Features
The Other Martin Wickramasinghe
By Uditha Devapriya
For most of us, Martin Wickramasinghe tends to evoke nostalgic visions of childhoods spent in villages, of travels down south, of Joe Abeywickrema reciting pansil to his inquisitive children and being left speechless by their interest in one particular silaya, which I shall not mention here, but which all those who have read the book and watched the film will know. That was the gentle, kindly Wickramasinghe, the man who turned his village into a universe of its own in much the same way Mark Twain did with Mississippi.
It was later, much later, that we came to confront the other Martin Wickramasinghe: the man who read widely and wrote prolifically on anthropology and biology, whose reading of Buddhism put him at odds with the many revivalist movements of his time, whose belief in cultural synthesis and evolution pitted him against both Westernised elites and nationalist anti-Westerners. His critique of narrow nationalism – as deep as his critique of uncritical Westernisation – went a long way in showing us that these were two sides of the same coin. The one simply reflected the other, and was amplified in the other.
Wickramasinghe tends to be seen and read in a particular light, and for better or worse his wider scholarly forays have been neglected. Though he is not identified with the type of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism that the likes of Jathika Chintanaya propagate at present, he is nevertheless identified as the great Sinhala and Buddhist culturalist, someone who revived pride in that culture. In itself, there is nothing wrong with such a reading: one can make the same case for other artistic figures, like Amaradeva, Chitrasena, Manjusri, or Lester James Peries. But if we stick to such a reading, we tend to neglect if not lay aside the complexity of the man, the mind, and his writings.
Perhaps the most essential point about the other Wickramasinghe was his study of and passionate advocacy of anthropology. By the early 20th century anthropology was fast losing its Orientalist character. Malinowski’s work in the Trobriand Islands, and at the London School of Economics, freed the subject from its colonialist roots. While Africa and Asia had once been seen as primitive societies whose function it was – or rather seemed to be – to reinforce the superiority of Western civilisation, now they were being studied on the basis of their internal structures, hierarchies, and functions.
When Wickramasinghe – who I think we can call Sri Lanka’s first anthropologist – began writing on the subject and adopting anthropological frameworks in his studies of Sinhala culture, the Ceylonese academic establishment did not really see it fit to teach, or include, anthropology in our universities. The Indian scholar Kewal Motwani, in a series of letters, criticised none less than Ivor Jennings for failing to include the subject at the University of Ceylon. Wickramasinghe reiterated his critique. In his view, the culture of intolerance that swept the country during the 1950s – particularly over the language issue – could have been avoided had there been serious efforts to promote the subject.
For someone who lacked a university education, even a school education, Wickramasinghe was well informed on these subjects. His writings spanned the whole gamut of the social sciences, of history and art history, of religious and cultural studies. Many of his observations gained mainstream acceptance. Some did not.
Adopting the American anthropologist Ruth Benedict’s framework, for instance, he once depicted Sinhala society, with its emphasis on self-discipline, as Apollonian, and Hindu society, with its culture of religious ecstasy, as Dionysian. What is important is not that such claims were criticised, but that they were made at a time when it had become fashionable among mainstream academia to look down on local culture.
In studying the local culture, however, Wickramasinghe did not commit the opposite error of romanticising it. This is his point of departure from the nationalist-revivalist camp, the most articulate voices of which can be found today in Jathika Chintanaya. His critique of such ideologies runs into several essays, and to reproduce or summarise them all here would be quite tedious. But several themes run through them all. Three of them, in particular, merit our attention, since they shed much light on his thinking.
The first is his view of Buddhism as rationalist and compatible with science. It was no coincidence that he adopted the penname Hethu Vaadi or “Rationalist” in his Silumina column in the 1910s. Though nationalist ideologues dismiss Wickramasinghe’s knowledge of science as self-taught and haphazard, as lacking depth, it was the way he linked the hard sciences, biology in particular, to the social sciences, anthropology in particular, in the context of Sinhala culture that made him stand out. I would argue that his lack of university training was paradoxically what enabled him to make this contribution.
The second is the very important point that Wickramasinghe did not rationalise Buddhism in the way his critics assume he did. In his reading, Buddhism as a religion was eminently capable of adapting to different cultures and contexts. This is the Jathika Chintantanaya’s view of religion as well: that, at the end of the day, it is defined by the cultural universe it occupies. Indeed, I think Wickramasinghe was as critical as they were of those who tried to divorce religion from culture, from society. Buddhism in Sri Lanka, in his view, could not be separated from Sinhala culture, including folk society, literature, and of course art.
