Midweek Review

Humanity in crisis, will SL accept challenge to build a maritime community with shared future?

Published

3 years ago

2023/10/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

Keynote Speech delivered by

Tamara Kunanayakam

at International Conference on
“Environment, Development and Human Rights:

Marine Ecological Protection in the Process of Modernization”, held in Beijing, China on 26 Sept. 2023.

I’m grateful to the organisers for this opportunity to share my reflections on China’s ambitious project of building a Maritime Community with a Shared Future at a time when international cooperation is indispensable to meet the challenges of an unprecedented systemic crisis of epic proportions that is threatening all of humanity.

I feel particularly concerned coming as I do from a strategically located island on the Indian Ocean – Sri Lanka – that has had to pay a heavy price for resisting pressures to become a camp-follower of an increasingly aggressive global hegemon (the US) in decline. External interference in our internal affairs, unilateral sanctions, political destabilisation, selective targeting at the UN Human Rights Council, and a long, foreign-backed separatist war has been our lot for the past four decades.

We are in an emergency. It is time we address the crisis of humanity at its root. Identifying responsibility is no longer an option, it is a necessity, because political decisions are never neutral. They reflect a certain vision of society and of the world – and where visions are irreconcilable, choices must be made – and assumed!

Mine will be a right to development approach – multidimensional and systemic, an alternative approach which rejects the notion that Western civilisation defines progress and development and calls for a development strategy in which the people are the central subjects of development not objects, the driving force and architects of their destiny. There is no single model; it cannot be imposed from the outside. The 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development calls for a development that is based on social justice and equality and not on markets, nor profits, nor growth, a development in which social progress is achieved not through competition, but through solidarity and cooperation. The right to development approach seeks to tackle the causes of inequality and injustices at its root, identifying them, then eliminating them, as a pre-condition for achieving development for all people without discrimination.

At the root of the crisis that manifests itself in various forms – economic, social, political, environmental, geopolitical, including at the heart of the capitalist West, is the dominant economic model, Capitalism, and the global order based on US hegemony, whose purpose is to break down national barriers to capital’s expansion in search of profit. Sovereignty is the principal enemy of capitalism and of US hegemony – hence, the importance of addressing the security challenge and guaranteeing maritime peace for marine ecological protection to be effective. The defence of sovereignty – and its inherent right to territorial integrity – also happens to be the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter-based international order, without which cooperation between sovereign States indispensable to resolving problems with global ramifications would be impossible.

Any discussion on building a Community with a Shared Future cannot, therefore, ignore the interrelationship between (a) the dominant economic system – Capitalism; (b) US hegemony and military force – they go hand in hand; (c) maritime security; and (d) the environmental challenge. The global expansion of Capital is always accompanied by an ideology to legitimise unhindered expansion and the use of unilateral coercive measures, including IMF/World Bank conditionalities, sanctions, and the threat or use of military force.

Tamara delievering keynote address

Regarding the maritime challenge, how does the unilateral vision of the United States and its vassals, the United Kingdom and France in particular, manifest itself?

America’s so-called “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” military strategy that is being played out in the South China Sea, the nebulous “rules-based order” that it seeks to impose, and the domination of the ocean’s valuable seabed resources by the free-market ideology represent the principal threat to building a Maritime Community with a Shared Future.

I will address each of these separately:

(a) “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” military strategy

The Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy is no different from the logic that propelled Western colonial expansion. It is a military strategy whose objective is to combat China, grab the oceans valuable resources on behalf of a tiny oligarchy, and nullify the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Seas that restricts its domination.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas had imposed certain restrictions on the freedom of the dominant Western maritime powers to freely roam the seas. A compromise reached between these powers and developing countries had significantly reduced the area of the ocean they had once dominated using the unlimited 17th Century Freedom of the Seas policy. It also increased the spaces under national jurisdiction of coastal States. The territorial sea under the sovereignty of the coastal State was expanded from 3 to 12 nautical miles, and a new 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was created over which the coastal State enjoyed sovereign rights and jurisdiction. The areas beyond national jurisdiction were confined to the high seas, with a new “freedom of the high seas” policy introducing restrictions on its use, including provisions that they be reserved for peaceful purposes.

It is no coincidence that Obama’s November 2011 pivot to the Asia-Pacific saw China as the principal threat at a time Western capitalism was grappling with the 2008 Great Recession, and US hegemony was being challenged by newly emerging powers, among whom China and its strategic partners, played an important role. Already then, the superiority of Chinese socialism and its ability to meet the needs of humanity was becoming evident.

