being an artiste and professionalism in theatre through working in an actors’ ensemble at Stages Theatre.

Dance and Contemporaneity

The term ‘contemporary dance’ signifies specific meanings to dance specialists than non-specialists of dance. There are certain qualities that set contemporary dance apart from other genres. Contemporary dance can be distinguished from modern and other forms of dance because of its shift from the traditional narratology, dancer’s perspective, and breaking away from some of the dance prejudices to integrate text, words, digital and intermedial elements to it. One such difference is that contemporary dance work departs from traditional third person singular narrative to first person singular self-expression. This first person perspective allows the dancer to reflect her own auto-biographical material.

Yet, these auto-ethnographic or auto-biographical narratives finally gets transformed into a political idiom.

Further contemporary dance deconstructs the aesthetic body celebrated in traditional dance and questions and dissects the skin of the dancer by opening up the inner flesh of the body. André Lepecki further identifies the uniqueness of contemporary dance from other genres because of its ‘ephemerality, corporeality, precariousness, scoring, and performativity’ (Kwan, 2017, p. 39). Thus, contemporary dance does not stick to a particular form, style or a structure. Instead it integrates various techniques, styles, and influences even from traditional dance forms to use the body as a political tool and the self as the centre of expression.

 

Talking Silambu

In this dance work titled, Talking Silambu, a twenty minute long piece of choreography, Kanchana appears in a non-traditional lose attire while wearing two Silambu (Silambu is a type of anklet made out of brass which Kandyan dancers wear when they perform) In the first instance, we hear the sound of Silambu as Kanchana’s legs begin to move. Yet, her dance body starts movement towards the audience while mixing traditional Kandyan dance codification with free body movement. It is clear that she performs half Kandyan and half improvised body movements in the score. In other words, her body movements are choreographed through semi-Kandyan codification mixed with free style movements. When the dance intensifies, she removes her Silambu, holding them in her hands and begins to shake them with vigorous body movements while throwing her body in various directions. At this point, Kanchana uses a trans-like act depicting trans-performance inherited particularly in low country devil dance. In this work, it is clearly demonstrated that her body is struggling with Silambu and trying to remove its connection to the body. This struggle culminates in the final phase of the dance work by indicating she runs away from the codified body and becomes a free woman. In this work, Kanchana demonstrates her discontent with the previous life as a traditional dancer and her struggle to break her affinity to the codified structure and beautification of the body in Kandyan dance. In a short conversation I had with Kanchana, she mentioned as particular rebirth that occurred at a dance camp organised by the Goethe Institute Colombo:

“I have been trained as a traditional dancer since my childhood but for the first time, working with this Japanese Butoh dancer, Yuko Kaseki, I learnt how to speak from my body. For many years I was living in a cage-tradition where I was entrapped. Living in this cage, I have performed what others wanted me to do. But in this dance lab, I found myself speaking to my own body and speaking through the body. I don’t want my body to be beautiful and aesthetically refined. I don’t want to display precision and codification of my body. I want to show how ugly I am and how vulnerable my body is.” (Kanchana, M., Pers. Comm. Dec. 2020).

 

Against the grain

In the traditional dance pedagogy, the dancer’s body is understood as a vehicle via which the dancer’s symbolic meanings are conveyed. There is a clear division between the inner and outer faculties in the dance body, and the dancer’s role is to bring forth those inner feelings to the onlooker via her body movements. This conceptualisation of the dancer’s body as a split between inner and outer is a complex issue pertaining to dance. Knowingly or unknowingly the dancer divides her body into body and mind and this Cartesian division has influenced the dancer to theorise the body and her craft.

Living in an ocular centric world, the dancer’s outer body is a place where womanhood is exploited for commercial purposes. From state-sponsored national festivals to television advertisements selling instant noodles or carbonated drinks, the dancer’s outer skin is commodified. Writing about Sri Lankan neo-dance traditions, propagated and performed at high profile delegations, product launches and in TV commercials in the country, I have written elsewhere that ‘women’s bodies succumb to the surgical knife of the choreographer whose male sexual desires are displayed on those bodies. Hence, no difference can be made between a choreographer and a cosmetic surgeon, whose expertise on women’s bodies, especially breasts and buttocks, are surgically transplanted and enhanced by incisions, stitches and staples’ (Liyanage, 2016). Amidst this commodification of female bodies in Sri Lankan dance arena, Kanchana’s attempt is to break away from this commodified, sexualised, and mechanised body to establish a non-codified and unified body of self-expression.

