Midweek Review

Masterpiece: The Origin and Evolution

Published

9 months ago

2025/06/25

Moses (Michelangelo), San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome

‘Masterpiece’ is a lexical term today, which connotes ‘a great work of Art of any genre’ in the world. At times in common practice, when presenting a work of Art, notwithstanding the absence of its inherent defining qualities, the term wields exaggeration, much in the form of an attributive adjective. In a broader sense, what constitutes a Work of Art a ‘Masterpiece’?

Imagination is the cornerstone of art. The core element of all forms of Art is human imagination. In other words, all forms of art begin with an image, created in the Human Mind. ‘The Humanities through the Arts’ written by David Martin and Lee A. Jacobus, recognises three of the most widely accepted criteria for determining whether or not something is a work of Art. First, the object or the event should be made by an artist. The second criterion is that the object or event should be intended to be a work of Art by its maker and, thirdly, that the important or recognised ‘experts’ agree that it is a work of Art.

The observations, speculations, conclusions and judgments of key individuals such as art historians, connoisseurs, curators, and critics are considered to be universally accepted in the field of Art. Their art consciousness, critical point of view, profound artistic perception and multi-sensory engagement with art are conducive to determining the provenance, authenticating, evaluating, interpreting and appreciating a great work of art while distinguishing it from a work that is mediocre. This discernment entails a Work of Art being positioned in the best appropriate context.

A ‘Masterpiece’ sometimes carries a strong connotation of artistic mastery, without being the artist’s magnum opus. On the contrary, there are some artists whose numerous works of art are considered masterpieces, yet the pinnacle of their work or the ‘Magnum Opus’ remains undefinable. A creative genius of the High Renaissance, Michelangelo can be cited as a prime example. Among all the works which showcase his exceptionality, including ‘David’, the Sistine Chapel Ceiling Frescoes, The Pietà, the sculptures in Medici Tombs and the

Giorgio Vasari

Moses, it is definitively hard to single out the ‘Magnum Opus’, as each of his works demonstrates distinctive aspects of outstanding artistry.

An artistic work gains validation in society by means of the audience’s preferences and expectations. The magnitude of imagination and the ideological formations of the creator serve as strong indicators of determining the validity and longevity of the creation.

Three common elements constitute a Piece of Art, a ‘Masterpiece’. Firstly, an ‘unprecedented’ Work of Art with unparalleled artistic mastery and unique style secures a distinctive position in the field of art as a Masterpiece. A work of Art which carves a niche conveys a covert message of its originality, through subtle artistic compositional means. Innovative and unique artistic expression can be powerful catalysts for attracting and influencing the audience.

Secondly, a ‘Masterpiece’ is not bound by time. It transcends the boundaries of time and space. The enduring nature amalgamated with its universal appeal allows a masterpiece to remain relevant, by leaving a lasting imprint on both social and personal spaces across the centuries and beyond. The unparalleled nature of a Masterpiece can never be substituted or replaced with. This characteristic ensures its longevity.

Thirdly, a ‘Masterpiece’ establishes a benchmark for subsequent generations of artists and their work. The precedential potential of the Masterpiece serves as a model in determining, shaping and transforming the perception, standard, and orientation of the creative grammar of prospective artists. Once in a while, such an exemplary work of Art serves as the genesis of a new style or tradition.

The term ‘Masterpiece’ first appears in the medieval French documents of the 12th century. Initially described as ‘Chef d’oeuver’ in French and translated to English as ‘Chief Work’, it was a concept associated with ‘Craft Guilds’ in medieval Europe. ‘Craft Guilds’ are defined as social and professional associations of artisans and craftsmen, formed to promote the economic and social wellbeing of their members. It was mandatory for aspiring artists as well as craftsman to create a piece of ‘masterwork’ or ‘Masterpiece’ demonstrating their education, skill and mastery when applying to join a Guild to become a master in their respective field of art and craft. Membership in a Craft Guild was compulsory for an apprentice artist or craftsman to be recognized as a Master. An apprentice would spend long years learning their art or craft under a master who made them equipped with knowledge of techniques needed in their field. A ‘Masterpiece’ served as proof of competence. American Historian Professor Walter Cahn’s in his book, published in 1979, ‘Masterpiece: Chapters on the History of an Idea’ states that the requirement to execute a work for official examination, the ‘Masterpiece’ was first mentioned in ‘Livre des métiers’ or ‘Book of Trade’, a document compiled by Etienne Boileau, dated between 1261 and 1271 AD, which contains ordinances regulating trade and crafts in the city of Paris.

