Midweek Review

A daunting task for Justice Nawaz

Published

5 years ago

2021/01/27

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa shakes hands with Justice Nawaz after appointing him as the President of the Court of Appeal on January 20, 2021 (pic courtesy PMD)

Geneva proposes asset freezes, travel bans ahead of HR sessions

By Shamindra Ferdinando

An Extraordinary Gazette notification, pertaining to the nomination of Justice Abdul Hameed Dileep Nawaz, as the Chairman of a three-member Commission of Inquiry (CoI), to investigate, inquire into and report, or take required actions, regarding the findings of the former Commissions, or Committees, that investigated human rights violations, serious violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and other such offences, was issued on January 20.

The Extraordinary Gazette notification was issued, close on the heels of a ceremonial sitting of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, to welcome Justice Nawaz, Justice Kumudini Wickramasinghe and Justice Shiran Gooneratne. They were among six new Supreme Court justices, named on Dec 1, 2020, in terms of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted two months before. The other new justices are Janaka de Silva, Achala Wengappuli and Mahinda Samayawardhena.

The new Amendment approved with a two-thirds majority, resulted in the expansion of the Supreme Court bench, from 11 to 17, and the Appeal Court bench, from 12 to 20.

Having won the presidency in Nov 2019, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promoted Nawaz as the President of the Court of Appeal. The appointment made on January 20, 2021, is President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s first high profile judicial selection. The appointment didn’t receive the media attention it really deserves.

With the elevation of Nawaz to the Supreme Court, Justice Arjuna Obeysekere received the appointment as the President of the Court of Appeal. The CoI, chaired by Justice Nawaz, includes one-time IGP Chandra Fernando, the incumbent Chairman of the National Police Commission, and retired District Secretary Nimal Abeysiri.

Nawaz is the first sitting judge and the senior-most judicial officer to have been charge-sheeted by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), during his time at the Attorney General’s Department, but cleared by courts during the tenure of the previous regime itself. So many actions, initiated by the CIABOC, judicial decisions and proceedings during the previous yahapalana administration, are under a cloud.

The CoI has been entrusted with the following tasks: (a) Find out whether previous CoIs, and Committees, which have been appointed to investigate into human rights violations, have revealed any human rights violations, serious violations of the international humanitarian law and other such serious offences (b) Identify the findings of the CoIs, and Committees, related to the serious violations of human rights, serious violations of international humanitarian laws and other such offences and whether recommendations have been made on how to deal with the issues at hand (c) The status of the implementation of those recommendations, so far, in terms of the existing law, and what steps need to be taken to implement those recommendations further, in line with the present Government policy and, finally (d) Ascertain whether action is being taken in respect of (b) and (c).

The CoI, headed by Justice Nawaz, is expected to finalize the report, within six months from the date of the appointment.

AG on role of judges

Welcoming the newly appointed Supreme Court Judges on Jan. 20 and Jan 21, Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, declared: “The credibility of a judicial system, in a country, is dependent on the Judges who man it. Judges must be persons of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. A Judge must discharge his/her judicial functions with high integrity, impartially and intellectual honesty. Speaking of Intellectual honesty; the law would be like a ball of clay in the hands of an erudite Judge. Therefore, Judges should be ruthlessly honest, independent, and impartial and possess a judicial conscience to ensure that the ball of clay is moulded, according to the law. For over 2000 years of the island’s long history, the Courts of Law have occupied a unique place in the system of government. Public acceptance of the judiciary, and public confidence in the judiciary, is necessary for the rule of law to prevail in the country. Public confidence in the judiciary is dependent on the independence and integrity of the judiciary.”

The President’s Counsel further said: “The Judges in the exercise of judicial functions should be immune from outside control and influence and intimidation. That independence is also necessary from the other branches of government and from private and partisan interest. Judges should be above suspicion and should not leave even a glimpse for that suspicion to occur.”

Tamil parties seek int’l intervention

The appointment of the three-member CoI under the leadership of a Supreme Court Judge, should be examined against a section of Parliament demanding international intervention, by way of a new Resolution adopted at the forthcoming 46th sessions of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), scheduled for Feb-March 2021. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and two Northern Province, based new political parties – Ahila Illankai Tamil Congress (AITC) and Tamil Makkal Thesiya Kutani (TMTK) have written to 47 members of the UNHRC demanding punitive action against Sri Lanka on the basis that the administration quit the Geneva Resolution 30/1, co-sponsored by the previous yahapalana administration.

The three parties are represented in Parliament by 13 members. At the time Sri Lanka co-sponsored the controversial resolution against itself, in Geneva, the TNA had 16 lawmakers, including two appointed members, with its leader, R. Sampanthan, enjoying the privileged status as the Opposition Leader, though, ironically, the breakaway Joint Opposition (JO) commanded the confidence of well over 50 lawmakers. So that was how democracy was practiced then!

