Midweek Review

Increasing scholarly mutuality for a holistic understanding of life: Some initial reflections

Published

1 year ago

2024/11/6

Roald Hoffmann, professor of Humane Letters at Cornell university and Nobel laureate in chemistry, who is also an excellent poet.

by Liyanage Amarakeerthi
Professor of Sinhala, University of Peradeniya

(Keynote speech delivered at the International Multidisciplinary Research Conference at University of Kelaniya, October 25th, 2024.)

We know that in Sri Lanka, students are separated into specialised subject areas a bit too early. This early specialisation continues even at universities. Now, some students are admitted to universities directly by the University Grant Commission and they are not allowed to segue into any other stream of learning. In some cases, they cannot even take classes in another subject. In addition, there are departments in our faculties looking to seize the first opportunity to break away and establish their own faculties, isolating themselves further in their own expertise.

This practice may have its own reasons and benefits but in terms of generating interdisciplinary understanding of life, society, and the world young students must be allowed to find their way after encountering a host of diverse subjects. While academia in some other parts of the world is seeking ways to find meaningful interactions and integrations, we seek the unchallenged comforts of isolation. In other words, we value monologue over dialogue.

But some of us are already engaged in dialogues with other fields. I have been a proponent of a holistic approach to education for quite some time now. I have made a case for this in four of my books, Vishavavidyaa Yanu Kumakda? Kalawa saha Minisa, Kalawa Kumakatada?, and Sithiwili Sithijya.

In this speech, I want to argue that there needs to be much more substantial interconnections between different branches of knowledge. Let me begin by referring to something close to my heart: storytelling. A certain neurological study has shown that ‘when we get to the end of a story, a short lyric poem, or a joke, the brain performs an instantaneous retro-assessment for efficiency. If, as I tell the one about the duck who walks into a bar, I interject a fifteen-minute digression about the duck’s childhood that turns out to have nothing to do with the punchline, your brain notes this as an inefficiency and, at the end, you laugh less.’ This is a wonderful example from George Saunders’s excellent book about how fictional narratives are constructed and read. (A Swim in a Pond in the Rain 83-4). Numerous recent studies have focused on the workings of the human brain, biochemistry, and neurological systems when we create and enjoy narrative arts. In other words, natural sciences have paid some significant attention to human activities that are typically studied in the humanities, and that intellectual effort has led to some spectacular discoveries. For example, neurobiologists have discovered the left side of the human face is stronger in expressing feelings, and it has to do with the way the human brain controls facial muscles. Much before this scientific discovery was made, European painters used the left side of human faces to depict feelings central to their paintings, especially portraits (Jerome Kagen. The Three Cultures. 246). There are numerous other instances of this kind where the paths of natural sciences and arts have crossed. And then, Kagen’s MIT colleague, Steven Pinker, who is also at Harvard University now, points out in his groundbreaking book, The Language Instinct (1994), that language and our ability to learn and use language is part of our biological hard wiring rather than a work of culture. There have been numerous studies on language conducted by biologists.

A Poet winning a Nobel Prize for chemistry

Yet our education system in Sri Lanka hardly encourages scholars to move beyond the confines of narrow specialties even at the level of postgraduate studies. For example, we never had scholars like Erwin Schrödinger, a physicist, who conducted university lectures on Greek philosophy or anyone like Roald Hoffmann, professor of Humane Letters at Cornell university and Nobel laureate in chemistry, who is also an excellent poet. Hoffmann was unhappy that scientific rationalities reduce “miracle of the living world to a set of cold, hard facts gained by the logic of dissection.” In Sri Lanka, we have very few natural scientists academically interested in the fields related to the humanities. Professors Nalin de Silva and Carlo Fonseka have shown some interest in the field, but their interventions are, on the one hand, not deep enough to have any significant impact either on natural sciences or on the humanities. In addition, they were rather journalistic interventions mostly implicated in the politics of the day. De Silva in his style appears to be a monologist ideologue seeking to dominate rather than a dialogist seeking to have respectful conversations.

