Features

TThe Supreme Physician

Published

1 year ago

2025/08/24

Thilina Walpola

The ancient hospital at Mahintale (Mihintale).

The Buddha on Sickness, Health and Nursing

During the Buddha’s lifetime he was given numerous epithets in recognition of his outstanding qualities. Some of these include the Happy One, Teacher of Gods and Humans, Lord of Creatures, King of Truth, Teacher, etc. One of the most interesting of these epithets, found in several places in the Tipitaka, is the Supreme Physician (anuttaro bhisakko). It is usually thought that this refers to the Buddha’s ability to soothe and ultimately heal the afflictions of samsara – birth, death and rebirth, greed, hatred and delusion. Certainly, this is how many people during his lifetime thought of it. For example, the brahman Pingiyani said:

“Just as a skilled physician might quickly cure someone ailing, sick and seriously ill, whenever one hears the different aspects of the good Gotama’s Dhamma, all grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair disappear.”

The Paramatajotika put it like this: “The Buddha is like a skilled physician in that he is able to heal the sickness of the defilements.” While these and similar comparisons are legitimate, they are only part of the reason the Buddha was equated with and praised as being a skilled and compassionate physician. He also had interesting, insightful and practical things to say about doctoring and nursing, sickness, health, and healing in the conventional sense.

With primitive sanitary arrangements and large numbers of people living in close proximity to each other, particularly in cities, sicknesses of all kinds were a part of everyday life in the Buddha’s India. Some of those mentioned in the Tipitaka include jaundice, fever, ulcers, cough, hay fever, diabetes (madhumehika, literally honey urine), and leprosy. There is a description of the monk Kokaila having boils or pustules (phota) break out all over his body which gradually became bigger until they ruptured, discharging pus and blood, and causing him to die, which is a good description of smallpox.

The Buddha mentioned a man “whose testicles were like pots” which is a common symptom of filariasis, a condition caused by a roundworm transmitted by several species of mosquitos. Another manifestation of this condition is elephantiasis (sipada) which causes the legs to become grotesquely swollen. The ancients were aware of sicknesses that run in families (bandhukaroga), chronic illnesses (anusayuka) and epidemics, or what the Carakasaṃhita referred to as “the destruction of a whole districts” (janapada uddhvamsa).

What might be one of the few mentions in the Tipitaka of such occurrences was when Ananda informed the Buddha that a monk, a nun and ten lay disciples had recently died in Nadaka, one of the outer suburb of Vesali. The Jataka mentions a family afflicted by a disease known as snake-wind sickness (ahivataka) and despairing that there was little hope of survival, the mother urged her son to knock a hole in the wall of the house and crawl out, thereby avoiding the malevolent disease-causing spirit haunting the threshold and giving him at least a chance to survive. A later text says snake-wind sickness was one of two afflictions caused by evil spirits and would sometimes affect whole districts, while the second, mandalaka, would kill the whole family of the person it first struck. Some modern scholars have theorized that this affliction might have been malaria.

That the Buddha had at least five synonyms for sickness (roga, abadha, vyadhi, atanka, gilana) and that he was able to list nearly 50 diseases and infirmities suggests that good health was not common during his time. In fact, he opined that it would be rare, even impossible, for someone to get through life without being affected by at least some sickness.

The Buddha nursing the sick monk.

Contrary to popular misconception, the Buddha did not claim that all physical conditions, including injury and illnesses, were necessarily caused by past kamma. He mentioned at least eight causes of sickness of which only one was kamma; the others being a disorder in the bile (pitta), in the phlegm (semha), in the wind (vata), a disorder due to all three together (sannipata), seasonal changes (utuparinama), carelessness (visamaparihara) and external events (opakkamika, such as accidents and natural disasters. On other occasions he mentioned that an improper diet and overeating can likewise make one ill. Significantly, he did not include evil spirits as a cause of diseases.

The Buddha recognized two types of illness – physical and psychological – saying that while it might be possible to find someone who had never been sick in body, only those who had attained awakening (bodhi) could be said to be truly psychologically healthy. However, here we will focus on the first of these types of illness.

The Buddha defined health (arogya) as “having well-being and good digestion, not over-cold or over-hot, and balanced so as to be capable of activity.” He encouraged his disciples to cherish their health and take steps to maintain it and lauded good health as a real blessing, as something desirables, a great gain, and a wonderful opportunity to practice the Dhamma. He acknowledged that it would certainly be possible to live by the Dhamma despite being sick and with the resolution: “Though my body is sick my mind shall not be sick” but being healthy would make it many times easier.