Painters, sculptors, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, weavers, cobblers, and carpenters were all required to present a ‘Masterpiece’, where they could demonstrate all of their skills at once while maintaining mastery of techniques. This inimitable creative activity marked the end of a period of apprenticeship and the apprentice was recognized as a Master in the relevant craft guild. If the guild rejected a Masterpiece, the artisan or craftsman wasn’t allowed to resubmit the work.

With the beginning and the development of the Renaissance in the 14th and 15th centuries, painting and sculpture were considered an Art rather than a trade or craft. The ‘Academy’ played a significant role in providing impetus for establishing standards of excellence in the field of Art. During this period Guilds shifted their requirements concerning Masterpieces. With the development of the Renaissance in Europe, Art and Culture were largely dominated by the elites who became the major patrons of Art. With this advancement, Art became specifically more elitist. In the meantime, the definition of ‘Masterpiece’ as a work which signifies the ‘creative and technical mastery’ of an artist, remained unchanged; an unprecedented volume of elitism and high degree of classical values were attributed to artistic creations.

At this juncture, technical mastery in the field was not sufficient for an artist to flourish as a Master. Art required an exceptionally high level of skill associated with subtle and unique artistry in it required ‘Extraordinary Virtuosity’.

Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), who is considered to be the first Art Historian in Western Art History, largely influenced him in streamlining the criteria for defining a ‘Masterpiece’. The explicit goal of publishing his pioneering work, ‘The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects’, in 1550, was to separate the best artists from the mediocre artists while creating a hierarchy. This hierarchical recognition and elevation of the status of Artists by Vasari facilitated the establishment of the ‘Canon’ of Renaissance Artists. This was a milestone which changed the entire landscape of Western Art History.

In Art History ‘Canon’ refers to a collection of artists, artworks and styles that are considered to be of high value or significance, often serving as models or standards for future art. The Canon ‘Doryphoros’ or ‘Spear Bearer’ by Polykleitos, which perfectly expresses the proportion of the human body, is one of the oldest guidelines used in early Greek sculpture. ‘Doryphoros’, which dates back to the High Classical period of Ancient Greece, was widely known as the embodiment of classical ideal beauty.

Another example is the canon on the art of goldsmithing and sculpture that emerged in the 15th century is the Italian Benvenuto Cellini’s ‘The Treatise of Benvenuto Cellini on Goldsmithing and Sculpture’. This provides guidelines for casting bronze and goldsmithing.

Three widely accepted canons in ancient arts here in Sri Lanka are ‘Manjusri Bhashitha Vaastu Vidya Shastra’ (Canon for ancient religious Architecture) and ‘Chitra-karma Shastra'(Canon for Painting and Sculpture), as well as ‘Shariputra’ (Canon for measuring techniques in Sculpture).

When a Work of Art is positioned and accepted as a ‘Canon’, it was inevitably considered a ‘Masterpiece’ which served as a source of inspiration and set an example for aspiring artists to learn, innovate and create, by going along with the legacy of their predecessors.

Standards which were employed to define a ‘Masterpiece’ led to a shift during the Renaissance where the Art was characterized by classicism and elitism. Enhancing skills and artistic perception influenced by ancient and classical artworks became a pragmatic criterion for an artist to become a Great Artist (Kalā Guru).

The most recent Work of Art which entertained the peak of spatial, conceptual, and compositional freedom is ‘Comedian’ by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan in 2019, depicting a yellow banana duct-taped to a white wall.