The above quotation was taken from Jerome Kagen’s book, The Three Cultures (2012: 223), which is primarily about the intersections among natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. For me the Kagen book is a kind of manifesto for us to think about a greater interaction among the three branches of knowledge. Kagen demonstrates that three branches of academic study differ from each other at three levels: ‘primary concerns’, ‘sources of evidence,’ and ‘concepts.’ And he also argues that natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities differ on six (6) additional dimensions bringing the number of points at which they differ to nine (9). In this short speech, I do not have time to elaborate on all those points. But let me cite the most revealing points: One of the points these fields differ is the ‘the influence of historical conditions’ on what is being studied. In natural sciences, it is minimal, in social sciences it is modest, while in the humanities it is serious (4). For example, in studying why a human being acts the way she does, natural scientific explanation does not consider that the historical condition in which a given human being operates has much relevance. In social science, the impact of historical conditions is moderate while in the humanities it is quite significant. While the naturalist scientific hypothesis about the human behaviour in question can be quite exact and rational, the humanist explanation can be significantly explanatory, and even metaphorical.

19th C Europe seen from three vantage points

Professor Kegan ends his book by claiming that the dominance of a single branch of knowledge is dangerous as much as a government without a stronger opposition runs the risk of becoming despotic. Now, the domination of natural sciences, caused by both very good and bad reasons, has created an imbalance in human discourses. What he suggests is that we develop a culture of enriching mutuality among these streams of knowledge. Collaborations both in and out of the academy, Kegan thinks, can lead to much more holistic inclusion of the insights garnered from all knowledge forms. He cites an undergraduate course Harvard University offers where three scholars co-teach. The title of the course is “Nineteenth-century Europe.” A natural scientist teaches the discoveries of Ludvig Boltzmann, Greger Mendel, and Luis Pasteur. A social scientist explains the socio-cultural settings in which those discoveries have been made. A history professor would contextualise those discoveries in the background of industrialisation of wealthy European democracies (Kegan 2009:266). We can easily imagine how the course might have enriched the students’ understanding of the Europe of that time. It is sad that we do not have a course of this kind in Sri Lankan universities. Maybe it never occurred to us to look at higher education this way. I hope very much that this conference will lead to greater understanding among us. We, natural scientists, social scientists, and the scholars in the humanities, can come together to offer a course on the nineteenth century Colombo.

Much before Kagan wrote his book, the debate on a much more integrated approach to understanding human condition has been taking place. In fact, Kagen’s book itself was inspired by such a book: C.P. Snow’s The Two Cultures (1959) – a book extremely optimistic about natural sciences. And the book is about key differences between natural sciences and the humanities. Like Kagen, another Harvard professor was instrumental in leading the argument for much closer connections among various branches of knowledge. He was Edward O. Wilson, and in On Human Nature, originally published in 1978, and republished numerous times, he pointed out that natural science alone cannot fully explain human nature. Wilson’s contribution to this debate attains its most eloquent expression in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. There, Professor Wilson argues that the ‘communal mind of literate societies’, which is ‘world culture’ is an ‘immensely large loom.’ Wilsons states further that,

“Through science it has gained the power to map external reality far beyond the reach of a single mind, and through the arts the means to construct narratives, images, and rhythms immeasurably more diverse than the products of any solitary genius” (Wilson 1998: 13).

For him, natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities are integral parts of what he calls, ‘the communal mind’, which is our collective understanding of the phenomena around us, and, of course, around us. The intellectual agility and fluidity that allow us to move from one field to another is what Wilson is after in his explanation of consilience. The liberal arts tradition of education in the US, where a wide spectrum of subjects is included in an undergraduate curriculum, Wilson argues, needs to be revitalised. I have been making this argument here in Sri Lanka for many years, Vishava Vdiyalaya Yanu Kumakda is a key manifestation of that argument. Our university system never had holistic liberal arts programmes. Wilson’s consilience argument seems a much richer version of liberal arts vision: “Every college student should be able to answer the following question: What is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important for human welfare? (13).”

Deepening mutuality

Biology of ethics Given the time restrictions, let me indicate some insights we can gain from a deeper mutuality between natural sciences and social sciences, and also between natural sciences and the humanities. Robert Sapolsky’s book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (2017) is a captivating demonstration of why we need a much more holistic causality to explain human behaviour. Human feelings, thoughts, and bodily actions have their roots in biochemistry, neurological systems as much as they are caused by sociobiological factors such as upbringing, parental care, peer culture and so on. In short, both biological causes and socio-cultural causes lie behind our actions. Thus, we need a much more integrated approach to understanding human affairs.

Sapolsky’s book is full of scientific details that explain how our neurobiology intersects with ethics, fear, shame, violence, racism and so on. Based on the research and experiments of numerous scientists, Sapolsky explains the workings of ‘amygdala’ located in the frontal cortex of our brain. Neuro-chemical reactions that take place in amygdala are related to feelings like anxiety, fear and aggression, and, even, violence. We in the humanities talk about ethics, sympathy, compassion and so on. We believe that a considerable grounding in ethical rationality, acquired by studying philosophy, and, the imaginative skills, sharpened by studying literature, help students to live an ethical and humane lives. As a scholar in literary studies, I still want to hold on to this belief. But yet, I also believe that rich interactions with natural sciences can help us make our teachings in the humanities much more realistic, less idealist or wishful, and substantial. Those who are in the natural sciences can hopefully benefit by developing meaningful interactions with us in the humanities. Of course, we in the humanities must be prepared and equipped for such interactions.

A revealing example

Let’s look at a revealing example. When we accidentally chew on some rotten food, the amygdala gets chemically activated leading us to throw up that food even when our conscious thought process begins. Conscious thought process is too slow to save us from the danger of swallowing toxic food. The workings of amygdala do not stop there. When we see something morally disgusting too, it gets activated and leads us to act in certain ways. In other words, our brains chemically react to culturally ‘toxic’ phenomena as well. But we must not rush to believe that amygdala is a wonderful organ that guides us only in the right ethical directions. Amygdala does not know ethics. Sapolsky explains further that these reactions of amygdala can be culturally mediated. For example, amygdala’s reaction to disgusting food is an activation of the biological safety network within us to protect us from harm. The same reactions can take place when we see a person who is considered an enemy, an ‘other’, or an outsider within our culture. Otherness is something discursively created and mediated by socio-cultural ideologies. This means, our biology is not entirely free from our culture. In addition, our ethical rationality is not just guided by our rational mind. Even biochemical reactions that begin their workings before any invention of the rational mind can be trained in a certain way by the dominant notions in a culture. Arguably, if in a certain culture no one is considered ‘a disgusting Other,’ our amygdala would not react to them in a way it would react to disgusting things such as rotten food.

As Antonio Damasio (Descartes’ Error 1994) has brilliantly shown, Descartes made an error, and the Cartesian separation of mind and body, i.e. reason and feeling, was a fundamental mistake creating a gap between sciences and the humanities. Luckily, in the recent past numerous scholars have come out from natural sciences attempting to bridge the gap. Once looked unbridgeable, the divide is now bridged with delightful insights appearing from both sides. This conference is a hopeful sign that we in Sri Lanka have begun to see an abyss that separates us from each other. And I am happy to say that this is my third time speaking on topics related to our intellectual.”

All News Advertisement

Features

Handunnetti and Colonial Shackles of English in Sri Lanka

Published

7 days ago

2025/12/10

Thilina Walpola

Handunetti at the World Economic Forum

“My tongue in English chains.
I return, after a generation, to you.
I am at the end
of my Dravidic tether
hunger for you unassuaged
I falter, stumble.”
– Indian poet R. Parthasarathy

When Minister Sunil Handunnetti addressed the World Economic Forum’s ‘Is Asia’s Century at Risk?’ discussion as part of the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2025 in June 2025, I listened carefully both to him and the questions that were posed to him by the moderator. The subsequent trolling and extremely negative reactions to his use of English were so distasteful that I opted not to comment on it at the time. The noise that followed also meant that a meaningful conversation based on that event on the utility of learning a powerful global language and how our politics on the global stage might be carried out more successfully in that language was lost on our people and pundits, barring a few commentaries.

Now Handunnetti has reopened the conversation, this time in Sri Lanka’s parliament in November 2025, on the utility of mastering English particularly for young entrepreneurs. In his intervention, he also makes a plea not to mock his struggle at learning English given that he comes from a background which lacked the privilege to master the language in his youth. His clear intervention makes much sense.

The same ilk that ridiculed him when he spoke at WEF is laughing at him yet again on his pronunciation, incomplete sentences, claiming that he is bringing shame to the country and so on and so forth. As usual, such loud, politically motivated and retrograde critics miss the larger picture. Many of these people are also among those who cannot hold a conversation in any of the globally accepted versions of English. Moreover, their conceit about the so-called ‘correct’ use of English seems to suggest the existence of an ideal English type when it comes to pronunciation and basic articulation. I thought of writing this commentary now in a situation when the minister himself is asking for help ‘in finding a solution’ in his parliamentary speech even though his government is not known to be amenable to critical reflection from anyone who is not a party member.

The remarks at the WEF and in Sri Lanka’s parliament are very different at a fundamental level, although both are worthy of consideration – within the realm of rationality, not in the depths of vulgar emotion and political mudslinging.

The problem with Handunnetti’s remarks at WEF was not his accent or pronunciation. After all, whatever he said could be clearly understood if listened to carefully. In that sense, his use of English fulfilled one of the most fundamental roles of language – that of communication. Its lack of finesse, as a result of the speaker being someone who does not use the language professionally or personally on a regular basis, is only natural and cannot be held against him. This said, there are many issues that his remarks flagged that were mostly drowned out by the noise of his critics.

Given that Handunnetti’s communication was clear, it also showed much that was not meant to be exposed. He simply did not respond to the questions that were posed to him. More bluntly, a Sinhala speaker can describe the intervention as yanne koheda, malle pol , which literally means, when asked ‘Where are you going?’, the answer is ‘There are coconuts in the bag’.

He spoke from a prepared text which his staff must have put together for him. However, it was far off the mark from the questions that were being directly posed to him. The issue here is that his staff appears to have not had any coordination with the forum organisers to ascertain and decide on the nature of questions that would be posed to the Minister for which answers could have been provided based on both global conditions, local situations and government policy. After all, this is a senior minister of an independent country and he has the right to know and control, when possible, what he is dealing with in an international forum.

This manner of working is fairly routine in such international fora. On the one hand, it is extremely unfortunate that his staff did not do the required homework and obviously the minister himself did not follow up, demonstrating negligence, a want for common sense, preparedness and experience among all concerned. On the other hand, the government needs to have a policy on who it sends to such events. For instance, should a minister attend a certain event, or should the government be represented by an official or consultant who can speak not only fluently, but also with authority on the subject matter. That is, such speakers need to be very familiar with the global issues concerned and not mere political rhetoric aimed at local audiences.

Other than Handunnetti, I have seen, heard and also heard of how poorly our politicians, political appointees and even officials perform at international meetings (some of which are closed door) bringing ridicule and disastrous consequences to the country. None of them are, however, held responsible.

Such reflective considerations are simple yet essential and pragmatic policy matters on how the government should work in these conditions. If this had been undertaken, the WEF event might have been better handled with better global press for the government. Nevertheless, this was not only a matter of English. For one thing, Handunnetti and his staff could have requested for the availability of simultaneous translation from Sinhala to English for which pre-knowledge of questions would have been useful. This is all too common too. At the UN General Assembly in September, President Dissanayake spoke in Sinhala and made a decent presentation.

The pertinent question is this; had Handunetti had the option of talking in Sinhala, would the interaction have been any better? That is extremely doubtful, barring the fluency of language use. This is because Handunnetti, like most other politicians past and present, are good at rhetoric but not convincing where substance is concerned, particularly when it comes to global issues. It is for this reason that such leaders need competent staff and consultants, and not mere party loyalists and yes men, which is an unfortunate situation that has engulfed the whole government.

What about the speech in parliament? Again, as in the WEF event, his presentation was crystal clear and, in this instance, contextually sensible. But he did not have to make that speech in English at all when decent simultaneous translation services were available. In so far as content was concerned, he made a sound argument considering local conditions which he knows well. The minister’s argument is about the need to ensure that young entrepreneurs be taught English so that they can deal with the world and bring investments into the country, among other things. This should actually be the norm, not only for young entrepreneurs, but for all who are interested in widening their employment and investment opportunities beyond this country and in accessing knowledge for which Sinhala and Tamil alone do not suffice.

As far as I am concerned, Handunetti’s argument is important because in parliament, it can be construed as a policy prerogative. Significantly, he asked the Minister of Education to make this possible in the educational reforms that the government is contemplating.

He went further, appealing to his detractors not to mock his struggle in learning English, and instead to become part of the solution. However, in my opinion, there is no need for the Minister to carry this chip on his shoulder. Why should the minister concern himself with being mocked for poor use of English? But there is a gap that his plea should have also addressed. What prevented him from mastering English in his youth goes far deeper than the lack of a privileged upbringing.

The fact of the matter is, the facilities that were available in schools and universities to learn English were not taken seriously and were often looked down upon as kaduwa by the political spectrum he represents and nationalist elements for whom the utilitarian value of English was not self-evident. I say this with responsibility because this was a considerable part of the reality in my time as an undergraduate and also throughout the time I taught in Sri Lanka.

Much earlier in my youth, swayed by the rhetoric of Sinhala language nationalism, my own mastery of English was also delayed even though my background is vastly different from the minister. I too was mocked, when two important schools in Kandy – Trinity College and St. Anthony’s College – refused to accept me to Grade 1 as my English was wanting. This was nearly 20 years after independence. I, however, opted to move on from the blatant discrimination, and mastered the language, although I probably had better opportunities and saw the world through a vastly different lens than the minister. If the minister’s commitment was also based on these social and political realities and the role people like him had played in negating our English language training particularly in universities, his plea would have sounded far more genuine.

If both these remarks and the contexts in which they were made say something about the way we can use English in our country, it is this: On one hand, the government needs to make sure it has a pragmatic policy in place when it sends representatives to international events which takes into account both a person’s language skills and his breadth of knowledge of the subject matter. On the other hand, it needs to find a way to ensure that English is taught to everyone successfully from kindergarten to university as a tool for inclusion, knowledge and communication and not a weapon of exclusion as is often the case.

This can only bear fruit if the failures, lapses and strengths of the country’s English language teaching efforts are taken into cognizance. Lamentably, division and discrimination are still the main emotional considerations on which English is being popularly used as the trolls of the minister’s English usage have shown. It is indeed regrettable that their small-mindedness prevents them from realizing that the Brits have long lost their long undisputed ownership over the English language along with the Empire itself. It is no longer in the hands of the colonial masters. So why allow it to be wielded by a privileged few mired in misplaced notions of elitism?

Features

Finally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight

Published

7 days ago

2025/12/10

Thilina Walpola

Clandestine visit to Speaker’s residence:

Finally, former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena has set the record straight with regard to a controversial but never properly investigated bid to swear in him as interim President. Abeywardena has disclosed the circumstances leading to the proposal made by external powers on the morning of 13 July, 2022, amidst a large scale staged protest outside the Speaker’s official residence, situated close to Parliament.

Lastly, the former parliamentarian has revealed that it was then Indian High Commissioner, in Colombo, Gopal Baglay (May 2022 to December 2023) who asked him to accept the presidency immediately. Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, who served as Senior Advisor (media) to President Ranil Wickremesinghe (July 2022 to September 2024), disclosed Baglay’s direct intervention in his latest work, titled ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ (Power of Aragalaya).

Prof. Maddumabandara quoted Abeywardena as having received a startling assurance that if he agreed to accept the country’s leadership, the situation would be brought under control, within 45 minutes. Baglay had assured Abeywardena that there is absolutely no harm in him succeeding President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in view of the developing situation.

The author told the writer that only a person who had direct control over the violent protest campaign could have given such an assurance at a time when the whole country was in a flux.

One-time Vice Chancellor of the Kelaniya University, Prof. Maddumabandara, launched ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ at the Sri Lanka Foundation on 20 November. In spite of an invitation extended to former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the ousted leader hadn’t attended the event, though UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was there. Maybe Gotabaya felt the futility of trying to expose the truth against evil forces ranged against them, who still continue to control the despicable agenda.

Obviously, the author has received the blessings of Abeywardena and Wickremesinghe to disclose a key aspect in the overall project that exploited the growing resentment of the people to engineer change of Sri Lankan leadership.

The declaration of Baglay’s intervention has contradicted claims by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa (Nine: The hidden story) and award-winning writer Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: System change for anarchy) alleged that US Ambassador Julie Chung made that scandalous proposal to Speaker Abeywardena. Weerawansa and Thoradeniya launched their books on 25 April and 05 July, 2023, at the Sri Lanka Foundation and the National Library and Documentation Services Board, Independence Square, respectively. Both slipped in accusing Ambassador Chung of making an abortive bid to replace Gotabaya Rajapaksa with Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.

Ambassador Chung categorically denied Weerawansa’s allegation soon after the launch of ‘Nine: The hidden story’ but stopped short of indicating that the proposal was made by someone else. Chung had no option but to keep quiet as she couldn’t, in response to Weerawansa’s claim, have disclosed Baglay’s intervention, under any circumstances, as India was then a full collaborator with Western designs here for its share of spoils. Weerawansa, Thoradeniya and Maddumabandara agree that Aragalaya had been a joint US-Indian project and it couldn’t have succeeded without their intervention. Let me reproduce the US Ambassador’s response to Weerawansa, who, at the time of the launch, served as an SLPP lawmaker, having contested the 2020 August parliamentary election on the SLPP ticket.

“I am disappointed that an MP has made baseless allegations and spread outright lies in a book that should be labelled ‘fiction’. For 75 years, the US [and Sri Lanka] have shared commitments to democracy, sovereignty, and prosperity – a partnership and future we continue to build together,” Chung tweeted Wednesday 26 April, evening, 24 hours after Weerawansa’s book launch.

Interestingly, Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been silent on the issue in his memoirs ‘The Conspiracy to oust me from Presidency,’ launched on 07 March, 2024.

What must be noted is that our fake Marxists, now entrenched in power, were all part and parcel of Aragalaya.

A clandestine meeting

Abeywardena should receive the appreciation of all for refusing to accept the offer made by Baglay, on behalf of India and the US. He had the courage to tell Baglay that he couldn’t accept the presidency as such a move violated the Constitution. In our post-independence history, no other politician received such an offer from foreign powers. When Baglay stepped up pressure, Abeywardena explained that he wouldn’t change his decision.

Maddumabandara, based on the observations made by Abeywardena, referred to the Indian High Commissioner entering the Speaker’s Official residence, unannounced, at a time protesters blocked the road leading to the compound. The author raised the possibility of Baglay having been in direct touch with those spearheading the high profile political project.

Clearly Abeywardena hadn’t held back anything. The former Speaker appeared to have responded to those who found fault with him for not responding to allegations, directed at him, by revealing everything to Maddumabandara, whom he described in his address, at the book launch, as a friend for over five decades.

At the time, soon after Baglay’s departure from the Speaker’s official residence, alleged co-conspirators Ven. Omalpe Sobitha, accompanied by Senior Professor of the Sinhala Faculty at the Colombo University, Ven. Agalakada Sirisumana, health sector trade union leader Ravi Kumudesh, and several Catholic priests, arrived at the Speaker’s residence where they repeated the Indian High Commissioner’s offer. Abeywardena repeated his previous response despite Sobitha Thera acting in a threatening manner towards him to accept their dirty offer. Shouldn’t they all be investigated in line with a comprehensive probe?

Ex-President Wickremesinghe with a copy of Aragalaye Balaya he received from its author, Prof. Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, at the Sri Lanka Foundation recently (pic by Nishan S Priyantha)

On the basis of what Abeywardena had disclosed to him, Maddumabanadara also questioned the circumstances of the deployment of the elite Special Task Force (STF) contingent at the compound. The author asked whether that deployment, without the knowledge of the Speaker, took place with the intervention of Baglay.

Aragalaye Balaya

is a must read for those who are genuinely interested in knowing the unvarnished truth. Whatever the deficiencies and inadequacies on the part of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, external powers had engineered a change of government. The writer discussed the issues that had been raised by Prof. Maddumabandara and, in response to one specific query, the author asserted that in spite of India offering support to Gotabaya Rajapaksa earlier to get Ranil Wickremesinghe elected as the President by Parliament to succeed him , the latter didn’t agree with the move. Then both the US and India agreed to bring in the Speaker as the Head of State, at least for an interim period.

If Speaker Abeywardena accepted the offer made by India, on behalf of those backing the dastardly US backed project, the country could have experienced far reaching changes and the last presidential election may not have been held in September, 2004.

After the conclusion of his extraordinary assignment in Colombo, Baglay received appointment as New Delhi’s HC in Canberra. Before Colombo, Baglay served in Indian missions in Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, Nepal and Pakistan (as Deputy High Commissioner).

Baglay served in New Delhi, in the office of the Prime Minister of India, and in the Ministry of External Affairs as its spokesperson, and in various other positions related to India’s ties with her neighbours, Europe and multilateral organisations.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to examine who deceived Weerawansa and Thoradeniya who identified US Ambassador Chung as the secret visitor to the Speaker’s residence. Her high-profile role in support of the project throughout the period 31 March to end of July, 2022, obviously made her an attractive target but the fact remains it was Baglay who brought pressure on the then Speaker. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s clarification has given a new twist to “Aragalaya’ and India’s diabolical role.

Absence of investigations

Sri Lanka never really wanted to probe the foreign backed political plot to seize power by extra-parliamentary means. Although some incidents had been investigated, the powers that be ensured that the overall project remained uninvestigated. In fact, Baglay’s name was never mentioned regarding the developments, directly or indirectly, linked to the devious political project. If not for Prof. Maddumabandara taking trouble to deal with the contentious issue of regime change, Baglay’s role may never have come to light. Ambassador Chung would have remained the target of all those who found fault with US interventions. Let me be clear, the revelation of Baglay’s clandestine meeting with the Speaker didn’t dilute the role played by the US in Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s removal.

If Prof. Maddumabandara propagated lies, both the author and Abeywardana should be appropriately dealt with. Aragalaye Balaya failed to receive the desired or anticipated public attention. Those who issue media statements at the drop of a hat conveniently refrained from commenting on the Indian role. Even Abeywardena remained silent though he could have at least set the record straight after Ambassador Chung was accused of secretly meeting the Speaker. Abeywardena could have leaked the information through media close to him. Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, too, could have done the same but all decided against revealing the truth.

A proper investigation should cover the period beginning with the declaration made by Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government, in April 2022, regarding the unilateral decision to suspend debt repayment. But attention should be paid to the failure on the part of the government to decide against seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to overcome the crisis. Those who pushed Gotabaya Rajapaksa to adopt, what they called, a domestic solution to the crisis created the environment for the ultimate collapse that paved the way for external interventions. Quite large and generous Indian assistance provided to Sri Lanka at that time should be examined against the backdrop of a larger frightening picture. In other words, India was literally running with the sheep while hunting with the hounds. Whatever the criticism directed at India over its role in regime change operation, prompt, massive and unprecedented post-Cyclone Ditwah assistance, provided by New Delhi, saved Sri Lanka. Rapid Indian response made a huge impact on Sri Lanka’s overall response after having failed to act on a specific 12 November weather alert.

