Features
IMF programme: Is there a way out?

by Garvin Karunaratne
The Sri Lankan government is finding it hard to fulfil the regulations agreed upon with the IMF in the Houses of Parliament on April 28, 2023. However, there was no other option but to agree. According to Professor Vasanta Atukorale, the increases in taxes amount to a staggering 441%. The IMF’s experts fail to understand that implementing these regulations will cause untold hardships to the public and may even lead to a severe recession. Perhaps, this is the ulterior motive of the IMF.
Sri Lanka was not a dollar in foreign debt in 1977. From 1948 to 1977, the country made strides in development, opening up land, colonisation schemes for people, building tanks, developing agriculture and industries, and implementing welfare measures. The country became self-sufficient in paddy production, its staple crop, and produced all its textiles. This development effort involved agricultural marketing, agricultural extension, small industry, and district administration. The golden era of Premier Dudley Senanayake’s rule, lasting 29 years, was where the people enjoyed freedom and development.
The IMF abolished many development programmes in 1978. The problem began with the Structural Adjustment Programme imposed on Sri Lanka by the IMF when President J. R. Jayewardene sought assistance from the IMF, which gave loans freely on condition that Sri Lanka follow neoliberal economics and allowed the rich to spend foreign funds that the country had obtained as loans. This led to foreign debt. Worse still, President Jayewardene and his Minister of Finance Ronnie de Mel were made to believe that this path would lead to development.
In 1978, the IMF even gave grace periods, when Sri Lanka did not need to pay the interest and repayment instalments on loans so that the leaders would not be burdened with the repayment. The burden was shifted to future leaders.
Many specialists have proposed alternative ways of dealing with the current crisis. The World Bank Country Director Fariz Hadad Zerous has said that the current crisis is not a temporary liquidity shock but the result of longstanding structural weaknesses, poor governance, and a public debt that is unsustainable. However, the World Bank Country Director needs to be told that it was the IMF itself that is to blame for taking Sri Lanka on this path of living on loans.
From Independence in 1948 to 1977, Sri Lanka’s development was done through various development programmes that involved people in production aimed at self-reliance. The IMF abolished all the developmental departmental activities and confined the administrators to the barracks while coming up with the ludicrous basis that the private sector was to be the engine of growth. It was this decision of the IMF imposed in 1978 that crippled the development of the country. The private sector has self-aggrandizement as its aim. The development of the country is not their concern.
Until 1977, the country had import restrictions in place to ensure that it could manage with its earnings. The development of the country was entirely run with local currency – the rupee – collected by taxes supplemented by money printing, while the foreign exchange that came in through exports and services was precisely collected and used for the purchase of importing essentials. Very small allocations were made for imports. The total expenditure of Sri Lanka in 1961/62 was Rupees 2013 million, all local rupees. The 1963 Budget Speech of Minister T. B. Illangaratne tells how imports of textiles were reduced by a third, powerlooms were imported, but imports of cars were banned.
The Budget Speech outlines the strategy to manage imports within the available expenditure, highlighting its potential as a developmental exercise. Minister Illangaratne said, “We stopped the import of coffee to increase coffee production” (p.1237). I met Minister Illangaratne in 1971, when I needed his approval for foreign exchange allocation to import dyes for my Crayon Factory in Morawaka. The Ministry of Industries refused to provide us with an import allocation because we were a cooperative. However, I learned that the Controller of Imports was about to allow an allocation of foreign exchange for the import of crayons. So, I intervened and convinced the Import Controller that by giving our Crayon Factory a foreign exchange allocation for the import of dyes, he could cancel all imports. I needed Minister Illangaratne’s approval as this procedure had never been done before. When I showed him the crayons we produced, I remember the gleam on his face. He insisted that I establish a Crayon Factory in Kolonnawa, his electorate, and ordered the total cancellation of all imports on crayons. That is how statesmen served the national interest.