The Free and Open Indo Pacific is a sinister networked security system designed to dominate two distinct oceans and continents – along with their airspace, cyberspace, and valuable marine resources. The former US Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger described the Indo Pacific as an area reaching from “California to Kilimanjaro”. In other words, an area covering the entire expanse of land and waters – from the Western Pacific coast of the United States, through the South China Sea and across the Indian Ocean to the Eastern Coast of Africa, Western Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East!

(b) The ‘rules-based order’

In July 2010, the Obama Administration declared as a national interest priority the so-called ‘Freedom of Navigation operations’ by American warships and military aircraft in the South China Sea. They were part of a fait accompli strategy to nullify UNCLOS and impose a nebulous “rules-based order” by forcibly penetrating the territorial seas and Exclusive Economic Zones of coastal States that set restrictions on the military use of seas under their jurisdiction. In the case of territorial seas, over which the coastal state has sovereignty, Washington cynically claims that the UNCLOS provision permitting “innocent passage” applies also to warships, not only to commercial vessels. In the case of Exclusive Economic Zones, it rejects the sovereign rights and national jurisdiction accorded to coastal States, referring to them as “international waters” to which unlimited “freedom of the seas” apply. It should be noted that the terms “international waters” and “freedom of the seas,” both exist only in US military documents, and not in any international law.

As for the facilitation of corporate plunder of the ocean’s valuable seabed resources, the United States and its Western allies cynically manoeuvred during the UN Law of the Sea negotiations to obtain corporate control over the area of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, recognised as Common Heritage of Mankind. During negotiations on deep ocean mining in the area, developing countries had argued in favour of a multilateral International Seabed Authority with a monopoly to exploit seabed resources. They were against a free-market model that would reduce the value of seabed resources to free-market prices, measure efficiency in terms of competition and commercial viability, and be based on decisions taken on technical considerations, rather than on political judgement. The West, on the other hand, had insisted on commercial viability and incentives to private corporations, equating free-market with “freedom of the seas”. To resolve the conflict, the United States proposed a compromise ‘parallel system’ permitting both models to function simultaneously. However, having cornered developing countries into agreeing to the parallel system, the US and its Western allies rolled back the concessions on which the parallel system had been secured. And, once rolled back, the US rejected the already reduced regime, and refused to sign the Treaty.

The outcome of the betrayal was an Implementing Agreement on the commercial model, with the monopoly Enterprise postponed until it could function without subsidies – which means, never – or at least not until we have a just and new international order! This Agreement could have far-reaching consequences for future legal agreements on such important issues as technology transfer and the uses of outer space.

How do you negotiate with an opponent whose history is a history of duplicity and betrayal?

Conclusion

Given the formidable obstacles in our way, how do we move forward toward building a maritime community with a shared future?

We can no longer satisfy ourselves with piecemeal approaches that, if at all, address only the consequences, and even then, only partially or temporarily. The situation demands that we rise to the occasion, identify the causes with all honesty, analyse the situation with lucidity, and take actions that are courageous.

It is clear that capitalism, driven by the profit motive, is incapable of meeting the needs and aspirations of the majority of the world’s people, and the ability of our earth to sustain life. It is clear that US hegemony, its facilitator and protector, whose vision is a unilateral world order based on the ideology of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, stands opposed to UN Charter-based multilateralism and the urgent need for international cooperation, founded on respect for the principle of sovereignty and sovereign equality of States. Capitalism and US hegemony constitute the principal obstacle to development, peace, human rights, and life on Earth.

What is needed is the political will to clarify concepts, engage in a battle of ideas, make choices, and translate words into concrete action. Ultimately, however, it is the balance of forces that will determine which interpretation of concepts will prevail, which ideas take root, and how and what form actions will take.

In the midst of the crisis, and the intensification of geopolitical conflicts, and wars, including NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, we are already witnessing that shift in the balance of forces – the emergence of a new multipolar world order under the impetus of China, which is advancing a vision of a new kind of cooperation in which there are no losers, only winners. We are also seeing an acceleration in emancipatory processes, such as de-dollarisation, the expansion of BRICS, and, the success of the Belt and Road Initiative which will celebrate its 10th Anniversary soon, and which involves more than 150 countries and more than 30 international organisations, affecting more than 60% of the world’s population and approximately 35% of the global economy. We are also seeing a new wave of movements seeking liberation from insidious forms of alien domination and control, such as is taking place in the Sahel.