As disease and sickness with non-kammic causes can respond to medical intervention the Buddha saw the physician’s role as a vital one. He said: “Indeed, those who care for the sick are of great benefit [to others]” (api ca gilanupaṭṭhaka bahupakara). Consequently, his Dhamma is replete with information pertaining to the treatment of the sick. Because the Tipitaka predates the separation and specialization of the medical profession as presented in early Ayurvedic treatises such as the Susrutasamhita and the Carakasamhita, it rarely makes a distinction between the physician or doctor (bhisakka or vejja) and the nurse (gilanupatthaka). During the Buddha’s time the doctor probably performed all the functions in the sick room, including that of nursing the patient. So the Buddha offered this advice to the physician/nurse:

“Possessing five qualities, one who nurses the sick is fit to do so. What are the five? He can prepare the medicine. He knows what is good and what is not. What is good he offers, and what is not he does not. He nurses the sick out of love, not out of hope for gain. He is unmoved by excrement, urine, vomit and spittle. And from time to time, he can instruct, delight, inspire and uplift the sick with talk on Dhamma.”

Of the five points mentioned here the first concern the physician’s responsibility to be fully trained in and skillful in the administration of drugs, given that some drugs can be dangerous if not prescribed properly. The second point is perhaps equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath’s stipulation; that the physician shall never do anything to harm a patient, even if asked to do so. The third point counsels the physician to have a benevolent attitude to patients and put their welfare above personal gain. The fourth point reminds the physician that at times it might be necessary to deal with the loathsome aspects of the human body and that he or she should do this with detachment, both for his or her own mental balance and so as not to embarrass or humiliate the patient. The fifth and final stipulation is a recognition of the fact that spiritual counseling and comfort can have a part to play in healing and that the physician or caregiver needs to have at least some abilities in this area.

The Buddha made it a rule that his monks should not practice medicine, although as will be mentioned below, they were expected to look after their fellows when sick, and this may have sometimes required going beyond just nursing to diagnosing the affliction and dispensing the appropriate medicine. Why would the Buddha have forbidden his monks doing something that is so often associated with compassion and kindness? The answer lies in the purpose and goal of the monastic vocation – to realize awakening and to teach others how to realize it. Beyond this, monks and nuns were discouraged from getting involved in worldly pursuits. Monastics who practiced medicine would soon find themselves being often called upon for their services and have little time for doing what they became monastics for. Nonetheless, in later centuries it was common for monks to act as doctors but this was a departure from the Buddha’s original vision for the monastic life.

The Buddha recognized that even the most experienced physician could not cure every affliction and therefore that different patients would have different prognosis. He observed:

The Chinese physician Sun Simiao

“There are these three types of patients to be found in the world. There is the patient who, whether or not he obtains the proper diet, medicines and nursing, will not recover from his illness. Then there is the patient who, whether or not he obtains the proper diet, medicines, and nursing, will recover from his sickness anyway. Lastly there is the patient who will recover from his illness only if he gets the proper diet, medicines and nursing. It is for this last type of patient that proper diet, medicine and nursing should be prescribed, but the others should be looked after also.”

Apart from being an astute and clear-eyed observation these recommendations contain something of major importance; the Buddha’s last point. Susruta, the father of Indian medicine, advised the physician not to treat a patient who is likely to die so as to avoid being blamed for their death. In contrast, the Buddha said patients should be treated and nursed even if they were going to die. This is probably the earliest inkling of what today is called palliative care. While the ethical principles Susruta taught were of a high order, on this point the Buddha was superior and ahead of his time.

The Buddha was aware that while medical intervention is crucial for the restoration of health, the patient’s attitude and behavior also has a part to play and he had something to say about this too.

“Possessed of five qualities, a sick person is of much help to himself. What five? He knows what medicine is good for him. He knows the right measure in his treatment; he takes the medicine as prescribed. He describes his illness to the nurse who cares for him out of kindness, saying, ‘It comes like this.’ ‘It goes like this.’ ‘When it is there it is like this. And he endures the various pains of the sickness.”

Once again, this is practical, common-sense advice and suggests that patients should have some role to play in the healing process.

The Buddha did not just talk about ministering to the sick, on one occasion he did just that. Once he and Ananda washed and comforted a monk who had been neglected by his fellow monks and left lying in his own excrement; a horrible and humiliating condition to be in. Having tended to this monk’s needs the Buddha called the other monks together and in measured but firm words scolded them for their neglect of one of their fellows and ended by saying: “If you would minister to me, minister the sick” (yo bhikkhave mam upattaheyya so gilanam upatthahissati). And it wasn’t just his monastics he encouraged to look after those they had a relationship with but his lay disciples too. An employer should, he said, look after his underlings when they are sick and the mistress of a house should carefully monitor the strengths and weakness of servants and workers when they fall ill.

