Features
IPKF’S Withdrawal: Correspondence between Premadasa and Rajiv Gandhi – Part II
ANNEXURE “H”
New Delhi
July 11, 1989
Dear Mr. President,
I have your letters of 30th June and 5th July.
I do not wish to enter into a debate on various interpretations of mutual obligations assumed by our two sovereign nations. These are quite clear. I also do not wish to go into the validity of assertions like the LTTE having resumed violence on 2nd August, 1987 whereas the arms surrender started and the amnesty letter was handed over by the Sri Lankan Government to the LTTE three days later. We should let facts speak for themselves.
There is an Agreement between our two countries. This Agreement is meant to preserve the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka and to ensure the safety, security and legitimate interests of the Tamils. Nearly a thousand Indian soldiers have made the supreme sacrifice in fulfilment of India’s obligations as a guarantor of this Agreement. Since the signing of the Agreement, not only have the Provincial Council elections been held, but also the Parliamentary and Presidential elections. The situation in the North-Eastern Province is far more settled and peaceful than elsewhere in Sri Lanka. Despite all this, the devolution package promised to the Tamils has not been implemented. These are incontrovertible facts.
Both of us agree that the IPKF should be withdrawn. Both of us agree that we had commenced the withdrawal even before you asked for it. A broad time frame for IPKF’s withdrawal had in fact been discussed. Discussions on finalising the details were proposed by your Foreign Minister at Harare only a few days prior to your unilateral announcement of 1st June.
I have repeatedly said that the IPKF’s withdrawal schedule should be worked out through joint consultations along with a simultaneous schedule for the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. We are willing to resume discussions on, this subject at any time and place of your convenience. Your colleague, the Honourable Mr. Thondaman, who met me here, would have conveyed to you our desire for friendly relations and our willingness to resolve any misunderstandings through mutual consultations. If, however, discussions for this purpose are not acceptable to you, we will have to decide the details of IPKF’s withdrawal unilaterally consistent with our responsibilities and obligations under the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.
While I reiterate Government of India’s willingness to cooperate with your Government to resolve pending issues, I must emphasise to Your Excellency that India has traditionally been mindful of the sanctity of the Agreements it signs with other countries and of commitments solemnly undertaken under such Agreements. India will under no circumstances deviate from this policy affecting our concerns.
It has been our practice to maintain the confidentiality of official correspondence, particularly ‘between Heads of State or Government, unless otherwise agreed upon. However, the gist of your messages to me was more often than not made available to the media before they reached me. Now I find that all our recent correspondence has been officially made public by the Sri Lanka Government. I may thus be constrained to depart from tradition by authorising this communication being made public, after you receive it.
His Excellency
Mr. Ranasinghe Premadasa
President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Colombo
ANNEXURE “I” 12th July 1989
Dear Prime Minister
I am in receipt of your letter of 11th July 1989 which was handed-to me by your Special-Envoy.I thank you for the courtesy of sending him to Sri Lanka in an attempt to resolve the issues regarding the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces.
I explained to your Special Envoy and his delegation my position with-regard to the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces from Sri Lanka. I informed them that the discussions can continue based on the four premises set out below.
Firstly, the Indian Armed Forces arrived in Sri Lanka as a peace keeping force to assist in restoring peace. They came at the request of the President of Sri Lanka and were under his command as the Commander in Chief of the Forces of Armed Forces. Their invitation was in terms of Item 6 of the Annexure to the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement which says “that an Indian Peace Keeping Contingent may be invited by the President of Sri Lanka to guarantee and enforce the cessation of hostilities if so required.” The fact that the president of Sri Lanka is the Commander in Chief of all Armed Forces in Sri Lanka has been recognised by the Government of India.
Secondly, the Agreement was between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India. There were no other parties to the Agreement. In fact the LTTE protested that they were left out of the Agreement and in fact their leaders had been confined for a duration of time leading up to the signing of the Agreement.