With social and political upheaval affecting the capitalist world, the single most important threat to the order based on Western values and institutional models has become China’s socialism, which has succeeded in achieving what has been described as the 21st century miracle – the elimination of extreme poverty in 2020, bringing 800 million people out of poverty.

In comparison, poverty has continued to grow in the wealthiest parts of the capitalist world. In the United States, according to official figures, poverty rose 4.6% in 2022, and child poverty more than doubled, rising 7.2%. According to Oxfam, in this wealthiest country in the world, nearly 40 million people (11%) live in poverty. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that every year, hundreds of children die or are left severely injured in emergency rooms across America, with only about 14% certified as ready to treat children. Europe has also seen an alarming increase in the number of children and families living in poverty. According to an IMF report, the number of children suffering from poverty in the EU increased in 2020 by 19%, or close to 1 million. In Germany, one of the richest countries of the world, the number of Germans living in extreme poverty in 2019 even increased by 40% to reach 11,1% of the total population. 13.8 million Germans either live in poverty or are at risk of slipping below the poverty line. In France, according to Oxfam, at least 17% of the population live below the monetary poverty line (food and energy).

Even the World Bank has admitted that China has become the greatest contributor to poverty alleviation in the global context. According to its 2022 figures, China has contributed to approximately three quarters of the global reduction in poverty.

What shape the emerging new world order will take is yet to be determined. International legal instruments that can give sense to collective action for radical change already exist – among them, the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development.

A few days from now, we will be commemorating the 74th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. At 3 pm on October 1, 1949, in his proclamation address, Chairman Mao Zedong declared : “We, the 475 million Chinese people, have now stood up and the future of our nation is infinitely bright”. During our visit this weekend to Qingdao, we witnessed for ourselves the spectacular achievements of the people of China, and were struck by the trust your founding Leader had in his people.

As we return to our respective countries tomorrow, we will take back with us the inspiring image of a people with a humane vision and the commitment to building a Maritime Community with a Shared Future. It is up to us now to ensure that the balance of forces shifts in favour of humanity! As Sun-Tzu remarked in the Art of War, “Never venture, never win”.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Capitalism Humanity in crisis

Up Next

Sirisena, SLFP enmeshed in Easter Sunday fallout

Don't Miss

Pillar of Hope

Click to comment

Midweek Review

Overall SLPP failures stressed in new Aragalaya narrative

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa receives a copy of Mohan Samaranayake's ‘Regime Change project 2022’ at its launch held at Sri Lanka Foundation recently.

The US has been complicit in the 9 July 2022 assault on the President’s House. A new book, on the regime change project, by renowned political commentator Mohan Samaranayake, examined the then US Ambassador Julie Chung’s role in the operation. Referring to her twitter messages before the final assault, the author pointed out how she warned the government and the military against the advance on the President’s House while reassuring protection for the attacking party.

Throughout the March 31-July 14, 2022 period, Chung blatantly intervened in the government’s response, thereby preventing tangible action being taken to neutralise the growing threat.

Bringing up claims regarding Chung/ Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay putting pressure on Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to accept the presidency, Samaranayake declared that only Abeywardena could clear the continuing controversy regarding the intervention made by an envoy. Regardless of who visited the Speaker, at his official residenc, as the JVP-led crowds prepared to bring Parliament under their control on 13 May, 2022, what we should keep in mind is that it was a joint US-Indian project. Who definitely met the then Speaker, followed by a delegation consisting of Buddhist and Catholic clergy and civil society, who, too, echoed the foreign instigated agenda, is irrelevant.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Political and foreign affairs commentator Mohan Samaranayake meticulously deals with the overthrowing of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2022, in a manner that exposed the failure on the part of the then ruling party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), to recognise the US-Indian plot that was in the making no sooner he assumed office as the President, or even before that. Samaranayake also discusses the pathetic police and armed forces response to the threat (Chapter 7).

Samaranayake dealt with the possibility of at least a section of the Cabinet-of-Ministers, unwittingly contributing to the overall strategy meant to undercut the government and isolate the President.

‘Regime Change project 2022’, authored by one-time UN public communications staffer, at its Colombo office, who also held several government appointments over a period of time, including under Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure, found fault with Ministers Dullas Alahaperuma and Udaya Gammanpila, leader of the SLPP constituent, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya.

