Features
Formulating a National Policy on disability
Disability studies in the universities
(Excerpted from Memories that linger – my journey in the world of disability by Padmani Mendis)
Prof. Chandra Gunawardene was the Dean of the Faculty of Education at the Open University of Sri Lanka, OUSL, at the turn of the century. I was recommended to her by her friend Prof. Swarna Wijetunge who had been a Professor of Education at the University of Colombo. Prof. Wijetunge was a member of the National Education Commission. She had always been sensitive to the poor quality of education available to disabled children. Prof. Gunawardene was keen to take action to uplift this through improvement in teacher education.
So she obtained the approval of the OUSL in 2004 to set up within the Open University a Department of Special Needs Education. She asked for my help to do this and had me recruited to the Faculty as a Senior Consultant. I set about getting the preliminary arrangements done. Meanwhile she also recruited to the Department of Special Needs Education two senior lecturers. She arranged for these two to proceed directly to the University of Lahore and return with their Doctoral Degrees to start academic activity in the Department. One of the first such activities was a Bachelor of Education Honours in Special Needs.
University of Colombo
The University of Colombo, since 2009 was running an “Ability Centre for Students with Disabilities”. It was helping students in a small way. Ashoka Weerawardena was running this centre.
Aloka Weerasekera had in 2012 obtained a degree from the Faculty. Aloka, as a student, had helped the Faculty and his disabled colleagues within it, to deal with the some of the problems they faced. And even after he graduated he continued to help Ashoka at the Ability Centre.
A new dean, Prof. Athula Ranasinghe, was appointed to the Faculty of Arts in 2011. He proposed that it was time that the Faculty demonstrated greater academic leadership in disability. Aloka and I were brought in to join the staff of the Department of Sociology on a planning committee to find a strategy for putting into practice this academic support for disability.
The end result of the planning committee’s deliberations was the setting up in 2014 of the Centre for Disability Research, Education and Practice popularly called CEDREP.
In the same year the US Embassy came in with a grant to finance improvements to the Ability Centre for the benefit of students. This Centre was upgraded and had its role and name changed to the “Support Centre for Students with Disabilities”. I was a frequent visitor to assist Ashoka with what I could. CEDREP called on me for advice in the early years when they needed it.
Disabled People to the Forefront
A significant outcome of CBR at the grass roots was the setting up of disability self-help groups. Fridsro helped in this in the government-supported CBR areas throughout the island. Unfortunately, government workers later made these into District Disability Organisations over which they could and did have influence. As was to be expected, the autonomy within the small self-groups was gone. Many disabled people who had been empowered through their self-help group were disillusioned and turned away.
Others, such as Nishar Sharif, persist even today, raising the issue of their rights and their inclusion within the district and province. Navajeevana encouraged the formation of self-help groups in the CBR areas they supported. These also developed into Divisional Disability Organisations. I have met some on my visits to the south. Although they are sustained with some financial support from Christoffel Blinden Mission, CBM, they maintain their autonomy and empowerment and participate in area development planning and activities.
In Sri Lanka there has not even until now been any kind of Disability Movement. In Colombo personable individuals set up organisations to publicise the needs of particular disability groups. Occasionally they would obtain sponsorship to implement interventions. Some have been led by disabled people themselves and others have not. There was debate about these at the time. Within the world of disability, it was felt that the organisation had to be managed by disabled people themselves to be recognised as a Disabled Peoples’ Organization (DPO). If it was managed by a non-disabled person or people, then it was thought of as an NGO.
S. L. Hettiarachchi
So the Sri Lanka Council for the Blind (SLCB) which was actually single-handedly run by S. L. Hettiarachchi, himself with visual impairment and totally unable to see, was considered to be an NGO. Its president, although only in a nominal role, was not disabled. Soon after I started working with the School of Social Work, I met Mr. Hettiarachchi. I used to meet him often thereafter for a chat in his office. We developed a close life-long friendship until he passed away in 2015.
With Mr. Hettiarachchi in the driving seat, the SLCB carried out many activities for young people – particularly, courses which imparted skills and knowledge scarce elsewhere such as in Mobility and Orientation and Information Technology. On a Saturday morning I would often drop in for a chat with the young people there.
