Midweek Review

Downsizing Army

Published

4 years ago

2023/01/18

Colonel Nalin Herath shaking hands with Gen. Shavendra Silva after handing a over copy of ‘STORY OF THE WORLD: Geopolitical Alliances and Rivalries Set in Stone’

in response to economic crisis

At the time Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion, in May 2009, the war-winning Army had some 5000 more men under arms than its approved cadre. The Army paid strength, in May 2009, had been 205,128 whereas the approved cadre was 200,783. Following the end of the war, the Rajapaksa government quietly began decreasing the troop strength, though the approved cadre remained the same. By the time, State Defence Minister Pramitha Bandara Tennakoon made the announcement on downsizing the Army, the strength was down to 168,000. In other words, the Army strength has been already down by approximately 38,000.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

State Minister Pramitha Bandara Tennakoon could have disclosed a decisive decision taken by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government to reduce the approved cadre of Sri Lanka Army (SLA) at the launch of ‘STORY OF THE WORLD: Geopolitical Alliances and Rivalries Set in Stone’ authored by Col. Nalin Herath, at Rock House Army camp (Regimental Headquarters of the Armoured Corps), on January 12.

State Minister Tennakoon was the Chief Guest at the event, attended by Defence Secretary Gen. Kamal Gunaratne, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Gen. Shavendra Silva, both of the Gajaba Regiment, and several other senior serving, and retired officers.

The author, as an armoured corps officer, has served the 681 Brigade of the 53 Division. He has been the Brigade Major. The 681 Brigade, assigned to the 53 Division, commanded by the then Maj. Gen. Gunaratne, has been credited with the killing of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, on the morning of May 19, 2009.

The first such book, launched by a serving officer, would have been the ideal setting for the official declaration on the reduction of SLA’s approved cadre.

A press release, pertaining to the proposed reduction of the approved cadre of the SLA, was released by Col. Nalin Herath, on the following day (January 13). Interestingly, the statement was attributed to State Defence Minister Tennakoon, who received the elevated position, on Sept. 08, 2022. The Matale District MP was among 37 government parliamentary group members appointed as State Ministers, as per the understanding between President Wickremesinghe and his principal sponsor, the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). Pramitha Bandara is the son of Janaka Banadara Tennakoon, MP, one of the SLFP seniors who had even served the party during the tenure of the late Sirimavo Bandaranaike as the SLFP leader. Incidentally Pramitha’s paternal grandfather, Tikiri Banda Tennakoon, was a founder member of the SLFP, along with its creator, SWRD Bandaranaike. T.B., having swept into Parliament, in 1956, like so many other first timers, with an essentially Sinhala ethos, he continuously retained his Dambulla electorate for five consecutive terms, thanks to his dedication to serve his people.

Perhaps, that high profile decision to trim the armed forces, that were deliberately expanded in the last phase of the then long-running war, from 2006, should have been announced by President Wickremesinghe, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and the Defence Minister, as well. The government owed an explanation whether the Cabinet-of-Ministers approved the far reaching move and when that decision was taken.

Following the perusal of statements, issued in Sinhala and English, there couldn’t be ambiguity regarding what really prompted the decision. Lawmaker Pramitha Tennakoon declared that the decision to reduce the current approved SLA cadre of 200,783 to 135,000, by end of next year, and further reduce that figure to 100,000, by 2030, has been taken after taking into consideration the current state of affairs. Obviously, the State Defence Minister was referring to Sri Lanka’s bankrupt status.

President Wickremesinghe’s decision to review the approved cadre of the SLA should be appreciated, as it was a long felt necessity, as maintaining an army of more than 200.000, under current circumstances, is no small burden for a country of the size of Sri Lanka, especially as it no longer faced any formidable enemy, militarily from within. This assertion shouldn’t be misconstrued as our wholehearted backing for the government decision. Let us hope some sections in the Opposition do not seek political advantage, thereby causing unnecessary friction amidst the continuing economic-political-social turmoil.

President Wickremesinghe indicated his desire to bring down the SLA’s strength, on Nov. 14, 2022. when he presented the 2023 Budget. Wickremesinghe proposed to allow armed forces personnel, other than special categories, to retire after 18 years of service. Wickremesinghe assured that tangible measures would be taken to provide them training, required to engage in productive economic activities.

On behalf of the government, State Minister Tennakoon asserted that a 100,000 strength as the right size for the SLA.

Change of SLA command

Army Chief, Lt. Gen. Vikum Liyanage, in his New Year message to his officers, and men, revealed the intended decrease in SLA’s approved cadre. Gajaba Regiment veteran Liyanage, who succeeded Gen. Shavendra Silva, on July 01, 2022, declared that preliminary measures had been taken in this regard. Army headquarters, in a statement issued on January 02, quoted Lt. Gen. Liyanage has having said the process was meant to streamline the organizational structure, operational deployment and concept of operations. The Army Chief emphasized the responsibility on the part of the SLA to be prepared to face any eventuality this year. Lt. Gen. Liyanage didn’t mince his words when he declared the need to keep their plans on track, regardless of the current crisis, which he described as a turbulent period.