Samaranayake shed light on a frightening situation, within the ruling party, that lacked at least a basic plan of action, struggling to cope up with internal strife. He singled out the Basil Rajapaksa-led group as the worst of the offenders. Samaranayake is spot on. The author quite rightly declared that the triumph of the regime change project was nothing but the disintegration of the nationalistic group, within the ruling bloc. Unfortunately, the SLPP seemed to have failed to realise the gravity of that situation.

Pointing out that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa hadn’t been the leader of the ruling party, in one line, the author emphasised how the authoritarian conduct of the Basil Rajapaksa–led section of the parliamentary group caused rapid deterioration. The SLPP secured a near 2/3 majority at the 2020 parliamentary election. Formed in 2016, the SLPP, having won 18 electoral districts, bagged 145 seats. Basil Rajapaksa’s group didn’t tolerate dissent. That group slammed Wimal Weerawansa when he urged the SLFP to create an influential position for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa who ended up sacking Weerawansa and Gammanpila for some other mattter. The author criticised the President’s action.

It would be interesting to ascertain how the conspirators exploited the discord, within the ruling party, as they advanced the anti-Gotabaya strategy. Samaranayake, like others who authored books on overthrowing President Rajapaksa, acknowledged that the economic fallout, caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine, facilitated the operation.

The leader of Jathika Nidahas Peramuna, Wimal Weerawansa, was the first to release a book on the regime change project. “Nine: The Hidden Story,’’ launched in April 2023, caused quite a controversy over claims of direct US intervention. Then US Ambassador Julie Chung denied Weerawansa’s revelation that she asked Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to take over the presidency, regardless of constitutional impediments. Later the then Speaker’s indirect admission of what transpired proved much of Weerawansa’s assertions, though there is till controversy over the identity of the envoy who visited the Speaker at his official residence on 13 July, 2022. Remember the old adage that ambassadors are there to lie abroad for their country.

Weerawansa was followed by the much-respected writer, Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: Systems Change or Anarchy), ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (The Conspiracy to Oust Me from the Presidency), Maj. Gen. K. B. Egodawela who served on President Rajapaksa’s staff (Aragalaya: From Love to Violence), President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s media chief Prof. Sunanada Madduma Bandara (Aragalaye Balaya), Treasury Secretary Mahinda Siriwardana (Sri Lanka’s Economic Revival – Reflection on the Journey from Crisis to Recovery), and expert current affairs commentator Asanga Abeygunasekera (Winds of Change).

However, Samaranayake obviously has paid extra attention to the SLPP’s inner shortcomings that contributed to the overall success of the regime change operation. At the tail end of the first chapter, Samaranayake raised a spate of questions regarding the terrifying possibility of inside help that enabled the conspirators to carry out the regime change operation. Samaranayake asked whether those within the government caused economic deterioration deliberately, in support of the move against the President.

Referring to economic indicators and comparing the official figures, the author stressed the deterioration of the national economy during the Yahapalana administration (2015 to 2019) contributed to the economic collapse, like borrowing as much as USD12 billion by Wickremesinghe’s regime at high interests, however all that was conveniently put on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa by convenient critics leaving out elements of truth disadvantageous to their agenda. Propagation of false and politically motivated narratives, according to Samaranayake, seemed to have overwhelmed the President and his sharply divided parliamentary group.

On the basis of a disclosure made by the ex-President, Samaranayake highlighted how a far reaching decision to unilaterally suspend debt repayment was taken even without consulting the President.

Swiss Embassy affair

Samaranayake, who served as the Director General of President Gotabaya Rajapaksas’s Media Division, examined the regime change operation, taking into consideration what was dubbed as the Swiss Embassy affair, at the onset of his administration. Having acknowledged President Rajapaksa thwarted a diabolical Swiss plot to tarnish his government, using local Embassy employee Ganiya Bannister Francis (Siriyalatha Perera is her original name/She now lives abroad) from discrediting Sri Lanka, the author asserted that the SLPP’s failure to take the then Swiss Ambassador Hanspeter Mock to task for false flag operation influenced those who planned the regime change to go ahead.

The SLPP should reexamine its response to the Swiss Embassy affair. Perhaps, Sri Lanka should revisit the incident, particularly against the backdrop of accusations that Hanspeter Mock pursued an utterly contemptible agenda targeting Sri Lanka. Among the incidents cited was the Ambassador facilitating Chief Inspector Nishantha de Silva of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) leaving the country without government authorisation.

Samaranayake’s assertion that the 2022 colour revolution was an extension of the 2015 regime change operation seems controversial to some people, though the writer believes the first such project was mounted in the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s triumph over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The US backed UNP-JVP-TNA project to field war-winning Army Commander Sarath Fonseka as the common presidential candidate against incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa that exposed the US hand. There cannot be any dispute over that.