Here it is important for contemporary dancers to understand the value of the ‘living body’ or the ‘lived’ body that is celebrated in the vast literature of phenomenology and dance theory in the contemporary dance literature. In the dominant dance cultures from stage performances to digital and visual representations, the dancer’s skin is the most valued and emphasised. Now, with the contemporary dance turn, the dancer’s living or lived experience has come forth. Kanchana as a dancer now understands that her body is not a place for others to communicate vague meanings but a living entity where her own selfhood is reflected and displayed. It is a challenge for a dancer like her because the dominant female body has already been already established by key dance authors of the country. These dance authors have created a symbolic and sexualised female body for live and digitised performances. This symbolic and sexualised female body consists of the idealised female body for the male viewer. Kanchana is challenging this idealised body that is dominant in the real and digital world.

 

Dancer and Danced

The key juncture where the lived body differs from the symbolic body is that the symbolic body that is propagated in the media and elsewhere is the body that is not presented as a place for knowledge. Let me explain this further. In the traditional dance pedagogy, the dancer’s body is a place where meanings are generated and shared. In other worlds, the codified body is a canvas or a display where the onlooker extricates meanings. This codified, symbolic body is not presented to us as a place for knowing or sensing. Kanchana’s work and the work of other contemporary dancers suggest that we should understand the body as a place of sensing and knowing. This marks an epistemological turn in dance making and its reception. Dance, or the dancer’s body, has not been considered a place for ‘knowing’ in Sri Lankan dance pedagogy. Most often, a dancer narrates someone’s story or represents a third person singular perspective of the dance.

What Kanchana and the contemporary dance body suggest is to make a shift from the third person singular narrative to a first person singular perspective. This ‘I’ or the first person perspective allows the dancer to narrate her own stories and engagement with the social, cultural and political terrains. Further, a dancer as the author of her own work marks the departure of the dancer as an employer for a particular author. What Kanchana does in Talking Silambu is that as a dancer she tries to incarnate herself and narrate a story of searching a breakthrough and liberation. In this performance, her body works as a site of struggle and seeks the unity of her body and soul.

Conclusion

Understanding the body as a sensing and perceiving entity is still an alien concept to dance pedagogies in universities and private schools. Furthermore, dance can be a self-expressive and auto-ethnographic inquiry and is also a far-reaching idea for our students. Hence, the mainstream dance pedagogy produces dancers who dance without self-motivation to satisfy the audience who come to see symbolic representation of the body. Yet a handful of dancers who are eagerly exploring other avenues for dance expressions are also facing complex issues that their artistic interventions are not fully accepted in the mainstream dance scholarship in the country. Moreover, dancers like Kanchana have chosen a non-popular pathway to pursue their future dance careers and already faced deadlocks, as their artistic practices are not being accepted or sustained by institutions or organisations. Yet Kanchana is determined to break her cocoon to be incarnated as a hybrid moth.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Himansi Dehigama and Sachini Senevirathe for their assistance in preparing this paper. Further the author’s gratitude goes to dancer Kanchana Malshani.

References

Kwan, S. (2017). When Is Contemporary Dance? Dance Research Journal, [online] 49(3), pp.38–52. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/dance-research-journal/article/when-is-contemporary-dance/8D44743A01A1ECC8100C5E65C1142DC2 [Accessed 4 Oct. 2019].

