Features
Reimagining Dutugemunu : A Problem of interpretation

By Uditha Devapriya
The interpretation of historical chronicles presents an intriguing challenge for the modern scholar and writer. The main problem, as it stands, lies in terminology. Words present no challenge to the translator, but to the historian and the archaeologist, it is not enough to translate; it is more important to contextualise. That is why contemporary interpretations of historical narratives often go on a tangent: they try to essentialise and in doing so end up imputing contemporary meanings to archaic and pre-modern ideas.
In Sri Lanka the two main such narratives would be the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa, the latter more than the former. Here the issue of interpretation is somewhat compounded by the fact that these two works are among the oldest and most credible of their kind in South Asia, indeed probably the most important such documents for any historian of the region or of surrounding regions like South-East Asia. The Mahavamsa alone is a useful compendium of the social and economic relations that prevailed before the advent of Buddhism in the 3rd century BC and the advent of Vijaya in the 6th. Among other things, it presents an early example of the colonisation myth, in the form of the Vijaya-Kuveni legend.
The myth itself is presented as a sequel to two other historical events, Gautama Buddha’s three visits to Sri Lanka, and the convening of the Three Buddhist Councils after his passing away or parinibbana. There is then a break of sorts in the narrative after these incidents when the story, as such, shifts to the Sinhabahu myth, which in my opinion, to put it rather crudely, is no more and no less than an Indianised – or Asianised if you will – version of the Oedipal myth. Origin and colonisation myths are strewn with three elements: guilt, incest, and parricide. Vijaya’s birth, visit to Lanka, and his subsequent actions in the island involve all three. Guilt, in fact, lies at the heart of the Kohomba Kankariya, which is a ritual centred on the quest for absolution for what Vijaya does to Kuveni.
Here we need to be mindful of an important point. The authors of the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa may have worked from an oral tradition, but that tradition is so replete with common motifs, themes, and problematics – the main problematic being, in my view, the question of how to legitimise, or authenticate, the purist claims of the monarchs of Lanka when these monarchs traced their origins to a neighbouring country – that it is difficult not to be swayed and dazzled by them. Even the historian and archaeologist feel tempted, from time to time, to overlook the mythical aspects of these stories.
It is against this backdrop that we must examine the main historical problem of the Pali Chronicles, namely the problem of what meanings to ascribe to the stories and concepts employed by their authors. We need to be aware that meanings of words change from time to time, era to era, and that, as I mentioned in my earlier article on Alan Keenan’s point about Sinhala (and non-Sinhala) names, ascribing contemporary meanings to archaic terms is a crime of which the most ardent nationalist is as guilty as the most fervent liberal. This is why both groups, opponents though they are, tend to get it wrong, very wrong, over the more controversial stories in these narratives, and the question of interpreting them. Chief among them, in my view, would be Dutugemunu’s defeat of Elara.
There are two reasons why Dutugemunu’s conquest has become the most misinterpreted historical episode – I hesitate to use the word myth because, as Gananath Obeyesekere has reminded us, Dutugemunu was an actual historical personage – in Sri Lanka. Firstly, it is to Dutugemunu that nationalist ideologues, those propounding an exclusivist interpretation of Buddhism and those considering Sri Lanka as Buddhism’s last haven – turn, to validate if not legitimise their claims. In their reading, Dutugemunu is a saviour-king, a great unifier whose actions can only be emulated, but never quite equalled: hence the tendency to adulate later unifier-monarchs, like Parakramabahu I, along Dutugemunist lines. As Newton Gunasinghe and Nalin de Silva – occupying different ideological grounds – has reminded us regarding this, the Dutugemunu story contradicts the universalism of Buddhism by grounding it in Sri Lanka and specifically among Sinhala speaking communities.
The Newton-Nalin congruence is interesting. It leads me to my second point, which is that the failure of interpretation, or misinterpretation, in the Dutugemunu story, or specifically the Dutugemunu-Elara encounter, is not merely the nationalist ideologue’s, but also his or her liberal opponent’s. For both groups, the Dutugemunist reading of history contrasts with another variant of Buddhism. Nalin de Silva, for instance, contrast Dutugemunist Buddhism (DB) with Olcott Buddhism (OB), which is then contrasted with the missionary zeal of the foremost Buddhist propagandist of 20th century Sri Lanka, Anagarika Dharmapala. In other words, historical stories and chronicles are used to justify the superiority of an exclusionary variant of Buddhism over a more universalist and all-encompassing one.