Over the course of time, the meaning of ‘Masterpiece’ expanded in a broader sense, encompassing any outstanding creation, regardless of the artistic medium, making it an ‘overused’ term in the empirical as well as virtual platforms. The role of the creator also transformed over time. Before the Renaissance, the craft guilds were dominant and all the artisans were a part of the guild where individual work was not encouraged and put forward. In the transition from the medieval ages to the Renaissance, the role of the Artisan shifts to an Artist who explores new possibilities in art and freely expresses them through their creations, giving more emphasis on personal preferences shaped by artistic freedom.

The 18th century was marked by new distinctive styles of Art, and artists began to engage in their creative work without being constrained by rules or restrictions. Artists from the 19th century witnessed a greater artistic freedom, which encouraged them to explore the natural environment, reflect on subjective interests, experiment with new techniques and project their own personal vision on their Work of Art.

The spatial, conceptual, and compositional freedom in art stems from the liberty and autonomy of the Artist. The most recent Work of Art which entertained the peak of spatial, conceptual, and compositional freedom is ‘Comedian’ by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan in 2019, depicting a yellow banana duct-taped to a white wall.

From the 18th century onwards, the term ‘Masterpiece’ began to take on a different meaning, with much of a casual orientation. In line with these changes over time, the connotations surrounding the meaning of ‘Masterpiece’, transformed by subtly converting it into a descriptive term which emphasizes the artistic merit of ‘Any’ creation.

The advent of photography in the mid-eighteenth century marked a transformative and evolutionary step in the tradition of visual art creation. At the time of photography’s invention, painting was the primary medium available for recording images. The first commercially successful medium of photography for portraiture, the ‘Daguerreotype’ was invented by Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre and the ‘Daguerreotype’ process was first displayed at the French Academy of Sciences in 1839. On first seeing the first photograph being processed, French painter Paul Delaroche exclaimed, “From today, painting is dead”!

Photography is a dynamic interplay between technology and creativity and this amalgamation created an agile and innovative combined entity which sparked creative inspiration for artists to engage in inventing different styles in the field of visual art. Photography’s capability to capture the smallest and subtlest details with accuracy provided great drive for artists to explore, create and reinvent innovative artistic styles which eventually gave way to emerge new artistic movements in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Impressionism, which emerged in France in the second half of the nineteenth century, was an art movement shaped by photography. As a response to the technological revolution marked by photography, Impressionists were keen to develop a different perception of the innovative use of the dynamics of color, light and movement and captured fleeting moments of nature. The Impressionists were among the first to take their easels outside the studios and painted immediately what they saw in the natural settings of the environment. Some Impressionists had the practice of carrying cameras with them. They used to study photographs which captured objects and landscapes from unusual angles. Rather than competing with the mighty technological capacity of photography, the Impressionists re-created what they captured by the human eye on their canvas in an innovative way which was not possible for photography. When French poet and essayist Charles Baudelaire denunciated photography in 1859 with his critical comment “the mortal enemy of Art”, the Impressionists constructively perceived the visual possibilities offered by photography to develop their own unique artistic style.

Accordingly, the groundbreaking advancement of photography changed the direction of artistic traditions, trends, styles and conceptual approaches in the field of Visual Arts. The orientation and connotation associated with the term ‘Masterpiece’ were also transposed simultaneously.

The projection of moving images onto a screen in 1895 by the Lumière Brothers in Paris marked the inception of Cinema. From the 19th century, the growth and expansion of cinema has been capable of transcending all geographical and cultural boundaries. The cinema developed as a universal medium of Art and Entertainment and acts as a bridge between the filmmaker and the audience, connecting both ends through a universal cinematic language called ‘Visual storytelling’. Filmmaking is a collaborative effort. The degree of success of this collaborative effort is determined by the audience’s reception or rejection. Cinematic literacy, cinematic sense and the artistic taste of the audience are pivotal in recognizing whether a Cinematic Work is a ‘masterpiece’ or not. At this point of time, the ‘Aficionado’ or ‘Cinephile’ becomes the key figure who wields authority in redefining the term ‘Masterpiece’. (To be concluded)