Leavy, P. (2019). Handbook of arts-based research. New York: The Guilford Press.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

July 09: An inexcusable overall security failure and exceptional contingency plan

Published

on

A massive throng of people inside the President's House after mobs forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee on 09 July, 2022

Ulugetenne

The Sri Lanka Navy, on 04 June, commissioned SLNS Samudravijaya, formerly United States Coast Guard Cutter Decisive. It is the fourth mothballed US Coast Guard cutter transferred to the SLN through the US Excess Defence Articles Programme. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake attended the ceremony at the Colombo Port. The US Embassy in Colombo, in a statement issued on the same day, quoted Defence Attaché Lieutenant Colonel Matthew House as having said: “Few partners have demonstrated the commitment to maintaining and operating these vessels as successfully as the Sri Lanka Navy. The outstanding condition and operational performance of SLNS Samudura, SLNS Gajabahu, and SLNS Vijayabahu are a testament to the professionalism and technical expertise of Sri Lankan sailors. Their stewardship of these vessels helped build the confidence that made this fourth transfer possible.” The first of the four vessels SLNS Samudura was commissioned on 19 February, 2005, during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President. Milinda Moragoda, Economic Reforms and Science and Technology Minister of the previous UNP-led UNF government, played a significant role in acquiring that vessel. SLNS Samudura boosted SLN and participated in numerous operations, including the high profile hunt for LTTE floating warehouses, during the Eelam War IV. But, the US refrained from transferring any more big ships during the war though on the then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Wsantha Karannagoda’s request to provide intelligence and Washington obliging, made the successful hunt for LTTE floating arsenals in the last stages of the war possible. The transfer of the second vessel took place 19 years after the end of the war. Ex USCG Sherman was commissioned 06 June, 2019, as SLNS Gajabahu (P626). The third vessel was transferred to the Sri Lanka Navy on October 26, 2021, as the country was heading towards an unprecedented economic crisis. That vessel was commissioned as SLNS Vijayabahu at the Colombo Port with the participation of President Ranil Wickramasinghe and US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung on November 20, 2022. Ironically SLNS Gajabahu, one of the ex-US vessels prominently figured in the contingency plan to save President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but whose downfall was engineered by the US.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The moment President Gotabaya Rajapaksa decided to take up residence at the President’s House (Janadhipathi Mandiraya), Fort, in the first week of April, 2022, the Navy had no option but to prepare a thorough contingency plan, in case the regime change project posed a realistic threat to the life of the President.

The President, in consultation with senior military officers, made his move within 48 hours after violence erupted outside his private residence at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, on the night of 31 March, 2022. That decision seemed realistic and sensible at that time.

But, in the wake of the disastrous overall armed forces response to the coordinated violence unleashed by the regime change project on 09 May, 2022, in the aftermath of the Temple Trees ordered attack on Galle Face protesters, the top brass must have recognised the urgent need for total overhauling of security strategy. But, unfortunately, that hadn’t been the case. With violent crowds overwhelming the armed forces, deployed to block them, rapidly approaching the President’s House, those who had been at the makeshift Operations Room there were stunned.

In hindsight, the President’s decision to remain at the President’s House, regardless of the near failure on the part of the armed forces to repulse the raid on Temple Trees, on 09 May, seemed unwise. The rescue operation could have gone wrong and the war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa could have ended up in the hands of an angry mob.

Perhaps, the conspirators envisaged the President’s move, from Pangiriwatte to the President’s House, situated walking distance away from the Galle Face protest site, where they could draw additional strength.

The failure on the part of the government to take tangible measures, in the wake of the President’s House becoming the sole target on that fateful day, is a contentious issue that needs to be properly investigated. Don’t forget that the court case filed over the 09 May attacks on the residences and properties belonging to SLPP politicians, and some supporters ,was later withdrawn. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government never investigated the 09 May incidents.

Exactly two months after the mobs almost succeeded in breaking through defences at Temple Trees, on the night of 09 May/10, where Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was residing, they mounted the assault on the President’s House.

In the wake of the 09 May mayhem, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named Lt. Gen. Vikum Liyanage as the Commander of the Army. He succeeded General Shavendra Silva who served as the CDS but was out of the country when all-out mayhem was unleashed by the Aragalaya mobs on 09 July, 2022, to oust the sitting government.