Recent research has shown that regular visits by loved ones and friends to hospital patients is a crucial component in their recovery. It is not surprising therefore to find that the Buddha always found the time to visit his monastic and lay disciples when they were ill. During such visits he would inquire about how the patient was going to let them know his concern for their welfare, asking: “I hope you are managing and getting better. I hope there are signs that the discomfort is declining and not increasing.” Inspired by this, monks and nuns followed his example. Hearing that the monk Channa was critically ill Sariputta went to check on him only to find that he was in such pain that he was seriously thinking of killing himself. Shocked by this Sariputta cried:

“Don’t kill yourself Channa. Live! I want you to live. If you don’t have suitable food I will get it for you. If you don’t have the right medicine, I will get it for you. If you don’t have proper care I will take care of you. Do not kill yourself. Live! I want you to live.”

Because of the seriousness of the situation Sâriputta responded with more than just his presence and expressions of sympathy – he undertook to provide Channa with practical help. As for the lay disciples, the Buddha instructed them how to console their sick fellow disciples so as to lessen any fear or anxiety they might have. Thus, when it seemed that Nakulapita’s condition might be terminal his wife assured him that should he die, she would be able to manage alone, thus easing his worry about her fate as a widow.

Later, when Nakulapita recovered, he recounted to the Buddha how his wife had so lovingly nursed him through his sickness. The Buddha told him how blessed he was to have a wife “with compassion for you, desiring your welfare, to counsel and mentor you.”

It is hard to know what influence the Buddha’s exhortation and example had on medical care in India and the lands where Buddhism spread because of the many gaps in the records. But we do know that the Buddha’s words were long remembered and often referred to in later Buddhist texts. An important Mahayana work translated into Chinese in the third century and still popular in China, the Brahmajala Sutra, paraphrases his words about caring for the sick:

“If a disciple of the Buddha sees anyone who is sick, he should provide for that person’s needs as if he were making an offering to the Buddha.” The 6^th century Chinese physician Sun Simiao was so famous he came to be identified with Bhaisajyaguru, the Medicine Buddha of Mahayana. In his influential Beiji qianjin yaofang he explained the attitude physicians should maintain towards those who came to them for help.

“If someone needs help because they are ill or because they are in some way afflicted, a great physician should take no account to status, wealth, or age; he should not bother whether the sick person is beautiful or ugly, an enemy or a friend, Chinese or a foreigner, or finally, whether he is learned or ignorant. He should regard everyone as equal and act towards everyone as he would himself. Desiring nothing for himself, disregarding all obstacles and not thinking of himself, he will be able to save a life out of compassion.”

Centuries later the author of the Saddhammopayana, a Sri Lankan work from the 12^th century, wrote something similar:

“Nursing the sick was much praised by the Great Compassionate One and is it a wonder that he would do so? For the Sage sees the welfare of others as his own and thus, that he should act as a benefactor is no surprise. This is why attending to the sick has been praised by the Buddha. One practicing great virtue should have loving concern for others.”

As for hospitals, when the Chinese pilgrim Faxian was in India in the fifth century he wrote this of the Buddhists of Pataliputra.

“The nobles and householders of the country have established hospitals within the city to which the poor, the destitute, cripples and the sick of all districts come. They are freely given help. Physicians diagnose their diseases and prescribe for them the correct food, drink, medicine and treatment that will restore their health. When they are cured they depart whenever they like.”

The ruins of ancient hospitals have been found throughout Sri Lanka. One attached to the monastery of Mahintale (Mihintale) for example, was founded in the ninth century and had 31 rooms built around a courtyard in which there was a shrine. Excavations revealed a medicinal bath, jars for storing medicines, grindstones for grinding them and surgical instruments.

When religion meets illness the miraculous is sometimes close by, particularly if the illness is chronic or judged to be incurable. Some of history’s great religious personalities are credited with having healed physical ailments through divine power. Whether or not such claims are true is difficult to say. Certainly, the claims of modern faith healers have all too often proved to have been at best exaggerated and at worst fraudulent, today’s high-profile ‘televangelists’ in the United States being an example of this. And more than a century of careful scientific study of faith healing has so far produced very little evidence of its effectiveness.

This raises the question of whether the Buddha had miraculous healing powers and that he healed people with them. As mentioned above, he frequently visited those who were sick and it is reported that some of them recovered sometime afterwards. Given that sound scientific research shows that patients spend less time in hospitals when visited by loved ones and concerned friends, this is hardly surprising. But the four Nikayas do not mention how soon after a visit from the Buddha a patient recovered and nor is there any suggestion in them that their recovery was somehow miraculous. This tells us something interesting about early Buddhism’s understanding of causes and cures of disease and something about the general character of his Dhamma as well.