by Bhagya Rajapaksa
bhagya8282@gmail.com

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

At the edge of a world war

Published

4 days ago

2026/03/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

In September 1939, as Europe descended once more into catastrophe, E. H. Carr published The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Twenty years had separated the two great wars—twenty years to reflect, to reconstruct, to restrain. Yet reflection proved fragile. Carr wrote with unsentimental clarity: once the enemy is crushed, the “thereafter” rarely arrives. The illusion that power can come first and morality will follow is as dangerous as the belief that morality alone can command power. Between those illusions, nations lose themselves.

His warning hovers over the present war in Iran.

The “thereafter” has long haunted American interventions—after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya. The enemy can be dismantled with precision; the aftermath resists precision. Iran is not a small theater. It is a civilization-state with a geography three times larger than Iraq. At its southern edge lies the Strait of Hormuz, narrow in width yet immense in consequence. Geography does not argue; it compels.

Long before Carr, in the quiet anxiety of the eighteenth century, James Madison, principal architect of the Constitution, warned that war was the “true nurse of executive aggrandizement.” War concentrates authority in the name of urgency. Madison insisted that the power to declare war must rest with Congress, not the president—so that deliberation might restrain impulse. Republics persuade themselves that emergency powers are temporary. History rarely agrees.

Then, at 2:30 a.m., the abstraction becomes decision.

Donald Trump declares war on Iran. The announcement crosses continents before markets open in Asia. Within twenty-four hours, Ali Khamenei, who ruled for thirty-seven years, is killed. The President calls him one of history’s most evil figures and presents his death as an opening for the Iranian people.

In exile, Reza Pahlavi hails the moment as liberation. In less than forty-eight hours, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps collapses under overwhelming air power. A regime that endured decades falls swiftly. Military efficiency appears absolute. Yet efficiency does not resolve legitimacy.

The joint strike with Israel is framed as necessary and pre-emptive. Retaliation follows across the Gulf. The architecture of energy trade becomes fragile. Shipping routes are recalculated. Markets respond before diplomacy finds its language.

It is measured in the price of petrol in Colombo. In the bus fare in Karachi. In the rising cost of cooking gas in Dhaka. It is heard in the anxious voice of a migrant worker in Doha calling home to Kandy, asking whether contracts will be renewed, whether flights will continue, whether wages will be delayed. It is calculated in foreign reserves already strained, in currencies that tremble at rumor, in budgets forced to choose between subsidy and solvency.

Zaara was the breadwinner of her house in Sri Lanka. Her husband had been unemployed for years. At last, he secured an opportunity to travel to Israel as a foreign worker—like many Sri Lankans who depend on employment in the Middle East. It was to be their turning point: a small house repaired, debts reduced, dignity restored.

Now she lowers her eyes when she speaks. For Zaara, geopolitics is not theory. It is fear measured in distance—between a construction site abroad and a village waiting at home.

The war in Iran has shattered calculations that once felt practical. Nations like Sri Lanka now require strategic foresight to navigate unfolding realities. Reactive responses—whether to natural disasters or external shocks like this conflict—can cripple economies far faster than gradual pressures. Disruptions to energy imports, migrant remittances, and foreign reserves show how distant wars ripple into daily lives.

War among great powers is debated in think tanks. Its consequences are lived in markets—and in quiet kitchens where uncertainty sits heavier than hunger.

The conflict does not unfold in isolation. It enters the strategic calculus of China and Russia, both attentive to precedent. Power projected beyond the Western hemisphere reshapes perceptions in the Eastern theater. Iran’s transformation intersects directly with broader alignments. In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a twenty-five-year strategic agreement. By 2025, China was purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil at discounted rates. Energy underwrote strategy. That continuity has been disrupted. Yet strategic relationships do not vanish; they adjust.