In spite of a direct and growing threat to the President’s House, on 09 July, 2022, the President felt confident in meeting the challenge. The President issued a directive to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, General (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne, to shift the Operations Room from the Defence Force Headquarters, at Akuregoda, to the President’s House. Having shifted the Operations Room on 08 July, 2022, to the President’s House, as directed by the President, the top brass prepared to face the challenge.

Maj. General K.B. Egodawela, who served as an Additional Secretary (Administration) to the President, from the day the President moved to the President’s House, till he vacated on 09 July, 2022, in his memoirs ‘Aragalaya: Adarayen Prachandathwayata’ (From Love to Violence) revealed that though the top brass opposed the shifting of the Operations Room they carried out the directive. While the President felt that the top brass could collectively work at the President’s House to bring the situation under control, Gen Gunaratne proposed that the President should move to Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters, according to Egodawela. In fact, Gunaratne, who had been with Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the very beginning of the sinister campaign, strongly opposed the President’s decision to remain there.

Obviously, the President’s House pathetically failed to ascertain the scale of the protest and the rapidity with which protesters overwhelmed troops deployed outside the President’s House stunned the top brass. Had they swiftly reached consensus on Gen. Gunaratne’s suggestion, perhaps the 09 July regime change operation could have been thwarted. The armed forces could have resorted to tougher measures to prevent a march on Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters had the President agreed to move there.

Within two hours after the protest, targeting the President’s House began, video footage provided by drones indicated that troops couldn’t hold the rampaging mobs any longer. According to Egodawela, the top brass had been prepared to remove the President, even without his consent, by landing a helicopter in the Colombo harbor or by ship. Finally, they resorted to the second option. As the President and First Lady Ayoma got into a vehicle and took the rear exit into the adjoining former Navy Headquarters, mobs entered the President’s House. Another vehicle carrying several other persons followed.

The then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenne who had been with the President at the President’s House got into the vehicle carrying the President. Had they stayed at the President’s House for 10 more minutes, the consequences could have been devastating. https://island.lk/gotabayas-escape-from-aragalaya-mob-in-rti-spotlight/

Egodawela, who had been with the President from the very beginning of the presidential term, alleged that the raiders planned to kill the President and several others and display their bodies. The author quoted an unidentified intelligence officer as having told him that the raiders wanted to display the bodies the way LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s body was shown.

Perhaps shifting the Operations Room from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters to the President’s House had been a risky move that, in a way, facilitated the regime change operation. The rationale in bringing those who had been tasked with countering the impending threat to one place (President’s House) to be with the target (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) seems unbelievably a dicey move. The President had been influenced by what he described as inordinate and unforgivable delay on the part of the Akuregoda Operations Room to carry out timely evacuation of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on the night of 09 May from Temple Trees. Most probably, the President wanted to oversee the 09 July counter operation personally. But, in hindsight, the decision to shift the Operations Room from Akuregoda to the President’s House obviously hadn’t been a clever move.

SLN preparations

When mobs threatened to overwhelm the President’s security at Pangiriwattta, on 31 March, additional police and STF contingents were brought in. They were followed by the Navy and Air Force. The Army arrived at the scene, subsequently.

As pointed out by the President himself, the situation at Temple Trees, on 09 May, had been far worse and the combined police and armed forces response revealed that they hadn’t taken precautionary/counter measures, even after the Pangiriwatta fiasco.

At the time of the incidents, the overall Temple Trees security deployment included about 60 elite Special Boat Squadron (SBS) personnel deployed within the premises and were supplemented by seven SLN platoons. The Army also moved in to strengthen Temple Trees defences but the mobs pressed on till troops fired blank ammunition.

The top brass, directing counter measures from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters, had to act swiftly and decisively to evacuate those at the Temple Trees or face the consequences. As there hadn’t been any other alternative place of living proposed, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, wife Shiranthi and their eldest son Namal were escorted to nearby former Air Force Headquarters and from there flown to the Trincomalee Navy base. VA Ulugetenne, over the phone, issued instructions to the relevant officer in Trincomalee to make arrangements as two helicopters carrying the group took off from the helipad on the top of the former Air Force Headquarters. The helicopters departed around 04 in the morning.