Thirdly, the presence of the Indian Armed Forces and the devolution of powers to the Provincial Councils are totally unconnected. I have explained this to you at great length in my earlier communications. I have told your delegation that the devolution of power by the Sri Lanka Parliament is entirely an internal matter. No foreign agency can oversee the implementation of legislation enacted by or compel the Parliament of a sovereign State to enact any particular provision of law. In any case, as stated in my earlier letter of 30th June 1989 you would appreciate that devolution is essentially a long term process. There is neither any legal nor any other rational basis for the presence of any military force to ensure that the process of devolution is complete. It would therefore be incorrect and unrealistic to contend that the Indian Armed Forces were expected to remain in Sri Lanka till the process of devolution is completed.
Fourthly, the Government of India undertook not to permit Indian territory to be used for activities prejudicial to the unity, integrity and security of Sri Lanka. I was constrained to point out to your delegation that Mr Padmanabha and others who are campaigning to keep the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka have not only been permitted to publicly express their intention of making a unilateral declaration of Eelam whilst being on Indian soil but also to publicise such declaration on Indian national television.
I explained further to them that the invitation extended to the Indian Armed Forces was based on assurances contained in the Agreement that the time frame required for cessation of hostilities was 48 hours from the signing of the Agreement and for the surrender of arms was 72 hours from the cessation of hostilities. You would also appreciate that the decision to invite an Indian peace Keeping Contingent was in the context of resolve that a solution to the ethnic problem should be through negotiation and not by the use of military force. As such, the invitation could not have been interpreted as being one for the Indian Peace Keeping Contingent to engage itself in the prolonged use of force.
The reassurance with which I noted the withdrawal of Indian force when I assumed office turned to disappointment when I observed that the withdrawal was not being effected as expeditiously as possible. After careful consideration I decided that the 31st July 1989 was the suitable deadline for the withdrawal of the Indian armed forces from Sri Lanka.
The President of Sri Lanka could under Article 2.16(c) of the Agreement obtain Indian military -assistance when he thinks such assistance is necessary. In my Election Manifesto I promised to solve the problem, not by the use of force but by a process of consultation, compromise and consensus. The people of this country endorsed this manifesto. The dialogue initiated under this mandate has already borne fruit. The LTTE once the most intractable of the militant groups has ceased hostilities not only against the Government, but against all the people of the North and the East and indeed against all the people of Sri Lanka. They have agreed to join the democratic process and are now committed to settling problems by negotiation. In this context continued military action by the Indian armed forces is not only unnecessary but also prejudicial to a settlement by discussion and negotiation.
Action by the Indian armed forces is also gravely prejudicial to a political settlement with the LTTE who assert their need to carry arms as long as they are being attacked by the Indian forces and other militant groups who reportedly, enjoy the support of the Indian forces. Further the very presence of the Indian armed forces in Sri Lanka has made it difficult for me to enter into any dialogue with other political groups. In the meantime, certain groups in other parts of the country are resorting to violent activity on account of what they claim to be the inability of the Government to ensure the withdrawal of the Indian armed forces. The continued presence of the Indian armed forces is driving these groups to escalating their violence to crisis proportions.
My officials will be holding discussions based on these basic premises. I shall be replying the other issues including the statement attributed to my Foreign Minister raised in your letter of 11th July 1989 at the conclusion of the discussions between your delegation and my officials.
Yours sincerely
PRESIDENT
ANNEXURE “J”
19 July 1989
Dear Prime Minister
Further to my letter of 12th July, 1989 I wish to clarify certain matters referred to in your letter of 11th July, 1989.I agree that we should not enter into a debate. The terms of the Agreement are clear. The events leading up to that Agreement and the subsequent developments are fresh in our minds.
In regard to the cessation of hostilities by the LTTE, it is a fact that the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka had not been able, even after two years, to ensure such cessation and complete disarming the militants. At the time of the signing of the Agreement it was envisaged that this process would not take more than five days.
I also agree with your assertion that the Agreement involves the acceptance of mutual obligations by two sovereign and friendly nations. The objective of this Agreement was to resolve the ethnic problem and to end the violence that was a threat to the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The Agreement also sought to ensure the physical security and safety not only of the Tamil ethnic community but of all communities inhabiting the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
I must thank you once again for the assistance provided by the Indian Forces in response to Sri Lanka’s request for military assistance to guarantee and enforce the cessation of hostilities. We are sad that over a thousand Indian lives have been lost.