If not for the massive public protest campaign that turned violent, after Temple Trees unleashed SLPP goons on the Galle Face ‘Go Gota Home’ protesters on May 09, morning, Liyanage probably wouldn’t have received an opportunity to command the war-winning SLA. The then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, himself a Gajaba founder veteran, brought in Liyanage to succeed celebrated ground combat commander Gen. Shavendra Silva. Liyanage received the appointment on June 01. Protesters overran President Rajapaksa’s official residence, in Fort, six weeks later. Wickremesinghe, having been picked as President, by a majority vote in Parliament, has chosen Liyanage to oversee the transformation by granting him a one-year extension.

Otherwise, Liyanage would have retired on Dec. 31, 2022. He received a one-year extension, amidst intense controversy over his successor.

Over a dozen officers would retire by Dec. 31, 2023.

Gen. Shavendra Silva continues to serve as the CDS, a position he held earlier in an Acting Capacity beginning January 01, 2020, while also being the then Army Commander. The celebrated General Officer, Commanding (GoC) the 58 Division (previously Task Force 1) received the SLA command, on August 19, 2019, during the tail end of Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency. Unfortunately, many top officers, who contributed much to that most unlikely victory, over terrorism, were overlooked during the Yahapalana regime that came to power in 2015, thanks to the political betrayal by Maithripala Sirisena.

Proposed gradual but significant reduction of approved SLA cadre, by half, within the next seven years, should be examined, taking into consideration two domestic factors, namely (1) Ranil Wickremesinghe’s election as President to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, and (2) the worst ever post-independence economic crisis that has compelled utterly disorganized and reckless political party system ways and means to cut down both capital and recurrent expenditure.

Cash-strapped Sri Lanka can save a considerable amount of public funds by halving the SLA size. Retired Maj. Gen. Udaya Perera, Director of Operations, during the crucial period of the Eelam War (2006-2009) asserted: “It is not the numbers that matter, but the deterrence….” The one-time Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Malaysia, emphasized the responsibility, on the part of the decision-makers, to adopt, what he called, a pragmatic approach.

Contrary to numerous warnings, regarding the possibility of the LTTE launching a hit-and run-campaign, after the combined security forces decimated its conventional fighting capacity, by February-May 2009, the group was no longer in its previous suicide mode, due to the overbearing presence of the SLA. There had been one attempt to regroup and that was mercilessly and swiftly dealt with. Since then, ex-members of the group remained peaceful, though some expressed fears those who had been released after rehabilitation could take up arms again. Wartime Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, having played a pivotal role in the eradication of terrorism. by May 2009, allowed the release of as many as 12,000 ex-LTTE cadres and the gradual decrease of the SLA presence, in the Jaffna peninsula. Accordingly, the SLA gave up both state and private land in the Jaffna peninsula, and other parts of the Vanni and the East, held over the years, to fight the war, to facilitate the return of civilians, in peace time.

Rapid SLA expansion

At the time Eelam War IV erupted, in the second week of August, 2006, with coordinated attacks in the East and across the Muhamalai front line, extending from Kilali, across Eluththumaduwal to Nagarkovil on the Vadamarachchy east coast,

The SLA had approximately 60 regular and volunteer infantry battalions. It, however, lacked the wherewithal to simultaneously conduct offensive operations, defend areas under control and deploy troops to hold newly recaptured areas.

The then President Mahinda Rajapaksa took an unprecedented political decision to rapidly expand the SLA to finish off the LTTE, once and for all. The then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka got what he asked for. Fonseka never hesitated to push the political leadership on the urgent need to expand the SLA. The Army Chief had the backing of the Defence Secretary and the whole process was expedited, overnight.

A recruitment drive got underway, in the last quarter of 2006, as the SLA, at a great cost, thwarted the LTTE offensive on the Northern front, stabilized the situation there, and went on the offensive. A relentless SLA campaign brought the entire Eastern Province, under government control, with the recapture of the last Tiger stronghold, at Toppigala, in July 2007. As the name denotes, it was a rock outcrop, with a clear viewing advantage of the surroundings. But, that wouldn’t have been possible without operations, conducted by the Navy and the Air Force, both in support of ground forces, as well as to weaken the overall conventional capacity of the enemy. But, ironically, that fact was lost on our warwinning military genius, Sarath Fonseka, and, no doubt, a man with a sixth sense, but who ironically felt that all war trophies should go to the Army and him.

We will cite just one example as to why we say he had a sixth sense that helped to win the war. For a long time, we had heard from lower ranking officers that they were often reluctant to call in artillery support as often they themselves got whacked by such ‘friendly’ fire. But after the all-out war broke out, in 2006, and the Army was advancing on several fronts, we suddenly found that Fonseka had taken a rather unusual step of putting a stop to the discretionary power of our artillery and he had placed Special Forces operatives with all field artillery units and they couldn’t fire their big guns till those minders, clearly wearing T-shirts, emblazoned ‘Special Forces’, double checked their ranges. And, miraculously, that ended many a friendly artillery killing our own soldiers. This was something all previous commanders failed to do.