Bhante S. Dhammika of Australia ✍️

All News Advertisement

Features

The Great AI Schism: When the Titans of Tech tell us to slow down

Published

23 hours ago

2026/10/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Prof. C. A. Saliya

Something extraordinary happened in September 2026. The very people who have spent the last decade pouring tens of billions of dollars into building artificial intelligence, the visionaries, the investors, the CEOs, suddenly started telling the world to hit the brakes. It’s a bit like the captain of a speeding train leaning out of the window and shouting, “Actually, maybe we should slow down a bit!” The public, understandably, is confused. We’ve been told AI will cure cancer, solve climate change, and give us all free time. Now we’re being told it might kill us all. Welcome to the great AI schism.

To understand what’s happening, you have to listen to the people in the room. These are not wild-eyed doomsayers on the internet. They are the titans of the industry. And they are starting to argue with each other.

Dario Amodei: The Insider Who Wants to Hit Pause

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic (Claude AI), is the man who kicked the hornet’s nest. In a 3,800-word essay, posted on his website in mid-September 2026, he didn’t just suggest caution, he demanded a slowdown. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” he wrote. His reasoning is simple and terrifying: the technology is moving faster than our ability to control it. He warned that AI could be misused for cyberattacks, bioterrorism, and serious economic disruption.

What makes Amodei’s warning so chilling is that it comes from a man whose company, Anthropic, builds one of the most powerful AI models in the world, Claude. He’s not a critic on the sidelines. He’s in the driver’s seat, and he’s telling us the car might not have brakes. In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, he said he agreed with a departing Anthropic researcher who claimed AI could “kill us all” by the end of the decade. That researcher, 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, resigned in protest, saying the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all”. When the people building the technology start resigning because they’re afraid of it, you should pay attention.

Bill Gates: The Elder Statesman with a Warning

Bill Gates has been around long enough to know a paradigm shift when he sees one. The Microsoft co-founder, who spent decades warning the world about pandemics and climate change, has now turned his attention to AI. And he’s not mincing words. In September 2026, Gates warned that AI is “powerful enough to drive events that, you know, cause a billion deaths”.

Gates is not worried about Terminator-style robots. He’s worried about people. “There’s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools,” he said. His solution is simple: regulation. “No one thinks self-regulation is enough,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. He even offered to be the man to convince President Trump to regulate AI. Gates is a pragmatist. He knows the technology is coming. He just wants to make sure it doesn’t get us first.

Sam Altman: The Showman with a Conscience (Maybe)

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI (Chat GPT), has always been the industry’s greatest showman. He’s the man who told us AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is “just around the corner” and that AI will soon be a “genie that can grant any wish”. But even Altman is now singing a different tune. In September 2026, he ruled out an OpenAI IPO in 2026, citing safety concerns. He called even a 10% risk of AI causing human extinction “unacceptable”.

“I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier,” Altman posted on X. This is a remarkable shift. Altman has spent years being criticised for moving too fast, for prioritising profit over safety. Now, facing mounting evidence that AI models can cause real harm, from cyberattacks to mental health crises, he’s suddenly the voice of caution. Is it genuine? Or is it a PR move? The cynics will tell you it’s the latter. But the fact remains: when Sam Altman says we need to slow down, the world listens.

Elon Musk: The Provocateur Who Saw It Coming

Elon Musk has been warning about AI for over a decade. He’s the man who called AI “more dangerous than nuclear weapons” long before it was fashionable. So it’s no surprise that he joined the chorus of slowdown calls in September 2026. But Musk being Musk, he couldn’t resist a bit of dark humour. When asked if we’re all going to die within 10 years, he replied, “I don’t want to disappoint you, but we’re all going to die someday anyway”.

But behind the joke is a serious point. Musk believes AI models could escape their constraints, take control of military systems, and even launch nuclear weapons. His solution is mutual oversight: leading AI companies should test each other’s systems for safety before release, and he even suggested a deal with China to make it happen. Musk is a provocateur, but he’s also a visionary. And his vision is one where AI is a weapon that we might not be able to control.

Satya Nadella: The Quiet Strategist

While the others are shouting about doom, Satya Nadella is quietly building an empire. The Microsoft CEO doesn’t talk about extinction risks. He talks about “agentic AI”, AI that can act autonomously, which he calls “a new paradigm”. Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform, which powers these AI agents, grew 43% in the last quarter, surpassing $100 billion in annual revenue.

Nadella’s view is simple: don’t compete to build the most powerful model; compete to control the “orchestration layer”, the systems that connect different AI models. He wants to build the infrastructure that everyone else relies on. It’s a smart play, and it’s making Microsoft a fortune. But Nadella’s silence on safety is deafening. While Amodei and Altman wrestle with their consciences, Nadella is counting the money. It’s not that he doesn’t care; it’s that his business model depends on AI being adopted, not regulated.