What impressed me most was the Library the SLCB developed with an extensive collection of both written and audio publications made easily accessible to the many who availed of its resources. Mr. Hettiarachchi then extended the library to the thirteen Special Schools for the Blind located throughout the island and were registered with the Ministry of Education. He later sought and obtained support for this from Sight Savers International, SSI.
Three years later SSI requested me to evaluate the impact of their support to benefit children. One of the most interesting findings regarding project’s impact was the children’s increased love of reading. Many had become avid readers. Many had taken to reading a new book every two to three days. Many had shown improvement in language development, reading and writing skills, grammar, vocabulary and verbalisation. It strengthened my belief that it was the SLCB, as organisations were at the time, that had the greatest impact on disabled people.
Premadasa Dissanayake and Cyril Siriwardene
Another disabled person with whom I shared both a working relationship and friendship was Premadasa Dissanayake. Premadasa hailed from a village in Badulla in the Uva province. He came to Colombo as a wheel-chair user to seek employment. This he got at the Gangarama Temple in Colombo, first learning the skill of watch repair and then as a teacher of other young people both those who had disabilities and others who had not, to acquire the same skill.
He never forgot his roots and later, when he was able to implement field programmes, they were located around the village he came from. He impressed others with his honesty, diligence and hard work.
Premadasa was the core of the, Sri Lanka Foundation for Rehabilitation of the Disabled (SLFRD), which he established with support. Within this, he had soon set up a workshop to produce a range of appliances required by people with mobility impairments – wheelchairs, tricycles, crutches and so on. This workshop called Rehab Lanka bid for and obtained tenders for these and was a regular supplier to both the Ministry in Colombo and to Departments of Social Services in the provinces.
With funding from the Swedish Organisation of the Handicapped International Aid Foundation, he moved into community-based work. I enjoyed very much walking the villages in Badulla with his staff.
Such was the recognition Premadasa had that one of Sri Lanka’s leading garment manufacturers negotiated an agreement between Rehab Lanka and Marks and Spencer popularly known as M & S, the well-known chain of retail stores in the UK. Premadasa trained workers of the garment factory to produce the items they made for M & S. Training was done according to the technical and quality requirements as stated in the agreement between M & S and Rehab Lanka.
Working with Premadasa at Rehab Lanka was Cyril Siriwardene. Cyril had started using a wheelchair since he had met with a road traffic accident while serving in the Air Force. With his assertive but pleasant personality and skilled use of the English Language Cyril was soon recognised as a leader and disability spokesperson both by disabled people and by others.
It was Cyril, Premadasa and Mr. Hettiarachchi that established a dialogue with the Ministry of Social Welfare. This was the time that Viji Jegarasasingham (Mrs. J) had come to the Ministry as an Additional Secretary. She was open to it.
Ministry of Social Welfare
The Ministry of Social Welfare and disability groups soon had a regular conversation. An outcome of this was that in 1996 the first Disability Law was passed. This law was concerned mostly with the setting up of a National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD), and with strengthening the provision of disability services within government. The NCPD was of course to be chaired by the Minister of Social Welfare.
As a positive step, the law ensured a majority participation of disabled people and their representatives in the NCPD, recognising their right to decision making in matters that affected them.
Recognising this in law but not, unfortunately, in practice. It is still the Ministry of Social Welfare that makes all decisions in the field of disability. Even in the making of a new law, a seemingly continuous process started in the year 2004 and is as yet incomplete.
I was not aware of the preparation or enactment of that law in 1996. Maybe I was too concerned with international work at that time. I served however on two consecutive National Councils, the first of which was set up as soon as the law came into effect in 1996.
My experience was that we did not really do anything to bring about changes in the lives of disabled persons and their families. Much of the monthly meetings dealt with acceding to requests by disability organisations and disabled people for financial assistance for a range of purposes from renovating buildings to organising sports events to staging concerts by disabled people.
Disability work was still very much based on charity. The disability representation at large on the National Council however appeared to be satisfied sitting with the minister every month and telling him of their woes. A vivid recollection I have of the first council is the minister, while sitting at the head of the long table, tucking in with satisfaction into a bowl of fruit salad. I must also say that to me he seemed not even to listen to what was being said.