The seriousness of Samaranayake’s allegation that ex-parliamentarian Hirunika Premachandra (SJB), on behalf of the regime change operation, tested President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s defences during protest conducted outside the President’s private residence at Pangiriwatta, Mirihana, on 5 March, 2022. The issue at hand is whether the SJB authorised Hirunika’s actions at Pangiriwatta. But, Samaranayake’s criticism of the President and the armed forces, as well as the intelligence services, for failing to take tangible measures against the growing and deepening regime change threat. The author went to the extent of describing them as ,silent onlookers. The accusation that the President refused to believe that he was the target of the regime change operation underscored the SLPP’s pathetic response to the threat.

Samaranayake painted a bleak picture of the situation by quoting Egodawela, who served the Army, like Gotabaya, as having asserted that the March 31, 2022 violent protest was meant to assassinate President Rajapaksa. In post-Aragalaya examination of events/developments, Samaranayake blamed the police and armed forces for not neutralising gangs that unleashed violence in the aftermath of the attack on the Galle Face protesters, on 9 May, 2022. But, unfortunately, Samaranayake failed to pay sufficient attention to the failure on the part of the police and the armed forces to prevent Temple Trees mounting the first attack. There is no doubt that Temple Trees ordered the attack in a desperate bid to break the siege on the Presidential Secretariat, contrary to the instructions issued by President Gotabaya.

Samaranayake, who studied the situation, leading to the overthrowing of President Gotabaya, March 31 to July 14, 2022, period, and subsequent developments for nearly two years, emphasised the alleged bid to kill the President, and several others, and display their bodies on 9 July, 2022, following the storming of the President’s House. Based on social media posts, the author made the shocking claim that a private local and a foreign television channel had been there to telecast the displaying of bodies.

Perhaps, the plot could have succeeded if not for the timely intervention made by the then Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugettenne, who deployed SLNS Gajabahu to move the President and First Lady Anoma, who received the appreciation of all for being humble.

Ranil’s role and Yahapalana fault

Wickremesinghe played a crucial role in the project to oust President Rajapaksa. That is the undeniable truth. Beleaguered Gotabaya’s decision to accommodate Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister, in April 2022, and then elevate him as the President, wouldn’t change the ugly truth. The author didn’t mince his words when he explained the swift collapse of the externally backed operation, soon after Gotabaya’s ouster. Those who funded the regime change project, lawyers/BASL involved in it and men and women who pursued political and religious agendas, according to the author, felt satisfied when Gotabaya stepped down. “They knew when to halt the campaign,” declared Samaranayake whose criticism of the President and the SLPP should attract their attention.

Samaranayake asserted that Wickremesinghe’s readiness to swiftly deploy the military and police to chase away those who remained outside the Presidential Secretariat, and other places, too, after Gotabaya’s ouster, contributed to the normalisation of the situation.

Having provided muscle to the protest campaign at the beginning, the UNP and the SJB cannot, under any circumstances, absolve themselves of the responsibility for the violence unleashed by organised gangs. Samaranayake’s clear stand that such violence cannot be justified, on the basis of Temple Trees allowing some staunch supporters to attack the Galle Face protesters out of sheer desperation, should be commended. SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, who sought political mileage out of the rapidly developing situation on 9 May, 2022, following the attack on the Galle Face protesters, was nearly killed when he visited the protest site. If not for the quick response of his bodyguards, Aragalaya activists could have captured him and other SJB lawmakers. Had that happened, the result could have been catastrophic.

One of the most controversial claims made by the author was the Chinese involvement in the regime change project. Although allegations and claims pertaining to the US, European and Indian interventions are in the public domain, the alleged direct Chinese involvement is a matter of grave concern. The author, without hesitation, named China and Russia in a group that included the US, the UK, EU, Japan and India hell-bent on achieving their political, economic and military objectives at the expense of other countries. Citing Sri Lanka as a case in point, the author methodically discussed post-Second WW regime change operations elsewhere while paying attention to the US-China conflict that undermined Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

Samaranayake mentioned the US backing for retired General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election, less than a year after the eradication of the LTTE as an instance that proved the US determination to achieve its objectives at any cost. Had the author been aware Fonseka was categorised alongside the Rajapaksa brothers as war criminals. It is like the way US treats ISIS as good terrorists and bad terrorist depending on whom they back. WikiLeaks released the then US Ambassador Patricia Butenis’s classified missive to Washington in addition to a spate of other documents which revealed directed US involvement in selecting Fonseka as the common candidate.