Jacob Coxon: The Whistleblower Who Lit the Fuse

You may not have heard of Jacob Coxon. He’s not a billionaire. He’s not a CEO. He’s a 27-year-old researcher who worked at both OpenAI and Anthropic. And in September 2026, he resigned from Anthropic with a warning that shook the industry. “Neither company is acting responsibly,” he wrote on X. “They are launching themselves directly toward a superintelligence capable of self-improvement, and gambling with our lives”.

Coxon’s warning was remarkable because it came from inside the machine. He said the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade”. He called for a temporary freeze on advanced AI training. His resignation triggered a wave of concern, and even Dario Amodei admitted he agreed with Coxon more than he disagreed. Coxon is the canary in the coal mine. And the canary is not looking well.

Donald Trump: The Wildcard

And then there’s Donald Trump. The US President has consistently downplayed AI fears, calling them a “hoax” and a “sick conspiracy”. But even Trump is starting to change his tune, sort of. In September 2026, he announced plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an AI “Czar”. He said the government would look for “bad” uses of AI through the existing criminal and civil justice systems.

But Trump’s priority is clear: winning the AI race against China. “We will not in any way hinder or stifle the growth of this incredible industry,” he said. He wants AI to account for 25% of US GDP. Trump is not a technologist. He’s a businessman and a nationalist. He sees AI as a tool for economic dominance, not an existential threat. Whether he’s right or wrong, his stance puts him at odds with almost every expert in the field.

The Bottom Line: A House Divided

So where does this leave us? We have the CEOs of the world’s leading AI companies, Amodei, Altman, and Musk, all calling for a slowdown. We have Bill Gates, the elder statesman of tech, warning of a billion deaths. We have a whistleblower who says the industry is gambling with our lives. And then we have Satya Nadella, quietly building the infrastructure that powers it all, and Donald Trump, who wants to speed up.

The irony is hard to miss. The people who built the AI train are now telling us to slow down. The people who profit from the AI economy are the ones building the tracks. And the public is caught in the middle, trying to figure out who to believe.

Maybe the most honest thing anyone said came from Jacob Coxon, the 27-year-old researcher who quit. “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” he wrote. “This is not a marketing stunt”.

If the people building the technology believe it could kill us, perhaps we should listen. Before it’s too late.

(Prof. C. A. Saliya, is a charted accountant, academic, researcher and former banker. He is the author of SAMAJA GAVESHAKAYA and Springer Publication DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH. He can be contacted at saliya.ca@gmail.com. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the organisations with which he is affiliated.)

Features

Preventing grievances from becoming communal

Published

2 days ago

2026/10/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

Police removing the Thileepan statue

by Jehan Perera

The death sentence on Sivarasa Anojan, a Sri Lankan citizen convicted of blasphemy in Saudi Arabia has taken a central place in national consciousness for the past several weeks. It has been in the headline news since it was first reported last month. There have been many initiatives taken locally to get a more lenient sentencing by the Saudi authorities. There is also an undercurrent that is critical of both the culture and religion from which this sentencing emanates. This also sustains the widespread publicity being given nationally to the issue. By way of contrast, the controversy caused by the forcible removal of the Thileepan statue in Jaffna has not significantly impacted upon the national consciousness. There was only passing mention of the incident in the national media which has been overtaken by other events.

However, in the north and east of the country, and in the diaspora, the removal of the Thileepan statue has become a major issue. It has led to protest marches led by university students and widespread condemnation by civil society and political groups. The issues underlying the Thileepan statue have deep undercurrents in the Tamil consciousness particularly in the north and east which time is unlikely to dispel. The real test of harmony in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society like Sri Lanka is not whether communities coexist peacefully when nothing controversial is at stake. Rather, the test is how they respond when an event touches their identities and grievances. The death sentence imposed on Anojan in Saudi Arabia and the removal of the Thileepan statue in Jaffna carry the risk of becoming grievances to entire communities.

In the case of Anojan, a young Tamil migrant worker, he was first sentenced to five years imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals over a Facebook comment. Both he and the Saudi prosecution appealed, with the appeal court raising the sentence to death. This has led to public sympathy for him in Sri Lanka.

Appeals for clemency have come from the President, government and opposition leaders, clergy of all faiths and Muslim political leaders. At the same time there is a need to reject attempts to turn the case into a source of anti-Muslim sentiment or collective blame. Peacebuilding therefore has to be within Sri Lanka as well as diplomatic. Religious leaders and civil society in the country should be ready to quell rumour, even as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Christian leaders stand together publicly.