- Prof. Chandra Gunawardene
- Prof. Athula Ranasinghe
National Policy on Disability
At the beginning of this decade there was some visible activity in the Ministry of Social Welfare as it concerned the world of disability. A newly introduced government regulation called on each ministry to develop national policies in areas it was mandated for. For our ministry this included disability.
Consulting the few disabled people she interacted with at the time, Mrs. J had appointed a renowned disabled person to make a draft national policy on disability or NPD. Repeated reviews and revisions did not result in a satisfactory document. This was apparently leading to some frustration all round. Mr. Hettiarachchi talked with me about it, and I wrote for him a brief note on how a national policy may be developed. It had to be a participatory and consultative process.
Together with his colleagues he took this to Mrs. J and they suggested she talk with me about it. The result was that she asked me whether I could do this. I said of course, but with two conditions. One was that the ministry appoints a committee to make the task participatory, and the second – you will not believe it – that she appoints me as Chairperson and let me suggest to her the 12 members that should constitute the committee. I knew my Sri Lanka and she obviously knew me.
The Minister was informed, letters of appointment were received and very soon the committee and our support staff were seated round a table at the ministry – not the one I referred to earlier and there was no bowl of fruit salad.
Our committee represented people with the most prevalent disabilities through their organisations, and those sectors that had to be most involved with disability and disabled people. We started our work with reports from them, each related to the area of their particular concern. Followed by discussion about the situations presented and very preliminary policy suggestions.
In spite of the wide representation on our committee one large gap was evident. No one really knew the situation of disabled people and their families in our country. It was my task to inform Mrs. J that we had to determine this through a socio-economic survey before we could go ahead with policy formulation. All she said was, “How much will you need?” It was then my responsibility to bring to her quotations from three sources known for their experience in conducting such tasks.
She selected one and said she would find the money required. This was Rs. 750,000 for an island-wide sample survey. Nielson Sri Lanka completed the report in three months. Together with the Rs. 400 each member was paid by the ministry as transport cost per meeting, the preparation of the NPD cost just over Rs. 900,000. Our committee took joy comparing this to what the formulation of a draft National Employment Policy cost at about the same time – Rs. 13 million. That cost was met by a foreign donor and the policy was never approved.
During the many meetings that followed, we interviewed dozens of persons, both as individuals and as groups. We had Mrs. J arrange for us interviews with secretaries of ministries, heads of institutions and UN and other agencies, DPOs and NGOs with whom we consulted on the content and formulation of the policy. In this way we benefited from the experience and insight of a countless number of people.
When we presented the National Policy on Disability that our committee had produced to the minister who was at the time Ravindra Samaraweera, he asked me why we had taken four months when he had asked for it in three. But he was pleased and soon had it approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Those were Sri Lanka’s good times. Now, but precious memories.
Disability Rights Bill (DRB)
The success achieved by her Ministry with the publication of the National Policy appeared to motivate Mrs. J to take this process further. So within a few months she had appointed another committee to ensure legal validity for the Policy. This time I was appointed Chairperson with no notice of it. The four other members of the committee she selected were all attorneys. One also had experienced disability, having had visual impairment from a very young age. He had his wife read out to him at home the documents that the committee had written or typed as text.
Our mandate was to see if the existing law of 1996 was adequate to implement the NPD. And if it was not, to draft a new Disability Rights Bill. Well, that was how the task was stated, but there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that a new Bill was essential. A new law was needed to ensure the fulfilment of the rights of disabled people.
Preparation for drafting this document required a completely different process. As members, we gathered together all published laws in Sri Lanka that had any relevance to our task. We also gathered together laws that had been made by other countries. Then we sat down to reference these and gather precedent information that we could be used for our draft bill. We also sought the help of many individuals to advise us on sections of the draft.
On completing a preliminary draft, we had the ministry translate it for us into Sinhala and Tamil and opened these to the general public. This preliminary draft was amended with the feedback received. The first draft Disability Rights Bill (2006) was submitted to cabinet for approval as was required at the time. Mrs. J was happy to inform us when approval was received within two weeks.
She asked us whether the committee would continue to help the ministry get the draft through the Legal Draftsman’s Department, which we did with negotiations and simple compromise. We continued to help the Ministry with the next step, which was the Attorney General’s Department.