Samaranayake squarely differed with those who build their narratives on the basis of the actions of the then US Ambassador Julie Chung (2022 to January 2026) and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland (2021 to 2024). Samaranayake is quite right in his assessment that, like many other US officials, the likes of Chung and Nuland were only tools to achieve overall US objectives. In the case of hapless Sri Lanka, the US strategy was/ is meant to ensure that Colombo remained aligned with the Indo-Pacific doctrine regardless of political changes. The way the US and its partner in crime India embraced and propped up JVP/NPP and again reiterated their approach.

An Act like no other

Samaranayake didn’t even bother to mention Siriwardena’s book that dealt with the developments, essentially with focus on economics leading to President Gotabaya’s ouster. Similarly, there hadn’t been a reference to ‘Winds of Change.’ (https://island.lk/aragalaya-gr-blames-cia-in-asanga-abeyagoonasekeras-explosive-narrative/)

Let me briefly discuss a major difference between Samaranayake’s take on economic crisis and that of Siriwardena who confidently asserted that Gotabaya’s presidency could have been saved if the government secured IMF loan facility. ( https://island.lk/aragalaya-could-have-been-thwarted-and-grs-presidency-saved-mahinda-siriwardana/)

According to Samaranayake’s narrative, the sudden suspension of debt repayment scheme even without consulting President Gotabaya had been a calculated move to entrap Sri Lanka in IMF strategy.

It would be pertinent to mention that President Wickremesinghe, in July, 2024, managed to adopt the Economic Transformation Act without a vote, in line with the overall IMF/other lending agencies’ strategy to ensure Sri Lanka remained aligned with the IMF, regardless of political changes. Having opposed the IMF outwardly over the years, the JVP/NPP pledged its allegiance to the IMF, without any hesitation, once installed in power at the expense of its purported original principles. There had never been such an Act that forbade political parties of pursuing policies contrary to specific IMF dictates.

Samaranayake explained how the JVP/NPP completely changed its approach in the wake of the 2024 national elections. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who, in his capacity as the leader of the JVP, as well as its parliamentary group, in 2015 October, lashed out in Parliament against unbridled activities of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Jaffna. In April 2025 President Dissanayake entered into seven vital MoUs with Premier Modi. One dealt with defence, and a few months later Sri Lanka allowed Japan to sell controlling interests in the strategic ship builder Colombo Dockyard Limited (CDL), once carefully nursed by late National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali who was assassinated by the LTTE, to Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) affiliated with the Indian Ministry of Defence.

The way Sri Lanka succumbed to Western powers and India and ended up in their domain, therefore, as Samaranayake predicted, there may never be a comprehensive investigation into the despicable regime change operation. Alleging that Wickremesinghe conveniently allowed those responsible at all levels, including the military and police to go scot-free, the author asserted that Dissanayake, a key beneficiary of that operation, too, may never intervene.

Premier Modi, who sort of gave his blessings to the despicable decapitating operation against Iran, by visiting Tel Aviv, should realise that he is no darling of the West and he, too, will be stabbed in the back as these evil pale faces have done to others if they suspect that his country might be a future threat, both militarily and economically, to them. The US denied visa to Modi in March 2005. The State Department acted in terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing Modi’s alleged responsibility for “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” related to the 2002 Gujarat violence.

Referring to various uprisings and revolutions that shaped the world over the past several centuries and those who propagated lies as they advanced frightening strategy here, the author confidently asserted that the vast majority didn’t realise that they were being used in a high profile regime change project.

Samaranayake’s narrative is a must read, as it is a no holds barred examination of available facts, sometimes ignored by political parties, the judiciary and the media. Having read all books that dealt with regime change projects, except the one by Maj. Gen. Egodawella, the writer is of the view that Samaranayake went to extraordinary lengths to educate the people of the challenges faced by post-war Sri Lanka.

The challenge to the country’s unitary status seems to be growing in the absence of a cohesive strategy regardless of political interests to safeguard national interests. The situation seems so bad and further deteriorating rapidly, the 17tth anniversary of armed forces triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism appears to be irrelevant. Let us hope Samaranayake’s thought-provoking narrative receives public attention and influences the decision-makers to change their direction.

In fact, there had never been such a comprehensive examination of regime change operation, taking into consideration a wide-range of facts/issues to prove the US dominance here, though China still runs many critically important projects. Unassuming Samaranayake, like Thoradeniya, remain among a small group of people who had the strength and courage to tell the truth.