The liberal rejoinder to the nationalist reconstruction of the Dutugemunu story is, simply, that Dutugemunu’s actions, particularly his defeat of Elara, his momentary remorse over the deaths of his opponents, and his recovery from remorse through the intervention of a group of Buddhist monks, suggest an absence of empathy associated with Buddhist monarchs, of whom the supreme figurehead would have to be Asoka Maurya. Here, it is interesting to note and acknowledge that, like their nationalist opponents, liberal commentators resort to a common set of assumptions when commenting on such stories: prime among them, that the wars depicted in these stories were between two racial groups and not, as the likes of R. A. L. H. Gunawardana and H. L. Seneviratne have argued, two dynastic ones.
The episode involving Dutugemunu’s confessions of guilt to a Buddhist monk, and the Buddhist monk’s blanket absolution of the hero-king, is a case in point. What we see here is not so much a contradiction but an inversion of a similar episode from Asoka’s life, after the Kalinga War. The contradiction is so patently visible that it’s hard not to judge the episode without summoning a contrast with its Indian equivalent, or dis-equivalent. Nationalists may argue, as many of them indeed do, that Dutugemunu’s recovery from remorse indicates the sacrosanct nature of Buddhism as is practised in Sri Lanka: no matter what, even if it takes the murder of thousands or millions, the king’s foremost duty is to preserve the faith of the land. In fact, the author of the Mahavamsa, putting words into Dutugemunu’s mouth, argue that this takes precedence over “the sovereignty of the State.”
Liberal scholars, conversely, would contend that this episode provides a justification of ethnic cleansing, genocide, the murder of one’s own subjects in the interests of a faith or the State, and so on. This, like the nationalist argument, is not entirely without its merits. But it depends on how you look at the words and terms, or assumptions, underlying such stories. The question to ask here is, are we looking at history through an historical lens, depriving entire episodes and stories of their specificity in the interests of certain political and cultural biases – nationalist or liberal, exclusivist or cosmopolitan? I would say so. But the issue isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with this notion of history; it is about coming up with a solution that address the concerns of both ideological groups.
The solution I propose is hardly a radical or innovative one, but it is the best one there is. While agreeing with Gananath Obeyesekere’s polemic against interpreting these stories in a too literal light – an approach which, as he rightly notes, paves the road to fundamentalism of the sort that has bedevilled this country for the last 75 years – I would note that we need to ground them in the way in which they were related, imagined, or witnessed at the time of their recounting. Another feasible solution would be to prioritise inscriptional evidence over literary texts: even though there are convergences between the two (the historical actuality of Dutugemunu’s personage), there are also significant divergences (the arrival of Vijaya). In other words, we need to be aware of the mythical connotations of historical narratives and compare, and contrast, them with actual archaeological evidence.
I am aware, however, of a problem – one noted for me by a renowned political analyst and commentator. The issue with interpreting stories like Dutugemunu’s defeat of Elara and his recovery from remorse with the aid of a Buddhist monk, at one level, linguistic: we need to be careful when using terms whose meanings change dramatically from era to era. At the same time, as linguists themselves will tell you, some words have meanings that transcend specificity, context, space and time, geography, history. What, then, do we make of a monk who, after hearing Dutugemunu’s confession, assures him that “from this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven”? Certain episodes can be grounded in a specific period and excused on the basis of their specificity. Certain others, like the extermination of six million Jews, cannot. The problem for me is, where does Dutugemunu belong?
The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Features
Playing blind man’s bluff with tariff man

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

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

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