Here we met our first obstacle. This was the attorney rather junior at the time, tasked with the review and approval of it. We never got it past her. I see that attorney is still in the department, now almost at the top. Well, sad to say, that Bill is still a draft.
Later in 2009, the whole process changed completely. This was when a new Minister came in. He had the bill redrafted by an individual whose name is unknown to this date. Politicisation was in force. Numerous revisions and drafts have been made since then, and the process is even now ongoing. My personal view is that the ministry fears that with a new bill, it will lose control over disabled people and over disability. So, no new Disability Rights Law.
Sad, sad Sri Lanka. Sad for the situation of our disabled people whose rights are yet to be recognised in Law.
Features
Reconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
From the time the search for reconciliation began after the end of the war in 2009 and before the NPP’s victories at the presidential election and the parliamentary election in 2024, there have been four presidents and four governments who variously engaged with the task of reconciliation. From last to first, they were Ranil Wickremesinghe, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa. They had nothing in common between them except they were all different from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his approach to reconciliation.
The four former presidents approached the problem in the top-down direction, whereas AKD is championing the building-up approach – starting from the grassroots and spreading the message and the marches more laterally across communities. Mahinda Rajapaksa had his ‘agents’ among the Tamils and other minorities. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the dummy agent for busybodies among the Sinhalese. Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe operated through the so called accredited representatives of the Tamils, the Muslims and the Malaiayaka (Indian) Tamils. But their operations did nothing for the strengthening of institutions at the provincial and the local levels. No did they bother about reaching out to the people.
As I recounted last week, the first and the only Northern Provincial Council election was held during the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency. That nothing worthwhile came out of that Council was not mainly the fault of Mahinda Rajapaksa. His successors, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister, with the TNA acceding as a partner of their government, cancelled not only the NPC but also all PC elections and indefinitely suspended the functioning of the country’s nine elected provincial councils. Now there are no elected councils, only colonial-style governors and their secretaries.
Hold PC Elections Now
And the PC election can, like so many other inherited rotten cans, is before the NPP government. Is the NPP government going to play footsie with these elections or call them and be done with it? That is the question. Here are the cons and pros as I see them.
By delaying or postponing the PC elections President AKD and the NPP government are setting themselves up to be justifiably seen as following the cynical playbook of the former interim President Ranil Wickremesinghe. What is the point, it will be asked, in subjecting Ranil Wickremesinghe to police harassment over travel expenses while following his playbook in postponing elections?
Come to think of it, no VVIP anywhere can now whine of unfair police arrest after what happened to the disgraced former prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in England on Thursday. Good for the land where habeas corpus and due process were born. The King did not know what was happening to his kid brother, and he was wise enough to pronounce that “the law must take its course.” There is no course for the law in Trump’s America where Epstein spun his webs around rich and famous men and helpless teenage girls. Only cover up. Thanks to his Supreme Court, Trump can claim covering up to be a core function of his presidency, and therefore absolutely immune from prosecution. That is by the way.
Back to Sri Lanka, meddling with elections timing and process was the method of operations of previous governments. The NPP is supposed to change from the old ways and project a new way towards a Clean Sri Lanka built on social and ethical pillars. How does postponing elections square with the project of Clean Sri Lanka? That is the question that the government must be asking itself. The decision to hold PC elections should not be influenced by whether India is not asking for it or if Canada is requesting it.
Apart from it is the right thing do, it is also politically the smart thing to do.
The pros are aplenty for holding PC elections as soon it is practically possible for the Election Commission to hold them. Parliament can and must act to fill any legal loophole. The NPP’s political mojo is in the hustle and bustle of campaigning rather than in the sedentary business of governing. An election campaign will motivate the government to re-energize itself and reconnect with the people to regain momentum for the remainder of its term.
While it will not be possible to repeat the landslide miracle of the 2024 parliamentary election, the government can certainly hope and strive to either maintain or improve on its performance in the local government elections. The government is in a better position to test its chances now, before reaching the halfway mark of its first term in office than where it might be once past that mark.