Today’s economic meltdown, with foreign debt amounting to $56 billion, did not come without warning. In 1990, I began a series of lectures on Third World Studies at the Westminster Adult Education Institute, where I discussed how Sri Lanka’s foreign debt was increasing. By 1989, the foreign debt had increased to $5 billion. In 1992, the South Asian Forum of the University of London invited me to speak on Sri Lanka, and I commented that foreign aid could serve as an engine of growth if handled prudently. However, foreign aid could lead to chronic debt, poverty, high unemployment, and even uprisings if accepted in a non-developmental manner. I also mentioned that the healthy balance of payments achieved during the period of 1970-1976 turned into a nightmare of adverse deficits due to the governments that came into power since 1977 (From How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka & Alternative Programmes of Success, Godage, 2006).
The foreign debt ballooned to $9.5 billion by the end of the UNP rule, $11.5 billion by 2005, $42.9 billion at the end of 2014, and $56 billion by 2019. Initially, the IMF gave loans, but it later backed out, and the country had to raise funds through other sources on less attractive terms. International sovereign bonds were obtained at high interest, as much as $4 billion during the Rajapaksa Regime of 2008-2015 and $10 billion ISB loans during 2015-2019. It is important to note that President Gotabhaya did not create the foreign debt. However, he made wrong decisions, such as providing a massive tax break to large enterprises and his infamous agricultural extension programme of using compost and banning the use of inorganic fertilisers, which led to massive crop failure. It is difficult to imagine a successful military commander failing to act forcefully in the interests of the country, but it did happen. The cause of Sri Lanka’s total economic meltdown lies in the salient features of the Structural Adjustment Programme imposed on Sri Lanka since the end of 1977. We have not used the loans for any purpose in development but lived extravagantly on loans, as dictated by the IMF. Corruption and politics in decision-making also aggravated distress, but the salient factor is that Sri Lanka started living on loans and abandoned development programmes. The IMF even disbanded the Planning Department and confined all development workers to the barracks.
It is unfortunate to note that the IMF’s $3 billion loan provisions for Sri Lanka do not include any measures to increase the country’s productivity and boost people’s incomes. The IMF’s focus is primarily on increasing the tax base, restoring price stability, restructuring debt, rebuilding reserves, and enabling the country to purchase essential goods from abroad in order to put it on a growth path. The Central Bank is expected to purchase foreign exchange worth $1.4 billion to rebuild reserves. According to the Financial Times, the reforms also involve addressing corruption and inefficiency at state-owned enterprises, combating inflation, recapitalising the banking sector, and overhauling the tax system, which currently sees half of the country’s taxpayers paying less than 5% of their income to the state.
However, the IMF seems to overlook the fact that taxes are collected in local currency and do not have any direct impact on the repayment of foreign debts. Therefore, Sri Lanka’s only viable option is to implement import substitution programmes that will reduce the country’s dependence on imports and simultaneously generate incomes for the people. The IMF has not prohibited such productivity-enhancing measures, and it is up to Sri Lanka’s leaders to devise programmes that can increase production.
Sri Lanka has previous experience with successful development programmes such as the Divisional Development Councils Program (DDCP) implemented by the government from 1970-1977. The DDCP provided employment training to 33,200 youths, established agricultural farms, and set up small industries. Many Districts also established small agricultural farms and industries, such as the Mechanised Boatyard at Matara, which produced 35 seaworthy fishing inboard motor boats a year and a Cooperative Crayon Factory, which had country-wide sales. These were established in a short period, within two to three and a half months, respectively.
Employment creation programmes that can also boost production have proven successful, such as the Youth Self Employment Programme established by the author in Bangladesh, which has created three million entrepreneurs and is now recognised as the world’s most successful employment creation programme.
It is worth noting that since Sri Lanka started following the IMF’s policies in 1977, no new development programmes have been implemented to reduce poverty, develop the country’s resources, or train people to make what is imported. The author highlights the work of previous statesmen in implementing successful development programmes, which can serve as a model for current leaders.
In conclusion, it is crucial for Sri Lanka’s leaders to establish programmes that will produce what is currently imported and create incomes for the people while simultaneously reducing the country’s foreign exchange expenditure on imports.