The third is the suggestion, the implication, that nationalist-revivalists themselves borrowed from the ideological framework they try to undermine. The best explanation for this, in my view, is that most nationalist ideologues here emerged from the very urban-suburban academic background they later tried to distance themselves from.
I would contend that this dualism inhibited them in the longer term. These ideologues were caught between two worlds: the rational and liberal arts tradition they had been born to, versus the romantic utopian universe they had retreated to. That led them to share much of the same ideology of the Westernised elites they were pitted against.
To quote Wickramasinghe himself on this,
“Nationalists as well as denationalised educated men laugh at and ridicule the dress of the present-day Sinhalese villager-coat and clot or coat and sarong. But is not this dress of theirs an innovation, however crude, and a proof of the elasticity of their culture and the plasticity of their mind? Educated people should make conscious attempts to evolve a national dress basing it on the villager’s unconscious innovations.”
One discerns an almost utopian view of the Sinhalese villager in this passage. But in locating the matrix of Sinhala Buddhist culture in the village, Martin Wickramasinghe undermined the arguments of nationalist-revivalists, most of whom after all came from petty bourgeois milieus, who were interested in social advancement and based their whole campaign on the goal of undermining the Anglicised elite. In trying to undermine that elite, they tended to ignore the essentially synthetic character of Sinhala culture. This, Wickramasinghe suggests, blinded them to certain aspects of that culture, like folk society.
My friend Dhanuka Bandara describes Wickramasinghe, along with Ananda Coomaraswamy, as a proponent of “agrarian utopianism.” I would be inclined to agree, but would add that unlike Coomaraswamy, Wickramasinghe did not wish to return to the past or revive it in its entirety. In this I think the man disagreed with Sinhala nationalists, though he understood, in a way their critics do not, where the nationalists were coming from. At the end of the day, that may be his greatest achievement and contribution: what made him the superior of the many nationalist ideologues and groupings we see today.
Martin Wickramasinghe’s whole point was that culture was never sterile: that it evolved, changed, and ruptured, from within and without. He championed, not the glories of some imagined past, but the realities of a material, tangible present.
Critics have contended that his Koggala trilogy reveals an almost passionate attachment to the Sinhala village and to all that the village represents. There is nothing wrong with such a reading. But Wickramasinghe knew, in a way his nationalist critics – even supporters – did not, that the village could not stand for long. He likened our attempts to reclaim the past to a search for kalunika: it simply could not be done. It is this Martin Wickramasinghe that we have yet to explore and assess: unknown, though hardly unknowable.
Uditha Devapriya is a writer, researcher, and analyst based in Sri Lanka who contributes to a number of publications on topics such as history, art and culture, politics, and foreign policy. He can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Features
The challenge of being positive about SAARC
It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.
Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.
However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?
There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.
The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.
Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.
Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.
The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.
On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.
In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.
Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.
Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.
The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.
These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.
Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.
There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.
However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.
Features
OPA seminar examines Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, resilience and growth pathways
A seminar, “Sri Lanka’s Economic Crossroads: Navigating Recovery, Resilience and Growth” was recently held by the Organisation of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka (OPA) at the OPA Auditorium, bringing together economists, OPA members, and professionals from diverse fields for an insightful discussion on Sri Lanka’s economic recovery and future growth prospects.
The event was held under the patronage of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA, and was jointly organised by the National Issues Committee (NIC) and the Seminars, Workshops and Programmes Committee of the OPA. The event reaffirmed the organisation’s commitment to advancing professional excellence, fostering insightful intellectual engagement, facilitating interdisciplinary knowledge exchange and creating a constructive platform for informed dialogue on issues of national importance.
The panel of speakers comprised Dr. Harsha Aturupane, Lead Economist and Programme Leader for Human Development at the World Bank for Sri Lanka and the Maldives; Dr. Achinthya Koswatta, Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, and Anushan Kapilan, Lead Economist at Verité Research.