They had stayed at Trincomalee Navy House for about a week and, as requested by the Navy, paid for their stay because by then Mahinda Rajapaksa had resigned. Perhaps, they could have taken refuge at the Panagoda Army cantonment or at Saliyapura, home to the Gajaba Regiment, but, at the end, sought the protection at the Trincomalee Navy base.

Ironically, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, too, had to take refuge at the Trincomalee Navy base, exactly two months later. Ever since the President moved into the President’s House, Fort, the Navy had been on their toes to meet any eventuality. The daunting task of arranging evacuation by sea fell on the shoulders of VA Ulugetenne, who, meticulously, planned the operation with his staff.

Having informed the President of the contingency plans, VA Ulugetenne stationed two Advanced Offshore Patrol Vessels (AOPVs), namely SLNS Sindurala and SLNS Gajabahu and four Fast Attack Craft (FACs), at the Colombo Port. It would be pertinent to mention that SLNS Sindurala, built at the Goa shipyard, in terms of an agreement signed at the tail end of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, was adjudged the best vessel in the SLN fleet in 2022.

Additional SBS personnel and snipers, too, had been brought in to Colombo though none of them knew exactly what their task would be. The OPV and FAC crews most probably felt that they were awaiting orders for a major anti-drug operation in the high seas.

As the decision was made to evacuate the President and the First Lady, the Chief alerted the vessels and quickly deployed tugboats to pull SLNS Sindurala and, shortly thereafter, SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, carrying the President and the First Lady. By the time the two AOPVs moved in different directions, on the instructions of VA Ulugetenne, the hand phones of SLNS Gajabahu crew were collected to prevent them from revealing what was happening. Along with the AOPVs, two pairs of FACs had moved out to sea. (https://island.lk/ranil-reveals-bid-to-get-rid-of-him-while-gr-was-fleeing-to-trinco-on-board-slns-gajabahu/)

Nearly 12-hour journey to Trinco

The SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, had a crew consisting of over 100 officers and men. Someone, most probably a port employee, posted a short clip of some unidentified persons taking large travelling bags into the ship but the President, First Lady and VA Ulugetenne going in were never captured on a camera.

As the vessel began its journey towards Trincomalee, it remained approximately 12 nautical miles from land and the President received many calls, some of which weren’t answered. VA Ulugetenne, too, received quite a number of calls. Those familiar with the developments at that time said that some felt that SLNS Gajabahu should move out of Sri Lankan waters. There had been suggestions that the destination should be the Maldives, India or Singapore. Regardless of such suggestions, SLNS Gajabahu proceeded towards Trincomalee where the Navy made necessary arrangements to host them.

Captain Marlon Perera, who still serves the Navy, had been the Commanding Officer of the vessel. Perera now holds the Commodore rank.

During the journey precautions were taken to ensure the safety and security of the President and the First Lady. Although the crew hadn’t been aware that they would be entrusted with such a sensitive task at a time the country was in crossroads against the backdrop of an economic collapse and sovereign default, there were fears of the crew being affected by propaganda in support of regime change operation.

The attempt made by sailor Wijemuni Vijitha Rohana de Silva to cause harm to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, way back in July, 1987, underscored the necessity to take precautions during the Colombo-Trincomalee journey as the possibility of anti-Gotabaya campaign having an impact on at least some members of the ship crew couldn’t be ruled out.

On July 30, 1987, during a guard of honor in Colombo, the 21-year-old naval rating struck Gandhi on the shoulder and back with the butt of his rifle. Gandhi narrowly avoided the full impact of the blow by evasive ducking.

On the invitation of VA Ulugetenne, Gotabaya Rajapaksa attended all the formalities in respect of a visit undertaken by the President to the Trincomalee Navy base. The President participated in those formalities knowing that he couldn’t attend the commissioning parade that was scheduled to be held on 15 July, 2022. The Navy was not in a position to put off the commissioning parade hence the decision to invite Defence Secretary Gunaratne as the Chief Guest.

Ulugetenne retired from active naval service on 18 December, 2022, following a distinguished career, spanning over 37 years. He received the appointment as the 24th Commander of the Navy in July, 2020, just a couple of months after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election as the President.

Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor, appointed Ulugetenne as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Cuba. The appointment was made in late 2023 and the retired Navy Chief presented his credentials to Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel on 13 February, 2024 (https://island.lk/from-fonseka-convictions-to-arrest-of-ulugetenne/)

However, within weeks after the last presidential election held in late November, 2024, the NPP government recalled over a dozen top envoys appointed by the previous administration. Admiral Ulugetenne was among them. The government deprived a decorated officer, who had served the country for nearly four decades, from completing his term in Havana. Within months after his return, he became the target of a murder investigation.

Then out of the blue the retired Navy Chief became the focus of a murder investigation, that, too, post-war. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested him on 28 July, 2025, over the disappearance of a person reported in July, 2020.

Kurunegala High Court Judge Tikiri Jayatilleke, on 14 October, 2025, granted him bail. Jayatilleke declared that the CID acted in an illegal manner in respect of the former Navy Commander. His counsel Kalinga Indatissa, PC, alleged in court that his client had been apprehended only on the basis of an ex-LTTE cadre’s allegation in the absence of any evidence

The next hearing is scheduled for 08 July, 2026. Ulugetenne was held at the Kegalle Prison for four days and then transferred to the Dumbara (Pallekale) Prison. Altogether, he was in prison for 80 days, like a common criminal, despite him being a former Navy Commander with an unblemished career record.

Wartime Chief of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral (retd) Sarath Mohotti, who had been also arrested in connection with the same investigation, was also granted bail, a few weeks later.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

India should convene a regional El Niño preparedness dialogue in Delhi

Published

on

El Niño events have historically been associated with weaker monsoons in South Asia, erratic rainfall patterns, and increased risks of droughts and floods.

The coming months could bring South Asia and the wider Indian Ocean region a dangerous mix of climate shocks, economic strain, and geopolitical instability. At the centre of this looming challenge is the anticipated El Niño event, which is likely to disrupt monsoon patterns, intensify weather extremes, and place additional pressure on already fragile food, water, and energy systems.

But El Niño will not arrive in isolation. It will intersect with continuing global disruptions—from the war in Ukraine to instability in the Middle East—each of which continues to reverberate through energy markets, food supply chains, and shipping routes. The combined effect is likely to be cumulative, not linear.

This is, therefore, a moment that calls for anticipatory regional coordination rather than fragmented national responses.

A record of regional first response

There is already a clear precedent for such coordination in the region.During the COVID-19 pandemic, India emerged as a key first responder, supplying vaccines, medicines, and logistical support across the neighbourhood under its “Neighbourhood First” policy. This helped establish a practical framework for regional cooperation in times of systemic stress.

More recently, India played a similar role during the economic crisis in Sri Lanka, providing critical financial assistance, fuel, and essential supplies at a moment of acute vulnerability. India has also been among the first responders during major climate-related disasters, including cyclone events such as Cyclone Ditwa, delivering rapid humanitarian assistance.

These are not isolated gestures. They reflect an emerging pattern in which India increasingly functions as a stabilising force in the wider region.

This trajectory is reflected in India’s evolving regional frameworks—from Neighbourhood First, to SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region), and now the broader MAHASAGAR vision, which signals an expanded maritime and regional engagement architecture.

Why El Niño is different this time

El Niño events have historically been associated with weaker monsoons in South Asia, erratic rainfall patterns, and increased risks of droughts and floods. In a region where agriculture remains highly climate-sensitive, even modest deviations can translate into inflation, rural distress, and fiscal pressure.

This year, however, the risks are compounded by global fragilities:

* Persistent food and fertilizer price volatility

* Elevated energy costs linked to geopolitical tensions

* Supply chain disruptions in key commodities

* High debt burdens in several neighbouring economies

Together, these factors reduce the resilience of national systems and increase the risk of cascading shocks across borders.It is also important to recognise that social instability in some fragile countries in the region should be kept in mind, as climate shocks and economic pressures can quickly reinforce each other and create wider humanitarian and political consequences.