Thileepan Statue

The Thileepan controversy has had a different trajectory. Many Tamils admire Thileepan, the LTTE name of Rasaiah Parthipan, who died on 26 September 1987 after a twelve-day fast. His demands were addressed to India but included matters pertaining to the Sri Lankan government including the release of detainees held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The statue put up during this year’s commemoration was removed by police in the early hours of 27 September, a day after the commemoration ended. The government’s legal concern, as articulated by its spokesperson, was the LTTE remains a proscribed organisation and before removing the statue, police had presented facts to the court. But law and memory answer different questions and the depth of Tamil anguish cannot be disregarded.

For many Tamils, remembrance of Thileepan is connected to their sense of loss and historical memory. The memorial has been destroyed and rebuilt more than once, and each destruction has added to the meaning it carries. Many who mourn Thileepan are grieving a young man who died without violence and by his own fast. They also grieve an era of loss of the struggle for Tamil rights and self-determination for which Thileepan has become a symbol. The Office for Reparations Act, No. 34 of 2018, provides for collective reparations and gives the Office for Reparations a role in policies on memorialisation. This does not automatically permit any particular statue, nor does it override laws on public places or proscribed organisations. But it shows that memorialisation is recognised within Sri Lanka’s framework for reparations and reconciliation. There is also a wider question of equality.

The JVP that now leads the NPP government was itself once proscribed when it took up arms against the state in which tens of thousands died, later entered democratic politics, and now for many years has publicly commemorated its own fallen. The opportunity to remember those who died should not belong to one community alone.

A commitment to peacebuilding requires that the same trust that has been given to former militants of one community needs to be given to members of other communities if equal citizenship and equal rights are to have meaning. Further, the Office for Reparations Act provides for reparations through livelihood. It is today a fact that those former LTTE members who went through the government’s rehabilitation process find it difficult to get jobs in the private sector.

Private sector employers are reluctant to come under surveillance for employing former LTTE members. There needs to be equal access to employment and removal of unjustified barriers to reintegration, with targeted public programmes where necessary. Until this situation is realized on the ground, the government needs to consider employing those who went through the government’s rehabilitation process and still unable to find suitable employment.

Continuing Peace

The challenge that post-war Sri Lanka faces, a full 17 years after the end of war, is to strengthen the foundations of trust between communities rather than deepen existing suspicions. Anojan is an individual Sri Lankan citizen facing a severe sentence in another country. His case should not become a reason to blame Sri Lankan Muslims. Thileepan is remembered differently by different communities, but the dispute over his memorial should not become a reason to revive the communal divisions of the past. The cases are also mirror images in an important respect. In the Anojan case, the state is an advocate pleading before another government. In the Thileepan case, the state is the actor whose decision is being judged. The first calls for quiet diplomacy and restraint in public language. The second calls for fairness and explanation, and the burden on the state is heavier.

The common roots of the two cases lie in mistrust that does not belong to one community alone. It has been produced by experiences of discrimination, violence, insecurity and loss that have been interpreted differently by different communities. Grievances turn communal when an individual is seen as a representative of a community, when institutions seem to treat communities unequally, and when people feel their pain goes unacknowledged. Each of these can be addressed. The system change that the Sri Lankan people voted for in 2024 would need to include a government that rejects collective blame, acknowledges grief and explains its decisions openly. It also requires state institutions to act transparently and consistently, so that no citizen feels that the law protects some communities more than others.

This peacebuilding imperative requires enlightened leadership as much as legal authority. It requires leaders who will speak to their own communities against prejudice, even when this is politically inconvenient. It requires religious leaders who will demonstrate solidarity across religious boundaries. And it requires civil society to recognise that peacebuilding is not simply preventing violence after tensions have risen, but is addressing the mistrust and grievances that allow tensions to rise in the first place. Sri Lanka has learned, at great cost, that communal divisions can become much larger than the events that initially give rise to them. The Anojan and Thileepan cases give Sri Lanka an opportunity to demonstrate that it has learned from its past. The test of Sri Lanka’s continuing peace is whether we can address difficult grievances without turning them into communal ones.

Features

Sri Lanka Cricket Bill: Governance reform is not yet a cricket strategy – Part II

Published

2 days ago

2026/10/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Sarath S. Kodithuwakku

President, Institute of Management of Sri Lanka; Senior Professor, University of Peradeniya

(Continued from yesterday)

Representation, Independence and Decision-Making

The membership-based electoral structure should provide representation without becoming a substitute for executive management. The seven Elected Directors would bring the perspectives of the SLC membership into the Board, while the seven Independent Directors would provide additional professional expertise and independence. The model’s effectiveness will, therefore, depend on whether the Board can integrate these perspectives into coherent strategic decisions while maintaining a clear boundary between governance and day-to-day management.

The equal division between Elected and Independent Directors also raises a governance-design question. An even-numbered Board can create a tie. The Bill addresses this directly: in the event of equality, the Chairperson has a casting vote; in the Chairperson’s absence, the Deputy Chairperson has a casting vote; and if both are absent, an Independent Director, elected to preside, has the casting vote. The issue is, therefore, not whether a tie can be resolved, but how this mechanism affects the balance between representation, independence and accountability.