With the obvious blessings of Western powers, the Tamil parties, in a letter to UNHRC members, requested (a) Member States urge, in the new resolution, that other organs of the United Nations, including the UN Security Council, and the UN General Assembly, take up the matter and take suitable action by reference to the International Criminal Court and any other appropriate and effective international accountability mechanisms to inquire into the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity (b) The President of the UNHRC refers matters on accountability, in Sri Lanka, back to the UN Secretary General, for action, as stated above (c) Member States to mandate the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to continue to monitor Sri Lanka for ongoing violations and have an OHCHR field presence in the country and (d) Without detracting from that which has been stated in Point 1 (above), take steps to establish an evidence-gathering mechanism, similar to the International Independent Investigatory Mechanism (IIIM,) in relation to Syria, established as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly, with a strict time frame of 12 months duration.

The TNA-led political grouping, backed by a section of the civil society that also supported a hybrid war crimes investigating mechanism, are backing the latest initiative against Sri Lanka.

The Ontario Centre for Policy Research, Canada and London Initiative, the United Kingdom have, however rebutted anti-Sri Lanka allegations with a timely comprehensive report recently to the UNHRC, especially in response to the growing threat of a new resolution. The lead Researcher and the Chairman of the Committee that prepared the report, Dr. Neville Hewage, and the UK-based practicing lawyer, Jayaraj Palihawadana, should receive public appreciation for countering the Western strategy. Let the public know of such initiatives and exert pressure on political parties to take up the Geneva challenge, together with the government.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka’s defence in Geneva is likely to suffer in the absence of coordinated action and the failure on the part of those responsible to get their act together to attack the foundation of lies concocted by interested parties, hell-bent on hauling Sri Lanka up before an international war crimes court. With the UNP’s humiliating rejection by the masses, at the last general election, in August 2020, the TNA-led grouping, in spite of differences as regards political strategy, both in and outside Parliament, is confident of its new game plan.

The Swiss plot

The Tamil grouping believes the return of the Rajapaksas is advantageous to their strategy. Sri Lanka would have been in bigger trouble if the Swiss project, meant to ruin Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency, succeeded in Nov 2019. If not for war-time Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s refusal to allow Switzerland to evacuate Embassy worker Garnier Francis, who claimed that she had been sexually abused by government agents inside a vehicle close to the Swiss Embassy, within days after him being elected the President. Had that diabolical plot clicked with her being evacuated to Switzerland, in a special air ambulance, that had been brought down as part of the plot, the country would have been under heavy pressure now. Thanks to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa taking a tough stand on the matter, the Swiss plot went awry, much to the disappointment of those seeking to undermine the new administration. Investigations exposed those responsible for the diabolical propaganda offensive that had to be inquired into, taking into consideration unsubstantiated allegations directed at the SLPP presidential candidate, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, at a media conference, organized by the then yahapalana minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne.

The CoI, headed by Justice Nawaz, will have to examine the overall campaign against Sri Lanka, without restricting its investigation in terms of the mandate received. It would be pertinent to mention Sri Lanka paid a huge price for not properly countering lies propagated by interested parties’ hell-bent on hauling Sri Lanka before hybrid war crimes investigating mechanism. In the wake of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s emergence as the President, with an overwhelming victory, over his nearest opponent, the same lot wanted Sri Lanka investigated by the international community.

Sri Lanka has pathetically failed to comprehend the threat, hence the absence of proper defence, in spite of some elected members of Parliament working against the country. The government’s failure has allowed the TNA, that had no qualms in recognizing the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil speaking people in late 2001, and having being the mouthpiece of the world’s most ruthless terrorist organisation, to pursue a high profile strategy, detrimental to the country, while enjoying perks and privileges as a recognized political party.

The TNA-led campaign is part of an overall project meant to overwhelm Sri Lanka. The Swiss operation, if succeeded, could have impaired the Office of the President.

A wider examination of facts needed

Let us hope that the Justice Nawaz-led committee would examine all factors, pertaining to the accountability issue, though its primary objective seems simple. Their responsibility in terms of the statement issued by the President’s Office, is to examine the previous CoI and Committees and the implementation of their recommendations. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) chaired by the late Attorney General C.R. de Silva, examined the conflict. The LLRC was appointed in response to a study undertaken by UN Secy. General’s so-called Panel of Experts (PoE). The PoE report, released in March 2011, is the basis for all subsequent measures taken by the UN though Sri Lanka simply ignored the threat. In addition to the LLRC, the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Complaints of Abductions and Disappearances (the report on the Second Mandate of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Complaints of Abductions and Disappearances) examined the conflict. However, Sri Lanka cannot turn a blind eye to the PoE report, and related reports, as they remained the very basis of the Geneva initiatives, though the incumbent government quit the 30/1 resolution. Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena made the announcement on Feb 26, 2020 at the 43rd UNHRC sessions.