The case for a Delhi-based regional initiative

Against this backdrop, there is a strong case for India to convene a regional El Niño preparedness dialogue in Delhi, bringing together neighbouring countries, key development partners, and multilateral institutions.

This should not be limited to South Asia alone. The impacts of El Niño extend across the wider Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean region. Participation could include:

* Neighbouring states in South and Southeast Asia

* The United Nations system

* The World Bank and Asian Development Bank

* Key bilateral partners such as Japan and others active in regional resilience

Given its geographic position, institutional capacity, and experience as a first responder, it is both natural and appropriate for India to chair such an initiative.

What the initiative should focus on

The objective should be practical coordination rather than declaratory statements. Three areas stand out:

1. Shared forecasting and early warning systems

Strengthening real-time exchange of climate data, monsoon projections, and sectoral risk mapping, particularly for agriculture, water, and fisheries.

2. Contingency planning for essential supplies

Coordinating regional approaches to food reserves, fertilizer availability, and energy supply buffers during climatic disruptions.

3. Disaster response and financing coordination

Improving interoperability among disaster management systems, and exploring rapid-response financing through multilateral development banks for climate-related shocks.

From Neighbourhood First to MAHASAGAR

India’s regional doctrine has steadily evolved—from Neighbourhood First to SAGAR, and now MAHASAGAR—reflecting a broader conception of responsibility in the Indian Ocean region.Each stage has expanded the scope of engagement: from immediate neighbourhood assistance, to maritime cooperation and growth, to a wider vision of regional interconnectedness.

A structured El Niño preparedness initiative would be a natural continuation of this trajectory, embedding climate resilience into the region’s evolving strategic architecture.

Climate as regional security

The distinction between climate events and security outcomes is increasingly blurred. A failed monsoon in one country can trigger food inflation in another; a cyclone can disrupt trade routes; droughts can accelerate migration pressures and fiscal instability.

El Niño should therefore be seen not only as a meteorological phenomenon but as a systemic stress test for regional resilience.

India is already widely seen in the region as a first responder in times of crisis. The experiences of COVID-19, the Sri Lankan economic emergency, and climate-related disasters have reinforced this role in practical terms.

The next step is to move from reactive response to anticipatory coordination.

A Delhi-based regional El Niño preparedness meeting—anchored by India and supported by multilateral institutions and key bilateral partners—would be a timely and pragmatic initiative. In an era of compounding global risks, regional cooperation is no longer optional; it is essential.

(Milinda Moragoda is the Founder of the Pathfinder Foundation. Can be contacted via email@milinda.org, courtesy wionews.com.

by Milinda Moragoda

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Beyond Harsha’s IMF “Revelations”

Published

on

Harsha

“A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” — H.L. Mencken

Summary

During a recent television appearance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0QWfenCFlk) , opposition MP and Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chair Dr. Harsha de Silva dramatically brandished the latest IMF Letter of Intent (LoI, 13 May 2026), pointing to the signatures of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe as proof of a “secret” alignment with austerity and cost-reflective utility pricing. However, for serious students of Sri Lankan macroeconomics, this “revelation” contained no new information. The legal, structural, and institutional mandate for cost-reflective pricing was codified long before the current administration took office—embedded in the IMF Extended Fund Facility (EFF) of 2023, the 2023 IMF Governance Diagnostic, and the Economic Transformation Act of 2024. This article argues that veteran economists in parliament must move beyond theatrical “gotcha” moments designed for political popularity and instead fulfill their true duty: educating the public on the non-negotiable continuity of structural adjustment programmess.

Anatomy of a Non-Revelation

The recent spectacle of Dr. Harsha de Silva presenting the IMF Letter of Intent on live television was framed as a grand exposure of the current administration’s hidden fiscal policy. With theatrical emphasis, Dr. de Silva pointed to the signatures of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and the Central Bank Governor, declaring that the government had bound the public to the bitter pill of cost-reflective electricity and fuel pricing.

