Features

Deconstructing Sugathapala de Silva (Part 1)

Published

2 months ago

2026/04/26

Look Back in Anger

This is the first of a two-part essay, from my remarks at a speech I delivered at the Kolamba Kamatha Festival on Saturday, 28 March 2026.

By Uditha Devapriya

The 8th of May 1956 is considered as a watershed in the history of the British theatre. On that day a play was staged which would change the shape and face of British drama. Two years earlier a stage director, George Devine, had cofounded an organisation for staging plays by young, radical writers. It called itself the English Stage Company, the ESC. On 2 April 1956, the ESC purchased the Royal Court Theatre in London.

For its first season the company’s founders planned a cycle of five plays. The first of these was a fairly tame drama by Angus Wilson, The Mulberry Tree. The second was a production of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. Both these had been directed several times before. In the case of The Crucible, by 1956 it had already become a classic of contemporary theatre. It was the third play that would break ground, for the ESC, the Royal Court Theatre, and British drama in general. This was John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger.

A searing look into the class system and the institution of marriage in post-war Britain, Look Back in Anger delved into ideas and themes which few British playwrights had probed with such frankness. Almost immediately it created an uproar. Many newspapers railed against it and gave it negative or lukewarm reviews. It was described as “intense, angry, feverish, and undisciplined” in one paper and “unspeakably dirty and squalid” in another. Even critics who seemed sympathetic to the story sounded caution on its themes.

The only exception was Kenneth Tynan. A highly respected critic, as outspoken as the writers and dramatists he championed, Tynan became quite receptive to Osborne’s play. Writing in The Observer, one of the oldest newspapers in the UK, he commented that it symbolised a growing rift between an older, conservative generation and a younger, more outspoken one in the context of postwar Britain. Questioning its critics, he praised Osborne for being true to life and in doing so producing a “minor miracle.”

Tynan ended his review with these words.

“I doubt if I could love anyone who did not wish to see Look Back in Anger. It is the best young play of its decade.”

John Osborne

The review was published five days after the play, on 13 May 1956. Six months later, on 3 November 1956 at the University of Ceylon in Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, the University Sinhalese Drama Circle staged Maname. Written and directed by Ediriweera Sarachchandra, based on a Buddhist jataka tale and anchored in a fusion of various theatrical styles, Maname became as representative of a new theatre in Sri Lanka as Look Back in Anger had been of a new theatre in Britain. After it made its way to other parts of the country, including Colombo, the press began reviewing it with as much curiosity as with Osborne’s play. Unlike the latter, however, the press gave Maname positive notices.

One of the more perceptive reviews was written by the critic and journalist Regi Siriwardena. Published in the Ceylon Daily News a few days after it was staged, Siriwardena noted that Maname represented a breakthrough in theatrical form. He argued that it was quite unlike what the Sinhalese Drama Circle or the flagship dramatic society at the University of Ceylon, DramSoc, had staged in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time the Sinhalese Drama Circle had presented local adaptations of European dramatists, from Moliere to Gogol to Chekhov. Maname did away with these trends and promoted a new theatre among Sinhala-speaking and bilingual audiences. This would be known as stylised drama.

Reflecting on these developments 25 years later, Siriwardena speculated about the social composition of those who watched Sarachchandra’s play.

Sugathapala de Silva, founder of Apè Kattiya

“… from my impressions of the spectators who came to performances of Maname in its early years at the Borella YMBA [Young Men’s Buddhist Association] and Lumbini, I would hazard the guess that the new audience of 1956 and immediately succeeding years was composed predominantly of urban lower middle-class Sinhala speaking people.”

He argued that this underlay a much bigger achievement.

“What Maname effected then was to give the bilingual artists working in the theatre – Professor Sarachchandra and those who came in his wake: Gunasena Galappatti, Dayananda Gunawardena, and Henry Jayasena – an opening to the Sinhala-speaking lower middle class… Apart from the intrinsic dramatic achievement of Maname… [I]t was in consonance with the climate of Sinhala cultural revivalism in and after 1956.”