The government certainly owed an explanation why the appointment of the CoI to examine previous CoIs and Committees, was delayed till January 20, 2021. The continuing crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic shouldn’t be faulted for the government’s failure. For some strange reason, Sri Lanka continues to delay using Lord Naseby’s revelations, based on wartime British High Commission dispatches from Colombo (January-May 2009) as well as revelations made by Wikileaks to counter UN lies. Lord Naseby, in an interview with the writer in Sept 2019, regretted Sri Lanka’s failure to exploit his disclosure, made in Oct 2017. The senior Conservative politician said that he was quite disappointed and surprised by Sri Lanka’s response to information provided by him. The British diplomatic cables obtained by Lord Naseby, following a legal wrangle with his government disputed the PoE’s primary allegation. The information provided by Lord Naseby, when examined together with wartime US Defence attaché Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s explosive statement in 2011 (read US official’s defence of Sri Lankan military), exposed the UN lie.

The primary allegation in PoE on Sri Lanka alleged that at least 40,000 civilians perished on the Vanni east front. In terms of the UN dictates, the accusations made against Sri Lanka by mystery accusers cannot be verified till 2031 due to a strange confidentiality clause. Where in the world do you get a system of justice where one is precluded from facing one’s accusers for 30 years, let alone challenge their specific allegations? Meanwhile, Sri Lanka is regularly bashed by interested parties on the basis of unverified accusations. Wouldn’t it have been better if Sri Lanka made reference to this most unusual confidentiality clause that effectively prevented examination of allegations? Perhaps, Sri Lanka will take it up at least now, well over a decade after the PoE report, and seven years after the country ended up in the Geneva agenda.

Having faulted the Sri Lanka Army, on three major counts, the PoE (Panel of Experts) accused Sri Lanka of massacring at least 40,000 civilians. Let me reproduce the paragraph, bearing no 137, verbatim: “In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.“

Key issues that needed CoI attention

In the absence of a cohesive strategy to counter UN lies, vested interests, both here and abroad, propagated canards against the country to varying degrees. Let me mention issues that had to be examined in the overall defence strategy: (1) Dismissal of war crimes accusations by Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith in Colombo. The then US official did so at the May-June 2011 first post-war defence seminar in Colombo, two months after the release of the PoE report. The State Department disputed the official’s right to represent the US at the forum though it refrained from challenging the statement. (2) Examine the US statement along with Lord Naseby’s Oct 2017 disclosure, based on the then British Defence advisor Lt. Colonel Anthony Gash’s cables to London during the war. (3) Wikileaks revelations that dealt with the Sri Lanka war. A high profile Norwegian study on its role in the Sri Lanka conflict examined some cables. However, the Norwegian process never strengthened Sri Lanka’s defence. Instead Norway merely sought to disown its culpability in the events leading to the annihilation of the LTTE. One of the most important Wikileaks revelations cleared Sri Lanka of deliberately targeting civilians. The cable proved that our ground forces took heavy losses by taking the civilian factor into consideration. (4) Wide discrepancies in loss of civilian lives, claimed by UN, and various other interested parties. The UN estimated the figure at 40,000 (March 2011) whereas Amnesty International (Sept 2011) placed the number at 10,000 and a member of the UK Parliament (Sept 2011) estimated the death toll at 100,000. (5) Disgraceful attempt made by Geneva to exploit the so called Mannar mass graves during the yahapalana administration. The Foreign Ministry remained silent on the Mannar graves while Western diplomats played politics, only to be proved utterly wrong. Geneva faulted Sri Lanka before the conclusion of the investigation.

The then Northern Province Chief Minister Wigneswaran rejected scientific findings of Beta Analytic Institute of Florida, USA, in respect of samples of skeletal remains sent from the Mannar mass grave site. Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet went to the extent of commenting on the Mannar mass grave in her report that dealt with the period from Oct 2015 to January 2019.

Had the US lab issued a report to suit their strategy, would they have accepted fresh tests in case the government of Sri Lanka requested? The following is the relevant section bearing No 23 from Bachelet’s report: “On May 29, 2018, human skeletal remains were discovered at a construction site in Mannar (Northern Province), Excavations conducted in support of the Office on Missing Persons, revealed a mass grave from which more than 300 skeletons were discovered. It was the second mass grave found in Mannar following the discovery of a site in 2014. Given that other mass graves might be expected to be found in the future, systematic access to grave sites by the Office, as an observer, is crucial for it to fully discharge its mandate, particularly with regard to the investigation and identification of remains, it is imperative that the proposed reforms on the law relating to inquests, and relevant protocols to operationalize the law be adopted. The capacity of the forensic sector must also be strengthened, including in areas of forensic anthropology, forensic archaeology and genetics, and its coordination with the Office of Missing Persons must be ensured.” (6) Wigneswaran in his capacity as the then Northern Province Chief Minister in August 2016 accused the Army of killing over 100 LTTE cadres held in rehabilitation facilities. Wigneswaran, now an MP and leader of TMTK, claimed the detainees had been given poisonous injections resulting in deaths of 104 persons. The unprecedented accusation made by the retired Supreme Court Judge had been timed to attract international attention. Wigneswaran is on record as having said that a US medical team visiting Jaffna, at that time, would examine the former rehabilitated LTTE cadres, who he alleged had fallen sick because they were injected with poisonous substances at government detention or rehabilitation centres.