As many as 120,000 men were mobilized as the the SLA raised almost 100 infantry battalions. It would be pertinent to mention that new recruits were required for new fighting formations and also to replenish depleted battalions. The high intensity Vanni battles took a heavy toll on fighting formations. The incumbent Army Commander had served as the Commanding Officer of the 8th battalion of the Gajaba Regiment (Jan. 1, 2006 to June 06, 2006) attached to 56 and 57 Divisions during the Vanni campaign. The 56 Division played a defensive role whereas 57 Division played a critically important offensive role, though it ceased offensive operations, after capturing Kurivilkulam, in the second week of Feb. 2009.

The rapid recruitment, training and deployment of fresh recruits swamped the Vanni with infantry formations. During the last phase of the war, the SLA troop strength doubled, thereby allowing successive commanders after Fonseka, who relinquished command in mid-July 2009, amidst controversy of his decision to enter active politics. Fonseka contested the 2010 January presidential election but suffered a humiliating defeat in the hands of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Having made an abortive bid to spearhead a party of his own, the war hero, who holds the rank of Field Marshal, has now ended up as an MP, representing the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB).

Since the end of the war, there has been a gradual decrease in the security forces’ strength, though the approved cadre remained unchanged.

Unprecedented challenge

In spite of President Wickremesinghe’s declaration Sri Lanka’s commitment to friendly ties with all countries, at regional and global level, his government is ensnared in a deadly US-China conflict against the backdrop of an equally lethal debt trap.

Having declared bankruptcy, in April last year, Sri Lanka is struggling to reach consensus with China and India, two major bilateral creditors whose backing is nothing but a pre-requisite for the finalization of the IMF USD 2.9 bn credit facility, spread over a period of four years. No less a person than President Wickremesinghe, during an informal chat with a group of journalists, representing Upali Newspapers Ltd., on January 06, acknowledged the difficult situation his government is in.

There is still no clear indication when China and India will reach final consensus on this matter, although Sri Lanka and the IMF reached a staff-level agreement, relating to it, on Sept. 01, 2022.

The response of some sections of the international community, to the developing economic crisis here, cannot be discussed without taking into consideration their alignment with the US-led grouping meant to counter, what they perceive, as a growing Chinese threat.

Once Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, declared that Sri Lanka faced a major security threat as long as the Hambantota Port remained in Chinese hands. The warning was given in the wake of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage that claimed the lives of 269 men, women and children, including about 40 foreigners, and wounded about double that number. The then UNP lawmaker Wijeyedasa Rajapakse proposed the intervention of Parliament to take back the Hambantota Port, given to China, on a 99-year lease. Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Premier of the Yahapalana government that finalized the Hambantota Port deal, in 2017, is the President now.

Sri Lanka needs to carefully review the situation. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore geopolitical interests of individual countries, as well as various groupings, in addition to the Tamil Diaspora factor. The ‘Quad’ (Indo-Pacific Quadrilateral Dialogue) comprising the US, Australia, Japan and India. The grouping wants Sri Lanka, within its orbit, whereas China pursues its own strategy.

There cannot be any other reason than the Tamil Diaspora vote for Canada to recognize Tamil genocide, in May last year, and then imposed sanctions against former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Gotabaya Rajapaksa recently.

Canada’s treatment of indigenous people has exposed their human rights façade, while Ottawa pursue Sri Lanka over unsubstantiated war crimes allegations.

Unfortunately, successive Sri Lankan governments, including the incumbent Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa administration, continues to fail the war-winning military.

Sanctions imposed on the Rajapaksa brothers must be examined, keeping in mind Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to use Lord Naseby’s disclosure, in the House of Lords, in Oct. 2017. to clear the military. Following a lengthy legal battle, Lord Naseby forced the UK to release a section of highly censored confidential wartime dispatches (January 01, 2009- May 2009) from its High Commission in Colombo.

In conversations with this writer, in Colombo, last year, Lord Naseby expressed disappointment over Sri Lanka’s continuous failure to use available evidence, coupled with a very supportive assessment made by wartime US Defence Advisor Colonel Lawrence Smith, in Colombo, over two years, after the war ended, at the inaugural defence seminar, in Colombo. Sri Lanka simply ignored the US Colonel’s declaration that must have been made quite confidently in the presence of senior military representatives of about 40 countries.

Sri Lanka never recognized the growing threat until the US imposed a travel ban on Gen. Shavendra Silva, on Feb. 13, 2020. That was five years after Australia refused a visa to Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage, also over unsubstantiated war crimes allegations.

Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, too, has been denied a US visa after Washington quite conveniently forgot backing Fonseka at the 2010 presidential poll and the war-winning Army Chief receiving the backing of the Tamil National Alliance that ensured the General sweeping predominately Tamil speaking districts in the Northern and Eastern Province, at the 2010 presidential poll. But, Canadian sanctions on former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, MP, are the first on a politician, whereas Gotabaya Rajapaksa was targeted over his role as the wartime Defence Secretary.

Parliament needs to ascertain the situation seriously, and take appropriate measures, at least now, to have accountability issues examined properly to pave the way for restoring public faith in the political party system.