The leadership structure reinforces this balance: the Chairperson is elected from among the Independent Directors and the Deputy Chairperson from among the Elected Directors. The casting-vote arrangement makes the Chairperson’s role and perceived independence particularly important, especially when a major strategic decision divides the two components of the Board.

The Bill’s committee provisions could support a disciplined model of delegation, but implementation will depend heavily on the terms of reference adopted by the new Board. The framework could be strengthened by requiring a published cricket-development strategy, a clear division of powers among the Board, executives and selection committees, transparent principles for major development allocations, and periodic reporting on outcomes across men’s, women’s, schools and domestic cricket. These measures would strengthen accountability without legislating the details of team selection or tournament scheduling.

From Measurement to Strategic Accountability

If the Board is to hold management accountable for strategy rather than simply for short-term results, it needs a performance framework that captures both outcomes and the capabilities that produce them.

SLC should consider requiring an explicit multi-year cricket-development strategy, supported by measurable objectives and an annual strategy review. Such a strategy should identify the development pathway from schools and grassroots cricket through domestic competitions to high performance; define major capability priorities such as coaching, sports science, data and analytics; set resource-allocation principles; and establish indicators against which progress can be assessed.

The purpose would not be to turn cricket into a bureaucratic exercise. Strategic accountability simply creates a disciplined basis for asking whether the organisation is doing what it said it would do, whether its assumptions remain valid, and whether resources are producing the intended results.

From Measurement to Organisational Learning

SLC should, therefore, consider adopting a formal Balanced Scorecard. Rather than measuring success solely through international match results or annual financial audits, the framework could track four interdependent perspectives:

Financial Sustainability:

commercial growth, financial discipline and compliance.

Internal Processes:

domestic tournament quality, development pathways and selector-process integrity.

Stakeholder Value:

grassroots development, school cricket and women’s cricket expansion.

Strategic Capability:

coaching quality, sports science, talent development, data and analytics capability, and the organisation’s ability to convert investment into sustainable performance.

The purpose of such a framework would not be to reduce cricket development to a collection of numbers. Rather, it would create a disciplined process for asking four fundamental management questions:

What did we expect to achieve?

What actually happened?

Why was there a difference?

What should we change as a result?

Evaluating these dimensions periodically would help SLC move beyond performance reporting towards genuine organisational learning.

ICC as a Stakeholder in Governance Reform

The ICC is another important stakeholder whose interests should be recognised in the reform process. SLC’s governance arrangements do not operate solely within Sri Lankan law; they also have to be compatible with the governance obligations associated with ICC membership. The ICC’s Articles of Association require each Member to provide for free and democratic elections (or nominees from outside its members) and to manage its affairs autonomously, without government or other public-body interference in the governance, regulation or administration of cricket.

International experience demonstrates that ICC engagement in member governance restructuring is not unusual. In the United States, after the ICC expelled the old national association for chronic governance failures, the ICC directly oversaw a multi-year project to design a new governance model. The ICC Board formally approved the constitution for a replacement body (USA Cricket) before it was adopted. The resulting structure combined elected constituent directors with independent directors, showing that an ICC-backed framework can accommodate both forms of representation.

In Nepal, the ICC established a Nepal Advisory Group comprising stakeholders from across the game to recommend constitutional amendments, with adoption of the revised constitution and subsequent elections forming part of the conditions for reinstatement of ICC membership.[8] The ICC subsequently facilitated an independent panel that included ICC nominees together with representatives of Nepal’s National Sports Council and the existing cricket administration to map the election process, guidelines and timelines.[9] More recently, in 2026, an ICC delegation visited Bangladesh to engage with stakeholders on governance and electoral matters.[10] The ICC has also reported that its Deputy Chair and another ICC Board representative visited Sri Lanka and met relevant stakeholders to assess ongoing developments, while the ICC Board reiterated the need for elections to be held as soon as possible.

These precedents make the ICC a legitimate stakeholder in considering the governance implications of the proposed Bill. This does not mean that the ICC should determine Sri Lanka’s domestic legislation, nor that every feature of the Bill requires prior ICC approval. It does, however, suggest that early and formal engagement with the ICC would be prudent, particularly where the proposed arrangements concern Board independence, elections, government involvement and the transition to the new governance structure.

This is particularly relevant because the Bill creates two institutional arrangements that deserve careful scrutiny from an autonomy perspective. The Transformation Committee is responsible for managing the transition until the First Board is constituted, while the Nomination Committee, although structurally independent of the SLC Board, includes representatives connected with the Sports Ministry and the National Sports Council. Neither arrangement, by itself, establishes government interference. However, taken together, they make it important that the independence of the incoming Board is demonstrable through transparent procedures rather than assumed from the structure alone.