Sri Lanka paid a very heavy price for its pathetic failure to counter a web of lies fashioned by interested parties, both local and foreign, and well-funded by the West, to coerce the country to adopt a new Constitution to suit the separatist agenda. Had they succeeded, Sri Lanka’s unitary status could have been done away through constitutional means against the backdrop of eradication of the LTTE’s conventional power.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Opp. MP’s hasty stand on US air strikes in Nigeria and Sri Lanka’s foreign policy dilemma

Published

23 hours ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

Somaliland's President Abdirahman Abdullahi Mohamed (right), posing for a photograph with Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, at the Presidential Palace in Hargeisa (Pic released by the Somaliland Presidential Office on 06 January, 2026)

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland on 26 December, 2025, couldn’t have taken place without US approval. The establishment of full diplomatic ties with Somaliland, a breakaway part of Somalia, and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar’s visit to that country, drew swift criticism from Somalia, as well as others. Among those who had been upset were Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and the African Union.

The US-backed move in Africa didn’t receive public attention as did the raid on Venezuela. But, the Somaliland move is definitely part of the overall US global strategy to overwhelm, undermine and belittle Russia and China.

And on the other hand, the Somaliland move is a direct challenge to Türkiye, a NATO member that maintains a large military presence in Somalia, and to Yemen based Houthis who had disrupted Red Sea shipping, in support of Hamas, in the wake of Israeli retaliation over the 07 October, 2023, raid on the Jewish State, possibly out of sheer desperation of becoming a nonentity. The Israeli-US move in Africa should be examined taking into consideration the continuing onslaught on Gaza and attacks on Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Qatar.

Many an eyebrow was raised over Opposition MP Dr. Kavinda Jayawardana’s solo backing for the recent US air strikes in Nigeria.

The Gampaha District Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) lawmaker handed over a letter to the US Embassy here last week applauding US President Donald Trump’s order to bomb Nigeria on Christmas Day. The letter was addressed to President Trump

( https://island.lk/kavinda-lauds-us-president-trumps-actions-to-protect-christians-in-nigeria/)

The former UNPer who had been in the forefront of a high-profile campaign demanding justice for the 2019 Easter Sunday terror victims, in an obvious solo exercise praised Trump for defending the Nigerian Christian community. The US bombing targeted Islamic State Terrorists (ISIS) operating in that country’s northwest, where Muslims predominate.

The only son of the late UNP Minister Dr. Jayalath Jayawardana, he seemed to have conveniently forgotten that such military actions couldn’t be endorsed under any circumstances. Against the backdrop of Dr. Jayawardana’s commendation for US military action against Nigeria, close on the heels of the murderous 03 January US raid on oil rich Venezuela, perhaps it would be pertinent to seek the response of the Catholic Church in that regard.

President Trump, in a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times, has warned of further strikes in case Christians continued to be killed in the West African nation. International media have disputed President Trump’s claim of only the Christians being targeted.

Both Christians and Muslims – the two main religious groups in the country of more than 230 million people – have been victims of attacks by radical Islamists.

The US and the Nigerian government of President Bola Tinubu reached a consensus on Christmas Day attacks. Nigeria has roughly equal numbers of Christians – predominantly in the south – and Muslims, who are mainly concentrated in the north.

In spite of increasingly volatile global order, the Vatican maintained what can be comfortably described as the defence of the national sovereignty. The Vatican has been critical of the Venezuelan government but is very much unlikely to throw its weight behind US attacks on that country and abduction of its President and the First Lady.

Dr. Jayawardana’s stand on US intervention in Nigeria cannot definitely be the position of the main Opposition party, nor any other political party represented in Parliament here. The National People’s Power (NPP) government refrained from commenting on US attacks on Nigeria, though it opposed US action in Venezuela. Although the US and Nigeria have consensus on Christmas Day attacks and may agree on further attacks, but such interventions are very much unlikely to change the situation on the ground.

SL on US raid

Let me reproduce Sri Lanka’s statement on US attacks on Venezuela, verbatim:

“The Government of Sri Lanka is deeply concerned about the recent developments in Venezuela and is closely monitoring the situation.