Parliament, entrusted with financial responsibility, has achieved what the LTTE, one of the groups established by India, in the ’80s, to terrorize Sri Lanka, failed to do.

Parliament has overseen the ruination of the war-winning country. The declaration of bankruptcy is nothing but an indictment of successive governments. The debt servicing crisis should be studied, keeping in mind Sri Lanka obtained IMF’s bailout packages on 16 previous occasions. The next one depends on the response of Sri Lanka’s creditors, China and India.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:‘STORY OF THE WORLD Colonel Nalin Herath Gen. Shavendra Silva

Up Next

The Mod-Con Tea Party

Don't Miss

Footprints of Sarachchandra at Denison

Click to comment

Midweek Review

22A: Developing constitutional quagmire

Published

2 days ago

2026/08/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

The government’s high profile project to enact the 22nd Amendment failed to secure any tangible support from anyone outside the NPP, in Parliament or outside. In a statement, the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) noted that the proposed amendment concerned the sovereignty of the people and, therefore, required approval through a referendum. The ITAK, a key member of the six-party Political Council of Tamil-Speaking people (PCTSP) and the second largest party in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, other than the NPP, is opposed to President Dissanayake’s move. Tamil Progressive Party (TPA) leader and former Minister Mano Ganeshan, also of the PCTSP, has rejected the 22nd Amendment. The Island learns that all political parties, represented in the PCTSP, are opposed to the proposed Amendment.

The NPP obtained the most seats at the Parliamentary General Election 2024. Other parties that managed to gain seats in Parliament are the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB/40 seats), Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK/8 seats), New Democratic Front (NDF/5 seats), Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP/3 seats), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC/1), Sarvajana Balaya (SB/1), United National Party (UNP/1), Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA/1), All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC/1), All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC/1), Jaffna – Independent Group 17 (IND17-1) and the Sri Lanka Labour Party (SLLP/1).

Timeline

* March 30, 2026, BASL wrote to Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara seeking a meeting to discuss 22A

* May 25, 2026, BASL wrote to President Dissanayake seeking a meeting to discuss the same

* July 16, 2026, BASL wrote again to the Justice Minister underscoring the failure on his part and the President to respond to previous letters

* July 27, 2026, NPP executive committee member advocate Lal Wijenayake declared opposition to the government move

* July 29, 2026, BASL met the Justice Minister, sought a meeting with President Dissanayake

* July 31, 2026, Mahanayakes of four Chapters (Nikayas) wrote a joint letter to President Dissanayake urging him not to go ahead with the 22nd Amendment. But, the Mahanayakes refrained from releasing the letter to the media

* August 3, 2026, BASL disclosed the Mahanayakes’ letter to the President. Justice Minister Nanayakkara, accompanied by Health and Media Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, visited the Mahanayakes to explain the government stand. But, they denied receiving the crucial letter

* August 7, 2026, UN requested President Dissanayake, in no uncertain terms, to abandon the move.

* August 11, 2026, Government admitted receiving the Mahanayakes letter

* August 18, 2026, 22nd Amendment Bill presented in Parliament. Those opposed to the constitutional amendment began filing petitions. The BASL led the way. By 24 August, 21 petitions were filed.

* August 20, 2026, Catholic Bishops’ Conference urged the government not to proceed without adequate consultations.

* August 24, 2026, BASL, in a motion filed in the Supreme Court, suggested that Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena recuse from hearing the petitions

By Shamindra Ferdinando

In support of the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) government’s highly contentious move to enact the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution despite worldwide condemnation by eminent jurists, meant to extend the retirement ages of superior court judges, NPP leader and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake will address a series of countrywide meetings.

Dissanayake is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the main constituent of the governing party.

Justice and National Integration Minister and Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, on 18 August, 2026, tabled the controversial 22nd Amendment Bill in Parliament. Nanayakkara also tabled the Judicature (Amendment) Bill on the same day. That will pave the way for the increase of the retirement ages of High Court judges to 63 years, and District Court and Magistrate Court judges to 62 years. The government wants to increase the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges to 67 and 65, respectively.

However, the government has proposed a six-year term for the Chief Justice but he/she will have to retire at the new mandatory retirement age of 67.

Health and Media Minister, as well as Cabinet spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, recently announced the decision to launch the high profile propaganda campaign on 5 September. The NPP and JVP leader has vowed to enact the 22nd Amendment, come what may.

Dissanayake, who took over the party leadership on 2 February, 2014, at the 17th convention of the JVP, and formed the NPP in 2019, has indicated that he wouldn’t, under any circumstances, give up the 22nd Amendment. Dissanayake didn’t mince his words when he received a top level delegation of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) at the Presidential Secretariat, on 12 August, to discuss the burning issue wracking the country. It would be pertinent to mention that the BASL raised the issue with Dissanayake, on 25 May, after Nanayakkara ignored their first request, made on 31 March.

