Features
Revisiting the UNP’s Lost Generation: Reflections on Sri Lanka’s Recent Political History through the lens of Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
By Avishka Mario Senewiratne,
Editor of The Ceylon Journal
Last December, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha released a new book titled Ranil Wickremesinghe and the Emasculation of the United National Party. As the title suggests, the book tackles a contentious and provocative topic and may not be an easy read for everyone. Nevertheless, it presents a highly engaging and insightful narrative that warrants close attention. While much of the information may not be entirely new, the context and storytelling offer fresh perspectives and raise critical questions about Sri Lanka’s recent history.
The book is structured into four accessible chapters, with the first, titled “The Lost Generations of the UNP,” piquing interest by exploring important aspects of the party’s history that have often been overlooked. This article should be seen as a preliminary commentary on the first chapter. The chapter itself presents a series of short biographical sketches, focusing mainly on the political journeys of key figures within the United National Party (UNP), and how their careers were shaped by events such as assassination, early retirement, party defection, or resignation. However, the chapter could have been greatly improved with a brief historical overview of the UNP as an introduction. Founded in 1947, the UNP has often been referred to as the “Grand Old Party of Sri Lanka.” While it won the 1947 and 1952 elections, the party reached its lowest point in 1956, securing just eight seats in Parliament. In the 1950s, the UNP earned the nickname “Uncle Nephew Party,” a reference to the party’s perceived nepotism. Nevertheless, the UNP made notable comebacks in 1960 and again in 1965, after being in opposition from 1956 to 1965, except for the brief period between the March and July elections of 1960. In 1970, despite securing the plurality of the popular vote in the General Election, the UNP ended up with only 17 seats, leading Dudley Senanayake, the Prime Minister at the time, to take a backseat in the Opposition. This allowed J. R. Jayewardene to take control of the opposition, with Senanayake remaining the UNP leader.
After Dudley’s sudden death in 1973, Jayewardene assumed leadership of the party. In 1977, the UNP won a historic victory, securing a five sixths super majority in Parliament, reducing the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) to just eight seats, and leaving the Leftist parties without representation. Under J. R. Jayewardene’s leadership, several skilled and effective politicians joined the Cabinet, which has been widely regarded as one of the most efficient in post-colonial Sri Lanka, particularly in managing the economy, fostering development, and strengthening foreign relations.
JR and Dudley, 1965
However, the Cabinet faced significant criticism for its handling of the ethnic conflict, which eventually led to a 26-year civil war. This issue has remained a central point of debate, overshadowing the Cabinet’s achievements. Between 1970 and 1977, the UNP lost some of its most well-known and renowned leaders such as Dudley Senanayake, M. D. Banda, U. B. Wanninayake, I. M. R. A. Iriyagolla, Paris Perera and V. A. Sugathadasa. C. P. de Silva, Philip Gunawardena, Murugesu Tiruchelvam Q. C. though not UNPers, but serving in the previous UNP regime’s Cabinet, passed away in the said period. Though elected in 1977, S. de S. Jayasinghe and Shelton Jayasinghe passed away within a year of the new government.
This left the UNP with a dominant senior member, J. R. Jayewardene, who was elected Prime Minister and then with the new Constitution, became the Executive President. There were hardly any other senior UNPers apart from Montague Jayawickrema, Edwin Hurulle and M. D. H. Jayawardene. Essentially, there was little internal opposition within the UNP to J. R. Jayewardene’s actions regarding the creation of a new constitution, the establishment of the executive presidency, the events surrounding the referendum and the many troubles of the 80s. The few who voiced dissent on these matters—M. D. H. Jayawardene and Dr. Neville Fernando—were compelled to resign from their positions well before the end of their terms.
In this context, a new generation of politicians entered the UNP cabinet, bringing with them a blend of backgrounds and political experiences. Several key members of this cabinet are discussed in detail in Wijesinha’s first chapter on the “lost generation.” The 1977/78 UNP cabinets were notably diverse, with some members having roots in the SLFP, such as Gamini Dissanayake whose father had been a prominent SLFPer. Gamini himself first attempted to contest as a SLFPer in 1970. But upon his failing to get that that party’s ticket, he contested and won under the UNP. Ronnie de Mel, who had been aligned with the SLFP until 1975, was also a significant figure in this cabinet.
R. Premadasa, the Prime Minister, came from the Labour Party. The cabinet also included seasoned UNPer Wimala Kannangara, the only woman member, and Bill Devanayagam, the only Tamil representative, along with Shahul Hameed and M. H. Mohamed, the Muslim members. All four were entrusted with influential portfolios. Then there were newcomers to politics such as Nissanka Wijeyeratne, formerly of the Ceylon Civil Service who had fallen out with Mrs. Bandaranaike, and Lalith Athulathmudali, who had a flourishing legal practice.