Given the professional calibre and international exposure of the members of the Transformation Committee, it would be reasonable to expect that the importance of ICC engagement would have been recognised. Although any such consultation has not been evident in the public domain, it is therefore reasonable to expect that the ICC has either already been consulted or will be consulted before the Bill is enacted. Such engagement would allow potential incompatibilities to be identified before the new structure is enacted and implemented, rather than after the fact.

The Transition Is Itself a Governance Challenge

The transition provisions introduce a significant organisational-change challenge. Replacing the existing club- and association-based governance structure with a new hybrid Board and governance architecture is not simply a legal exercise; it is an organisational change programme. The Sri Lanka Cricket Transformation Committee is required to manage the transition until the First Board is constituted and, during that period, to establish rules covering matters including tournament structure, domestic governance, selection committee appointments, committee terms of reference, the Nomination Committee process and the election of the Elected Directors.

Structural reform on paper can encounter resistance from established interests, institutional habits and existing routines. The implementation phase will therefore require a clear change-management framework, including stakeholder engagement, transparent onboarding for Independent Directors, clarification of decision rights, alignment of legacy committees, and careful transfer of information and responsibilities.

Without attention to these organisational factors, cultural friction could undermine the intended administrative improvements. The success of the reform will therefore depend not only on the text of the legislation but also on the quality of the rules, appointments, delegation arrangements and organisational behaviours that follow it.

From Governance Reform to a Cricket Strategy

The Bill deserves credit for addressing how SLC is constituted and for creating places for specialist advice. It should not be dismissed simply because it does not prescribe a batting order or a domestic fixture list. Those are not appropriate tasks for legislation.

Its limitation is more precise: the proposed governance arrangements do not, by themselves, assure the strategic capability of the Board or the quality, independence and accountability of the decisions made beneath it. They establish the architecture. The future Board and management must supply the strategy, capabilities, discipline and learning mechanisms that make the architecture work.

A stronger reform would connect four elements: a Board selected for collective strategic capability; professional cricket management with clear delegated authority; transparent but non-mechanical selection and investment processes; and systematic evaluation of development outcomes. Within the first of these, information technology and computer science should be recognised as distinct from the broader capability to understand and govern data science, analytics and emerging AI-enabled decision support.

Ultimately, the governing question is not only who gets a seat at the SLC Board table. It is whether that Board can build, fund, execute and learn from a credible strategy for Sri Lankan cricket.

References

1. Department of Government Printing, Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Cricket Bill, Gazette Supplement, Part II of September 25, 2026, issued on 28 September 2026.

2. International Cricket Council. Media release, 15 July 2026, reporting the ICC Board discussion of Sri Lanka Cricket and the need for elections to be held as soon as possible.

3. Sport New Zealand – Ihi Aotearoa. Nine Steps to Effective Governance, particularly Step 1: Define and Agree the Board’s Role; Step 4: Provide Strategic Leadership; Step 5: Employ and Support a Chief Executive; and Step 8: Get the Right People on Board.

4. Cricket South Africa. Governance and management frameworks, including the delegation-of-authority framework, Board committees, Cricket Committee, Cricket Pipeline Committee and CEO accountability.

5. International Cricket Council. ICC Articles of Association, provisions requiring free and democratic elections and autonomous administration without government or other public-body interference. ICC. https://images.icc-cricket.com/image/upload/prd/f7vm88yw1933dc38cgtg.pdf

6. International Cricket Council. “ICC outlines proposed USACA constitution.” ICC, 2017. https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/icc-outlines-proposed-usaca-constitution

7. International Cricket Council. “Approved constitution marks historic landmark for cricket in USA.” ICC, 2017. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/approved-constitution-marks-historic-landmark-for-cricket-in-usa

8. International Cricket Council. “ICC welcomes Nepal Special General Meeting to adopt revised constitution.” ICC, 2018. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-welcomes-nepal-special-general-meeting-to-adopt-revised-constitution

9. International Cricket Council. “Independent Panel meet to progress Nepal elections under revised constitution.” ICC, 2018. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/independent-panel-meet-to-progress-nepal-elections-under-revised-constitution

10. International Cricket Council. “ICC delegation visits Bangladesh to engage with stakeholders on governance and electoral matters.” ICC, 2026. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-delegation-visits-bangladesh-to-engage-with-stakeholders-on-governance-and-electoral-matters

11. International Cricket Council. “ICC Board approves governance, membership and member support decisions.” ICC, 2026; see also “ICC Board Meeting,” 2026, reporting ICC representatives’ meetings with stakeholders in Sri Lanka. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-board-approves-governance-membership-and-member-support-decisions

(Concluded)