The Supreme Court will hear over 20 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill. Now that the matter is before the Supreme Court, the main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) shouldn’t have sought to involve the BASL in a futile attempt to educate the NPP parliamentary group. The BASL, too, should know better. The BASL and SJB are among those who moved the Supreme Court. Against that background it would be unthinkable that the NPP parliamentary group wants to listen to BASL. Government activists, on Monday (24), organised a protest outside BASL Secretariat, NO. 153, Mihindu Mawatha, Colombo 12 demanding the resignation of BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya.

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa clashed in Parliament with the leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake over his bid to bring in the BASL team to address the whole Parliament. NPP National List lawmaker Najith Indika declared on X that “the Opposition Leader couldn’t call all MPs for meetings. BASL either does not follow parliamentary procedure or knows how to manipulate public perception.”

The Supreme Court will receive petitions during two weeks, after the tabling of the Amendment. The Court should inform the Speaker of its determination within three weeks. Parliament will receive that determination ahead of President Dissanayake completing his second year in Office. The last presidential election was held on 21 September 2024.

Dissanayake won a five-year term and in November, the same year, led the party to a resounding victory at the parliamentary poll. The NPP/JVP position is that both Bills can be enacted with a 2/3 majority. With a mammoth 159 seats in Parliament, the government is confident that its political project can be easily achieved. But, the NPP operation has run into significant opposition with the United Nations, throwing its weight behind the BASL-led campaign.

Tabling of the two Bills on 18 August coincided with the 39th anniversary of the JVP grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group, in the wake of the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord in 1987. Ajith Kumara, at that time a minor parliamentary employee, lobbed a hand grenade at the UNP group meeting, chaired by President J.R. Jayewardena. Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa, too, was present. The then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali narrowly escaped death in the attack that took place in the Committee Room 1 of Parliament. Deniyaya MP and Matara District Minister Keerthi Abeywickrema was killed. The writer covered the funeral, held on 22 August, 1987, at the playground of the Morawaka Maha Vidyalaya. Then the young Minister in charge of Youth Affairs and Employment, Ranil Wickremesinghe, was among those who represented the government at the funeral.

Kumara had been recruited as a sweeper by no less a person than the then Secretary General of Parliament, Nihal Seneviratne. Had Kumara been a member of the proscribed JVP at the time he joined the parliamentary staff or did the JVP approach him later?

The Colombo High Court acquitted Ajith Kumara on 12 October, 1990, and released him from custody on 6 August, 1993. Subsequently, the JVP accommodated Ajith Kumara on the party’s politburo and paved the way for him to contest the Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council poll on the JVP ticket. With fat hopes the JVP named him their chief ministerial candidate.

Key Opp demands

Pointing out that the matter before the Supreme Court judges related to them, the BASL requested that a bench consisting of a full court, comprising all the judges, be constituted to determine the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill. The BASL also requested the Supreme Court to determine that the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and required approval by the people at a referendum.

In the alternative, the BASL sought determination that Clause 2 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and required approval by the people at a referendum and Clause 3 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and required approval by the people at a referendum.

Essentially, all petitioners have requested for a full court, comprising all Supreme Court judges and a referendum, if ordered, it’ll be the second instance. The first referendum was held in December 1982. The UNP that won an unbeatable 5/6 majority in a 168-member Parliament, at the 1977 parliamentary election, obtained a mandate of the people to extend the life of Parliament by six years. That utterly undemocratic, unreasonable and treacherous act contributed to the overall deterioration of the country. By the time the 1989 parliamentary poll was held, the police, backed by the armed forces, were fighting the JVP in the South, and the Indian Army, deployed in the Northern and Eastern regions, in terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord.

Former External Affairs Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris, convenor of the Joint Opposition grouping, too, moved the Supreme Court against the 22nd Amendment, and General Secretary of the SJB Ranjith Maddumabandara did the same. Altogether there were nearly two dozen petitioners

Ex-Law Professor Peiris has vigorously campaigned against the government move, and the weekly media briefing. held at former President Wickremesinghe’s Flower Road Office, has become the focal point of the Opposition campaign. Peiris insists that the Supreme Court shouldn’t hear the petitions as justices were direct beneficiaries of the proposed Amendment. Therefore, determination should be made at a referendum. In case the Supreme Court decides to hear the petitions, the full court consisting of all judges should be constituted to determine the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill, the former parliamentarian has asserted.

As repeatedly stressed by Prof. Peiris, two previous determinations by the Supreme Court that the alteration of superior court judges’ retirement ages should be subject to a referendum cannot be disregarded, under any circumstances. One of the determinations is of crucial importance as former Chief Justice Murdhu Fernando (December 2024 to July 2025) served on the three-member bench that made the far reaching announcement in 2022.

But, the BASL made an unexpected move on Monday. Close on the heels of its petition against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, the BASL filed a motion in the Supreme Court suggesting that Chief Justice Preethi Padman Suresena recuse from hearing petitions.

Petitioners BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and its Secretary Nalin de Silva cited Attorney General as the respondent in a motion filed in terms of Article 121 read with Article 120 of the Constitution to determine whether the Bill, titled “Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution,” or any part thereof, is required to be passed by a Referendum in terms of Article 83 of the Constitution.