In Winds of Change, my new book, I reproduce Nicholas Spykman’s 1944 two-theater confrontation map—Europe and the Pacific during the Second World War. Spykman distinguished maritime power from amphibian projection. Control of the Rimland determined balance. Then, the United States fought across two vast theaters. Today, Europe remains unsettled through Ukraine, the Pacific simmers over Taiwan and the South China Sea, Latin America remains sensitive, and the Middle East has been abruptly transformed. The architecture of multi-theater tension reappears.

At this juncture, the reflections of Marwan Bishara acquire weight. America’s ultimate power, he argues, resides in deterrence, not in the habitual use of force. Power, especially when shared, stabilizes. Force, when used with disregard for international law, breeds instability and humiliation. Arrogance creates enemies and narrows judgment. It is no surprise that many Americans themselves believe the United States should not act alone.

America’s strength does not rest solely in its military reach. Its economy constitutes roughly one-third of global output and generates close to 40 percent of the world’s research and development. Structural power—economic, technological, institutional—has historically underwritten deterrence. When force becomes the primary instrument, influence risks becoming coercion.

The United States now confronts simultaneous pressures across continents. The Second World War demonstrated the capacity to sustain multi-theater engagement; the post-9/11 wars revealed the exhaustion that follows prolonged intervention. Iran, larger and geopolitically deeper, presents a scale that cannot be resolved by air power alone.

Carr’s “thereafter” waits patiently. Military victory may be swift; political reconstruction is slow. Bishara reminds us that deterrence sustains stability, while force risks unraveling it.

At the edge of a potential world war, the decisive question is not who strikes first, but who restrains longest.

History watches. And in places far from the battlefield, mothers wait for phone calls that may not come.

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Millennium Project, Washington, D.C., and the author of Winds of Change: Geopolitics at the Crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, published by World Scientific

Midweek Review

Live Coals Burst Aflame

Published

4 days ago

2026/03/4

Sahan Weerasooriya

Live coals of decades-long hate,

Are bursting into all-consuming flames,

In lands where ‘Black Gold’ is abundant,

And it’s a matter to be thought about,

If humans anywhere would be safe now,

Unless these enmities dying hard,

With roots in imperialist exploits,

And identity-based, tribal violence,

Are set aside and laid finally to rest,

By an enthronement of the principle,

Of the Equal Dignity of Humans.

By Lynn Ockersz

Midweek Review

Saga of the arrest of retired intelligence chief

Published

6 days ago

2026/03/2

Sahan Weerasooriya

Retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay’s recent arrest attracted internatiattention. His long-expected arrest took place ahead of the seventh anniversary of the bombings. Multiple blasts claimed the lives of nearly 280 people, including 45 foreigners. State-owned international news television network, based in Paris, France 24, declared that arrest was made on the basis of information provided by a whistleblower. The French channel was referring to Hanzeer Azad Moulana, who earlier sought political asylum in the West and one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan aka Pilleyan. May be the fiction he wove against Pilleyan and others may have been to strengthen his asylum claim there. Moulana is on record as having told the British Channel 4 that Sallay allowed the attack to proceed with the intention of influencing the 2019 presidential election. The French news agency quoted an investigating officer as having said: “He was arrested for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the Easter Sunday attacks. He has been in touch with people involved in the attacks, even recently.”

****

Suresh Sallay of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) received the wrath of Yahapalana Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, in 2016, over the reportage of what the media called the Chavakachcheri explosives detection made on March 30, 2016. Premier Wickremesinghe found fault with Sallay for the coverage, particularly in The Island. Police arrested ex-LTTE child combatant Edward Julian, alias Ramesh, after the detection of one suicide jacket, four claymore mines, three parcels containing about 12 kilos of explosives, to battery packs and several rounds of 9mm ammunition, from his house, situated at Vallakulam Pillaiyar Kovil Street. Chavakachcheri police made the detection, thanks to information provided by the second wife of Ramesh. Investigations revealed that the deadly cache had been brought by Ramesh from Mannar (Detection of LTTE suicide jacket, mines jolts government: Fleeing Tiger apprehended at checkpoint, The Island, March 31, 2016).