(Dr. Karunaratne is a former Government Agent and Commonwealth Fund Advisor to the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Bangladesh 1981-1983.)
Features
Playing blind man’s bluff with tariff man

While the whole world was waiting anxiously for President Donald J. Trump, a self- proclaimed “tariff man”, to present his plan for “reciprocal tariffs” on his “Liberation Day”, an American commentator Jon Stewart declared on “The Weekly Show” podcast that he knew what “Donald Trump’s whole plan” was. Since Trump was elected, I have been closely following the developments in Washington but didn’t come across any other such claims. Yet, I was not surprised by Jon Stewart’s claim because he is a highly paid comedian and his podcast was recorded on the day before President Trump unveiled his plan. But now I know Jon Stewart was not the only person who knew how Trump’s plan for “reciprocal tariffs” would unfold. Most of our politicians (other than those in the government) had known what the plan was, much in advance of the official announcement. Now they are on our evening TV news blaming the government for not taking measures to pre-empt Trump’s move and providing their expert advice on how the government should engage with the US!
Tariff Tsunami
Unlike these politicians and their advisers, I did not expect President Trump to slap punitive tariffs of 44 percent on our exports. Our garment exports to the United States expanded from the early 1980s to December 2004, due to a very generous textile and apparel quota extended by the United States under the now-defunct Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. It was a clear and very successful example of providing trading opportunities as development aid by a development partner. However, we were also paying high tariffs for these exports but remained competitive in the US market as quotas ensured a reasonable market share. But after 2004, with the end of the quotas, the Sri Lankan exporters started to face strong competition in the US market, particularly from countries that had duty-free market access. So, in December 2004, Sri Lanka was hit by two tsunamis, the Asian Tsunami and the Tariff Tsunami.
On 06 January 2005, The Wall Street Journal published on its op-ed page an opinion piece titled, “Tariff Tsunami,” highlighting this: “… some eye-popping statistics showing how U.S. tariffs discriminate against world’s poor, including in particular those in Sri Lanka. The duties paid on Sri Lankan garment exports to the US in 2003 were $238.5 million – which was more than the total duties ($227 million) paid that same year on every product exported to the U.S. from all six countries of Scandinavia. That’s despite the fact that Scandinavia exports roughly 12 times more to the US than does Sri Lanka – $23.8 billion versus $1.8 billion in 2003. The average US duty rate from products from those rich nations of Northern Europe is about 1%, while the average rate on Sri Lankan goods is 13.8% and 16.6% on the bulk of its exports, which happens to be clothing.”
Twenty-one years later, if one checks the US Customs data for 2024 a similar pattern will be observed, as our exports’ basket to the US and the import duties in the US have not changed much. Though, some of our exports, like tea, gem stones and rubber products, have duty free access. for some apparel products we pay 25% tariff resulting in very high average tariff.
When Trump promised, during his campaign for the White House, a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries and a higher tariff on China, I expected Sri Lanka to improve her competitiveness and anticipated a shift in sourcing from China to other Asian countries. I also believed that the “slow surge in orders” received by Sri Lankan apparel exporters after the US elections, as well as the investment by an American engineering technology group at Wathupitiwala, could have resulted from this discreet shift of sourcing. (Please read my article published on 8th January in “The Island.”). It also appeared that when US Ambassador Julie Chung stated, last October, at the foundation stone laying ceremony for a new American factory at Wathupitiwala, “SHIELD’s decision to shift its facility in China to establish a manufacturing facility here in Sri Lanka is a testament to the growing interest of US investment in Sri Lanka …. If the new government can strengthen the investment climate, implement anti-corruption measures, and strengthen business-friendly governance and transparency, there is potential for even more manufacturers to make similar moves,” she, too, didn’t expect that, six months later, the United States would hit us with punitive tariffs. Because no American investor would ever think of investing in Sri Lanka with an over 44% tariff.