Sri Lanka for her part has discharged all her obligations under the Agreement and in particular taken all effective and meaningful steps towards the devolution of power.Sri Lanka has amongst other things, amended the Constitution, enacted legislation necessary to establish Provincial Councils, temporarily merged the Northern and Eastern Provinces, implemented the Official Languages policy, held the Provincial Council Elections, set up the infrastructure and provided the personnel and finances necessary for effective functioning.
I wish to reiterate that I have at all times held the view that the problems of the Tamil linguistic groups in Sri Lanka should be resolved, not by the use of force but by the process of consultation, compromise and consensus.Firm in this belief, I, as the Presidential Candidate, incorporated in my manifesto a pledge to secure the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces as a necessary prelude to political negotiations and a durable settlement. I did so in October/November 1988. The people of Sri Lanka, by an overwhelming majority endorsed this principle, both at the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections.
The events of the past months have proved the wisdom of my approach. The LTTE once the most intractable of groups have now agreed to eschew violence and join the mainstream of political democracy.You state that “the situation in the North-Eastern Provinces is far more settled and peaceful than elsewhere in Sri Lanka.” If this be so, there would be a lesser need for offensive action by the armed forces in these areas.
Furthermore, the substantial grievance over which the other Provinces began fomenting unrest, is the continued presence of the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka. As you are aware, the agitation commenced with the signing of the Agreement and continued to escalate due to the presence of the Indian Armed Forces. So that, which ever way it is looked at, the continued presence of the Indian Armed Forces is an obstacle to the restoration of peace and normalcy in Sri Lanka.
Whilst we are both agreed that the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka should be withdrawn, I cannot, for the reasons more fully set out in the annex hereto, agree that the terms of the Agreement do, or can in law be interpreted to mean, that the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces is in any way linked with or preconditioned upon the implementation of the process of devolution, or for that matter, the performance of any other obligation cast upon Sri Lanka by the Agreement.
The continued presence of the Indian Armed Forces or the conduct of any operations by such forces within Sri Lankan territory, is conditional only upon the concurrence of the Sri Lanka Government. It would therefore be unlawful for the Government of India to continue to maintain her Armed Forces within Sri Lankan territory in the absence of such concurrence.
It would be incompatible with the sovereignty of a State to concede a right for any alien armed force to operate within its territory contrary to the wishes of the Head of State who is also the Commander-in-Chief of its forces – from whom such alien armed force is not taking orders.
You would also appreciate that any continued offensive action against a section of my people who have publicly announced a cessation of hostilities against the Government and all the people of Sri Lanka would amount to the unlawful taking of civilian lives.
As already intimated to you, with the recommencement of the withdrawal process it will be possible to set in motion consultations to accommodate any logistical constraints which may arise.You have stated that my Foreign Minister has discussed a broad time frame for the withdrawal of the IPKF. According to him the former Indian High Commissioner in Colombo had intimated that some of the IPKF would be withdrawn by 30th of June and the rest by 31st of December. It appears that this had been a tentative proposal made by your former High Commissioner and I must emphasise that we have not at any time agreed to such a time frame.
I continue to receive reports of the forcible conscription of young people in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and their training at the hands of the Indian Forces. Since I wrote to you on this matter on 30th June, the situation has been aggravated. There is now an exodus of young people from the Northern and the Eastern Provinces fleeing from this conscription. A sizeable number is being accommodated in camps in Colombo.
I am thankful for the assurance in your letter that India has traditionally been mindful of the sanctity of the principle of observing the obligations of Agreements entered into by India. I wholly endorse the principle that Agreements should be observed. In this regard I invite your attention to the express provision in the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement that the provision of military assistance by the Government of India is “as and when requested” by the Government of Sri Lanka.
It should also be noted that the Agreement contemplates that the Indian Armed Forces will assist the Government of Sri Lanka and. not be operating on their own initiative.
However, if it is your view that the Agreement should be construed as creating an obligation for the Indian Armed Forces to remain in Sri Lankan territory without the concurrence and against the express wishes of the Sri Lanka Government, I as the President of an independent, sovereign Republic, would have no option but to treat the Agreement as being inimical to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and national interests.
PRESIDENT
His Excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Prime Minister of India Prime Minister’s Office New Delhi
India.