Midweek Review

Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – part iii

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sirancee Gunawardena, the author of ‘Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka ‘(1977) met J. Pannila of Artigala south, Hanwella when she was researching palm leaf manuscripts. He was then a village elder and was the descendant of a long line of palm leaf manuscript writers.

Pannila had told Sirancee how the palm leaf is prepared as writing material and she has reproduced the information in her book. It is possible to infer from the knowledge shown by Pannila that palm leaf manuscripts writers were also trained in preparing the palm leaf, and in preserving the manuscript as well as writing on it. I think there may have been others who lacked the skill of writing, but who knew to prepare the item and to preserve it.

In Sri Lanka palm leaf manuscripts were made out of the young fronds of the Talipot palm. Talipot was able to resist the tropical climate of Sri Lanka. Pannila said, before the leaf bud opens, rings of bamboo are put 18 inches apart round the main leaf (sic). After 21 days, the branch is cut and brought down carefully, from the crown of the tree which is usually about 60 feet above ground. The mid rib of each leaf is cut off and the leaves become flexible strips.

The leaves are wound up into rolls. These are put into a large clay pot, with layers of pineapple leaves in between. Pot is filled with water and Kappetiya branches are placed on top, the vessels is sealed with a cloth and heated over a fire. The palm leaves were considered sufficiently boiled when the leaves of the Kappetiya fell off. The rolls were then taken out and washed.

The leaves were polished by rubbing them against a rounded pole of Walla wood, till the strips became flat. They were hung on a coir rope, like a clothes line, and kept outdoors for a week or so, get a fine polished texture. They were now ready for writing. The leaf strip was placed on a piece of soft wood and held in the left hand for writing with the right hand.

Writing was done with the Panhinda. This stylus had a steel tipped quill. The end of the quill was like that of an arrow, both sides were sharp and the edge was pointed to obtain sharp outlines. There were different sized quills. Some broader than others. Sharp, small size stylus was used for drawings. Sirancee owned two stylus, one long stylus with an ornate fan shaped top and another with two decorative metal globules.

The ordinary stylus was traditionally hand made by the village blacksmith. But there were elaborate ones with ornate gold, metal, ivory or carved wooden handles. The gold stylus was made of pure gold except for the stylus which was of steel. The gold stylus was a symbol of prestige. The Ananda Coomaraswamy collection has a golden stylus with royal ensign ‘SrI’. It is said to have been originally given by King Narendrasinha to Alagaboda Nilame.

The stylus was treated with respect. Sirancee pointed out that the Maha Lekammitiya and stylus were carried in the Dalada temple procession in the Esala perahera. The Matale Mahadivase Kadainmpota said “Niharepola Alahakoon Mohottala was appointed lekam of Tunkorale and received the ran Panhinda and flag”.

Inscribing a palm leaf was a skilled task. A scribe had to go through a long period of training before he was allowed to write on ola. Only very experienced writers were allowed to inscribe a major work. The handwriting in a manuscript therefore was very beautiful and were works of art, said Sirancee. Letters were uniform and evenly spaced. Palm leaf drawings were fine line drawings, which required great skill. Circles and shapes were drawn free hand.

The manuscript usually starts with the auspicious word ‘Svasti’, with the latter ‘ka’ below it. The text commenced with traditional salute to the Buddha and ended with a colophon which gave the name of the author and promoter and some times the scribe and the date. But most authors were anonymous.

Palm leaf manuscripts were numbered starting from the Sinhala letter Ka according to the Sinhala alphabet. words were written from left to right. There are no punctuation marks and no spaces between words. There were margins and a symbol to demarcate paragraphs. Most manuscripts only had text, but there were many with illustrations.

The words scratched on the ola had to be made visible. Inking was a special art. The process was called Kalumadima. The palm leaf was rubbed with a soft cloth dipped in Dummala oil and powdered charcoal obtained from the Godama tree. The surface of the leaf was then cleaned with rice bran (Dahaiyya).

The dummala used was a resin derived from a fossilised root of a plant called Hal ((vateria acuminata). It was dug out from paddy fields and river beds, on the two auspicious days, Wednesdays and Saturday. The dummala was distilled in an earthen pot with the outside coated in cow dung and clay. The distilling was done between 6 pm and 2 am in the garden. Ten pounds of Dummala produced about 2 bottles of oil.