In his welcome address, the President of the OPA emphasised that Sri Lanka was at a critical juncture in its economic recovery journey where sustained reforms, effective implementation, and collective national commitment are essential to achieving long-term stability, resilience and inclusive growth. He noted that the country had experienced one of the most severe economic crises in its history with the economy contracting by 7.8 percent in 2022 and a further 11.5 percent in 2023, resulting in significant economic and social challenges.
Delivering his introductory remarks Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the National Issues Committee, underscored the need to move beyond short-term economic stabilisation towards a comprehensive agenda of structural transformation. He observed that the economic crisis had revealed deep-rooted weaknesses within the economy, including persistent fiscal pressures, rising public debt, foreign exchange limitations, and insufficient diversification of the export base. He stressed that addressing these challenges through strategic reforms, institutional strengthening and long-term economic planning would be essential to establishing a more resilient and competitive economy.
While acknowledging recent positive developments, including improved inflation management, tourism recovery and signs of economic stabilisation, Wijeyaratne stressed the need to advance reforms aimed at strengthening fiscal discipline, enhancing productivity, improving competitiveness, developing human capital and reinforcing governance and institutional effectiveness.
He further highlighted the important role of professionals, businesses, academia and other stakeholders in contributing to evidence-based dialogue and supporting Sri Lanka’s journey towards a resilient, inclusive and sustainable economic future.
Delivering the keynote presentation, Dr. Harsha Aturupane provided a comprehensive assessment of Sri Lanka’s economic prospects within the broader context of global economic transformation. He argued that Sri Lanka functioned as a small open economy whose performance is significantly influenced by developments in the global marketplace. External factors could not be controlled, and the country must strengthen its domestic capacity and resilience to respond effectively to international economic shifts, he noted.
Tracing the evolution of global economic systems, Dr. Aturupane highlighted the transition from ideological divisions between state-controlled and market-oriented economies towards increasingly pragmatic approaches focused on growth, competitiveness and development. He noted that Sri Lanka’s own economic journey reflects a similar evolution, with contemporary policy debates now centred on practical solutions for sustainable economic progress.
The presentation also examined the transformative impact of globalisation. Dr. Aturupane observed that global economic integration had enabled several East Asian economies, including South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, to achieve remarkable economic advancement through export-led growth strategies. Sri Lanka similarly benefited from this process through the expansion of its apparel industry and increased integration into global value chains.
Turning to Sri Lanka’s recovery programme, Dr. Aturupane emphasised that the ongoing stabilisation process should be viewed as a national programme supported by the International Monetary Fund rather than solely as an IMF initiative. He observed that strong worker remittances, improved tourism earnings, enhanced government revenue mobilisation and prudent import management have contributed significantly to economic stabilisation.
Despite this progress, he cautioned that rebuilding foreign exchange reserves and meeting future debt obligations remain major challenges. He underscored the need to strengthen export performance, attract investment and generate sustainable foreign exchange earnings to ensure long-term economic resilience.
The discussion also focused on monetary stability, inflation management and exchange-rate policy. Dr. Aturupane stressed that maintaining price stability was fundamental to sustainable growth and household welfare, while sound monetary policy remains essential for preserving economic confidence.
Looking beyond stabilisation, he argued that Sri Lanka must transition towards a broader economic transformation agenda. Sustainable growth, he noted, will depend on expanding productive capacity through investment, technological advancement, innovation, skills development and structural reforms.
Among the key constraints identified was the high cost of energy, which continues to affect competitiveness and investment attractiveness. Dr. Aturupane emphasised the importance of improving efficiency and affordability within the energy sector to enhance Sri Lanka’s business environment.
He further highlighted the social dimensions of the crisis, noting the rise in poverty and economic vulnerability among households. Strengthening social protection systems and ensuring inclusive growth, he argued, must remain central components of the national development agenda.
Another critical challenge identified was Sri Lanka’s demographic transition. With an ageing population, outward migration and evolving labour market dynamics, the country is increasingly confronting labour shortages in several sectors. Dr. Aturupane suggested that greater automation, increased labour-force participation and strategic workforce planning would be necessary to address these emerging realities.
Concluding his presentation, he emphasised the need to improve governance, strengthen institutions, enhance competitiveness and create an enabling environment for private sector investment. Sri Lanka’s future success, he noted, will depend on its ability to move decisively beyond crisis management towards a development model founded on resilience, innovation, productivity and inclusive growth.