Ronnie de Mel with Gamini Dissanayake and Upali Wijeywardene
The cabinet comprised a mix of old-fashioned UNPers, such as Maj. Montague Jayawickrema, Edwin Hurulle, E. L. Senanayake, Vincent Perera and Capt. C. P. J. Senewiratne, alongside more moderate figures like Anandatissa de Alwis, D. B. Wijetunga, Asoka Karunaratne, Gamini Jayasuriya, Ranjith Atapattu, and S. B. Herath. Cyril Mathew and Wijeyapala Mendis, more controversial figures, did not clearly fit into either category. Ranil Wickremasinghe, J. R. Jayewardene’s trusted nephew, remains today the sole surviving and active member of this Cabinet. Outside Parliament, Upali Wijewardena, who was speculated to enter both Parliament and the Cabinet before his disappearance in 1983, was another prominent figure. Abdul Bakeer Marker was made Speaker and later when E. L. Senanayke succeeded him, he became a Minister without a Portfolio. Though not a UNPer, S. Thondaman who was loyal to JR, found a Cabinet position as well.
Thus, JR Jayewardene’s cabinet was notably diverse, comprising individuals from varied political backgrounds, affiliations and experiences. As Wijesinha aptly notes, many of these figures were determined to pursue long political careers, with some even considered potential candidates for the presidency of Sri Lanka. What is particularly intriguing to the reader of Wijesinha’s first chapter are the significant, yet lesser-known aspects of the individuals discussed. It is questionable whether any political scientist, journalist, or historian has explored the perspectives and angles that Wijesinha addresses. Limited attention has been given to the ten individuals featured, including President Premadasa, whose biographies are often characterized by a somewhat romanticized portrayal or a hyper-critical portrait rather than a thorough, critical analysis.
Objectively speaking, all these individuals played vital roles in shaping modern Sri Lanka despite all controversy. Scholars should follow Wijesinha’s approach by critically examining and analyzing their subjects individually or collectively. Premadasa’s rise, first as Minister under Dudley Senanayake and later as Prime Minister under JR, is well-documented. Wijesinha concurs that Premadasa, with his appeal to the common man and success in programs like Gam Udawa, was the ideal candidate to succeed JR. Despite the challenges of the Civil War, the JVP insurrection, and internal party controversies, Premadasa oversaw significant economic growth. His assassination in 1993, just before his term’s end, curtailed his full potential.
JR’s Cabinet by Younus, Aththa 1980 March 19
One of the notable revelations in Wijesinha’s book, though not entirely undisclosed, is the power struggle among three prominent figures: Ronnie de Mel, Lalith Athulathmudali, and Upali Wijewardene. The former two were regarded as the most intellectually formidable members of J. R. Jayewardene’s Cabinet, and their rivalry was marked by intense animosity over policy matters and political positioning. Meanwhile, Upali Wijewardene, perceived as among the wealthiest individuals in the country at the time, was poised to enter the political arena. Ronnie de Mel achieved a significant milestone by balancing the national budget for eleven consecutive years, demonstrating a level of fiscal management unmatched by his predecessors or successors.
However, at the end of JR’s presidency, de Mel grew disillusioned with Ranasinghe Premadasa’s leadership and subsequently left the country. Although he returned to the legislature and remained politically active until 2004, he never recaptured the influence he once held under JR. Furthermore, JR’s most loyal confidante, Gamini Dissanayake, as noted by Wijesinha, initially expressed dissatisfaction with his assigned portfolio of “Irrigation, Power, and Highways.” Wijesinha’s father, Sam Wijesinha, who was then the Secretary General of the Parliament explained to the young Gamini the importance of his ministry that had been previously served by stalwarts like D. S., Dudley, Maithripala Senanayake and C. P. de Silva. Later, Gamini played a key role in implementing the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Project and in advancing Sri Lanka’s Test cricket status. Wijesinha also highlights Gamini’s presence in Jaffna in 1981 during the burning of the library, noting his subsequent shift toward a more moderate stance.
Lalith Athulathmudali, who held significant government portfolios, including Shipping and Trade and, later, National Security during the onset of the civil conflict, was regarded as one of the most respected politicians of his era. Wijesinghe notes that Lalith, an admirer of Singapore’s development, played a pivotal role in transforming the Colombo Port into one of the most efficient in Asia. Alongside Gamini Dissanayake, Lalith gained substantial popularity during the late 1970s and 1980s, fueling their aspirations for future presidential roles. By the end of 1988, however, it became evident that Premadasa was the leading contender to succeed JR. Both Lalith and Gamini supported Premadasa’s 1988 presidential campaign and hoping that one of them would be appointed Prime Minister in his administration. Instead, Premadasa appointed D. B. Wijetunga, causing significant discord within the UNP.