When palm leaves were gathered together to form a single text, they resembled books. The manuscripts seen by Sirancee averaged 60-65 folios, but there were many which were larger. One manuscript had 311 folios.

Creating this ‘book’ was also a special process. The leaves were cut into the required size, usually two inches wide and between 8 and 18 inches in length. The inscribed leaves were placed one under the other. Holes were punched with a hot rod, and a cord passed through. The punching of holes was done according to rules given as verse. Fold the leaf into three then into four and make the holes in between the creases at the two ends. One manuscript seen by Sirancee was stitched together and opened like an accordion.

Folios were placed between two covers known as Kamba. Most manuscripts had wooden covers, of ebony, jak, milla, calamander and other hard woods. The covers were decorated in lac with flower designs, such as Jasmin, kadupul, lotus, liya wela,creepers,. Some were decorated with geometric designs, or rope design. Some had ivory inlay, others had contrasting wood in marquetry, tortoise shell was also used. One manuscript had ebony cover inlaid with ivory. the button was of tortoise shell. At Katarangala in Halloluwa they found a pirit pota with covers in dainty design.

Highly venerated manuscripts such as those on Buddhism had covers of ivory or silver, and were decorated with gem stones. These are kept safely. Malwatte temple had a palm leaf manuscript on Abhidamma written in Sinhala, with ivory covers, a border of rubies and blue sapphires and a design of flowers set in gold. Malwatte had another manuscript, with cover in silver and gold and a floral design richly encrusted with white sapphires and zircons. Hanguranketa temple had a manuscript with gem studded covers. Pelmadulla Raja maha vihara also had a manuscript with carved ivory cover. Several other manuscripts had gem studded covers. National Museum library had a manuscript on Abhidamma with an ornamented cover in brass. SWRD Bandaranaike collection had a manuscript with silver cover and gems.

The formula for making oil for preserving manuscripts is a heavily guarded secret, said Sirancee. Pannila had a secret formula which was handed down generation to generation and was known only to a few families. Pannila gave Sirancee the formula in appreciation of her interest in the subject. Sirancee has gven the formula and method, with photographs, in her book on pages 38-40.

Pannila had been commissioned by the National Museum library to apply his secret oil to the palm leaf manuscripts which needed preserving. He was also invited to temple libraries and to the Institute of Indigenous medicine at Rajagiriya to clean and restore their manuscripts.

Sirancee stated that palm leaf manuscripts stored on wooden shelves did not deteriorate despite the humid climate. Manuscripts kept in pettagama tended to disintegrate, she said. But Nagolle Raja Maha vihara was a well-known exception. The olas stored in its pettagama remain well preserved.

The National Library of Sri Lanka has a Preservation and Conservation Centre (PAC) which pays special attention to palm leaf manuscripts. The IFLA PAC Centre was inaugurated on 5^th August 2015. The Centre produces “Panhida Herbal Oil”for the conservation of palm leaf manuscripts.

Udaya Cabral, who heads the PAC, with M Ravikumar, and T Ramanan presented a paper titled Developing a strategic program for safeguarding palm-leaf manuscripts in Sri Lanka at IFLA Conference, 2018.In 2021 the National Library issued a report on best practices for the conservation of Palm-Leaf Manuscripts, prepared by Udaya Cabral and R.M Nadeeka Rathnabahu.

Cabraal and Ratnabahu said that a palm leaf manuscript around 200 years old located in National Library of Sri Lanka, regularly treated by Dummala herbal oil was examined under microscope. They found that the traditional oil was not completely effective, some fungus still remained. PAC recommended that after treatment with Dummala oil, the manuscripts be kept in a specially designed ‘fume cupboard ‘made out of neem wood, with a cube of Thymol placed at the bottom.

In my view, it is only in recent times, that ola manuscripts are treated as archival material, to be preserved somehow. My guess is that in ancient times, the original manuscript was kept as long as possible but a copy was made when it was clear that the original was going to perish. This was repeated over and over again. That is how the Mahavamsa came to us. ( continued)

REFERENCES

Sirancee Gunawardana Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka. 1977 p 14–, 33-. 132, 134, 248-251, 254, 25

https://www.ifla.org/news/pac-sri-lanka-publishes-a-new-report-on-best-practices-for-the-conservation-of-palm-leaf-manuscripts/

http://library.ifla.org/2266/1/124-cabral-en.pdf

https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/files/assets/pac/Documents/pac_sri_lanka_report_best_practices_for_conservation_of_palm-leaf_manuscripts_.pdf

BY KAMALIKA PIERIS