The NPP can and must draw electoral confidence from the latest (February 2026) results of the Mood of the Nation poll conducted by Verité Research. The government should rate its chances higher than what any and all of the opposition parties would do with theirs. The Mood of the Nation is very positive not only for the NPP government but also about the way the people are thinking about the state of the country and its economy. The government’s approval rating is impressively high at 65% – up from 62% in February 2025 and way up from the lowly 24% that people thought of the Ranil-Rajapaksa government in July 2024. People’s mood is also encouragingly positive about the State of the Economy (57%, up from 35% and 28%); Economic Outlook (64%, up from 55% and 30%); the level of Satisfaction with the direction of the country( 59%, up from 46% and 17%).
These are positively encouraging numbers. Anyone familiar with North America will know that the general level of satisfaction has been abysmally low since the Iraq war and the great economic recession. The sour mood that invariably led to the election of Trump. Now the mood is sourer because of Trump and people in ever increasing numbers are looking for the light at the end of the Trump tunnel. As for Sri Lanka, the country has just come out of the 20-year long Rajapaksa-Ranil tunnel. The NPP represents the post Rajapaksa-Ranil era, and the people seem to be feeling damn good about it.
Of course, the pundits have pooh-poohed the opinion poll results. What else would you expect? You can imagine which twisted way the editorial keypads would have been pounded if the government’s approval rating had come under 50%, even 49.5%. There may have even been calls for the government to step down and get out. But the government has its approval rating at 65% – a level any government anywhere in the Trump-twisted world would be happy to exchange without tariffs. The political mood of the people is not unpalpable. Skeptical pundits and elites will have to only ask their drivers, gardeners and their retinue of domestics as to what they think of AKD, Sajith or Namal. Or they can ride a bus or take the train and check out the mood of fellow passengers. They will find Verité’s numbers are not at all far-fetched.
Confab Threats
The government’s plausible popularity and the opposition’s obvious weaknesses should be good enough reason for the government to have the PC elections sooner than later. A new election campaign will also provide the opportunity not only for the government but also for the opposition parties to push back on the looming threat of bad old communalism making a comeback. As reported last week, a “massive Sangha confab” is to be held at 2:00 PM on Friday, February 20th, at the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress Headquarters in Colombo, purportedly “to address alleged injustices among monks.”
According to a warning quote attributed to one of the organizers, Dambara Amila Thero, “never in the history of Sri Lanka has there been a government—elected by our own votes and the votes of the people—that has targeted and launched such systematic attacks against the entire Sasana as this one.” That is quite a mouthful and worthier practitioners of Buddhism have already criticized this unconvincing claim and its being the premise for a gathering of spuriously disaffected monks. It is not difficult to see the political impetus behind this confab.
The impetus obviously comes from washed up politicians who have tried every slogan from – L-board-economists, to constitutional dictatorship, to save-our children from sex-education fear mongering – to attack the NPP government and its credibility. They have not been able to stick any of that mud on the government. So, the old bandicoots are now trying to bring back the even older bogey of communalism on the pretext that the NPP government has somewhere, somehow, “targeted and launched such systematic attacks against the entire Sasana …”
By using a new election campaign to take on this threat, the government can turn the campaign into a positively educational outreach. That would be consistent with the President’s and the government’s commitment to “rebuild Sri Lanka” on the strength of national unity without allowing “division, racism, or extremism” to undermine unity. A potential election campaign that takes on the confab of extremists will also provide a forum and an opportunity for the opposition parties to let their positions known. There will of course be supporters of the confab monks, but hopefully they will be underwhelming and not overwhelming.
For all their shortcomings, Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa belong to the same younger generation as Anura Kumara Dissanayake and they are unlikely to follow the footsteps of their fathers and fan the flames of communalism and extremism all over again. Campaigning against extremism need not and should not take the form of disparaging and deriding those who might be harbouring extremist views. Instead, the fight against extremism should be inclusive and not exclusive, should be positively educational and appeal to the broadest cross-section of people. That is the only sustainable way to fight extremism and weaken its impacts.
Provincial Councils and Reconciliation
In the framework of grand hopes and simple steps of reconciliation, provincial councils fall somewhere in between. They are part of the grand structure of the constitution but they are also usable instruments for achieving simple and practical goals. Obviously, the Northern Provincial Council assumes special significance in undertaking tasks associated with reconciliation. It is the only jurisdiction in the country where the Sri Lankan Tamils are able to mind their own business through their own representatives. All within an indivisibly united island country.