ANNEX
The entry into and the continued presence of Indian Armed Forces on Sri Lankan territory can be lawful only upon the express concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka.
It is a peremptory norm of international law, that the presence of, or the conduct of operations by, any foreign armed force within the territory of a sovereign state, otherwise than with the express concurrence of the Government of that state amounts to an act of aggression. Such acts of aggression have not only been recognized as unlawful, but unequivocally condemned by the community of civilized nations. This principle has also been reiterated in several United Nations instruments.
In the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement several acts of co-operation are obligated upon the Government of India. The provision of military assistance is one such act of co-operation.An examination of the structure of the Agreement makes it clear, that the Agreement contemplated implementation without the use of force, that the Government of India, agreed to underwrite and guarantee the acceptance of the Agreement by the militant groups, who would then cease hostilities and surrender their arms.
The Government of Sri Lanka undertook to confine its ‘Armed Forces to barracks and to grant an Amnesty to the militants who were in custody.The rendering of military assistance is governed by Article 2.16 (c) which clearly stipulates that the affording of military assistance is “as and when” requested by the Government of Sri Lanka.
This Article makes it clear beyond argument, that the basic provision of international law regarding the necessity of the concurrence of the government of the domestic state in the entry of foreign armed forces into its territory, has been recognized and observed.
With the release of the militants from custody and the confining of the Armed Forces to barracks by Sri Lanka, and the failure to disarm the militants or to ensure cessation of hostilities, there was resumption of the violence which necessitated the request t for Indian military Assistance. Accordingly the invitation to the Indian Armed Forces was, as unequivocally stated in clause 6 of the Annexure, “to guarantee and enforce the cessation of hostilities”.
Any attempt to” construe this invitation as providing a mandatory’ right for the Armed Forces so invited to “protect” minorities or to oversee the devolution of power would be an untenable construction of the Agreement.Such a construction would neither accord with the clear understanding stated in the Agree-sent nor with the peremptory norms of international law.
Features
Revolt in the Temple: Poverty as Structural Control
The underlying issue in Anuradhapura is a struggle between a few families who, for years, have waged a quiet cold war over control of the Udamaluwa. Similar situations exist in Mihintale as well. These places, among others, are treated as treasures of Buddhism but, in practice, function as tightly controlled economic centres. The same pattern repeats in Kandy around the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic and in Kataragama at the shrine of God Kataragama. Variations of it exist across religious spaces of Islam, Catholicism, and Hinduism too, where institutional authority becomes indistinguishable from localised power networks. What is presented as sacred order often operates as inherited control.
It is indeed devastating to see situations where parents have no alternative but to expose their children to predators in robes for survival. This has nothing to do with religion itself, but with human pathology in the context of survival. These are the questions that demand answers, not superficial responses that treat symptoms while ignoring the conditions that produce them. What is more shocking and disturbing is not the tragedy itself, but the reactions to it. Social media has overwhelmed us, not towards understanding, but towards a fragmented cognitive state with no exit route.
A friend of mine in Nairobi used to keep all his electronic devices at home and go into the forest once a month, spending days there before returning. He called it “detoxification”, but in reality it was an escape from a system that no longer allows uninterrupted thought. Daily life is now saturated with unnecessary content, and attention itself has become a commodity extracted, processed, and sold back to us. This is where we have become unable to understand what really drives certain tragedies we endlessly react to, while remaining blind to the systems that quietly manufacture them.
Multi-dimensional poverty
Poverty is structural, poverty is political, and poverty is functional; it is a tool and a manoeuvring force of power. The question is no longer whether poverty exists, but who benefits from its persistence, and who is forced to survive within it. From education to medicine to basic food supply chains, countries like Sri Lanka are not simply mismanaged; they are structurally captured by a small number of actors who remain stable regardless of who is formally in power. Small-scale enterprises and NGO circuits that circulate foreign funding to “solve structural issues” often operate as hollow administrative performances, producing reports rather than transformation.
Poverty is not merely the absence of money. It is the absence of bandwidth, absence of protection, absence of time, and absence of cognitive stability. As Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir state, “Scarcity captures the mind. Just as the starving subjects had food on their mind, when we experience scarcity of any kind, we become absorbed by it.” This is a description of how human cognition is structurally reorganized under constraint. Scarcity does not sit outside the person; it occupies them.