The then Jaffna Security Forces Commander, Maj. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, told the writer that a thorough inquiry was required to ascertain the apprehended LTTE cadre’s intention. The Chavakachcheri detection received the DMI’s attention. The country’s premier intelligence organisation meticulously dealt with the issue against the backdrop of an alleged aborted bid to revive the LTTE in April 2014. Of those who had been involved in the fresh terror project, three were killed in the Nedunkerny jungles. There hadn’t been any other incidents since the Nedunkerny skirmish, until the Chavakachcheri detection.

Piqued by the media coverage of the Chavakachcheri detection, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration tried to silence the genuine Opposition. As the SLFP had, contrary to the expectations of those who voted for the party at the August 2015 parliamentary elections, formed a treacherous coalition with the UNP, the Joint Opposition (JO) spearheaded the parliamentary opposition.

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) questioned former External Affairs Minister and top JO spokesman, Prof. G.L. Peiris, over a statement made by him regarding the Chavakachcheri detection. The former law professor questioned the legality of the CID’s move against the backdrop of police declining to furnish him a certified copy of the then acting IGP S.M. Wickremesinghe’s directive that he be summoned to record a statement as regards the Chavakachcheri lethal detection.

One-time LTTE propagandist Velayutham Dayanidhi, a.k.a. Daya Master, raised with President Maithripala Sirisena the spate of arrests made by law enforcement authorities, in the wake of the Chavakachcheri detection. Daya Master took advantage of a meeting called by Sirisena, on 28 April, 2016, at the President’s House, with the proprietors of media organisations and journalists, to raise the issue. The writer having been among the journalists present on that occasion, inquired from the ex-LETTer whom he represented there. Daya Master had been there on behalf of DAN TV, Tamil language satellite TV, based in Jaffna. Among those who had been detained was Subramaniam Sivakaran, at that time Youth Wing leader of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), the main constituent of the now defunct Tamil National Alliance. In addition to Sivakaran, the police apprehended several hardcore ex-LTTE cadres (LTTE revival bid confirmed: TNA youth leader arrested, The Island April 20, 2016).

Ranil hits out at media

Subsequent inquiries revealed the role played by Sivakaran in some of those wanted in connection with the Chavakachcheri detection taking refuge in India. When the writer sought an explanation from the then TNA lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, regarding Sivakaran’s arrest, the lawyer disowned the Youth Wing leader. Sumanthiran emphasised that the party suspended Sivakumaran and Northern Provincial Council member Ananthi Sasitharan for publicly condemning the TNA’s decision to endorse Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election (Chava explosives: Key suspects flee to India, The Island, May 2, 2016).

Premier Wickremesinghe went ballistic on May 30, 2016. Addressing the 20th anniversary event of the Sri Lanka Muslim Media Forum, at the Sports Ministry auditorium, the UNP leader castigated the DMI. Alleging that the DMI had been pursuing an agenda meant to undermine the Yahapalana administration, Wickremesinghe, in order to make his bogus claim look genuine, repeatedly named the writer as part of that plot. Only Wickremesinghe knows the identity of the idiot who influenced him to make such unsubstantiated allegations. The top UNPer went on to allege that The Island, and its sister paper Divaina, were working overtime to bring back Dutugemunu, a reference to war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A few days later, sleuths from the Colombo Crime Detection Bureau (CCD) visited The Island editorial to question the writer where lengthy statements were recorded. The police were acting on the instructions of the then Premier, who earlier publicly threatened to send police to question the writer.

In response to police queries about Sallay passing information to the media regarding the Chavakachcheri detection and subsequent related articles, the writer pointed out that the reportage was based on response of the then ASP Ruwan Gunasekera, AAL and Sumanthiran, as had been reported.

Wickremesinghe alleged, at the Muslim media event, that a section of the media manipulated coverage of certain incidents, ahead of the May Day celebrations.

In early May 2016 Wickremesinghe disclosed that he received assurances from the police, and the DMI, that as the LTTE had been wiped out the group couldn’t stage a comeback. The declaration was made at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKIIRIS) on 3 May 2016. Wickremesinghe said that he sought clarifications from the police and the DMI in the wake of the reportage of the Chavakachcheri detection and related developments (PM: LTTE threat no longer exists, The Island, May 5, 2016).