By 1991, escalating internal tensions led Lalith, Gamini, and other UNP backbenchers, in collaboration with the SLFP, to attempt to impeach President Premadasa. This effort ultimately failed, resulting in their exit from Parliament. Lalith and Gamini then created their own party. Tragically, Lalith was assassinated shortly before Premadasa, and Gamini (who had returned to the UNP) had a similar fate in 1994, just weeks before the presidential election in which he was the UNP’s candidate. Their untimely deaths ended two promising political careers.
Two individuals from Wijesinha’s “lost generation” are Dr. Ranjit Atapattu and Gamini Jayasuriya, both described by the author as “honest politicians” with similar temperaments. Atapattu was not assigned a significant portfolio until the 1982 cabinet reshuffle, when he became Minister of Health. Many would remember and acclaim that Atapattu was one of the most productive and enterprising Health Ministers of the 20th century. Despite his discomfort with some party policies, such as the Peace Accord with India, he remained loyal to the party and was later reappointed as Minister under Premadasa. However, he left politics in 1990 to join the UN, and as Wijesinha notes, his potential remained unfulfilled, with at least another decade of service left. Gamini Jayasuriya, a seasoned politician and direct descendant of Anagarika Dharmapala, with a strong streak of nationalism could not agree with JRJ’s Indo-Lankan Accord. Ever the gentleman, he resigned both from the cabinet and parliament in 1987 and never returned to politics.
Though Wijesinha names Shahul Hameed as one of those of “the lost generation”, both under JR and Premadasa, he received much prominence and died while serving an Opposition MP in 1999. It could be argued that he would have had a prominent role in the 2001-2004 UNP regime, had he lived.
Premadasa and Cooray
B. Sirisena Cooray, a significant figure in the book, served as Mayor of Colombo for ten years during JR’s presidency but gained prominence only under Premadasa. A trusted confidante of Premadasa for nearly 40 years, Cooray became one of the most powerful ministers in his regime. Wijesinha observes that Cooray entered politics solely to support Premadasa, feeling no reason to remain active after the latter’s assassination. Wijesinha expresses his perspective on the various alleged conspiracies that Cooray was involved in during the 80s and 90s.
The author recounts a striking anecdote on page 20: “…when I went along with Chanaka (Amaratunga) to the funeral I was astonished to see what seemed an almost festive atmosphere. It was clear the senior leadership of the UNP felt no sorrow at all, and D. B. Wijetunga who was Acting President seemed more pleased at the advancement he had received than sad at the death of the man who had pushed him much higher than he deserved. And then Hema Premadasa made an extraordinary speech in which she seemed to be offering herself as her husband’s successor… as we were leaving, I noticed a man sitting by himself, tears pouring down his face. That, Chanaka, told me, was Sirisena Cooray, and I realized then that was a man of deep feeling, and his devotion to Premadasa was absolute.”
After Premadasa’s assassination, Cooray withdrew from active politics, even when he was offered the position of Prime Minister, resigning as UNP secretary, though his influence within the Colombo Municipality, as noted by Wijesinha, persisted well into the 21st century.
Dr. Gamini Wijesekera is another individual discussed by Wijesinha. As the author writes, he was less well-known then and is virtually forgotten today. Wijesekera was the General Secretary of the UNP and was a “gentleman”, who did not stoop into thuggery or corruption. A medical doctor turned politician, Wijesekera was one who played with a straight bat. He lost his first bid to parliament in a by-election in Maharagama in 1983. The winner of this election was Dinesh Gunawardena, who was heartily wished well by the defeated Wijesekera. As Wijesinha notes, Wijesekera later left the UNP disillusioned by some of its policies and formed Eksath Lanka Jathika Peramuna (ELJP) with Rukman Senanayake and A. C. Gooneratne. Wijesinha notes the interesting work of the ELJP, now a forgotten entity.
Fast forwarding to 1994, Wijesekera was back in the UNP camp and surprisingly replaced Sirisena Cooray as Secretary. In 1994, UNP lost its 17-year grip in power when the SLFP under Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga won narrowly in the General Election. However, three months later, Gamini Dissanayake was named the UNP candidate for the Presidency and ran an enthusiastic campaign, though CBK was eventually victorious. Wijesekera campaigned heavily for Dissanayake but ironically was one of the many prominent UNPers who perished in the Thotalanga bomb explosion with Gamini Dissanayake.