A guessing game on the tariff plan
When President Trump announced, in early February, his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade, he did not provide much information about the plan. Then a few weeks later, the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, stated that 10 to 15 countries accounted for America’s “entire trillion-dollar trade deficit” and the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, mooted a plan for a higher tariff for the ‘Dirty 15’, a group of countries that have large trade imbalances. But they did so without naming the countries they were planning to target. Based on these two statements a guessing game started all over the world on the composition of this group. Still, most of the observers expected these countries to be those with highest goods trading deficit with the United States. In 2024, the United States faced highest trade deficits with China ($291 billion), the EU ($236 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), Vietnam ($124 billion), and Taiwan ($74 billion). Compared to these countries, Sri Lanka’s trade deficit with the United States is relatively insignificant.
However, with these declarations, there was a remote possibility of Sri Lanka getting hit by a higher tariff due to our relatively large trade deficit as a percentage of the total trade. For many years this was always raised by the American negotiators during the negotiations at bilateral multilateral levels. Though we had always managed to settle it amicably, with mutually acceptable explanations, the issue had remained as an irritant in our bilateral relations. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Embassy in Washington, and appropriate government agencies in Colombo, with inside knowledge of the views of the US trade officials on the bilateral trade deficit, should have prepared for this worst-case scenario, however remote it was, and strategised on possible responses.
Highest tariff on countries “which nobody has ever heard of”
A few weeks after the American elections, at a birthday party, I bumped into a Sri Lankan expert on the United States who works on these issues for the government. During our conversation I raised Trump’s proposed tariff with him, and inquired whether they had initiated any study on it, particularly any possible adverse impact on Sri Lanka. “Don’t worry,” he quipped, “…
Trump doesn’t know where Sri Lanka is. So, we will be the last to get hit!” As we were standing at the bar, sipping our first round of drinks, I didn’t take the conversation any further. But what he said reminded me of my first visit to the office of the United States Trade Representative, in Washington. That was in January 1998. After examining my freshly issued State Department diplomatic ID, the security guard inquired, very politely, where Sri Lanka was. And I explained, with the help of a quick sketch, where we are located. During the next three years, during my frequent visits to that building, she always welcomed me with a broad smile and remembered my name and where I was from. During my tour in the United States, I met few other people who had never heard of a country called Sri Lanka.
Unfortunately, predictably unpredictable Donald J. Trump had decided to impose the highest reciprocal tariffs on countries “which nobody has ever heard of,” Lesotho and the French Archipelago of Saint Pierre and Miquelon! Both got 50% tariffs under the new reciprocal tariff plan. Since the beginning of the century, Lesotho, a tiny landlocked African country, managed to expand her exports to the US under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and is considered as one of the success stories under that programme. But during his annual address to Congress last month, President Trump, while defending his extensive cuts in the US aid budget, singled out a past aid project of “eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho … a country that nobody has ever heard of.” In spite of its size, Lesotho refused to ignore the comment or take the matter lightly.
Foreign Minister Lejone Mpotjoane declared that the Lesotho government was “shocked and embarrassed” by the comments because Lesotho “… did not expect a head of state to refer to another sovereign nation in such a manner” and had sent an official protest note. Now, Mr. Mpotjoane must be a contented man. With the highest tariffs in place, the entire world has heard of a country called Lesotho! Saint Pierre and Miquelon, with a population of roughly 6,000 people and very limited trade with the US was the other country to get hit by 50% tariff. However, for this a tiny French archipelago, located off the shores of Canada, the time under the global limelight was short-lived as soon after the announcement the US administration made a U-turn and reduced the tariff to 10%.
Some of the other countries in this group with highest tariffs are not so tiny and are more well known. The table illustrates the United States imports from these countries and trade balance (in USD million) during 2023. (See Table 1)
Although President Trump has declared that these reciprocal tariffs are necessary to tackle America’s massive $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit, from this group of countries only Vietnam with $109 billion surplus and Cambodia with $11.8 billion surplus can contribute meaningfully towards a reduction of that deficit. The US trade deficit with all other countries in the group are minimal and together accounts for less than $5 billion. Based on 2023 statistics it is difficult to even understand Syria’s inclusion in the list. Then how did these countries end up with highest reciprocal tariffs?