Yet, to anyone who understands the mechanics of central banking and sovereign debt restructuring, this performance revealed nothing that was not already part of (i) the public, (ii) legal, and (iii) institutional reality. A Letter of Intent is a standard operational requirement of the IMF review process; it is not a newly minted policy conceived in secret. By treating a routine administrative continuity as a shocking disclosure, Dr. de Silva engaged in political showmanship rather than economic education.

Legacy of Cost-Reflective Pricing

The narrative that cost-reflective utility pricing is a novel concession by the AKD administration is factually incorrect. The institutional architecture to eliminate non-commercial losses within the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) was firmly established under the previous administration of Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The structural benchmarks were explicitly laid out in (i) the March 2023 IMF EFF Agreement and (ii) re-emphasized in the September 2023 IMF Governance Diagnostic Report. This framework was further consolidated by the legislature through (i) the Economic Transformation Act of 2024 and (ii) the new Sri Lanka Electricity Act. When the current administration assumed office, the fiscal tracks had already been laid. President AKD is merely operating the machinery of state within the legal and economic boundaries inherited from his predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe to prevent a secondary default.

The Myth of the Solitary Saviour

There is a troubling tendency among Sri Lanka’s technocratic elite to engage in a saviour complex—positioning themselves on television screens as the singular authorities capable of managing public finance or navigating international waters. Dr. de Silva’s presentation was less about unveiling unknown data and more about projecting an image of unrivaled smartness in public finance.

When veteran economists resort to these manoeuvers, they diminish their own professional standing. Sri Lanka’s economic recovery does not hinge on the brilliant insights of a single individual or party; it depends on (i) institutional discipline, (ii) data-driven planning, and (iii) structural continuity. Pretending that routine compliance documents are exclusive intelligence updates serves only to feed personal political popularity at the expense of public intellectual growth.

Real Politics behind the Screen

Why, then, did Dr. de Silva choose to make a mountain out of an administrative molehill? The answer lies in pure political strategy. The National People’s Power (NPP) platform ascended to governance on strong anti-austerity rhetoric, promising relief from the heavy tax and tariff burdens imposed by the previous regime.

By holding up the signed LoI, Dr. de Silva sought a political checkmate. His objective was to expose the contradiction between the NPP’s populist election promises and its executive actions. While highlighting this policy convergence is fair game in partisan politics, framing it as a “new discovery” misleads the electorate into believing that the IMF programme is an optional, arbitrarily signed document rather than a legally binding national framework that leaves any sitting President with zero alternative manoeuvers.

True Mandate of Parliament’s Financial Oversight

During the broadcast, the fundamental boundary of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) was brought into question. Dr. de Silva correctly noted that COPF does not formulate state policy—that remains the strict prerogative of the Executive and its chosen advisors. COPF’s true mandate is oversight: ensuring transparency, accountability, and the efficient monitoring of state revenues and expenditures.

If the head of our public finance oversight body wishes to protect the national interest, that energy should be (ii) directed toward evaluating the actual performance scorecards of state institutions, (ii) tracking structural benchmarks, and (iii) monitoring the real-time efficiency of economic programs. Using the platform of technical oversight to score quick points on a talk show blurs the vital line between a state auditor and a political campaigner.

Conclusion: The Need for Institutional Candour

Sri Lanka has paid a catastrophic price for populist rhetoric and the manipulation of economic facts for electoral gain. What the public requires from veteran economists and seasoned politicians today is not more political theater but radical candor.

The truth is simple: Sri Lanka is locked into a long-term, institutional structural adjustment programme that transcends whoever sits in the presidential secretariat. President AKD is executing pre-existing state commitments because the alternative is immediate economic isolation. Rather than trying to convince the public that they alone possess the secret key to salvation, opposition technocrats owe it to the nation to elevate the discourse. It is time to replace television showmanship with (i) honest, (ii) evidence-based planning, (iii) acknowledging that while politicians change, the arithmetic of national survival remains exactly the same.

(The writer, among many, served as the Special Advisor to the Office of the President of Namibia from 2006 to 2012 and was a Senior Consultant with the UNDP for 20 years. He was a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1993). He can be reached via asoka.seneviratne@gmail.com)

By Prof. Asoka S. Seneviratne

Continue Reading

Trending