Dr. Achinthya Koswatta reiterated the importance of policy consistency and predictability in fostering investment and industrial development. She observed that frequent policy changes create uncertainty and discourage long-term investment decisions, whereas stable and coherent policy frameworks build confidence and support sustainable economic transformation.
Meanwhile, Anushan Kapilan highlighted the substantial progress achieved in restoring macroeconomic stability following the recent crisis. He noted significant improvements in fiscal performance, including increased government revenue, reduced reliance on debt financing and a historically low fiscal deficit.
He further observed that public debt levels are declining faster than anticipated, economic growth has exceeded expectations and inflation has been brought under control more rapidly than forecast. Nevertheless, he cautioned that the recovery remains uneven, particularly within the industrial sector and that many households have yet to experience a meaningful improvement in living standards.
The seminar was expertly coordinated by Eng. Chamil Edirimuni, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the Seminars, Workshops and Programmes Committee, while the technical moderation and interactive discussion session were facilitated by Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the National Issues Committee.
The event was attended by Tisara De Silva, President-Elect of the OPA, Eng. Ravi Rupasinghe, General Secretary, Past Presidents, members of the Executive Council, representatives of the General Forum and professionals representing a wide range of disciplines.
The seminar concluded with a vibrant exchange of ideas and perspectives, reaffirming the importance of evidence-based policy dialogue, institutional collaboration and collective national commitment in advancing Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, resilience and sustainable growth.
Features
Her roots run deep in Sri Lanka
Yes, for UK-based presenter and artiste Samantha Kay, home is where the heart – and the roots – are. And her roots run deep in Sri Lanka.
In an exclusive interview with The Island, Samantha says “I’m proud to be Sri Lankan. My mum is from Kandy and my dad is from Colombo, so Sri Lanka has always held a very special place in my heart.
“Whenever I visit Sri Lanka, I love spending time on the beautiful south coast, especially Hikkaduwa and Mirissa. It’s somewhere I always feel connected to my roots and completely at peace.”
Now living in Bournemouth, on the south coast of England, where, she says, she is lucky to be close to some of the UK’s most beautiful beaches, including the iconic Sandbanks, Samantha has built a career that refuses to fit into one box.
She is a radio presenter, podcast host, singer-songwriter, personal trainer and life coach.
“I genuinely love the variety because every role allows me to connect with people and, hopefully, make a positive difference in someone’s day.”
Of course, music has taken her far.
One of her proudest achievements, she says, was releasing a song with 90s music icon Angie Brown, which reached No. 9 in the UK Club Charts.
She also reached the final stages of The X Factor and performed at Wembley Stadium in front of thousands.
Beyond music, Samantha competed in bikini bodybuilding across the UK, winning several titles. “It taught me discipline, resilience and self-belief,” she recalls.
Today, her focus is on radio, podcasting and coaching women. Her podcast encourages people to live life on their own terms rather than feeling pressured to follow society’s expectations.
Says Samantha: “Whether someone is single, changing careers, travelling solo or simply trying to find their purpose, I want them to know that it’s never too late to create a life that feels authentic. If you’ve ever felt like you don’t fit into the box, maybe you were never meant to.”
Samantha Kay also spent a year in Dubai, performing at five-star hotels, including FIVE, and coaching at the iconic outdoor gym on Palm Jumeirah.
“I taught strength and conditioning classes, and hosted wellness retreats, combining my passion for music, health and inspiring others.”
However, with family matters calling her back to the UK, she made the choice to return. “Family comes first,” she says.
Looking ahead, Samantha plans to grow her radio and podcast work, release more music, and expand her wellness retreats.
“My biggest passion is helping people, especially women, build confidence and believe in themselves,” she says.
“Wherever my career takes me, I hope to continue inspiring others to live with courage, kindness and authenticity, while never forgetting my Sri Lankan roots.”
-
News7 days agoHerath warns prospective migrant workers not to get fleeced by racketeers
-
Features5 days agoPrison riots and politics: NPP’s biggest challenge and Sri Lanka’s biggest opportunity
-
Editorial6 days agoWhat’s the world coming to?
-
Foreign News7 days agoTensions erupt in Indian state after 11-year-old raped and murdered
-
Features7 days agoDevanesan Annan – in Memoriam
-
Editorial7 days agoPunishment in hellholes
-
Features2 days agoDirty Money
-
Editorial5 days agoMuch ado about crime: Fish or cut bait