The LTTE couldn’t stage a comeback as a result of measures taken by the then government. It would be a grave mistake, on our part, to believe that the eradication of the LTTE’s conventional military capacity automatically influenced them to give up arms. The successful rehabilitation project, that had been undertaken by the Rajapaksa government and continued by successive governments, ensured that those who once took up arms weren’t interested in returning to the same deadly path.

In spite of the TNA and others shedding crocodile tears for the defeated Tigers, while making a desperate effort to mobilise public opinion against the government, the public never wanted the violence to return. Some interested parties propagated the lie that regardless of the crushing defeat suffered in the hands of the military, the LTTE could resume guerilla-type operations, paving the way for a new conflict. But by the end of 2014, and in the run-up to the presidential election in January following year, the situation seemed under control, especially with Western countries not wanting to upset things here with a pliant administration in the immediate horizon. Soon after the presidential election, the government targeted the armed forces. Remember Sumanthiran’s declaration that the ITAK Youth Wing leader Sivakaran had been opposed to the TNA backing Sirisena at the presidential poll.

The US-led accountability resolution had been co-sponsored by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo to appease the TNA and Tamil Diaspora. The Oct. 01, 2016, resolution delivered a knockout blow to the war-winning armed forces. The UNP pursued an agenda severely inimical to national interests. It would be pertinent to mention that those who now represent the main Opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), were part of the treacherous UNP.

Suresh moved to Malaysia

The Yahapalana leadership resented Sallay’s work. They wanted him out of the country at a time a new threat was emerging. The government attacked the then Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, PC, who warned of the emerging threat from foreign-manipulated local Islamic fanatics on 11 Nov. 2016, in Parliament. Rajapakshe didn’t mince his words when he underscored the threat posed by some Sri Lanka Muslim families taking refuge in Syria where ISIS was running the show. The then government, of which he was part o,f ridiculed their own Justice Minister. Both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe feared action against extremism may cause erosion of Muslim support. By then Sallay, who had been investigating the deadly plot, was out of the country. The Yahapalana government believed that the best way to deal with Sallay was to grant him a diplomatic posting. Sally ended up in Malaysia, a country where the DMI played a significant role in the repatriation of Kumaran Pathmanathan, alias KP, after his arrest there.

Having served the military for over three cadres, Sallay retired in 2024 in the rank of Major General. Against the backdrop of his recent arrest, in connection with the ongoing investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, The Island felt the need to examine the circumstances Sallay ended up in Malaysia at the time. Now, remanded in terms of the Prevention of terrorism Act (PTA), he is being accused of directing the Easter Sunday operation from Malaysia.

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader and former Minister Udaya Gammanpila has alleged that Sallay was apprehended in a bid to divert attention away from the deepening coal scam. Having campaigned on an anti-corruption platformm in the run up to the previous presidential election, in September 2024, the Parliament election, in November of the same year, and local government polls last year, the incumbent dispensation is struggling to cope up with massive corruption issues, particularly the coal scam, which has not only implicated the Energy Minister but the entire Cabinet of Ministers as well.

The crux of the matter is whether Sallay actually met would-be suicide bombers, in February 2018, in an estate, in the Puttalam district, as alleged by the UK’s Channel 4 television, like the BBC is, quite famous for doing hatchet jobs for the West. This is the primary issue at hand. Did Sallay clandestinely leave Malaysia to meet suicide bombers in the presence of Hanzeer Azad Moulana, one-time close associate of State Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, aka Pilleyan, former LTTE member?

The British channel raised this issue with Sallay, in 2023, at the time he served as Director, State Intelligence (SIS). Sallay is on record as having told Channel 4 Television that he was not in Sri Lanka the whole of 2018 as he was in Malaysia serving in the Sri Lankan Embassy there as Minister Counsellor.