They also state, “Scarcity leads us to borrow and pushes us deeper into scarcity.” That is the mechanism that must be confronted without euphemism. Poverty is not only deprivation; it is a self-reinforcing trap in which survival decisions generate the next layer of crisis. Once a society crosses a certain threshold of scarcity, it stops producing long-term reasoning as a default condition. It produces short-term survival logic, often mistaken by outsiders for irrationality.
It is precisely here that public discourse becomes intellectually dishonest. Everything is translated into moral language because moral language is easier than structural analysis. But morality without structure becomes theatre. It produces outrage, not understanding, and repetition, not reform.
It is indeed brutal when an individual wearing religious insignia—whether robe, symbol, or institutional identity—is accused of acts that fundamentally contradict the moral authority attached to that position. It is equally brutal when institutions that depend entirely on trust begin to function as shields rather than safeguards. But the deeper question is not shock. The deeper question is what kind of social condition produces families who see placement within such institutions not only as devotion, but as a survival strategy under constraint.
Ethical decision-making
That is where the argument collapses into its most uncomfortable form. Poverty does not produce ethical decision-making environments. It produces constrained optimization under pressure. When food insecurity, debt, and social instability converge, institutional spaces that appear stable become transactional destinations for survival rather than moral choices. To interpret this as purely cultural failure is to deliberately ignore the structural compression of options.
Mullainathan and Shafir describe this clearly: “Instead of saying that scarcity ‘focuses,’ we could just as easily say that scarcity causes us to tunnel: to focus single-mindedly on managing the scarcity at hand.” That tunnelling effect is not abstract. It is visible wherever long-term planning collapses under immediate pressure. Systems then misread this as irresponsibility, when it is in fact cognitive overload produced by structure.
What is rarely acknowledged is how deeply this extends into governance itself. Institutions increasingly operate as if they are managing rational, unconstrained individuals. In reality, they are interacting with populations whose cognitive bandwidth is already structurally taxed. The result is policy failure interpreted as public non-compliance, enforcement interpreted as moral correction, and reform interpreted as communication failure rather than design failure.
Social media has intensified this distortion. It does not merely spread information; it destroys sequencing. Structural problems require temporal depth. Social media removes that depth and replaces it with instantaneous judgment. Every event becomes a surface object, detached from causality. The outcome is a society permanently reacting and never diagnosing.
Poverty, in this environment, becomes invisible in its real form. It is not seen as a continuous structural condition but as episodic failure. A scandal appears, is consumed, and disappears. Another replaces it. Nothing accumulates into understanding because attention itself is exhausted before synthesis can occur.
Modern Condition
The modern condition reflects a reversal of earlier social organization, where human relationships are embedded within abstract systems of finance, law, and administration that often fail to recognize the lived constraints of those they govern. In this disembedded state, institutions increasingly misinterpret human behaviour as their capacity for structural understanding weakens. At the same time, attempts to resolve systemic failures through expanding administrative complexity produce diminishing returns: more regulation, oversight, and reporting generate less coherence. Over time, institutions shift from functional effectiveness to symbolic performance, maintaining the appearance of control rather than achieving it.
This is why public outrage repeatedly fails to translate into structural change. Outrage is not a tool of reconstruction. It is a signal of system fatigue. It circulates, intensifies, and dissipates without altering the underlying architecture. Meanwhile, the conditions that produce repetition remain intact.
The most persistent illusion is that these are separate problems: poverty here, institutional misuse there, media distortion elsewhere. They are not separate. They are expressions of a single condition in which scarcity, complexity, symbolic authority, and fragmented enforcement interact without coordination. The system does not fail in one place; it fails in the gaps between these layers.
Symbolic systems
What makes this condition more severe is that symbolic systems continue to operate at full strength even when structural systems degrade. Religious identity remains powerful. Political rhetoric remains strong. Cultural symbolism remains intact. But enforcement capacity, institutional coherence, and social trust degrade beneath them. That gap is where instability grows. Until that gap is addressed at the level of structure rather than sentiment, repetition remains inevitable. New scandals will emerge, new interpretations will circulate, and new cycles of outrage will follow. Nothing resolves because nothing is being reconstructed beneath the surface of reaction.