The BASL pointed out that the first Judge of the Supreme Court, who would benefit if this Bill is enacted into law without the process of a referendum, is the Chief Justice, and further that if a referendum is mandated, then that there is a possibility that the Chief Justice may retire before its completion, and if for those reasons, the Chief Justice wished to recuse from hearing this matter, then the petitioners have requested the Chief Justice to constitute a bench comprising of all other judges in Supreme Court.

The maximum number of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges are 17, including the CJ and 20 judges ,including the President of the Court of Appeal, respectively. The NPP caused controversy by not filling vacancies among the superior court judges with the Opposition alleging there were four vacancies each. There’ll be another vacancy among the Court of Appeal judges in the first week of September.

The warning issued by the UN following a spate of other statements from various local and international bodies has brought tremendous pressure on the government. Having initially denied any knowledge of a joint letter, dated July 31, addressed to President Dissanayake by the Malwatta, Asgiriya, Amarapura and Ramanna chapters, the government, on 11 August, admitted the President received the letter.

However, the Catholic Bishops Conference publicly commented on this issue, only on 20 August, after all other concerned parties censured the government over the move. A section of the civil society that portrayed the 22nd Amendment as the panacea for a mountain of cases held up in courts had no option but to sing a different tune after the UN warned the NPP government over the pet project that seemed to have backfired. The UN’s position rattled the government and its backers.

18A and 20A

War-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa enacted 18th Amendment to the Constitution in early September 2010. That despicable political project did away with a two-term time limit for the executive president and expanded presidential powers over independent commissions. That Bill received 161 votes, two more than the NPP parliamentary group. But, 18A didn’t do any good for President Rajapaksa or his party. Maithripala Sirisena, General Secretary of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s party, betrayed him, won the 2015 presidential election, and created an utterly undesirable political environment that, over a period of 10 years, ruined the country’s major political parties.

The emergence of the NPP as the dominant power should be examined taking into consideration the deterioration of the UNP, SLFP and the SLPP. The UNP and SLFP are no longer represented in Parliament while the SLPP that won a commanding 145 seats at the 2020 parliamentary poll was reduced to just three lawmakers in Parliament. SLPP’s National Organiser Namal Rajapaksa was so concerned about the transformation of the political environment he took refuge in the National List. Had he not taken that precaution, he wouldn’t be in Parliament today. While the SLPP deteriorated from 145 seats to just three, the NPP, whose 2020 parliamentary group consisted of just three, including one National List member (Dr. Harini Amarasuriya) ended up taking 159 seats, the best results achieved under the Proportional Representation system introduced in 1989.

Having handsomely won the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa brought in the 20th Amendment aimed at further consolidating his hold on power. Basil Rajapaksa, a dual citizen of Sri Lanka and the US, wanted to enter Parliament through the National List. The Rajapaksas removed a particular clause through the 19th Amendment to enable Basil Rajapaksa to enter Parliament. Subsequently, the SLPP accommodated Basil Rajapaksa in the Cabinet as the all-powerful Finance Minister. He succeeded Mahinda Rajapaksa in July 2021. But by then, the national economy had suffered irreparable damage and the 20th Amendment, meant to consolidate executive power, seemed irrelevant. Public protest campaign that received overt and covert US and Indian backing was launched in March 2022, leading to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s unceremonious ouster in July of same year due to India and Western backed violent protests.

The 18th Amendment and the 20th Amendment were enacted at the expense of particularly the 17th and 19th Amendments, respectively.

The Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) has alleged that the 22nd Amendment would enable the government to implement its neoliberal programme. The breakaway JVP group has asserted that the government’s sinister project is intended to remove whatever obstacles to its neoliberal strategy.

FSP’s Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda said: “A new Fisheries Act will divide the ocean into plots, lease the fish-rich areas to multinational corporations, and deprive local fishermen the opportunity to catch fish in the deep sea. The biggest obstacle to this is the fishermen. A Quality Assurance and Accreditation Commission Act is being drafted to grant state recognition and legality to degree mills. Three thousand schools are going to be closed, depriving children of the fundamental right to education. To do that, every pillar of the state must be brought under government control. A long list can be given: privatising hospital laboratory services, selling off state institutions, bringing forward new repressive laws like the PSTA (Protection of the State from Terrorism Act), and a new Cooperatives Act that snatches away people’s funds—many things like that. Taking the arbitrary power required to execute these into the hands of the executive is the true objective of this constitutional amendment.”

Midweek Review

Shakespeare’s female characters

Published

2 days ago

2026/08/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Ophelia in a scene from Hamlet

Displaying Gender-Based Issues that Resonate with Our Times

by Dr. Siri Galhenage
Psychiatrist [Retd]

In most of William Shakespeare’s plays, the protagonists are male. He created such memorable characters as Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Prospero, Coriolanus, the monarchs of history plays and many others – heroes as well as villains. This was a reflection of the societal values of the time. Women were not permitted to perform on stage, and all female roles were played by young males – a practice that continued for nearly half a century after Shakespeare’s death. This was so even though Elizabeth 1, the learned female monarch of England and Ireland and a humanist, occupied the throne during most of Shakespeare’s writing life [1580–1613], and extended her patronage to his plays.

Nevertheless, compared with his contemporaries Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson, Shakespeare wrote a greater number of plays featuring prominent female characters that drove the narratives, providing insights into intra-psychic, interpersonal, social and moral aspects of life.

I have selected two such female characters from Shakespeare’s plays and another from one of his narrative poems to illustrate this idea, focusing primarily on gender based violence – emotional, physical and sexual – that continues to resonate in our own times. I have also chosen another female character who challenged the gender constraints that imposed by contemporary society.

DESDEMONA in Othello –

A Victim of Morbid Jealousy

A scene from As You Like It

Jealousy, as a human experience, has many nuances of meaning, ranging from the harmless to the morbid, including delusional forms, with many variations in between. The object of concern in jealousy is the suspicion of unfaithfulness or infidelity on the part of a loved one, commonly a female partner in a marital relationship. In its morbid form, accompanied by intense passion, jealousy has the potential to be destructive and even dangerous, placing the spouse at risk. It is not an uncommon presentation in clinical practice attracting the diagnosis of ‘Othello Syndrome’ although there is disagreement among clinicians about the application of the term.

Othello, a valiant soldier of African heritage in the state of Venice, had no difficulty winning the heart of Desdemona, the attractive young daughter of a prosperous senator. He took her away in defiance of her father’s wish for her to marry into the Venetian nobility. At this point, the Turks were preparing to regain Venetian-held territory in Cyprus, and Othello, recognised for his military prowess, was selected to lead the defence of the territory.

Despite the imminent Turkish attack on Cyprus, Desdemona preferred to remain with her husband rather than stay in Venice. The attack did not eventuate, however, because a violent storm dispersed and destroyed the invading Turkish fleet. The Venetian forces rejoiced, and the occasion provided an added opportunity to celebrate the marriage of Othello and Desdemona.

Casio, a close confidant of Othello, who had been recently promoted to lieutenant, was delegated to supervise the festivities. Cassio’s promotion caused great offence to Iago, who strongly believed that he was better suited to the position. He plotted to take revenge on Othello and Cassio by planting the seed of doubt in Othello’s mind through innuendo and trickery, casting suspicion on Desdemona’s fidelity and on her relationship with good-looking Cassio. Desdemona, a woman of exuberance and humour, became the unwitting focus of Iago’s manipulation.

The dissonance that arose in Othello’s mind eventually reached a climax when he accused his wife of infidelity and became convinced that she should die. Despite Desdemona’s plea for compassion, Othello strangled her to death. On finally gaining insight into the whole saga, Othello fell on his sword beside his wife.

OPHELIA in Hamlet – A Case of Manic Defence in response
to emotional abuse

Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, takes centre stage in the play of the same name, and his mental processes have been the focus of scrutiny by successive generations of critics.

Young Prince Hamlet is faced with a complex emotional challenge following the sudden death of his father, King Hamlet, he idolised. The late king’s brother, usurper to the throne, hastily marries the widowed queen, denying the young prince his lawful right to sovereignty. Hamlet’s grief is compounded by his outrage towards his mother and his lingering doubts about the circumstances of his father’s death. He lapses into a state of melancholy.

But the impact of Hamlet’s emotional instability and the displacement of his anger onto Ophelia, to whom the prince had professed his love, receive less attention by critics, despite the significant psychological issues raised by her predicament. The episode in which Hamlet directs his anger towards Ophelia – often referred to as the ‘nunnery scene’ – is considered one of the most vicious in all Shakespeare.

Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?”…. “If thou dost marry, I’ll give this plague for thy dowry, be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shall not escape calamity. Get thee to a nunnery; go, farewell. Or if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery go, quickly too. Farewell

Her love for Prince Hamlet was forbidden from the outset by her father, the scheming counsellor, Polonius, and by her brother Laertes; she was obedient to them. With her dignity destroyed by the very person she loved and her father killed, albeit inadvertently by the hand of her lover, she nevertheless reacted with compassion. With her brother away in France, Ophelia is bereft of any meaningful relationships.

With no one left to confide in, her mind had no alternative but to escape reality. She lapsed into a state of mania – a state of ‘fragile happiness’ with underlying deep sorrow; an unconscious defensive operation of the mind known as ‘manic defence’, as described by Melanie Klein [1882-1960], the renowned Austrian Psychoanalyst.

In this state of mind, Ophelia presents herself before the king and queen, singing snatches of song concerning love, death and betrayal. Her behaviour is totally out of character to her formerly demure self. Here are a few excerpts from her verses illustrating what might be described as a ‘flight of ideas’.

How should I your true love know/ From another one? / By his cockle hat and staff/ And his sandal shoon…”

“He is dead and gone, lady/ He is dead and gone/ At his head a grass green turf/ At his heels a stone…

They say the owl was a baker’s daughter. Lord we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table …

Hey non nonny, nonny, hey nonny/ And in his grave rained many a tear …” “You must sing ’Adown adown’ and you call him adown-a.”