Therefore, the accusation that he met several members of the National Thowheeth Jamaath (NTJ), including Mohamed Hashim Mohamed Zahran, in Karadipuval, Puttalam, in Feb. 2018, was baseless, he has said.

The intelligence officer has asked the British television station to verify his claim with the Malaysian authorities.

Responding to another query, Sallay had told Channel 4 that on April 21, 2019, the day of the Easter Sunday blasts, he was in India, where he was accommodated at the National Defence College (NDC). That could be verified with the Indian authorities, Sallay has said, strongly denying Channel 4’s claim that he contacted one of Pilleyan’s cadres, over, the phone and directed him to pick a person outside Hotel Taj Samudra.

According to Sallay, during his entire assignment in Malaysia, from Dec. 2016 to Dec. 2018, he had been to Colombo only once, for one week, in Dec. 2017, to assist in an official inquiry.

Having returned to Colombo, Sallay had left for NDC, in late Dec. 2018, and returned only after the conclusion of the course, in November 2019.

Sallay has said so in response to questions posed by Ben de Pear, founder, Basement Films, tasked with producing a film for Channel 4 on the Easter Sunday bombings.

The producer has offered Sallay an opportunity to address the issues in terms of Broadcasting Code while inquiring into fresh evidence regarding the officer’s alleged involvement in the Easter Sunday conspiracy.

The producer sought Sallay’s response, in August 2023, in the wake of political upheaval following the ouster of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, elected at the November 2019 presidential election.

At the time, the Yahapalana government granted a diplomatic appointment to Sallay, he had been head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). After the 2019 presidential election, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named him the Head of SIS.

The Basement Films has posed several questions to Sallay on the basis of accusations made by Hanzeer Azad Moulana.

In response to the film producer’s query regarding Sallay’s alleged secret meeting with six NTJ cadres who blasted themselves a year later, Sallay has questioned the very basis of the so called new evidence as he was not even in the country during the period the clandestine meeting is alleged to have taken place.

Contradictory stands

Following Sajith Premadasa’s anticipated defeat at the 2019 presidential election, Harin Fernando accused the Catholic Church of facilitating Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory. Fernando, who is also on record as having disclosed that his father knew of the impending Easter Sunday attacks, pointed finger at the Archbishop of Colombo, Rt. Rev Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, for ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena, as well as JVP frontliner Dr. Nalinda Jayathissa, accused India of masterminding the Easter Sunday bombings. Then there were claims of Sara Jasmin, wife of Katuwapitiya suicide bomber Mohammed Hastun, being an Indian agent who was secretly removed after the Army assaulted extremists’ hideout at Sainthamaruthu in the East. What really had happened to Sara Jasmin who, some believe, is key to the Easter Sunday puzzle.

Then there was huge controversy over the arrest of Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah over his alleged links with the Easter Sunday bombers. Hizbullah, who had been arrested in April 2020, served as lawyer to the extremely wealthy spice trader Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s family that had been deeply involved in the Easter Sunday plot. Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim had been on the JVP’s National List at the 2015 parliamentary elections. The lawyer received bail after two years. Two of the spice trader’s sons launched suicide attacks, whereas his daughter-in-law triggered a suicide blast when police raided their Dematagoda mansion, several hours after the Easter Sunday blasts.

Investigations also revealed that the suicide vests had been assembled at a factory owned by the family and the project was funded by them. It would be pertinent to mention that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government never really bothered to conduct a comprehensive investigation to identify the Easter Sunday terror project. Perhaps, their biggest failure had been to act on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) recommendations. Instead, President Rajapaksa appointed a six-member committee, headed by his elder brother, Chamal Rajapaksa, to examine the recommendations, probably in a foolish attempt to improve estranged relations with the influential Muslim community. That move caused irreparable damage and influenced the Church to initiate a campaign against the government. The Catholic Church played quite a significant role in the India- and US-backed 2022 Aragalaya that forced President Rajapaksa to flee the country.

Interested parties exploited the deterioration of the national economy, leading to unprecedented declaration of the bankruptcy of the country in April 2022, to mobilie public anger that was used to achieve political change.