This is no longer repairable through adjustment or rhetoric. It is a form of decay that persists until it exhausts itself, because the mechanisms meant to correct it are now part of the same failure. It continues until rupture, not reform. At that point, instability ceases to be episodic and becomes structural. Pressure will accumulate into breakdown, and what follows will not be managed transition but forced reversal. The responsibility lies with those who govern these institutions to prevent that trajectory, not through language, but through change. The drama is ending; farce is over; what we are witnessing is tragedy unfolding with unprecedented consequences.
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Features
Are threats to Buddha Sasana external or from within?
As Sri Lanka celebrates the birth, Enlightenment and the Parinibbana of the Buddha, almost a month after the rest of the Buddhist-world did so, there is widespread discussion about threats to Buddha Sasana provoked by some recent incidents. Regarding the views expressed about postponing Vesak celebrations in my article ‘May Day and postponement Vesak 2026’ (The Island, 25 May), my very good friend Dr Upali Abeysiri has sent me the following comments: “The Mahanayakas have a good reason to postpone Vesak. The dawning of the full moon has to be on the same constellation (nekatha) as when the Buddha was born and attained enlightenment. Although Adhi Poya is reckoned as the second full moon arising in the same calendar month, this is supposed to be an odd exception.” Though it would have been ideal if a consensus could have been reached prior to the split of celebrations, perhaps, it does not matter very much as celebrations occur on a symbolic rather than an actual date, there being no historical or archaeological evidence confirming exact dates.
Whilst there are no direct threats to Buddha Dhamma, as the expanding horizons of science continue to confirm the fundamentals of Buddha Dhamma, there is no doubt whatsoever that there are threats to Buddha Sasana. However, these threats become important as the Buddha Sasana performs the pivotal role in protecting and propagating the Dhamma and, hence, become an indirect threat to Dhamma itself. Therefore, it should be the concern of all Buddhists and it is in this spirit I am making some comments which some may interpret as disrespectful to the Maha Sangha. I can reassure that my intentions are entirely directed towards the preservation of the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana. Though the Buddha proclaimed that the Sasana consists of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Upasaka and Upasika, for all practical purposes Sasana had been led by Bhikkhus, often at the expense of others.
There is hardly any doubt that there are external forces at play in Sri Lanka and even some Buddhists seem to object to Sri Lanka being called a Buddhist country. Interestingly, no one seems to object to countries like the UK and the USA being called Christian counties. I
There is no registration or baptism in Buddhism and there are no rewards for Buddhists for conversions. As I pointed out in a previous article, ‘How does the Buddha differ’ (The Island, 1 May) unlike most other religions, Buddhism is not a ‘high-demand’ religion, nor ‘law-based’ religion and is not exclusivist. Perhaps, it is this liberalism, pacifism and gentleness, which are the real strengths, that are being exploited as weaknesses by others.
There will always be external threats and the Buddha too faced many during his lifetime. Before addressing those, is it not more important to address the threats within? One of the most important problems seems to be the breakdown of discipline. Bhikkhus are bound by Vinaya rules, laid down by the Buddha and some recent incidents highlight total deviations. Though there were many previous incidents like unsubstantiated claims of Arahanthood, Bhikkhus attacking each other on YouTube and Bhikkhus conducting YouTube channels, not for the propagation of the Dhamma but for the accumulation of rupees, attention was focused after the detection of 22 young monks carrying narcotic drugs.
Though many commentators were quick to condemn the Sangha on this account, we need to go deeper. Narcotic menace has become a huge problem in Sri Lanka and it looks as if the drug lords would resort to anything to achieve their objectives. Though it looks as if some gullible young monks had been duped by drug lords, we need to question why it was possible. Is it due to the lack of supervision of these novices by their seniors that allowed them to accept a request in a WhatsApp group? Should there be checks and balances on foreign travel by Bhikkhus?