It would be pertinent to mention that all governments, and the useless Parliament, never wanted the public to know the truth regarding regime change project. Prof. Maddumabandara discussed the role played by vital sections of the armed forces, lawyers and the media in the overall project that facilitated external operations to force Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The author failed to question Wickremesinghe’s failure to launch a comprehensive investigation, with the backing of the SLPP, immediately after he received appointment as the President. There seems to be a tacit understanding between Wickremesinghe and the SLPP that elected him as the President not to initiate an investigation. Ideally, political parties represented in Parliament should have formed a Special Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to investigate the developments during 2019 to the end of 2022. Those who had moved court against the destruction of their property, during the May 2022 violence directed at the SLPP, quietly withdrew that case on the promise of a fresh comprehensive investigation. This assurance given by the Wickremesinghe government was meant to bring an end to the judicial process.

When the writer raised the need to investigate external interventions, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) sidestepped the issue. Shame on the so-called independent commission, which shows it is anything but independent.

Sumanthiran’s proposal

Since the eradication of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, the now defunct Tamil National Alliance’s (TNA) priority had been convincing successive governments to withdraw the armed forces/ substantially reduce their strength in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led TNA, as well as other Tamil political parties, Western powers, civil society, Tamil groups, based overseas, wanted the armed forces out of the N and E regions.

Abeywardena also revealed how the then ITAK lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, during a tense meeting chaired by him, in Parliament, also on 13 July, 2022, proposed the withdrawal of the armed forces from the N and E for redeployment in Colombo. The author, without hesitation, alleged that the lawmaker was taking advantage of the situation to achieve their longstanding wish. The then Speaker also disclosed that Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella and other party leaders leaving the meeting as soon as the armed forces reported the protesters smashing the first line of defence established to protect the Parliament. However, leaders of minority parties had remained unruffled as the situation continued to deteriorate and external powers stepped up efforts to get rid of both Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe to pave the way for an administration loyal and subservient to them. Foreign powers seemed to have been convinced that Speaker Abeywardena was the best person to run the country, the way they wanted, or till the Aragalaya mob captured the House.

The Author referred to the role played by the media, including social media platforms, to promote Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor. Maddumamabandara referred to the Hindustan Times coverage to emphasise the despicable role played by a section of the media to manipulate the rapid developments that were taking place. The author also dealt with the role played by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in the project with the focus on how that party intensified its actions immediately after Gotabaya Rajapaksa stepped down.

Disputed assessment

The Author identified Ministers Bimal Rathnayaka, Sunil Handunetti and K.D. Lal Kantha as the persons who spearheaded the JVP bid to seize control of Parliament. Maddumabanda unflinchingly compared the operation, mounted against Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with the regime change operations carried out in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Ukraine. Asserting that governments loyal to the US-led Western block had been installed in those countries, the author seemed to have wrongly assumed that external powers failed to succeed in Sri Lanka (pages 109 and 110). That assertion is utterly wrong. Perhaps, the author for some unexplained reasons accepted what took place here. Nothing can be further from the truth than the regime change operation failed (page 110) due to the actions of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In case, the author goes for a second print, he should seriously consider making appropriate corrections as the current dispensation pursues an agenda in consultation with the US and India.

The signing of seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with India, including one on defence, and growing political-defence-economic ties with the US, have underscored that the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) may not have been the first choice of the US-India combine but it is certainly acceptable to them now.

The bottom line is that a democratically elected President, and government, had been ousted through unconstitutional means and Sri Lanka meekly accepted that situation without protest. In retrospect, the political party system here has been subverted and changed to such an extent, irreparable damage has been caused to public confidence. External powers have proved that Sri Lanka can be influenced at every level, without exception, and the 2022 ‘Aragalaya’ is a case in point. The country is in such a pathetic state, political parties represented in Parliament and those waiting for an opportunity to enter the House somehow at any cost remain vulnerable to external designs and influence.

Cyclone Ditwah has worsened the situation. The country has been further weakened with no hope of early recovery. Although the death toll is much smaller compared to that of the 2004 tsunami, economic devastation is massive and possibly irreversible and irreparable.

By Shamindra Ferdinando