Calculation of reciprocal tariffs
President Trump, while presenting his new tariff plan, stated that “reciprocal means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get simpler than that,” and according to his Executive Order on the reciprocal tariffs, these are based on the average tariff rate charged to US exports, plus currency manipulation and other trade barriers. However, in many countries it is very difficult to quantify the tariffs, currency manipulation and other trade barriers. So, the calculation was simply done for each country by taking its trade in goods deficit for 2024, then dividing that by the total value of imports which provides the size of the trade imbalance in percentage terms. The US administration simply presumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Therefore, it divided that percentage number by 2 to fix the amount of reciprocal tariff. If the presumption on which the tariff is fixed is inaccurate then the burden of proof is with the country affected by the tariffs.
Way forward – ‘Make Haste Slowly’
With a 90-day grace period, Sri Lanka has sufficient time to move forward thoughtfully, appropriately, and discreetly. However, it is essential to negotiate with the American Administration the removal of the reciprocal tariffs, and if that is not negotiable, then reduce them to the global average. As the livelihood of thousands of poor workers are dependent on it, the government should act fast without making any wrong moves. In other words, it is time to make haste, slowly. But it is important to understand, as of now, it is a guessing game like blind man’s bluff, with modified rules: only two players at a time, and you are blindfolded. You have to guess where the other player stands and catch him, while the game is played on a cliff edge.
By Gomi Senadhira
(The writer, a former public servant and a diplomat, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
Features
New species of Bronzeback snake, discovered in Sri Lanka

In a rare and a prestigious honour in the world of biological sciences, a newly discovered species of bronzeback snake has been named after one of Sri Lanka’s foremost herpetologists, Dr. A. A. Thasun Amarasinghe. The new species, scientifically named Dendrelaphis thasuni, was found in Eastern Sri Lanka and belongs to the genus Dendrelaphis— a group of slender, tree-dwelling snakes known for their agility and distinctive colouration.
This naming is more than symbolic. It reflects global recognition of Dr. Amarasinghe’s invaluable contributions to the field of herpetology and biodiversity research, not only in Sri Lanka but across South and Southeast Asia. The discovery and naming were published in the prestigious journal Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, one of the leading international platforms for herpetological research.
Fitting Tribute to a Career in Conservation
For Dr. Amarasinghe, the gesture is both humble and meaningful. “To have a species from my own country named after me is one of the greatest honours I could receive,” he said in response to the announcement. “Over the past two decades, I’ve dedicated myself to the study of reptiles and amphibians. This recognition is a reflection not only of my work but also of the importance of scientific exploration in Sri Lanka and our region.”
Dr. Amarasinghe’s career has been marked by an unwavering commitment to uncovering and understanding the hidden diversity of reptiles and amphibians, particularly within the biodiverse Indo-Malayan region. His efforts have helped bring international attention to the unique and often endangered herpetofauna of South Asia.
So far, he has been involved in the discovery and formal description of more than 35 new species, including frogs, lizards, and snakes. These include six species of snakes from countries like Sri Lanka, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia—each one expanding the scientific understanding of ecosystems that are rapidly being altered by human activity.
The Discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni
The new species was discovered during fieldwork conducted in Eastern Sri Lanka by a diverse team of researchers, including Anusha Aththanagoda, Dr. Anslem de Silva, Dr. Gernot Vogel (Germany), Sithar Udayanga, Champika Bandara, Majintha Madawala, Dr. L. Lee Grismer (USA), and Suranjan Karunaratne. The team’s findings led them to identify a previously undocumented member of the Dendrelaphis genus.
Bronzeback snakes are arboreal, non-venomous colubrids widely distributed across Asia. However, Dendrelaphis thasuni exhibits several unique morphological traits—such as distinct colouration, scale arrangement, and body proportions—that justified its classification as a new species.
The species was named using Dr. Amarasinghe’s first name, “Thasun,” in accordance with international zoological naming conventions. This gesture not only immortalises his name in scientific literature but also connects his legacy to Sri Lanka’s ecological history.
Rich and Fragile Habitat
The discovery location—Eastern Sri Lanka—is part of a region known for its ecological richness, containing a mix of dry zone forests, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems. These habitats are home to many endemic species, making them crucial for conservation.
Sri Lanka itself is one of the world’s top biodiversity hotspots. With high rates of endemism and relatively unexplored terrain, the island continues to yield new species even in the 21st century. However, this biodiversity is under increasing threat due to deforestation, urban expansion, agriculture, and climate change.
The discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni underlines the importance of continued research and conservation efforts. As Dr. Amarasinghe has frequently noted in his writings and interviews, documenting biodiversity is a critical first step in protecting it.
“We cannot conserve what we do not know exists. Each new species we discover is another piece of the puzzle, another reason to fight for the ecosystems that sustain them.”
Global Collaboration
One of the most inspiring aspects of this discovery is the international collaboration it represents. Scientists from Sri Lanka, Germany, and the United States worked together to conduct fieldwork, analyse morphological data, and publish their findings. It showcases the growing network of researchers who are committed to preserving global biodiversity.
Such collaborations are vital in herpetology, a field that often relies on both deep local knowledge and advanced global research techniques. The research team behind Dendrelaphis thasuni exemplifies this synergy—combining traditional field surveys with modern scientific methodologies to deliver world-class outcomes.
Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe: A Scientist, Educator, and Conservationist
Dr. Amarasinghe is not only a prolific researcher but also a mentor and advocate for conservation. Over the years, he has co-authored numerous scientific papers, trained young researchers, and raised public awareness about the importance of reptiles and amphibians in maintaining healthy ecosystems.
He is known for his ability to bridge the gap between science and conservation policy, often emphasising the role of taxonomy—the science of naming and classifying organisms—as a tool for environmental protection. His work has influenced local and international efforts to safeguard species and habitats that would otherwise be overlooked.
His contributions have been recognised through fellowships, international speaking invitations, and now, with a species named in his honor—a rare distinction in the scientific world.
More Than Just a Name
While having a species named after someone is often considered one of the highest accolades in biology, Dr. Amarasinghe views it as part of a broader mission.
“This isn’t just about me. It’s about the science, the ecosystems, the communities who live alongside these species, and the young researchers who will carry this work forward. Naming a species is not the end—it’s the beginning of a deeper responsibility to protect it.”
The discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni adds a significant chapter to Sri Lanka’s natural history and serves as a reminder of the urgent need to conserve the country’s fragile ecosystems. It also shines a spotlight on the people behind the scenes—scientists like Dr. Amarasinghe—whose dedication makes such discoveries possible.
With biodiversity loss accelerating globally, the role of field biologists and taxonomists has never been more critical. Their work not only reveals the hidden wonders of nature but also provides the data necessary for policymakers, educators, and conservationists to act.
As Sri Lanka continues to emerge as a key player in global biodiversity research, recognitions like this one highlights the nation’s scientific potential—and the global importance of preserving its wild spaces.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Why Sinhala omitted in famous stone inscription by ancient Chinese Admiral ?

A plaque erected to mark the opening of a new electronic library at the Attorney General’s Department was removed because the writing thereon was only in Sinhala and English, and Tamil had been left out. This reminded me of a stone plaque bearing the date 15th February 1409 put up by Chinese Admiral Zheng He at the Galle harbour during one of his grand voyages to Sri Lanka, India and the African Continent.
Zheng He was a Chinese mariner, explorer, diplomat, fleet admiral , and court eunuch during China’s early Ming Dynasty. Born as Ma He or Ma Sanbao into a Muslim family in 1371, he later adopted the surname Zheng conferred by the Yongle Emperor. He completed seven historical voyages to trade and gather knowledge from other parts of the world. He died in 1433, at the age of 62, during his last voyage near Calicut (now Kozhikode), India. His remains were dropped to Davy Jones’ locker (buried at sea) off Coromandel coast of India.
Zheng He had his voyages a long time before the European powers visited this part of the world. (The Portuguese first landed in India on 20 May 1498). Zheng visited Sri Lanka almost a century before him, and his stone stela is about the offerings he made to the Buddha, Allah and Hindu God Vishnu seeking their blessings for successful trade with Sri Lanka.
Sinhala omitted
Now, this historical stela is at the National Museum, Colombo. What he offered to Buddhist temples, Mosques and Hindu temples is fascinating and the whole list has been inscribed on the stela, which was erected in a predominantly Sinhala area, is in three languages—Tamil, Persian and Chinese; he omitted Sinhala!
Admiral Zheng He’s fleet was unbelievably large. He had sailing ships which were more than 120 metres in length (longer than the Sri Lanka Navy’s flagship) and had five decks each. Unconfirmed stories say their crews grew fresh vegetables on the top decks and had piggeries in the bottom bilge decks, where pigs were fed with leftover food of the crew during passage. These ships were floating fortresses.
Admiral Zheng He had more than 100 ships of this size and smaller vessels; his fleet consisted of 217 ships and 28,000 sailors/marines. In comparison, Columbus, in 1492, had only three ships and 90 sailors. “Santa Maria”, the flagship of Columbus, was only 30 meters in length.
Admiral Zheng He’s big ships carried valuable cargo, like silk, gold and silver coins, porcelain vases and plates for trading around the world.
When Admiral Zheng He first visited Sri Lanka, in 1405, at the Beruwala harbour, which was popular among Arab traders at that time, he visited the Kotte Kingdom and climbed Sri Pada. His first visit was only limited to India and Sri Lanka. During his second voyage in 1411, he clashed with the Kotte kingdom, and King Alakeshwara tried to attack his ships. The Admiral launched a counterattack with his expeditionary forces and captured Alakeshwara, who was subsequently replaced with King Parakramabahu VI. He sailed to China with the Sinhalese prisoners, including King Alakeshwara.
According to historical records, Admiral Zheng He presented captured King Alakeshwara and his followers to Yongle Emperor (third Emperor of Ming dynasty), only to be told that the Chinese went on voyages to promote their trade and not to wage war, and ordered to take the captives to Sri Lanka during his next voyage itself. The Admiral took them back to Sri Lanka, as ordered by the Emperor. They were looked after well during their stay in China.
The present-day Chinese leaders have said the same thing as regards their Belt and Road initiative: “We are for trade and investment and not war.”
After his sixth voyage, Admiral Zhang He concluded that there was nothing China could learn from the outside World. True enough, China was very much advanced compared to the outside world at that time. He reported this to the Emperor, who later had the fleet dismantled after the Admiral’s last voyage and funds were utilised for keeping the Mongolian invaders at bay. Admiral Zheng He spent 28 years of his adult life on voyages.
Stone tablet
In 1911, S.H. Thomlin, a British engineer working in Galle, along the southwestern coast of Sri Lanka, found the stone tablet lying in a culvert.
I am only a seafarer and not a historian. Can someone enlighten me on why the Sinhala language was not used in this plaque?
Were the Sinhalese upset and angry then as there was no inscription in Sinhala. Let us have a discussion on this interesting subject.
(I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention the help I received from Ravi junior for gathering some historical details.)
(The writer Admiral Wijegunaratne WV, RWP& Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc (Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff, Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd., Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and Former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)
By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
-
Business3 days ago
DIMO pioneers major fleet expansion with Tata SIGNA Prime Movers for ILM
-
Features5 days ago
Nipping the two leaves and the bud
-
News2 days ago
Family discovers rare species thought to be extinct for over a century in home garden
-
Features5 days ago
Avurudu celebrations … galore
-
Features4 days ago
Prof. Lal Tennekoon: An illustrious but utterly unpretentious and much -loved academic
-
Foreign News2 days ago
China races robots against humans in Beijing half marathon
-
Latest News7 days ago
Trump freezes $2bn in Harvard funding after university rejects demands
-
News5 days ago
Counsel for Pilleyan alleges govt. bid to force confession