These were the ten individuals who Wijesinha examines as the “Lost Generation of the UNP”. A few others, who he hasn’t shed much light can be added to this list and dealt later by himself or another scholar. These include Dr. Neville Fernando, Shelton Ranaraja, M. D. H. Jayawardena as well as Ranjan Wijeyeratne and Harsha Abeywardena, who were assassinated. With all of these individuals, virtually losing their place in the UNP, it is not surprising that its next leader would be Wijesinha’s first cousin (mother’s brother’s son), Ranil Wickremasinghe, the subject of Wijesinha’s book, whom he discusses in length in the subsequent chapters of this book, which are not subject to this review. Just as JR became powerful in the 70s, his nephew Ranil Wickremasinghe had hardly any opposition within his Party.
Wijesinha’s approach is both engaging and accessible, skillfully combining anecdotal storytelling, humor, and incisive analysis. Due to his personal connections and familial ties with prominent figures of the UNP, most aspects of his account can be regarded as particularly reliable. This blend of narrative techniques contributes to a compelling story that captivates the reader, making his work not only enjoyable but also intellectually stimulating. The opening chapter of Rajiva Wijesinha’s book merits commendation for its content and narrative style. Moreover, it invites further research and publication on several related topics. For example, many political parties have formally or informally documented their histories.
Notable works in this regard include Prof. Wiswa Warnapala’s study of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), Leslie Goonawardena’s account of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), and Wijesinha’s own writings on the Liberal Party. These accounts, authored by prominent figures within their respective parties, naturally reflect their authors’ biases. However, the history and development of the UNP remains fragmented, with no comprehensive exploration undertaken either by Party members or external scholars. While Wijesinha has addressed this topic in part, a thorough and cohesive history of the UNP remains absent.
In this context, each of the individuals from the “lost generation” of Sri Lankan politics warrants a distinct and balanced biography. Additionally, projects such as the Mahaweli Development Scheme, the Greater Colombo Economic Commission, the Mahapola Scholarship Project, and Gam Udawa deserve scholarly scrutiny and analysis in future research. Should these suggestions be realized, they could significantly contribute to the literature essential for understanding a critical aspect of Sri Lanka’s recent history.
By Emeritus Professor Ranjith Senaratne
Department of Crop Science, University of Ruhuna (ransen.ru@gmail.com)
Present scenario
Recent prohibitive prices of rice and its unavailability caused untold hardships and inconveniences to the people of the country. The problem was so severe that it posed a serious constraint even on celebrating the new year and Thai Pongal this year, which was unprecedented in living memory. Given the complex, intractable multi-faceted and multi-dimensional nature of the problem, there are no quick fixes. The value chain of rice encompasses the entire process of production, from the initial planting of rice by the farmer to the final sale of processed rice to the consumer. This chain involves many stages, such as land preparation, planting, fertilization, irrigation, weed management, pest and disease control, harvesting, threshing, drying, milling, grading and sorting, storage, packaging, distribution, and retail. This invariably entails a large number of diverse actors and players, including farmers, traders, millers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers and a host of public sector institutions, including the Dept. of Agriculture, Meteorological Department, Agrarian Services Department, Paddy Marketing Board, Consumers Affairs Authority and banks. Besides, the rice value chain is closely linked to several sectors, including land, water, environment, energy, transport, machinery and fertiliser which further exacerbate the issue, adding to its immensity and intractability.
There have been a plethora of newspaper articles and discussions, including useful and constructive ones, on how to deal with the rice crisis. However, they have mainly addressed only certain aspects of this huge, multi-dimensional and complex problem. Given the nature, magnitude, urgency, complexity and far-reaching social, economic, health and political implications and ramifications of the issue, a holistic systems approach is essential, without further delay, in order to prevent the recurrence of such untoward situations in future and to find a sustainable solution to this “island–shaking” issue. This article attempts to define this critical problem and outline the interventions needed to address it effectively.
Key problems and challenges and proposed interventions
A problem well defined is half solved. Therefore, I wish to identify the key factors contributing to this multi-dimensional problem and outline the interventions needed.
= Lack of required data and databases and unreliability and non-interoperability of the data available.
= Uncontrolled and unregulated cultivation of rice in almost all districts without paying due attention to land suitability and potential yield and cultivation of varieties for profit maximization without regard for the consumer preference and national demand.
= Inefficient and indiscriminate use and management of resources.
= Low and stagnant yields, resulting in high cost of production and high prices of rice.
= Presence of a large number of economically non-viable fragmented paddy fields and small holders (more than 70% of paddy holdings are less than 1 ha and only about 5% of farmers have holdings greater than 2 ha).
= Prohibitive prices of the imported pesticides and weedicides and the lack of controlled prices. As in paints, discounts up to 40%, or even more, are given to large scale farmers, while the resource-poor small farmers, who are the vast majority, get only a measly discount, resulting in higher cost of production and less profit.
= Inadequate adoption of modern technology.
= Inefficient, inadequate and outdated field advisory service with hardly any application of digital technology.
= Heavy post-harvest losses up to 15-20%, including during storage.
= Lack of satisfactory marketing channels and failure of the governments to date to regulate the oligopolistic competition resulting in unfair prices for the farmers and consumers.
= Announcing the guaranteed price of paddy by the government only after the harvest, instead of prior to the beginning of the cultivation season; this provides no opportunity and space for the farmers to decide whether to go into commercial production and, if so, to what extent.
= Voiceless farmers and toothless farmer organizations.
= Lack of robust laws governing the hoarding of essential food commodities, including rice, by some large scale millers, traders and farmers
= Extreme climatic conditions.
Defining the problem
Agriculture consumes over 80% of fresh water and occupies around 40% of land in the country which is not sustainable given the other important competing considerations. Moreover, of the 8 million national workforce, about 2 million (25%) is engaged in the agriculture sector of which around 1 million is in the paddy sub-sector. Paddy, with a total extent of over 700,000 ha, is cultivated in over 20 districts in the county and an appreciable yield variation is observed between districts, i.e. from 3 to over 7 metric tons/ha depending on the soil and climatic conditions, management regime, variety used, etc. As the national average is only about 4.3 metric tons/ha, there is considerable scope for yield improvement by cultivating rice in high potential areas and improving crop management. Besides, in order to produce 1 kg of rice, nearly 2,000 litres of water is generally required in Sri Lanka, which is extremely high and unsustainable.
Lack of reliable data related to the rice sub-sector
This issue has been highlighted time and again and the high priority accorded by the government to transform Sri Lanka into a digital economy should prove very useful in this regard. Given below are some key indices that need to be determined with reasonable accuracy through digital interventions in order to address the rice issue.
= Extent of paddy fields cultivated district-wise during Yala and Maha seasons, including information on ownership and mode of production, whether self or “anda”? Each holding and its owner should be given a QR code so that the vital statistics and facts could be digitally recorded, which should then be used in providing the fertiliser subsidy, bank loan, crop insurance, etc., and selling the produce. This should be updated at the beginning of each season. In addition to the staff of the Department of Agriculture, Agrarian Services Department, Mahaweli Development Authority and the Vidatha Resource Centres (260) across the island, the Universities in the respective provinces could also be harnessed in this regard.
= Distribution of paddy holdings district-wise based on size, i.e. small (< 0.5 ha) , medium (> 0.5 and < 5 ha) and large (> 5 ha).
= Extent cultivated district-wise identifying the holdings cultivated for personal consumption and commercial production
= Level of usage of fertilisers, weedicides, pesticides, labour, water, machinery, etc.
= Average yield, district-wise, for Yala and Maha for the major types cultivated, i.e. Red Kakulu, White Kakulu, Nadu and Samba.
At present, a standard procedure is not followed when reporting yield, thus the figures reported cannot be compared because of different sampling procedures, sample sizes, moisture content, etc., and rice is sold in different forms, i.e. with husk. after milling, or after both milling and polishing.
In order to ensure interoperability of data, the procedure recommended by the FAO must be followed. (https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/909e539d-60eb-49d1-9539-192d262176ec/content)
= National requirement of the said types of rice with district-wise break-down and data on fluctuations in demand and price across the year.
=Classification and mapping of rice cultivating areas/fields (i.e. low, moderate and high potential) in each district/AGA division using digital technologies. such as GIS and remote sensing. Commercial paddy cultivation should not be permitted in low potential areas/fields and no subsidies should be provided for those cultivating in marginal fields for home consumption.
=Identification of outstanding lead farmers in each AGA division and district, so as to obtain their services to improve paddy production in the area.
= Identification of districts with excess, adequate and deficit rice production showing the degree (%) of excess/deficit.
= Paddy storage capacity of public sector and private sector institutions district-wise. (Information gathered under 9 and 10 will prove useful in minimising the “food mileage”, carbon footprint, cost of transport and market price of rice, and in identifying areas where storage capacity should be expanded and new storage facilities should be established.
= Quantities of rice used by industry, including SMEs, for making noodles, confectionaries, beer and other major rice-based products
Inefficient use and poor management of resources
Agriculture, as said earlier, consumes over 80% of water and occupies around 40% of land in the country; this is excessive and disproportionate, given the needs of the other sectors. For instance, paddy is grown in over 20 districts in Sri Lanka with a total extent over 700,000 ha. Besides, more or less the same amount of fertilisers and pesticides are used in the paddy production across the country, irrespective of the yield potential, i.e. 2,500 or > 7,500 kg ha-1. Consequently, a considerable variation in the cost of production (CoP) of a kilo of rice is evident among districts, i.e. between in Ampara and Kalutara. Therefore, every attempt should be made to expand the cultivation of paddy in high potential areas as far as possible so as make to rice available to the consumer at a cheaper price and improve the socio-economic standard of the paddy farmers.
Today water is a growing source of global conflict in nearly 50 countries in the world. Climate change and the ever-increasing population combined with growing economic and social imperatives and needs will create intense competition for water. Therefore, it is important to manage water efficiently. If suitability mapping is done and agro-climatic and soil potentials are optimized and matched with the agronomic requirements of rice, then the same level of production could be achieved from the dry zone with about half of the current extent cultivated. However, in order to ensure food security, commercial paddy cultivation in high potential areas in the wet zone should be maintained and necessary steps should be taken to remove the legal impediments for the cultivation of other crops in marginal paddy fields in the wet zone. As around 70% of the fertilisers and pesticides imported are used for paddy, the above proposal will help not only to reduce the price of rice and the imports to save much needed foreign exchange, but also to cut down environmental and health issues associated with paddy cultivation.
Excess of unproductive labour
In Malaysia, only 11.1% of the labour force is in agriculture, which contributes nearly 8 % to the GDP. On the other hand, Sri Lanka with over 25% of its labour force in agriculture contributes only around 7% to the GDP. While factors such as greater value addition in agriculture in Malaysia have contributed to the above situation, the low productivity of Sri Lankan agricultural labour is a major contributor to it. Therefore, by improving the land and labour productivity, about 50% of the agricultural labour force, i.e. about one million, can be transferred to the manufacturing and service sectors after reskilling and retooling without affecting rice production and offering better socio-economic conditions to the marginal farmers. (To be continued)
By Dr Upali Abeysiri
May I be permitted to add to the thought-provoking article, “The Buddha I believe in” (The Island, 24th February) by my very good friend Dr Upul Wijayawardhana, a few comments on some of the ‘firsts’ achieved by the Buddha. When we were young medical students in the early sixties, living at the just established Jeevaka Buddhist Medical Hostel, named in honour of the physician to the Buddha, I never imagined that Upul and I would be sharing a passion for the study of the scientific aspects of Buddhism, in the evening of our lives!
The Buddha, born a human being, is characterised by his superhuman achievements. His unique wisdom, compassion, exemplary life style and leadership made some deify him. He was the first to establish a democratic code of conduct as enshrined in the Vinaya pitaka. However, the Western world has continued to ignore many of his ‘firsts’ at the same time using them liberally, sometimes even crediting others instead. In fact, there were attempts to change the period of Buddha’s life to corroborate the narrative that the Buddha was influenced by Greek philosophers whereas the truth was just the opposite.
Some of the firsts achieved by the Buddha are as follows:
He showed that there is no permanent entity in living beings, be they named the spirit, soul or athman, but a constantly changing psychic component that depends on the physical component and vice versa. He agreed with Mahavira, the contemporary Jain teacher, that there is no creative god but disagreed with Mahavira’s belief in a permanent entity, athman. Some wrongly attribute Buddhist philosophy to be a variant of Vedic and Jain philosophies, despite the description of the summum bonum: Nibbana in Buddhism.
The Buddha also showed that the psyche is not a permanent entity but consists of a stream of units arising and ceasing. However, Western scientists attribute the first description of the momentary nature of consciousness to William James, the nineteenth century American philosopher who is considered the father of American philosophy.
He was the first to state that physical items are constantly changing processes though we misperceive as substances; solids, liquids, and gases (description of Mahabutha or elementary physical processes in Abhidhamma pitaka). Quantum physics has since discovered that quantum particles that make the universe are waves but appear as particles when we observe and that matter and energy are interchangeable. Buddha further stated that basic processes arise, decay, and cease due to many conditions replaced by new processes. Similar new processes arise to replace the ceased processes provided similar conditions for arising exist. However, as conditions themselves change, the newly arisen conditions also change. Thus, he described the universal characters of impermanence (anicca) leading to unsatisfactory nature (dukkha) with emptiness of a permanent entity in the universe (anatta and sunyata).
He classified the animal kingdom into four categories according to type of birth; andaja or egg borne, jalabuja or womb borne, sansedhaja or formed in an external medium and opapathika or spontaneous birth. However, the first classification of the animal kingdom is attributed to Aristotle who lived about three hundred years later. He classified according to motility such as flying, swimming, or moving on land; on birth as egg borne or womb borne. Since then, his classification has been abandoned as inaccurate, for example flying animals include insects, mammals, and birds as one category. Classification by Buddha agrees with modern science, perhaps, except for replacement of spontaneous birth by cloning achieved through current scientific methods, as spontaneous birth is not recognised as it is not yet proven by scientific methods.
Buddha described six sense organs in contrast to five attributed to Aristotle who did not include the mind. As modern science now shows that some information such as position of joints, visceral pain, memorised data etc. arrive directly to the mind, Buddha’s classification seems vindicated.
He described infinite world systems (lokadhathu now named galaxies) in the universe into thousand-fold, ten thousand-fold, etc., scattered in space. Further, he expounded that the universe is in a cyclic process expanding and contracting for eons before dissolution and reformation (samvatta or eons of destruction, samvatta– tthayi or eons of continuation of chaos, vivatta or eons of world formation and vivatta–tthayi or continuation of formation as well explained in Anguttara nikaya; group of fours and group of sevens suttas). He also explained how several suns appear before destruction of the universe (Anguttara nikaya group of fours sutta).
This parallels the description of black hole formation in science. Apart from further classifying the living beings of the universe, depending on the development of the mind and results of past kamma to 31 planes, he refused to discuss cosmology any further as it was not conducive to progress in the path of purification of the mind. What little he described was to illustrate impermanence as a universal characteristic. Later authors confused this classification by trying to fit it into the knowledge of the universe in ancient India around a mountain Mahameru based on Hindu mythology. The new theory on the universe is attributed to Stephen Hawkins who postulated that it started with a big bang from a singularity which agreed with the creation theory. However, shortly before death, he with his colleagues, advanced a new theory; the universe existed and contracted to a singularity before the big bang (As described by his colleague Bernard Carr, emeritus professor of astronomy in the New Scientist, 1 April 2023: p47).
The Buddha was the first to distinguish that while seeing and hearing are between the object and the subject at a distance, which he termed asampatta, smell, taste and touch are due to direct contact between the object and the subject (sampatta) and that there is a difference between touch and all other senses. The reason given in Abhidhamma for this difference is that contact between the basic physical processes of the object and the basic physical processes of the body sense bases of the subject are more forceful in touch in comparison to others like smell and taste.
According to quantum physics, in touch what is felt is the repulsive force between electrons of the physical processes of the object and the subject and that there is no real contact or chemical reaction between them whereas in smell and taste the physical processes of the object and subject exchange electrons and chemical reaction happens to stimulate the senses (New Scientist, 8 April 2023: p37) which confirms what the Buddha stated.
He was the first to describe breathing meditation (Anapana Sathi) without interfering in the normal process of breathing. This contrasted with meditation on physical and psychic objects were practised in ancient India (including application of breath control or pranayama supposed to awaken hidden powers of the body) with some attaining prolonged focus of the mind on a single object, also called absorption or jhana but not attaining enlightenment. It is insight meditation (vipassana) that the Buddha invented which leads to that path.
The Buddha described the mental factor sati or mindfulness as the basic ingredient in meditation which has now been given a new name in psychology; metacognition.
As Upul correctly stated the Buddha was a human being, not supernatural, with an intellect so far unsurpassed in human history. His many firsts have laid a path for us to follow if we are to escape from the ever-pervading sense of dissatisfaction.
Easter Sunday attacks:
Interview with Dhara Wijayatilake,
Attorney-at-Law,
Chairperson,
The Office for Reparations,
on disbursements from the Easter Attack Victim Fund.
by Saman Indrajith
Q: How did the Office for Reparations set about making compensation payments to victims of the Easter Attack?
A: We don’t like to call these grants “compensation” because you can never really compensate victims in such tragic circumstances. We refer to these grants as monetary relief and in the context of the concept of “reparations”, monies are granted to assist victims in the process of restoring their normal lives.
In 2019, soon after the Easter Bomb attack, monies were paid out to victims from funds made available by the Government through the Consolidated Fund, in compliance with government circulars that were applicable to all such situations. The Cabinet had decided how much should be paid to each category of victims. There were two categories – Next of kin of those who had died, and those who had suffered injuries. These payments were made speedily and completed by about October 2019.
Thereafter, on an order of the Supreme Court in January 2023, the “Easter Attack 2019 Victim Fund” was established by the OR to receive monies ordered to be paid by respondents in certain Fundamental Rights applications. In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, the OR formulated a scheme to grant monies from this Fund.
The sums ordered to be paid by the respondents did not come in all at once. The remittances came in stages. So, each time we received a sum that was adequate to disburse, we identified the most vulnerable victim category and made grants as per our priority policy. So, families of deceased and those permanently totally disabled, and severely injured, received grants on a priority basis.
When more money came in, we had enough to expand the grants to wider categories. We then formulated a Disbursement Policy to make grants.
The OR believes in transparency and in making relevant information available to the public, so all these schemes and the Policy and sums disbursed to the different categories were uploaded to our website in real time. We did not however reveal the identity and amounts disbursed to individuals to safeguard their privacy.
Q: How did you publicise the fact that grants were being given?
A: We did not need to publicise it because we were dealing with victims who were already in our database. We reached out to them. Everyone who was a victim and claimed compensation had submitted applications soon after the attack. There was wide publicity given at that time and the victims were identified also by the Divisional Secretaries. There were victims who had opted not to claim grants at the outset, and we did not pursue them.
Our database is not confined to one church or geographic location, but includes all victims including those affected by the attack at the Zion church in Batticaloa.
Q: Can you describe some of the features of your disbursement policy?
A: It is uploaded on our website but let me summarise. We identified the following support schemes to those who are victims due to the death of a parent or sibling or due to injury suffered by either a parent or is a direct victim of an injury –
· Grants to next of kin of deceased
· Grants to injured persons. We gave grants to those who had been medically certified to be permanently injured based on the degree of incapacity. We also wrote to all those temporarily injured to inquire if they had continuing medical needs. These requests supported by current medical reports are evaluated by a team of medical doctors who will recommend to us the degree of disability and the OR will make payments as per the scale we have identified.
· Grants to support secondary school education – 50 children were given grants to assist in defraying expenses to complete secondary school. All children are those who lost one or both parents or were direct victims who suffered serious injuries themselves.
· Grants to support Tertiary education – we have given grants to applicants who requested support. The OR is monitoring these grantees to ensure they stay on course and to provide support where needed. These grantees were also those who had lost one or both parents.
· Elders support – there are some elderly people who need support because someone they were dependent on, died in the attack. These are being considered.
· Entrepreneurship support – We will look at the feasibility of the identified project, the commitment to sustain a project and other relevant factors.
Q: There were other organisations that provided assistance. Did the OR consult those and take into account the relief provided by them?
A: No, we did not, for several reasons. Firstly, we proceeded on a needs-based approach and sought the information direct from each victim to assess their individual needs. We designed an Application Form for each scheme and distributed those. Also, no Organisation that has helped victims would have been willing to share that information with outside sources.
However, we worked closely with the office of His Eminence the Cardinal to share information that was useful to them and to us, to assess needs. They were also engaged in providing financial and other needs and so were we. So, we have an ongoing working arrangement and readily use each other’s information to ensure that the funds available are distributed in the most meaningful way to those most in need. That continues. They also know details of the circumstances of each victim engaged with their church and we find that information useful.
Q: Did the OR discuss the schemes with any other respondents?
A: Yes. We had a special meeting in January, 2025 to discuss these matters with representatives of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and representatives of His Eminence the Cardinal. This meeting was held on an order given by the Supreme Court. Both parties were represented at that meeting and we had a detailed discussion at which documents containing our Disbursement Policy, the Schemes, the methodology adopted, and a summary of disbursements as at that time were shared with them. In our documents submitted to the Hon. Attorney General to be filed in court we reported that fact that the meeting was held. Both parties expressed their complete satisfaction with the manner in which we were handling the disbursements.
Q: How much money came into the Victim Fund and how much has been paid out?
A: A total of Rs. 311 million came into the Fund from the respondents. The sum of Rs. 245 million that was referred to in court was the sum paid out as at January 31, 2025 which was the date by which we submitted our reports to the Hon. Attorney General. We have paid out a larger sum now.
As at the end of February we have made grants amounting to Rs. 250,633,000 million which is 80 % of the Fund. We’re currently finalizing the payments to the injured in consultation with the team of doctors, and also looking at payments to elders who need support. We plan to complete all grants by the end of March, 2025.
Q: An issue that came up at the hearing on the 27th was that two counsel were not given copies of the detailed lists. Any comments on that?
A: Anything that will help them represent their clients best can be shared. I believe the Additional Solicitor General will now act on the court order.
Although the two counsel did not receive the lists, all details of the schemes, the manner of reaching out to victims and obtaining applications, etc., were discussed in detail at the January 2025 meeting attended by their juniors. There was plenty of opportunity to seek further clarifications if any were required.
It’s the policy of the OR to safeguard the privacy of the beneficiary. I’m sure Counsel will respect that, so we have no issue.
INS Kuthar calls Port of Colombo
Earthquake hits Hollywood as stars gather for Oscars after-party
Doctors set to launch island wide strike on Wednesday [05]
-
News6 days agoUSD 900,000 paid monthly for three unused SriLankan aircraft– Dy. Finance Minister
-
Latest News3 days agoSusantha Chandramali passes away at the age of 61
-
Features4 days agoDid Rani miss manorani ?
-
News7 days agoParliament approved USAID and other foreign-funded projects: Karu J
-
News7 days agoBASL slams govt. over extrajudicial killings
-
Editorial5 days agoDon’t eviscerate precious goose
-
Features6 days ago2025 Budget: Challenges, hopes and concerns
-
Editorial7 days ago
Chaotic House and moral compass