Sri Lanka emphasises the need to respect principles of international law and the UN Charter, such as the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, peaceful settlement of international disputes and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

Sri Lanka attaches great importance to the safety and well-being of the people of Venezuela and the stability of the region and calls on all parties to prioritize peaceful resolution through de-escalation and dialogue.

At this crucial juncture, it is important that the United Nations and its organs such as the UN Security Council be seized of the matter and work towards a peaceful resolution taking into consideration the safety, well-being and the sovereign rights of the Venezuelan people.”

That statement, dated 05 January, was issued by the Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Ministry. Almost all political parties, represented in Parliament, except one-time darling of the LTTE, Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), condemned the US attacks on Venezuela and threats on Cuba, Colombia and Iran. The US is also targeting China, Russia and even the European Union.

Dr. Jayawardana requested coverage for his visit to the US Embassy here to hand over his letter, hence the publication of his ‘love’ letter to President Trump on page 2 of the 09 January edition of The Island.

There had never been a previous instance of a Sri Lankan lawmaker, or a political party, endorsing unilateral military action taken by the US or any other country. One-time Western Provincial Council member and member of Parliament since 2015, Jayawardana should have known better than to trust President Trump’s position on Nigeria. Perhaps the SJBer felt that an endorsement of US action, allegedly supportive of the Nigerian Catholic community, may facilitate his political agenda. Obviously, the Opposition MP endorsed US military action purely for domestic political advantage. The lawmaker appears to have simply disregarded the growing criticism of US actions in various parts of the world.

The German and French response to US actions, not only in Venezuela, but various other regions, as well, underscore the growing threat posed by President Trump’s agenda.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier have sharply condemned US foreign policy under Donald Trump, declaring, respectively, that Washington was “breaking free from international rules” and the world risked turning into a “robber’s den”.

US threat to annex Greenland at the expense of Denmark, a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) ,and the grouping itself, has undermined the post WWII world order to such an extent, the developing crisis seems irreversible.

Focus on UAE

Indian Army Chief Gen. Upendra Dwivedi visited the United Arab Emirates on 05 and 06 January. His visit took place amidst rising tension on the Arabian Peninsula, following the Saudi-led military coalition launching air attacks on Yemen based Southern Transitional Council (STC) whose leader Aidarous al-Zubaid was brought to Abu Dhabi.

In the aftermath of the Saudi led strikes on Yemen port, held by the STC, the UAE declared that it would withdraw troops deployed in Yemen. The move, on the part of UAE, seems to be meant to de-escalate the situation, but the clandestine operation, undertaken by that country to rescue a Saudi target, appeared to have caused further deterioration of Saudi-UAE relations. Further deterioration is likely as both parties seek to re-assert control over the developing situation.

From Abu Dhabi, General Dwivedi arrived in Colombo on a two-day visit. Like his predecessors, General Dwivedi visited the Indian Army memorial at Pelawatte, where he paid respects to those who paid the supreme sacrifice during deployment of the Indian Army here – 1987 July to 1990 March. That monument is nothing but a testament to the foolish and flawed Indian policy. Those who portray that particular Indian military mission as their first major peace keeping operation overseas must keep in mind that over half a dozen terrorist groups were sponsored by India.

Just over a year after the end of that mission, one of those groups – the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) -assassinated Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi, the former Premier who sent the military mission here.

India never accepted responsibility for the death and destruction caused by its intervention in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Indian action led to an unprecedented situation when another Sri Lankan terrorist group PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam) mounted a raid on the Maldives in early Nov. 1988. Two trawler loads of PLOTE cadres were on a mission to depose Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom on a contract given by a disgruntled Maldivian businessman. India intervened swiftly and brought the situation under control. But, the fact that those who had been involved in the sea-borne raid on the Maldives were Indian trained and they left Sri Lanka’s northern province, which was then under Indian Army control, were conveniently ignored.

Except the LTTE, all other major Tamil terrorist groups, including the PLOTE, entered the political mainstream in 1990, and over the years, were represented in Parliament. It would be pertinent to mention that except the EPDP (Eelam People’s Democratic Party) all other Indian trained groups in 2001 formed the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), under the leadership of Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), to support the separatist agenda in Parliament. Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE, in May 2009, brought that despicable project to an end.

The Indian Army statement on General Dwivedi’s visit here, posted on X, seemed like a propaganda piece, especially against the backdrop of continuing controversy over the still secret Indo-Lanka Memorandum of Understanding on defence that was entered into in April last year. Within months after the signing of the defence MoU, India acquired controlling stake of the Colombo Dockyard Ltd., a move that has been shrouded in controversy.

Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha’s response to my colleague Sanath Nanayakkara’s query regarding the strategic dimension of the India–Sri Lanka Defence Cooperation Agreement following the Indian Army Chief’s recent visit, the former was cautious in his response. Jha asserted that there was “nothing beyond what is included” in the provisions of the pact, which was signed by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and has generated controversy in Sri Lanka due to the absence of public discourse on its contents.