What shocked Buddhists was what followed next; the arrest of the Nayaka of Atamasthana for allegedly having sex with a minor. Anuradhapura was our first capital and Sri Maha Bodhi is the longest surviving authenticated tree in the world. Ruwanweliseya and Jetawanaramaya were among the ten tallest man-made structures in the ancient world, Jetawanaramaya still holding the Guiness record for the largest stupa in the world. Cyberspace is full of theories. Whilst some have condemned the Nayaka Thero even before the conclusion of inquiries whilst others claim that this was a coup by another Nayaka Thera in an attempt of succession.
I was intrigued, reading in a Sri Lankan newspaper about the 80th birthday celebrations of a Nayaka priest, who was convicted in London in 2012 of historical child sex abuse and sentenced to seven years in prison. I remember the case very well as he was the head of the Vihara, we had our first contact on relocating to the UK. I also remember his devotees, who believed that he was wrongly accused, collecting over £50,000 for an appeal. In spite of being represented by one of the top Barristers in the UK, the conviction was upheld but the jail-term was reduced by a year. His name is still on the sex-offenders register in the UK and he is permanently prevented from association with children. One can argue that as he has served the sentence and not reoffended, this should not be held against him but what baffled me is that he is still being referred to as the Chief Sangha Nayaka. Should a person on the sex-offenders register be the Chief Sangha Nayaka?
It is high time we put our own house in order before fighting the external enemies. It is reported that the former president CBK has written to the Mahanayakas requesting urgent reform and we should be obliged to her for taking the lead.
There are many aspects that need urgent reform, the first being removal of caste barriers practiced by some Nikayas, which is the greatest insult to the Buddha who promoted equality. The second is the active encouragement of Bhikkhuni Sasana which has not happened in spite of the landmark ruling by the supreme court. The third is the establishment of proper disciplinary processes under a single Adhikarana Sangha Nayaka with powers and support than allowing the government to take over the control of even non-criminal Vinaya matters.
There are many other issues that need settlement like the controversy of the land of Buddha’s birth which seems to linger on. An expert committee should hear all evidence and settle this issue once and for all.
As I have pointed out on many occasions in these columns, it is high time a Dhamma Sangayana was held, as the last one was 70 years ago. Ideally, it should be different with active participation of lay experts as well. It is the duty of us Buddhists to ensure that the words of wisdom of the Buddha continue to enlighten generations to come.
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Vijaya Kumar: Academic, Activist & Genial Fellow-Traveller
The University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, was in our time, a less-crowded residential university, where everybody knew everybody else or at least knew of everybody else.
I knew of Emeritus Professor Vijaya Kumar of the Department of Chemistry at Peradeniya, or Kumar, as we referred to him fondly, before I got to know him. His dear wife Savitri, also a member of the academic staff of the Department of Chemistry, was nicknamed Kumee, by some of their students (of which vintage is unknown to me) and the duo were thereafter referred to affectionately as Kumar and Kumee.
The Faculty of Science became a regular haunt of mine as I would go there in the company of my batchmates to attend lectures on Basic Mathematics given by Professor Maheswaran, as it was a requirement for our General Arts Qualifying Examinations. I would also go there to listen to some excellent talks under a programme that was held in the auditorium of the Science Faculty referred to as “Popular Science Gossip”. The “gossip” at these talks were not confined solely to science but were broad enough to include Literature, History and other branches of knowledge as well. I would often spot Kumar in the audience at these talks or bump into him in the corridors of the Science Faculty. But I got to know him personally only after he became the Warden of Arunachalam, my hall of residence, during my undergraduate years initially, and later, as a member of the academic staff of the Department of English.
Our Science Faculty undergraduate contemporaries, especially those at Arunachalam Hall and its immediate neighbour, Jayatilaka Hall, both within a stone’s throw away from the Science Faculty, shared many an anecdote about Kumar and their other lecturers. One of these anecdotes, had to do with a spectacular (motor car) driving feat of Kumar’s. Legend has it that he drove from his university bungalow-home to the Faculty of Science deploying only the reverse gear of his car! Kumar, on hearing of this, had told certain of his student friends, including some who became his colleagues later on, that this story is one of the biggest yarns he had heard in his life!