But people in the north will not be able to do anything unless there is a provincial council election and a newly elected council is established. If the NPP were to win a majority of seats in the next Northern Provincial Council that would be a historic achievement and a validation of its approach to national reconciliation. On the other hand, if the NPP fails to win a majority in the north, it will have the opportunity to demonstrate that it has the maturity to positively collaborate from the centre with a different provincial government in the north.
The Eastern Province is now home to all three ethnic groups and almost in equal proportions. Managing the Eastern Province will an experiential microcosm for managing the rest of the country. The NPP will have the opportunity to prove its mettle here – either as a governing party or as a responsible opposition party. The Central Province and the Badulla District in the Uva Province are where Malaiyaka Tamils have been able to reconstitute their citizenship credentials and exercise their voting rights with some meaningful consequence. For decades, the Malaiyaka Tamils were without voting rights. Now they can vote but there is no Council to vote for in the only province and district they predominantly leave. Is that fair?
In all the other six provinces, with the exception of the Greater Colombo Area in the Western Province and pockets of Muslim concentrations in the South, the Sinhalese predominate, and national politics is seamless with provincial politics. The overlap often leads to questions about the duplication in the PC system. Political duplication between national and provincial party organizations is real but can be avoided. But what is more important to avoid is the functional duplication between the central government in Colombo and the provincial councils. The NPP governments needs to develop a different a toolbox for dealing with the six provincial councils.
Indeed, each province regardless of the ethnic composition, has its own unique characteristics. They have long been ignored and smothered by the central bureaucracy. The provincial council system provides the framework for fostering the unique local characteristics and synthesizing them for national development. There is another dimension that could be of special relevance to the purpose of reconciliation.
And that is in the fostering of institutional partnerships and people to-people contacts between those in the North and East and those in the other Provinces. Linkages could be between schools, and between people in specific activities – such as farming, fishing and factory work. Such connections could be materialized through periodical visits, sharing of occupational challenges and experiences, and sports tournaments and ‘educational modules’ between schools. These interactions could become two-way secular pilgrimages supplementing the age old religious pilgrimages.
Historically, as Benedict Anderson discovered, secular pilgrimages have been an important part of nation building in many societies across the world. Read nation building as reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The NPP government with its grassroots prowess is well positioned to facilitate impactful secular pilgrimages. But for all that, there must be provincial councils elections first.
by Rajan Philips
Features
Barking up the wrong tree
The idiom “Barking up the wrong tree” means pursuing a mistaken line of thought, accusing the wrong person, or looking for solutions in the wrong place. It refers to hounds barking at a tree that their prey has already escaped from. This aptly describes the current misplaced blame for young people’s declining interest in religion, especially Buddhism.
It is a global phenomenon that young people are increasingly disengaged from organized religion, but this shift does not equate to total abandonment, many Gen Z and Millennials opt for individual, non-institutional spirituality over traditional structures. However, the circumstances surrounding Buddhism in Sri Lanka is an oddity compared to what goes on with religions in other countries. For example, the interest in Buddha Dhamma in the Western countries is growing, especially among the educated young. The outpouring of emotions along the 3,700 Km Peace March done by 16 Buddhist monks in USA is only one example.
There are good reasons for Gen Z and Millennials in Sri Lanka to be disinterested in Buddhism, but it is not an easy task for Baby Boomer or Baby Bust generations, those born before 1980, to grasp these bitter truths that cast doubt on tradition. The two most important reasons are: a) Sri Lankan Buddhism has drifted away from what the Buddha taught, and b) The Gen Z and Millennials tend to be more informed and better rational thinkers compared to older generations.
This is truly a tragic situation: what the Buddha taught is an advanced view of reality that is supremely suited for rational analyses, but historical circumstances have deprived the younger generations over centuries from knowing that truth. Those who are concerned about the future of Buddhism must endeavor to understand how we got here and take measures to bridge that information gap instead of trying to find fault with others. Both laity and clergy are victims of historical circumstances; but they have the power to shape the future.
First, it pays to understand how what the Buddha taught, or Dhamma, transformed into 13 plus schools of Buddhism found today. Based on eternal truths he discovered, the Buddha initiated a profound ethical and intellectual movement that fundamentally challenged the established religious, intellectual, and social structures of sixth-century BCE India. His movement represented a shift away from ritualistic, dogmatic, and hierarchical systems (Brahmanism) toward an empirical, self-reliant path focused on ethics, compassion, and liberation from suffering. When Buddhism spread to other countries, it transformed into different forms by absorbing and adopting the beliefs, rituals, and customs indigenous to such land; Buddha did not teach different truths, he taught one truth.
Sri Lankan Buddhism is not any different. There was resistance to the Buddha’s movement from Brahmins during his lifetime, but it intensified after his passing, which was responsible in part for the disappearance of Buddhism from its birthplace. Brahminism existed in Sri Lanka before the arrival of Buddhism, and the transformation of Buddhism under Brahminic influences is undeniable and it continues to date.
This transformation was additionally enabled by the significant challenges encountered by Buddhism during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Wachissara 1961, Mirando 1985). It is sad and difficult to accept, but Buddhism nearly disappeared from the land that committed the Teaching into writing for the first time. During these tough times, with no senior monks to perform ‘upasampada,’ quasi monks who had not been admitted to the order – Ganninanses, maintained the temples. Lacking any understanding of the doctrinal aspects of Buddha’s teaching, they started performing various rituals that Buddha himself rejected (Rahula 1956, Marasinghe 1974, Gombrich 1988, 1997, Obeyesekere 2018).
The agrarian population had no way of knowing or understanding the teachings of the Buddha to realize the difference. They wanted an easy path to salvation, some power to help overcome an illness, protect crops from pests or elements; as a result, the rituals including praying and giving offerings to various deities and spirits, a Brahminic practice that Buddha rejected in no uncertain terms, became established as part of Buddhism.
This incorporation of Brahminic practices was further strengthened by the ascent of Nayakkar princes to the throne of Kandy (1739–1815) who came from the Madurai Nayak dynasty in South India. Even though they converted to Buddhism, they did not have any understanding of the Teaching; they were educated and groomed by Brahminic gurus who opposed Buddhism. However, they had no trouble promoting the beliefs and rituals that were of Brahminic origin and supporting the institution that performed them. By the time British took over, nobody had any doubts that the beliefs, myths, and rituals of the Sinhala people were genuine aspects of Buddha’s teaching. The result is that today, Sri Lankan Buddhists dare doubt the status quo.
The inclusion of Buddhist literary work as historical facts in public education during the late nineteenth century Buddhist revival did not help either. Officially compelling generations of students to believe poetic embellishments as facts gave the impression that Buddhism is a ritualistic practice based on beliefs.
This did not create any conflict in the minds of 19th agrarian society; to them, having any doubts about the tradition was an unthinkable, unforgiving act. However, modernization of society, increased access to information, and promotion of rational thinking changed things. Younger generations have begun to see the futility of current practices and distance themselves from the traditional institution. In fact, they may have never heard of it, but they are following Buddha’s advice to Kalamas, instinctively. They cannot be blamed, instead, their rational thinking must be appreciated and promoted. It is the way the Buddha’s teaching, the eternal truth, is taught and practiced that needs adjustment.
The truths that Buddha discovered are eternal, but they have been interpreted in different ways over two and a half millennia to suit the prevailing status of the society. In this age, when science is considered the standard, the truth must be viewed from that angle. There is nothing wrong or to be afraid of about it for what the Buddha taught is not only highly scientific, but it is also ahead of science in dealing with human mind. It is time to think out of the box, instead of regurgitating exegesis meant for a bygone era.
For example, the Buddhist model of human cognition presented in the formula of Five Aggregates (pancakkhanda) provides solutions to the puzzles that modern neuroscience and philosophers are grappling with. It must be recognized that this formula deals with the way in which human mind gathers and analyzes information, which is the foundation of AI revolution. If the Gen Z and Millennial were introduced to these empirical aspects of Dhamma, they would develop a genuine interest in it. They thrive in that environment. Furthermore, knowing Buddha’s teaching this way has other benefits; they would find solutions to many problems they face today.
Buddha’s teaching is a way to understand nature and the humans place in it. One who understands this can lead a happy and prosperous life. As the Dhammapada verse number 160 states – “One, indeed, is one’s own refuge. Who else could be one’s own refuge?” – such a person does not depend on praying or offering to idols or unknown higher powers for salvation, the Brahminic practice. Therefore, it is time that all involved, clergy and laity, look inwards, and have the crucial discussion on how to educate the next generation if they wish to avoid Sri Lankan Buddhism suffer the same fate it did in India.
by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.
Features
Why does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
The Feminist Collective for Economic Justice (FCEJ) is outraged at the scheme of law proposed by the government titled “Protection of the State from Terrorism Act” (PSTA). The draft law seeks to replace the existing repressive provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 (PTA) with another law of extraordinary powers. We oppose the PSTA for the reason that we stand against repressive laws, normalization of extraordinary executive power and continued militarization. Ruling by fear destroys our societies. It drives inequality, marginalization and corruption.
Our analysis of the draft PSTA is that it is worse than the PTA. It fails to justify why it is necessary in today’s context. The PSTA continues the broad and vague definition of acts of terrorism. It also dangerously expands as threatening activities of ‘encouragement’, ‘publication’ and ‘training’. The draft law proposes broad powers of arrest for the police, introduces powers of arrest to the armed forces and coast guards, and continues to recognize administrative detention. Extremely disappointing is the unjustifiable empowering of the President to make curfew order and to proscribe organizations for indefinite periods of time, the power of the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to declare prohibited places and police officers in the rank of Deputy Inspector Generals are given the power to secure restriction orders affecting movement of citizens. The draft also introduces, knowing full well the context of laws delays, the legal perversion of empowering the Attorney General to suspend prosecution for 20 years on the condition that a suspect agrees to a form of punishment such as public apology, payment of compensation, community service, and rehabilitation. Sri Lanka does not need a law normalizing extraordinary power.
We take this moment to remind our country of the devastation caused to minoritized populations under laws such as the PTA and the continued militarization, surveillance and oppression aided by rapidly growing security legislation. There is very limited space for recovery and reconciliation post war and also barely space for low income working people to aspire to physical, emotional and financial security. The threat posed by even proposing such an oppressive law as the PSTA is an affront to feminist conceptions of human security. Security must be recognized at an individual and community level to have any meaning.
The urgent human security needs in Sri Lanka are undeniable – over 50% of households in the country are in debt, a quarter of the population are living in poverty, over 30% of households experience moderate/severe food insecurity issues, the police receive over 100,000 complaints of domestic violence each year. We are experiencing deepening inequality, growing poverty, assaults on the education and health systems of the country, tightening of the noose of austerity, the continued failure to breathe confidence and trust towards reconciliation, recovery, restitution post war, and a failure to recognize and respond to structural discrimination based on gender, race and class, religion. State security cannot be conceived or discussed without people first being safe, secure, and can hope for paths towards developing their lives without threat, violence and discrimination. One year into power and there has been no significant legislative or policy moves on addressing austerity, rolling back of repressive laws, addressing domestic and other forms of violence against women, violence associated with household debt, equality in the family, equality of representation at all levels, and the continued discrimination of the Malaiyah people.
The draft PSTA tells us that no lessons have been learnt. It tells us that this government intends to continue state tools of repression and maintain militarization. It is hard to lose hope within just a year of a new government coming into power with a significant mandate from the people to change the system, and yet we are here. For women, young people, children and working class citizens in this country everyday is a struggle, everyday is a minefield of threats and discrimination. We do not need another threat in the form of the PSTA. Withdraw the PSTA now!
The Feminist Collective for Economic Justice is a collective of feminist economists, scholars, feminist activists, university students and lawyers that came together in April 2022 to understand, analyze and give voice to policy recommendations based on lived realities in the current economic crisis in Sri Lanka.
Please send your comments to – feministcollectiveforjustice@gmail.com
-
Business7 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features14 hours agoWhy does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
-
Features14 hours agoVictor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
-
Latest News2 days agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Features13 hours agoReconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
-
Latest News2 days agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News2 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction
-
Features7 days agoGiants in our backyard: Why Sri Lanka’s Blue Whales matter to the world