Framing the agreement as a self-contained document focused purely on bilateral defence cooperation, Jha said this reflected India’s official position. By directing attention solely to the text of the agreement, the High Commissioner indicated that there were no unstated strategic calculations involved, aligning with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister’s recent clarification that the pact was not a military agreement but one that dealt with Indian support.

Nanayakkara had the opportunity to raise the issue at a special media briefing called by Jha at the IHC recently.

Julie Chung departs

The US attack on Venezuela, and the subsequent threats directed at other countries, including some of its longtime allies, should influence our political parties to examine US and Indian stealthy interventions here, leading to the overthrowing of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in July 2022.

The US Embassy in Colombo recently announced that Julie Chung, who oversaw the overthrowing of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, would end her near four-year term. Former Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Gopal Baglay, who, too, played a significant role in the regime change project, ended his term in December 2023 and took up position in Canberra as India’s top diplomat there.

Both Chung and Baglay have been accused of egging on the putsch directly by urging Aragalaya time Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, on 13 July, 2022, to take over the presidency. Former Minister Wimal Weerawansa and top author Sena Thoradeniya, in their comments on Aragalaya accused Chung of unprecedented intervention, whereas Prof. Sunanada Maddumabanadara found fault with Baglay for the same.

The US Embassy, in a statement dated 07 January, 2026, quoted the outgoing US Ambassador as having said: “I have loved every moment of my time in Sri Lanka. From day one, my focus has been to advance America’s interests—strengthening our security partnerships, expanding trade and investment, and promoting education and democratic values that make both our nations stronger. Together, we’ve built a relationship that delivers results for the American people and supports a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific.”

The Embassy concluded that statement reiterating the US commitment to its partnership with Sri Lanka and to build on the strong foundation, established during Ambassador Chung’s nearly four-year tenure.

Sri Lanka can expect to increasingly come under both US and Indian pressure over Chinese investments here. It would be interesting to see how the NPP government solves the crisis caused by the moratorium on foreign research vessel visits, imposed in 2024 by the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The NPP is yet to reveal its position on that moratorium, over one year after the lapse of the ban on such vessels. Wickremesinghe gave into intense US and Indian pressure in the wake of Chinese ship visits.

In spite of US-India relations under strain due to belligerent US actions, they are likely to adopt a common approach here to undermine Sri Lanka’s relations with China. But, the situation is so dicey, India may be compelled to review its position. The US declaration that a much-anticipated trade deal with India collapsed because Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hasn’t heeded President Trump’s demand to call him.

This was revealed by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in the ‘All-In Podcast’ aired on Thursday, 08 January. The media quoted Indian spokesman Randhir Jaiswal as having said on the following day: “The characterisation of these discussions in the reported remarks is not accurate.” Jaiswal added that India “remains interested in a mutually beneficial trade deal between two complementary economies and looks forward to concluding it.”

Sri Lanka in deepening dilemma

Sri Lanka, struggling to cope up with post-Aragalaya economic, political and social issues, is inundated with foreign policy issues.

The failure on the part of the government and the Opposition to reach consensus on foreign policy challenges/matters has further weakened the country’s position. If those political parties represented in Parliament at least discussed matters of importance at the relevant consultative committee or the sectoral oversight committee, lawmaker Jayawardana wouldn’t have endorsed the US bombing of Nigeria.

Sri Lanka and Nigeria enjoy close diplomatic relations and the SJB MP’s unexpected move must have caused quite a controversy, though the issue at hand didn’t receive public attention. Regardless of the US-Nigerian consensus on the Christmas Day bombing, perhaps it would be unwise on the part of Sri Lanka to support military action at any level for obvious reasons.

Sri Lanka taking a stand on external military interventions of any sort seems comical at a time our war-winning military had been hauled up before the Geneva Human Rights Council for defending the country against the LTTE that had a significant conventional military capacity in addition to being “the most ruthless terrorist organisation” as it was described by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. The group capitalised on experience gained in fighting the Indian Army during 1987 July-1990 March period and posed quite a threat. Within five months after the resumption of fighting, in June 1990, the LTTE ordered the entire Muslim population to leave the predominantly Tamil northern province.

No foreign power at least bothered to issue a statement condemning the LTTE. MP Jayawardana’s statement supporting US military action in support of Christian community should be examined in Sri Lanka’s difficult battle against terrorism that took a very heavy toll. Perhaps, political parties represented in Parliament, excluding those who still believe in a separatist project, should reexamine their stand on Sri Lanka’s unitary status.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Buddhist Iconography

Published

23 hours ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

A Buddha statue from Mathura with a single curl, 2nd cent. CE

Seeing a new kind of head ornament on a recent reproduction of the iconic Avukana Buddha statue, made me ponder how the Enlightened One would have looked in real life, and what relationship that may or may not have with Buddhist iconography. Obviously, there is no record or evidence of any rendering of the Buddha made by an artist who saw him alive, but there are a few references to his appearance in the Pali Sutta Pitaka, that affirms, as he himself has said, Buddha was nothing other than a human being, albeit an extraordinarily intelligent one (Dhammika 2021).