Some of his one-time younger colleagues, now in retirement like Kumar, tell me that Kumar exuded warmth and friendliness in all of his professional and administrative interactions with others in the wider university community. But there was no warmth or mercy for those who indulged in the unsavoury pastime of student ‘ragging’. He was a very strong proponent of the need to ensure to all freshers an environment free of the menace of ‘ragging’. He remained ever-vigilant during the ‘ragging’ season. There are stories of his chasing ‘raggers’ and catching them. Professor Maheswaran, who later became an intimate friend and remains so after more than half a century, was another who was fiercely opposed to ‘ragging’. I was a personal witness to Mahes chasing a ‘ragger’ up and down the stairs of the main library to nab him. Yet another of his students has noted that Kumar’s office room in the Faculty was a total mess at all times. It had tables, piled so high with books and documents that one could not easily spot Kumar at his desk. He, however, had the knack of pulling out from amidst the clutter, any document that he needed at any given time. If anybody were to volunteer to help tidy his desk, Kumar would respond firmly with “Don’t you touch my desk!”.
Kumar, like several of his colleagues in the other faculties as well, had his own eccentricities. According to information received from reliable sources, Kumar who taught Organic Chemistry used to carry his lecture notes in his shirt or trouser pocket with ‘the entire lecture condensed in point form on a half-sheet or half of a half-sheet of paper’. The way he rummaged through his sling bag filled to the brim with stuff to find an item that he needed was another ritual that amused onlookers.
Kumar, interestingly enough is a Royal-cum-Thomian product, in that he had his primary education at S.Thomas’ Prep School, Kollupitiya and the entirety of his secondary education at Royal College, which he entered in 1953. In a note written by Kumar himself, he notes that despite having had excellent teachers at Royal, his was not a notable school career. He goes on to say that “the only achievement I could boast of was my being the joint-winner of the school General Knowledge Prize”. However, he had been active in a Scout Group outside of school (1st Port of Colombo, Sea Scouts) where he “was Queen’s Scout, Patrol leader, and later, Assistant Scout Master”.
Kumar entered the Faculty of Science of the University of Ceylon in 1961 and secured from it an honours degree in Chemistry in 1965. He joined the academic staff of the Department of Chemistry in the Faculty of Science, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya in 1965 and left the following year for Magdalen College at Oxford University, from which institution he obtained his doctorate in Chemistry. His entire teaching career was at Peradeniya, where in the period 2003-2006 he served as the Dean of the Faculty of Science, a position that his late father-in-law had held a few decades earlier.
Among the other highlights of his career are: Chairman of the Industrial Technology Institute (formerly the Ceylon Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, CISIR); Member (representing Sri Lanka) of the Geneva-based UN Commission on Science and Technology from 1999 to 2007 and its President from 2001-2003; President of the Sri Lanka Estate Workers Union from 1989 onwards; Member of the Politburo of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party from 1988 to 2014 and currently, a member of the Executive Committee of the National People’s Power (NPP).
Vijaya and Savitri Kumar are parents of daughters Shamala and Ramya, who are following in the footsteps of their parents: with the former teaching in the Department of Agricultural Economics in the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya and the latter, in the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Jaffna.
(I wish to thank the following who assisted me in the writing of this brief essay: Mr. Bandula Warnakulasuriya, Emeritus Professor Ratnayake Bandara, Professor Mahinda Wickramaratne, Professor Swarna Wimalasiri and Mr. Manik de Silva).
*Editor’s note: Prof. Vijaya Kumar, a member of the NPP’s National Executive Committee and is still active in politics turns 84 today. This article by Tissa Jayatilaka, former Executive Director of the United States – Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission for Mutual Academic Exchange, was written for an upcoming collection of essays on Kumar’s life by his friends.
(Colombo Telegraph)
By Tissa Jayatilaka
-
News2 days agoIMF urges Lanka not to meddle with exchange rate
-
News7 days agoPolice probe underway to ascertain links between criminals deported from UAE and local politicians
-
News6 days agoEaster Sunday carnage: Court told Maulana’s statement cannot be accepted without cross-examination
-
News6 days agoUK passport holder hiding here wants to have deportation order rescinded to leave without blemish
-
Opinion6 days agoUndermining the democratic political framework
-
Features3 days agoThe Division Bell Mystery
-
News7 days agoDickoya double murder suspect arrested
-
Midweek Review5 days agoIsraeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador




