Opinion

The Life and Lessons of Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy

Published

3 years ago

2024/02/27

By Arjuna Parakrama

Text of an introductory speech delivered recently in Colombo by Prof. Arjuna Prarakrama on the occasion of the launching of the publication titled, ‘Clippings on the Life and Times of Sir Waitialingam Duraisawamy’ by Sivanandini Duraiswamy.

I shall confine my brief remarks to four areas in all of which, I believe Sir Waitialingam had in his inimitable, quiet but firm, steadfast, way shown us a path and a perspective that today, more than ever before, is worth understanding and attempting to follow. I shall try to use his religio-cultural tradition, not mine, to explain his ways and values, in part because that would provide the greatest explanatory power, and because for too long we have remained trapped, both wittingly and unwittingly in our own cultural and religious traditions, which then serve to divide and exclude. If we are to be serious about integration we have no right to the luxury owning only one of many threads in our national mosaic.

To this end, let me begin with an overall assessment of Sir Waitialingam as I believe and see captured in the extraordinary poem found in the Puraananuru (182) by Ilam Peruvaiyuti in the extraordinary translation by A.K. Ramanujan. This is a beautiful summary of the kind of man I believe Sir Waitialingam was, as well as of the kind role men like him play in society.

The World Lives Because

This world lives

because

some men

do not eat alone,

not even when they get

the sweet ambrosia of the gods;

they’ve no anger in them,

they fear evils other men fear

but never sleep over them;

give their lives for honor,

will not touch a gift of whole worlds

if tainted;

there’s no faintness in their hearts

and they do not strive

for themselves.

Because such men are,

This world is.

This is both the potential and catastrophe of our times. The Sangam poetry of over 2000 years ago can be excused for focusing only on men, but certainly not us in Sri Lanka today. We have no women or men of this kind here anymore, at least in positions of authority and power, so our world is in danger of disintegrating – of not being “is” any longer. It “was” but it “isn’t” now, and alas, we must all share some blame for this. My humble intervention today, is, then, a celebration of Sir Waitialingam’s life and values, as well as the performance of obsequies for a lost time, a bereft space, trapped in the past.

This should not be: systems need to be in place, institutions need to function, which go beyond individuals. For the author of the Thirukural (verse 982), the matter was strikingly simpler:

The welfare of the world is in the goodness of those who govern.

It depends on the nature that resides within.

We must believe otherwise, but yet, without visionary leaders of the kind of Sir Waitialingam, we are doomed to echo Antonio Gramsci, referring to a different kind of fascism, of which I shall use the liberal translation of Gramsci popularised by Slavoj Žižek (2010).

“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

Systems have failed us, as have leaders, and echoing Shakespeare’ Prospero, we must take responsibility for “this thing of darkness / which [we] acknowledge [ours].”

Beginning with a Kural that sums up greatness in our sense, I will attempt to take stock of the lessons we can learn from the life of Sir Waitialingam on the occasion of the launch of Clippings.

Love, modesty, beneficence, benignant grace,

With truth, are pillars five of perfect virtue’s resting-place. [The Virtuous: Verse 983]

Thus, the core values that I would like to focus on today as lessons and examples include integrity, giving, impartiality, and simplicity.

INTEGRITY

The question of integrity, fundamental in its absence, in its utter dereliction. today, is embodied in Sir Waitialingam’s philosophy and practice of life. As Sir Francis Molamure wrote in 1936:

“Mr. Duraiswamy proved his sterling worth and political integrity during the term of the Reformed Council of 1924. There is no doubt that he is the outstanding political figure among the Tamils.”

A.F. Molamure, Times of Ceylon Feb 1936 [p. 101]

Dr. N.M Perera in his Vote of Condolence reproduced in the Hansard of 1966 has this to say:

“He was a man of whom we can be proud, and the Legislature can be proud, and certainly we in this country can be proud. He had a sense of fair play, justice and a high sense of integrity and, above all, he was a genial person who always discussed matters frankly with all Members in the Speaker’s Chamber, listened to their difficulties and pointed out ways of solving their difficulties. In essence, he was an ideal Speaker. All of us looked up to him to maintain the high honour and dignity that was expected of the Chair.

We have lost … one of the old politicians of this country. He was one of the last links between the old and the new.”

Hansard of 1966: Dr. N. M. Perera [Vote of Condolence]

The point to be made here is that integrity is not a matter of avoidance, integrity is not a matter of turning the other side and becoming consciously unaware of what is going on. Integrity is an engagement, it is, as Dr. Perera says, frank engagement on key matters, listening to difficulties, solving problems. Sir Waitialingam was someone who confronted injustice, inequality and wrongs and actively helped to right these wrongs. Integrity is not passive, it is not the absence of corruption, nepotism, kleptocracy nor the avoidance of personal gain: it is the active campaigning and active engagement against those cancers that affect integrity, be they people or institutions, ideologies or fiefdoms, whether they seek refuge in culture and tradition, or hierarchy and protocol. But, this integrity must be lived and practiced: it is not merely a slogan for the hard times in opposition backbenches, for garnering votes at elections. In this sense, the integrity embodied by Sir Waitialingam was tied to his dignity and moral compass as surely as his religion and family values.

The Thirukural, in verse 119 expresses this quite poignantly:

Speech uttered without bias is integrity,

Provided no unspoken bias hides in the heart.

This is the crux of the problem which goes beyond avoidance, subterfuge hypocrisy and so on. I will have occasion to talk about heart of greatness later on, but let me move on now.

GIVING

Next, I would like to focus on the notion of giving, which is not charity, but which is an understanding of equality, a redressing of injustice, a restoration of the level playing field. And, I must say that again I have to rely on a translation of the Tirukkuṟaḷ, verse 218, which I think is important, because one does not have to be hugely financially rich to have that sense of giving. In fact, it is a sad truism to say those who are hugely financially rich do not indulge in such giving today, but in taking more and more.

Here is the Kural:

Those who deeply know duty do not neglect giving,

Even in their own unprosperous season.

In his quiet retirement he was as prone to giving as he was earlier. And in fact, his role as the Speaker – even though he was scrupulous to the point of not being involved officially in either parties or politics – provides a shining counter-example to the current dispensation. Here, he was able through his good offices, his persuasive powers and the force of his character to enable the people in the islands, particularly in Delft, to obtain services that were unthought of earlier. Motorised boats, piers and so on.

But, most importantly, it was not done irregularly, it was not done unfairly, it was not done in order to canvas or bargain or buy votes; it was done because it was a duty, a duty seen as a labor of love and, crucially, it was something for which he never took credit. These I think are unique examples to our present and future generations.

Again, from the Thirukural (211)

The benevolent expect no return for their dutiful giving.

How can the world ever repay the rain cloud?

Sir Waitialingam was a rain cloud to the islands, to the Jaffna peninsula, to the people who came to him or of whom he recognized a hope, and this was remarkable because it was not part of a quid pro quo, it was not a political circus. It was quiet, it was discreet, and it addressed the need of the hour.

“I feel so helpless, so small, so unable to do what is expected of me. In my home I feel

strongly about the great wants of our people and often felt and wept that something should be done to raise our people’s standard of living, education and physical conditions. This frail body is unable to cope with the stupendous work that lies before me.” [p. 146]

IMPARTIALITY

Perhaps the most difficult principle to engage because he and I like many are ambiguous about its benefits or to be precise the greater benefit was Sir Waitialingam’s impartiality. The moment he became the Speaker of the State Council, he ceased to be the uncontested MP for Kayts, he ceased to be the representative of the Tamil people, he ceased to be a son of the soil. He identified himself, and he became, one with all the interests of all the people in the country.

D.B Dhanapala puts this quite beautifully and quite accurately in his description of the early stages of Sir Waitialingam’s tenure, when he states:

It is a lie to say the Speaker takes no sides. As a matter of fact, he takes sides more than any man on the floor of the House. But he takes all the sides available on any question at different times.

He seems as much concerned and interested in the halting sentences of the most insignificant backbencher as desperate defence put up by the leader of the House.

The smile of interest is thin; the nod of understanding is slight. But there is nothing mechanical about these encouragements on the part of the Speaker, His behaviour when on the chair seems to be always in evening dress, as it were. There is a formal dignity not without grace that clothes the few words he sometimes utters, the smile he often proffers and even the raising of the eye-brows he but seldom affects.

I think it is worth understanding that impartiality taken to the extreme in order to reconcile his understanding of the principle role and function of the Speaker, may be a disadvantage or even a tragedy of our times.

Mr Duraiswamy does not speak too much. And whenever he does speak, he says the right thing. There is also a complete lack of what is called ‘side’ in his behaviour which makes his personality unobtrusive in the House. His rulings are often firm. …

But his firmness is not off his own bat. He takes the sense of the House when he is in doubt. At other times he seems to scent the feeling prevalent. But in whatever he does there is the touch of the sure hand, the ring of the decided mind about it.” [pp. 42- 43]

Unfortunately, when Ceylon obtained the services of the most important Speaker and the first citizen in Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy, we also lost a powerful advocate, a strong voice for united Ceylon whose liberalism found him putting aside less important ethnic, cultural differences at that crucial juncture, and this loss I think proved fundamental in the history that unfolded at the time. The trade-off was identified by many as the quid pro quo for his being elected and in his demonstrating so exemplary a level of impartiality for 11 crucial years in that office.

However one wishes to rationalize it, Sir Waitialingam’s eloquence in the House, his ability to reason and explain using his judicial training, his ability to analyze and understand an issue were sadly missed. And unfortunately, he too was well aware of this. Mr. Dhanapala observes:

At my last interview with him, on the eve of his departure to England, I found him greatly perturbed regarding the trend of events. He felt all the worse because as Speaker he was helpless.

With the highest conceptions of the duties of the Office he holds, the Speaker would not take part in politics even behind the scenes. But a Speaker has his own opinions unexpressed in public. [pp. 46-47]

The issue there was he was unhappy because of the communal turn of politics at that time. He was unhappy and prescient about what would happen in future, and it did. It led him to exclude himself from politics and public life after 1947. Being scrupulous and a stickler for due process, he eschewed working in the unofficial Bar as well, proving all those wrong, including Dhanapala, who felt that his political career would continue to blossom. However, exclusionary nationalist politics had overtaken the country, inevitably, and from the point of view of non-Sinhala groups, justifiably, but this was not a political arena that Sir Waitialingam trusted or valued, and in turn it was not one in which his worth was duly recognised.

Dr N.M. Perera states in 1966: how wrong he was proven to be:

It used to be a common theme of discussion between himself and myself as to how best the problem of communal tension that seemed to prevail in the last decade or so could be solved. I always maintained – and I think he agreed – that this was a passing phase.

I don’t think that he was right even about Sir Waitialingam’s view: my evidence, beyond the circumstantial, is that despite referring to this as “a common theme of discussion” he is as yet unsure of Sir Waitialingam’s view on the subject of such frequent discussion. Perhaps politeness intervened here!

REFINED SIMPLICITY

In an extraordinarily felicitous phrase, DB Dhanapala captures what I consider to be the essence of Sir Waitialingam’s personal uniqueness vis-à-vis the other politicians of his time. All of them were elite, educated sufficiently and comfortably westernised. Yet, Sir Waitialingam had that quality of refined simplicity which he bore with the aplomb and flair.

In the words of Dhanapala,

“In their dealings with their own countrymen, the best class of Sinhalese has copied the superior manner in which the European in the east treats the Asiatic. They are seldom able to get away from that sahib brusqueness, and not many single use politicians will ever attain that refined simplicity of the high class Dravidian as personified in Mr. Duraiswamy. . . . Here is a man without all the complexities of pose and pomp — who talks to his inferiors with the same respect as he would to equals. This wiry athletic Dravidian in a long coat, who sleeps on a hard plank to this day, is prouder of his fame as a farmer then of his name as a politician or lawyer.”

The point I wish to make is that when Sir Waitilingam speaks of a united Ceylon and its shared heritage, he’s not like some others of his time speaking about Oxford or Cambridge, Victorian values, a Christian ethos or even the unabashedly upper class Colombo milieu of like-minded Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher fraternities conjoined by the old school tie, More British than the British themselves, as Macaulay planned a century earlier in his infamous Minute on Indian Education (Not accidentally the year that Royal College – then The Colombo Academy – was founded): “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, -a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”

This simplicity is neither contrived nor natural. Paradoxically it is a learned and deliberately chosen simplicity based on values and beliefs. The frills of office, of colonialist public life were not beyond Sir Waitialingam’s enjoyment. He could take it or leave it. He was most comfortable in Jaffna in his home with his family and friends in communion with his guru among his people. The example most illustrative of this point is his rapid departure from Colombo to Jaffna on returning after being knighted so that he can be with his family and well-wishers. His remark on that occasion is symptomatic of that refined simplicity the eschewing of pomp and pageantry in favour of deeply rooted, understated yet firmly held beliefs and practices.

“I could not resist the strong urge to be in Jaffna a minute longer and I am here now among you,” he said by way of explaining to his friends the reason for his hurried departure from Colombo soon after his return from England.” [p. 139]

Conclusion

Destiny’s last days may surge with oceanic change,

Yet men deemed perfectly good remain, like the shore, unchanged.

Verse 989

It has been noted of this milieu that “this is a small world.” We now need to confront the inescapable fact that this is not so any longer. There’s both good and bad in this new reality, notwithstanding its monsters. A larger world allows for greater participation, widespread upward social mobility and the drastic reduction of old class-caste hierarchies that dominated this small world in the past. Yet, while saluting and championing this sea change, we must find room for all that was the best of that past. Sir Waitialingam was certainly, irrefutably among the exemplars we must learn to cherish, unlearn our own present madness to understand, value and emulate.

His life remains an antidote to the brutes of our epoch, beautifully captured in this new translation by Dr. S. V. Kasynathan, of Kural 1020, one of the most poignant reminders of our current predicament.

The movement of men without shame within their heart

Is like wooden puppets on a string pretending to be alive. [Kural 1020]

After such knowledge, what forgiveness?

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Sir Waitialingam Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy

Up Next

Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, the last of his breed

Don't Miss

An easily preventable ‘road accident’

Click to comment

Opinion

Sri Lanka’s geopolitical positioning for future prosperity

Published

1 day ago

2026/09/25

Thilina Walpola

Kariyawasam

By Chula Goonasekera
For the LEADS Forum (admin@srilankaleads.com)

Sri Lanka’s future prosperity will depend on how effectively it positions itself within an increasingly complex global environment. At a recent LEADS Forum discussion (https://youtu.be/Bbr3e_qU1Fw), veteran diplomat Prasad Kariyawasam, former Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, High Commissioner to India, Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador /Permanent Representative to the UN in New York and Geneva —outlined the strategic choices Sri Lanka must make to secure long term stability and economic advancement. Kariyawasam offered a rare blend of historical perspective, diplomatic experience and practical guidance.

His central message was clear: Sri Lanka must exercise strategic agency—engaging all major partners while safeguarding its national interests.

Foreign Policy as an Extension of National Aspirations

Foreign policy, Kariyawasam emphasised, is inseparable from domestic priorities. As your text notes, “foreign relations often reflect the medium- and long-term aspirations of a country’s people and its leadership.” Governments must therefore craft external relations that reflect the public’s economic and social expectations, avoiding short-term political impulses that undermine long-term national interests.

For a small nation, foreign policy cannot be symbolic or personality driven. It must be purposeful, pragmatic and directed towards the security and prosperity of the people.

A History of Global Connectivity

Sri Lanka’s history demonstrates that the island has never been isolated. From ancient ties with India and Southeast Asia to Arab, Persian and Chinese maritime networks, the island prospered when connected to the wider world. We must realise that “geography creates opportunity, but geography alone does not create prosperity.” Institutions, infrastructure and policy determine whether geographic advantage becomes economic success.

Colombo’s emergence as a cosmopolitan trading hub and Galle’s role as a resupply station for Indian Ocean shipping in colonial times , illustrate how deeply Sri Lanka has been embedded in global commerce for centuries.

Lessons from Asia’s High Performers

Kariyawasam highlighted the experiences of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam. Their paths differ, but their success rests on common foundations:

• investment in human capital and infrastructure

• merit based institutions

• integration into global markets

• attraction of investment and technology

• export oriented industries

• strategic engagements with both China and Western economies

The lesson for Sri Lanka is not imitation but continuous adaptation and constructive integration with the global economy.

India: Sri Lanka’s Closest Major Partner

India’s transformation into a global economic power presents Sri Lanka with both opportunity and responsibility. India is already Sri Lanka’s largest source of tourists and a major investor. Kariyawasam states, “The larger question is how effectively Sri Lanka can participate in and benefit from India’s growth.”

A partnership should encompass modern, more open pathways for trade, investment, logistics, energy, technology, digital services, education and professional mobility—And asymmetry between the two economies must be handled with maturity and foresight, seeking special and differential treatment .

China and Other Global Partners

China remains a significant economic partner. Sri Lanka must avoid viewing this relationship through a zero sum lens. The goal should be productive and transparent engagement, ensuring better terms of trade and meaningful technology transfer.

Equally Important relations must be nurtured with the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf.

All these relationships can be vibrant partnerships that does not lead towards , dependency but mutually beneficial pragmatic arrangements .

A Fragmenting International System

Global geopolitics is becoming more volatile. Trade tensions, wars, sanctions, supply chain disruptions, climate change and technological competition increasingly shape national security. We must realise, “foreign policy cannot be separated from economic policy.”

Sri Lanka’s recent economic crisis demonstrated the importance of international confidence, access to finance and resilient supply chains. Energy security, food security, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure are now core elements of national strategy.

Strategic Agency: The Guiding Principle

Sri Lanka must avoid becoming an arena for great power competition. Strategic agency means making decisions based on national interest, expanding Sri Lanka’s choices, not restricting them.

India is essential. China is important. The United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf are important. The objective is a web of partnerships that strengthens resilience and autonomy.

Sri Lanka’s Strategic Assets

1. Location: Sri Lanka’s geography is a long standing advantage. Ports such as Colombo, Hambantota, Trincomalee and Galle can become specialised hubs—if connected to logistics, manufacturing, services and exports.

2. Digital Connectivity: Submarine cables, data centres, cloud services and cybersecurity are now as important as physical geography. Sri Lanka can turn its location into both a maritime and digital advantage.

3. Tourism and Natural Heritage: The focus should shift from tourist numbers to value creation—wellness, heritage, ecotourism, cruise tourism, education and MICE tourism.

4. Human Resources and Demographics: High literacy is no longer enough. Skills in technology, engineering, AI, logistics and advanced manufacturing are essential, especially with an ageing population.

5. Migrant Workforce: Migrant workers are a strategic asset, not merely a source of remittances. Bilateral labour agreements, skills recognition and diaspora engagement should be central to foreign policy.

Requirements for Sustained Prosperity

Sri Lanka’s future depends on:

• peace and security

• access to international markets

• productive investment

• a skilled, productive workforce

• modernised agriculture

• higher value tourism

• demographic preparedness

• climate resilience

• strong, predictable institutions

Please note that “foreign policy can open doors. Domestic institutions determine whether we can walk through them.”

The Role of the State

Sri Lanka does not need a larger state—only a more capable one. Policy continuity, professional institutions, predictable regulation and reduced corruption are essential. Geography does not change; long-term national interests do not change. Intentional relationships built over decades should not be reinvented with each election cycle.

Building Trust Internationally

Trust is a strategic asset. Sri Lanka must be known as a country that honours commitments and maintains predictable policies. This is vital not only for diplomacy but also for investment and long term partnerships.

Avoiding Zero Sum Geopolitics

Sri Lanka does not need to choose between India and China, or between Asia and the West. The task is to identify what each relationship can contribute to national development while protecting sovereignty and freedom of decision making.

Sri Lanka’s geography is an inheritance, but prosperity is not guaranteed. The world is changing rapidly—great-power competition, technological disruption, and climate vulnerability demand a foreign policy that is pragmatic, adaptive, and anchored in national interest.

Sri Lanka must build partnerships without dependencies, maintain strategic agency without isolation, and integrate with the global economy while strengthening domestic capacity.

“We cannot change where Sri Lanka is. We can, however, determine what Sri Lanka becomes because of where it is”

Opinion

A tariff deal with the US? Make haste slowly

Published

2 days ago

2026/09/24

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Gomi Senadhira

Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to the United States Mahinda Samarasinghe is back in Sri Lanka lobbying for speedier finalisation of a new tariff deal with the United States. According to news reports, delivering the keynote address at the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors’ Annual Meeting last week, he stated, “I have recommended very strongly to the government that we need to conclude the agreement so that we can lock in the very favourable tariff rate that Sri Lanka has got up to now“.

I do not understand why the former ambassador is urging the government to expedite the finalisation of a new tariff deal or what is “the very favourable tariff rate” he refers to in his speech. However, given the ongoing terrible tariff turbulence in the United States and the fragile economic situation in Sri Lanka, I believe, this is not the right time to rush into finalising any trade agreement with the United States. I am also of the opinion that at this juncture Sri Lanka should maintain strategic patience and explore all available options.

Lessons from the countries that rushed for trade deals

To better comprehend this, let’s look at experiences of the countries that rushed to conclude tariff deals with the United States after President Donald Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in April 2025. As Samarasinghe stated in his keynote, “The bottom line on all these negotiations was that every country that finally agreed to sign the agreement had to give either complete duty-free access for American exports into those markets, or near complete duty-free access.” In exchange for these tariff concessions and other market access commitments these countries managed to get the newly introduced country specific “reciprocal tariffs” reduced.

However, in February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down these “reciprocal tariffs” under the IEEPA. With that, the market access gains these countries received in exchange for complete duty-free access for American exports into their markets evaporated under U.S. domestic law. By moving too fast to conclude bilateral tariff agreements with the United States these countries are now bound to strict obligations whereas the benefits they bargained from the U.S. administration are not worth the paper those were written on.

Sri Lanka’s experience

In April 2025, President Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” and labelled Sri Lanka as the worst offender, imposing one of the highest additional duties at 44%. Since then, Ambassador Samarasinghe and other negotiators have managed to negotiate this down to 20%. I do not know what the deal was through which Sri Lanka managed to reduce the 44% tariff to 20% or what we gave in return for this “concession.” However, what we received in return has absolutely no value after the decision by the SCOTUS.

Current state of US tariffs

After the decision by SCOTUS, the U.S. administration introduced a temporary 10% additional tariff on all countries for 150 days. At the end of that period, this 10% tariff was replaced by a new “forced labor tariff ” of 10% to 12.5% on all trading partners under Section 301 of U.S. trade law. Twenty-five U.S. states and several small businesses have already filed lawsuits against these tariffs in U.S. courts. This new “forced labour tariff ” on Sri Lanka was first fixed at 12.5%. Later, after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette notice prohibiting the importation of goods produced using forced labour, it was reduced to 10%. That means Sri Lanka has already made a substantial commitment to receive this “tariff concession,” and I presume our negotiators understand the implications of this commitment.

Make haste slowly

After President Trump imposed 44% “reciprocal tariffs” on Sri Lanka, through an article published in The Island on 25th April 2026 (), I urged the government to engage immediately with the US administration on these tariffs. However, I also emphasised that the best way to move forward was to make haste slowly.

Two millennia ago, Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome, frequently used the phrase, “make haste slowly”, because he detested rashness and haste in his military commanders. It was the recurring guiding maxim that he emphasised throughout his 40-year imperial rule. After 2000 years, this classical oxymoron remains a definitive golden rule for professional trade negotiators. More importantly it is the exact blueprint required when navigating turbulence in trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

The endgame – The most dangerous moment in trade negotiation

Samarasinghe has also stated the agreement is 90% complete. Any experienced trade negotiator should know that the final 10% contains high-stakes provisions and is the most dangerous moment in a trade negotiation. A single misplaced comma or ambiguous product description in a tariff schedule can cost millions through unintended loopholes. Rushing this last stretch to secure a deal can permanently expose Sri Lanka to sudden shifts in American trade policy, heavy compliance costs, or strict enforcement under Section 301 regarding supply-chain labour standards. Hence, this is the time for strategic patience.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Opinion

Buddhist law and constitutional amendments

Published

2 days ago

2026/09/24

Sahan Weerasooriya

Upon reading the article titled “Prof. Pieris says Buddha Dhamma recognized as source of law under Constitution” (Island, September 12, 2026), the classical Sinhala idiom “Yanne Koheda? Malle Pol” immediately comes to mind. The expression, translating literally to answering “I have coconuts in my bag” when asked “Where are you going?”, underscores a complete disconnect in logic. Because it is uncertain whether the article accurately represents the professor’s precise words, the following critique addresses the contents of the report rather than the speaker himself.

The central premise of the report concerns a statement delivered by the Chief Justice regarding a petition filed against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. According to the report, the Chief Justice’s observation that the determination would be made strictly on the basis of established law rather than Buddhist teachings was characterised as a “cavalier dismissal” of the Buddha Dhamma. This assertion carries a host of unexamined assumptions. Had the writer specified precisely which tenets of the Buddha Dhamma were violated, a direct legal or philosophical evaluation could take place. However, no specific Buddhist tenet or law was identified as having been transgressed, and for good reason: no such statutory legal framework exists within the Buddha’s teachings.

To understand the flaw in this argument, one must examine the constitutional context alongside the canonical meaning of the terms involved. Article 9 of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka mandates that the Republic shall give Buddhism the foremost place and that it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while guaranteeing the fundamental rights of all religions under Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

While “Buddhism” and “Buddha Dhamma” are frequently used as interchangeable terms in casual dialogue, they represent distinct concepts. “Buddhism” is an umbrella term coined by 19th-century Western scholars to classify the global institutionalised religion, incorporating its diverse sects, cultural traditions, rituals, and socio-political histories. Conversely, Sasana is the ancient term designating the structural framework established by the Buddha to preserve and transmit his teachings, comprising the monastic order (Sangha) and its supporting institutions.

In classical Theravada commentarial literature, the Sasana operates as a functional three-tiered structure. It encompasses Pariyatti Sasana, the preservation and study of sacred texts; Paṭipatti Sasana, the practical execution of the doctrine through ethical conduct and meditation; and Paṭivedha Sasana, the direct experiential realization of ultimate truth, or enlightenment. This structural breakdown raises fundamental questions about state capacity. While a state can readily support Pariyatti Sasana through academic institutions, textual preservation, and educational funding, it cannot legislate or enforce Paṭipatti or Paṭivedha. Practical engagement and spiritual realisation are inherently internal, first-person experiences. Expecting the state to codify or guarantee enlightenment is a conceptual impossibility.

Furthermore, the Buddha Dhamma refers specifically to the unconditioned truths of existence and the teachings imparted to realize them, including the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and Dependent Origination. As the late Venerable Professor Kotagama Wachissara Thera observed, there is no rigid ideologue or “ism” in the core Dhamma. The teachings do not constitute a system of divine commandments or a legal statute enforced through reward and punishment. Rather, Buddhist ethics function as self-directed guidelines for psychological clarity and moral inquiry. Even the Vinaya Pitaka, which contains explicit rules of conduct, functions as an internal monastic code rather than a civil or criminal law intended for the laity.

Throughout the Pali Canon, guidance regarding governance focuses on the moral character of leadership and the social duties of statecraft rather than rigid legal codification. In discourses such as the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta (DN 26), the Buddha observes that social instability and crime cannot be eliminated solely through punitive measures, emphasising instead that states must provide economic opportunities, fair wages, and resource distribution to maintain societal balance. Crucially, in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta (DN 16), the Buddha explicitly highlights the importance of respecting established laws and traditions rather than enacting arbitrary regulations.

The natural laws articulated in the Dhamma, such as the law of cause and effect or the three characteristics of existence, govern all phenomena universally, regardless of legal statutes or personal belief. They are not human laws to be applied or suspended by a court of law. Therefore, characterizing the Chief Justice’s adherence to constitutional jurisprudence over religious doctrine as a “cavalier dismissal” lacks logical and textual foundation. Framing the judiciary’s adherence to legal precedent as an attack on the Dhamma distracts from fundamental constitutional principles and risks misguiding the public for political ends.

Geewananda
Gunawardana,
Ph.D.