Before enlightenment, Siduhath Gotama was described as having black hair and a beard. One account describes him as “handsome, of fine appearance, pleasant to see, with a good complexion and a beautiful form and countenance” (D.I,114). Venerable Ananda has said, “It is wonderful, truly marvelous how serene is the good Gotama’s presence, how clear and radiant is his complexion. Just as golden jujube fruit in the autumn is clear and radiant … so too is the good Gotama’s complexion” (A.I,181). If Venerable Ananda’s comparison is correct, Gotama must have been of what is called ‘Wheatish’ complexion common in present-day North India, which is described as typically falling between fair and dusky complexions, exhibiting a light brown hue with golden or olive undertones (Fitzpatrick scale Type III to VI).

The Buddha is also described as a slim tall person; slim, perhaps, as a result of practising asceticism before enlightenment and spartan life thereafter. As he aged, he also suffered from back pain and other ailments, according to Sutta Pitaka.

Artists’ imagination

We need not argue that the depictions of the Buddha we see across countries, in various media, are the imaginations of the artists influenced by their local cultures and traditions. The potentially controversial aspect regarding Buddhist iconography is the depiction of his hair, which is almost universal. There are several references in the Sutta Pitaka, where various Brahmin youths derogatorily referred to the Buddha as “bald-pated recluse” (MN 81). There is no reason to believe that he would have been any different from the rest of the Bhikkhus who had and have clean shaven heads. In fact, when King Ajatasattu visited the Buddha for the first time, he had trouble identifying the Buddha from the rest of the sangha, and an attendant had to help the king.

In early Buddhist art, the Buddha was represented by the wheel of dhamma, Bodhi tree, throne, lotus, the footprints, or a parasol. For example, in the carvings of Sanchi temple built in the third century BCE, the Buddha is depicted by some of these symbols, but never in human form. Depiction of the Buddha in human form has started around the first century CE in two places, Gandhara and Mathura. In both places, the Buddha is depicted with hair, and not as a “bald-pated recluse” the way the Sutta Pitaka depicts him.

Figure 1. Bimaran Casket

No scholarly agreeement

So, the question is who started this artistic trend, was it the Gandhara artists under the Greek influence or the Mathura artists following their own traditions? There is no scholarly agreement on this; Western scholars think it was the Greek influence that made presenting the Buddha in human form while Ananda Coomaraswamy presents another theory (Coomaraswamy 1972).

The earliest dateable representation of the Buddha in human form is found on the Bimaran casket found during the exploration of a stupa near Bimaran, Afghanistan in 1834. It has been dated to the first century CE using the coins found along with it, that also depict and refer to the Buddha by name in Greko-Bactrian. This reliquary, a gold cylinder embossed with figures and artwork, is on display at the British Museum (Figure 1). Under the Hellenistic influence, it must have been natural for the Gandhara artists to represent a revered or divine figure in human form; Greeks have been doing it for millennia. The standing Buddha figure is depicted wearing the hair in the form of a knot over the crown. In other carvings from the same period, most male figures are shown with the same hair style. Also, it appears that both Spartan men and women tied their hair in a knot over the crown of the head, known as the “Knidian hairstyle” (Wikipedia). The Gandhara sculpture is famous for the Hellenistic style of realism (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Gandhara statue from 1-2
century CE

Coomaraswamy’s reasoning

Coomaraswamy reasons that the Bhakti movement – the loving devotion of the followers towards the deities, is the reason for the emergence of Buddha figure in Mathura. We cannot say for sure if the Gandhara art induced the Mathura artists to break away from their tradition of aniconic symbolism. What is clear is that they have been influenced by the trend to elevate religious leaders to divinity, to impress the followers and compete or to outdo the practices of other religions. This tradition, which predates the Buddha, has introduced the concept of the thirty-two characteristics or marks of great personalities.

It is this trend that has introduced divine interventions and other mysticisms to Buddhism and culminated in famous poems as Asvagosha’s Buddhacharithaya and exegeses as Lalithavistara a few centuries later and continues to date. Instead of following realism as the Gandhara artists did, Mathura artists have followed this tradition and incorporated the thirty-two characteristics of a great person into their representation of the Buddha figure.