Later, Queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, announced that Ophelia ‘Fell in a weeping brook while making garlands from crow-flowers, nettles, daisies and long purples’, and had made no attempt to save herself. At the graveyard two gravediggers discussed whether she deserves a Christian burial as she appeared to have taken her own life.

LUCRECE – in Shakespeare’s narrative poem The Rape

of Lucrece

Reworked from a story by the Roman historian Livy, Shakespeare’s innovative narrative poem, first published in 1594, gives access to the mind of a victim of sexual assault. Set in ancient Rome, the poem gives expression to the agony of Lucrece, the gracious wife of a nobleman, following a savage attack upon her by Sextus Tarquinius, the son of the brutal king Lucius Tarquinius of Rome.

During a joyous conversation, a group of young noblemen were commenting on the virtues of their wives when Collatinus extolled the incomparable beauty and chastity of his beloved Lucrece. Aroused by the description of her elegance, young Sextus makes a covert exit, ‘borne by the trustless wings of desire’ in pursuit of his prey –the peerless dame’, ‘weakly fortressed from a world of harm.

Lucrece warmly welcomes her royal guest, who shows no inward ill or outward harm. He praises her husband’s military prowess, ‘pawning his honour to obtain his lust. During the conversation he scans her beauty and burns with sexual desire, yet ‘is madly toss’d between desire and dread. His ambivalence finally gives way to desire. ‘Desire my pilot, beauty my prize/ ‘Then who fears sinking where such treasure lies?’ This said, he advances upon her, ‘like a falcon towering in the skies, that ‘Coutcheth the fowl with his wings’ ‘So under his insulting falcon lies/ Harmless Lucretia’ shade’, trembling with fear, ‘as fowl hear falcon’s bells’. She ‘lies at the mercy of his moral sting’ and finally succumbs ‘To the rough beast that knows no gentle right/ Nor aught obey but his foul appetite’.

Lucrece is shattered, perplexed and grief-stricken by the unexpected assault on her by her honoured guest. ‘I alone must sit and pine/ Seasoning the earth with showers of silver brine’. She weeps, ‘O unseen shame, invisible disgrace/ O unfelt sore, crest wounding private scar’. Her anguish is further expressed through the image of the violated hive. ’My honey lost, and I, a drone – like bee, have no perfection of my summer left/ But robb’d and ransack’d by injurious theft./ In thy weak hive a wand’ring wasp hath kept/ And suck’d the honey which thy chaste bee kept’.

In this state of mourning, Lucrece despatches two messengers: one to her father in Rome and the other to her husband on the battlefield. On their arrival, she reveals the circumstances of her agony and names the individual responsible. She then stabs herself to death.

Their entourage carry her body through Rome and vow to avenge the death of this ‘incomparable woman of chaste’. By public acclaim the reign of Tarquins is overthrown, and the rule of Rome handed over to the consuls.

A scene from Othello

ROSALIND in ‘As You Like It’ – Challenging the Gender Constraints

One of the few female characters to play a leading role is Rosalind in ‘As You Like It’. She remains much to the liking of many a theatre goer because of her wit, wisdom and inner strength. Rosalind transcends the constraints imposed on women during the Shakespearean era – constraints that continue to resonate in certain cultures even today.

Two young women of noble birth flee the oppressive court in disguise and seek refuge in the Forest of Arden. Rosalind disguised as a young man, Ganymede, while her devoted cousin Celia adopts the name Aliena. As they depart Celia declares, “Now go we in content/ To liberty, and not to banishment.” Orlando, the object of Rosalind’s affection, also escapes to the forest to evade the hostility of his brother. Unaware of Rosalind’s disguise, he expresses his love by hanging verses in her praise upon the trees. Although Rosalind discovers these poems, she chooses to maintain her disguise, using it as an opportunity to test Orlando’s devotion and explore the nature of love, courtship, and the differing gender expectations. The play reaches a conclusion by Rosalind dropping her disguise, and the two uniting in love.

*****

Gender-based violence is recognised globally as a pervasive violation of human rights and a significant social, cultural and public health concern. Violence against women, including emotional, physical and sexual, varies across societies in form and prevalence, and is often rooted in unequal power relations and social structures that perpetuate male dominance. Gender-based violence requires collective action through education, legal protection, economic empowerment, accessible support services and changes in attitudes and cultural practices. Power and influence should not be allowed to shield the perpetrators.

Art, including dramatic and literary art, serves to illuminate human experience. It allows us to explore emotions, ideas and moral dilemmas that may otherwise remain beyond ordinary expression. Art can entertain and inspire, but it can also challenge our assumptions, evoke empathy, and offer new ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us. In this sense, art is not merely a form of aesthetic pleasure; it is a means of understanding what it means to be human.

Desdemona, Ophelia, Lucrece and Rosalind are among Shakespeare’s more prominent female characters. The first three are innocent victims of male violence in different forms, evoking our empathy and compassion; the fourth challenges the gender assumptions and constraints of the time. Together, they illuminate gender-based issues that are both universal and timeless. In this sense, Shakespeare remains ‘our contemporary’, as Jan Kott, Polish-American literary critic, famously observed.