Some of these marks are described as “… there is a protuberance on the head, this is, for the great man, the venerable Gotama, a mark of a great man; the hair bristles, his bristling hair is blue or dark blue, the color of collyrium, turning in curls, turning to the right; the tuft of hair between the eyebrows on his forehead is very white like cotton; he is golden in color, has skin like gold; eyes very blue, like sapphires; under the soles of his feet there are wheels, with a thousand rims and naves, complete in every way…(DN 30, M 91). Thus, the tradition of adding the protuberance referred to as Usnisha to Buddha statues started.

Buddhist traditions in different forms

This practice has been adopted by all Buddhist traditions in different forms. The highly effective outcome of incorporating these great marks into the statuary is that it has created a globally recognisable symbol that is independent of the artist’s skills, cultural affiliation or the medium used. Without such distinct features, we would have difficulty in distinguishing the depictions of the Enlightened One from those of other monks or other religious leaders such as Mahaveera. Nevertheless, in addition to its spiritual aspect, Buddhist iconography has been a flourishing art form, which has allowed human talent and ingenuity to thrive over millennia.

Let us not forget that artistic expression is a fundamental right. Interestingly, the curly hair on the Buddha statues made the early European Indologists to think that the Buddha was an African deity (Allen 2002).

Sri Lankan Buddhist art

Sri Lankan Buddhist art is said to be related to Amaravathi style; all Sri Lankan statues are depicted with curling hair bristles turning to right. The presence and prominence of the usnisha on local statues vary depending on the period. Toluvila statue, prominently displayed at the National Museum, is considered the earliest dateable statue in Sri Lanka. It is dated to 3rd or 4th century CE, has a less prominent usnisha and lacks the elongated ear lobes; it is said to be influenced by the Mathura school.

Since Dambulla temple dates to third century BCE, one wonders if the magnificent reclining statue in Cave 1 could be earlier than the Toluvila statue. There are several bronze statues from Anuradhapura period without usnisha. Towards late Anuradhapura period, usnisha is beginning to be replaced with rudimentary Siraspatha, which represents a flame. This addition evolved over time and became a very prominent feature during the Kandyan period and replaced the traditional usnisha completely (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Kandyan era statue with
Siraspatha

Incomparable workmanship

Then the question is how does the Avukana statue, which belongs to the early Anuradhapura period, have a siraspatha that is not compatible with the style of the period or the incomparable workmanship of the statue itself? I have come across two explanations. According to the Sinhala Encyclopedia, the original siraspatha was destroyed and a cement replacement was installed in recent times, likely in the early 20th century.

The other version is that the statue never had a siraspatha like many other contemporary stone statues. For example, the Susseruwa (Ras Vehera) statue, which is identical in style, and likely a contemporary work, does not have a siraspatha. During the Buddhist revival, a group of devotees from a Southern town felt that the lack of a siraspatha on such a great statue as a major deficiency, and they ceremoniously installed the crude cement ornament seen today.

This raises the question: which is more valuable, preservation and protection of archeological treasures or reconstruction to meet modern expectations and standards? For example, what would have been more impressive, the Mirisavetiya Stupa as it was found before the failed reconstruction attempts, or the current version that is indistinguishable from modern concrete constructs? Even though, one can assume it was done in good faith. What if the Mihintale Kanthaka Chetiya were covered under brick and concrete to convert into a finished product? Would it increase or decrease its archeological value?

Differences between reality and iconography

None of that should matter in following the Buddha Dhamma. In theory. However, when the influence of Buddhist iconography is deeply rooted in devotee’s mind, it is impossible to imagine the Buddha as a normal human being, with or without a clean-shaven head and a brown complexion. The failure to see the difference between reality and iconography or art, poetry, and literature can be detrimental as it could distort the fact that Dhamma is the truth discovered by a human being, and it is accessible to any human, here and now. That is responsible, at least in part, for the introduction of mysticism, myths, and beliefs that are rapidly sidelining of Dhamma.

How often do we think of Enlightened One as a humble mendicant who roamed the Ganges Valley barefoot, in the beating sun, and resting at night on the folded outer robe spread under a tree. Sadly, iconography and other associated myths have driven us too far away from reality and Dhamma.

Up until I was six years old, we lived in a place up in the Balangoda hills that had a kaolin (kirimeti) deposit. The older students in the school used it for various handcrafts, but for the youngsters, it was playdough, even though we had never heard of that term. After witnessing an artist working on a Buddha statue at the local temple, my friend Bandara and I made Buddha statues of all types and sizes. If any of them were to survive for a few thousand years at the site where the schools stood, future archaeologists may wonder if a primitive tribe existed there (of course carbon dating will show otherwise). Like that, looking at some of the thousands of statues that pop up on every street corner, the purpose of which varies, sometimes I wonder if they were made by a civilisation that was yet to finesse the art of sculpture or by kids having access to kirimeti. No wonder birds take liberty to exercise their freedom of expression.

by Geewananda Gunawardana