Siriwardena added that for most Sinhala-speaking audiences Maname contrasted strongly with the “hybrid” nurti theatre of the 1920s and 1930s. Influenced if not inflected by Parsi and European theatre, by the 1950s nurti was perceived as standing outside the canon of indigenous or national art in Sri Lanka. Though Maname was inflected by multiple cultural and artistic forms, including kabuki, for Sinhala-speaking audiences it seemed to represent a more rooted and authentic experience.

In the context of the performing arts, terms like “rooted”, “authentic”, “native”, “national”, and “indigenous” are, of course, very politically charged. It would be dangerous to deploy these terms and claim that one conception of drama is superior to the rest. Yet what is interesting is how differently cultural sentiments shaped the reception to Look Back in Anger in Britain and Maname in Sri Lanka.

In their respective countries, these plays ushered in a new idiom and broke down artistic barriers. But while Look Back in Anger was celebrated by a young generation for its unconventional themes and attitudes, Maname was praised by another generation for conforming to notions of indigeneity and authenticity.

This difference should tell us something about the social conditions that in Sri Lanka laid the foundations of plays such as Maname, and generated a wave of rebellion, resurgence, and revival which fostered a very outspoken set of playwrights. These younger artists were not just receptive to what was happening in other societies. They were also part and parcel of the most significant generational shift in their own country, in post-independence Sri Lanka: arguably one of the most important in any former colonial society.

In postwar Britain the generation of playwrights who banded around John Osborne and Look Back in Anger called themselves the Angry Young Men. Post-independence Sri Lanka’s Angry Young Men banded together in opposition to stylised theatre, while at the same time seeking encouragement and inspiration from their predecessors. These playwrights had their leaders and figureheads. Among them was Sugathapala de Silva.

Before we talk about Sugathapala de Silva, however, it’s important that we understand the extent to which postwar generational shifts and the changing undercurrents of the Sinhala theatre influenced him. As importantly, we need to understand the way in which this generation of artistes came together, and the ways in which they differed from each other. The rest of the presentation will focus on these two themes.

If the starting point to all this is 1956, my initial observation is that the cultural revival unleashed that year was contradicted by the same social and political forces that contributed to that revival. This contradiction is best seen when contrasting the initial reception to Sarachchandra’s drama with the criticisms it attracted in later years. While no one should doubt the achievements of Maname and Sinhabahu, those who followed Sarachchandra in the Sinhala theatre had very different conceptions of that theatre.

This contradiction becomes more interesting when we realise that in countries like Britain the trajectory of the theatre was more clearcut and predictable.

In Britain, the Second World War had destroyed much of its cultural infrastructure, including theatres and film halls. Yet within 10 years, a new theatre had been born, and a new generation of writers had taken root. The rupture was gradual, but when it came, it opened an entire avenue of possibilities for British theatre, cinema, and literature.

This was seen not so much in the opening of new theatres, schools, and workshops as an influx of new talent to old institutions, such as the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, or RADA. Such developments were made possible, in part, by scholarships these institutions began offering as well as a spurt in enthusiasm for the theatre among non-elite groups. This is what helped actors like Peter O’Toole and Richard Burton get established. In an interview, O’Toole recalled how he entered RADA, just when it was opening its doors.

“A chum of mine… and I hitch-hiked our way into London to begin our lives and we jumped off the lorry, the truck, at a station called Houston and we were aiming for a men’s hostel. … And we were plodding down and I looked on my left and it said, ‘The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art’ and my chum said, ‘Well, if you’re going to be an actor this is the kind of shop where they deal with such matters, so why don’t you pop in?’… One thing led to another and I found myself, that afternoon even, turning up for the first interview and then I did an audition and [another] audition, and found, to my surprise that I was in.”

Evocative as it is, the passage underscores the point that the rupture which shook the British theatre loose was gradual and yet unfolded in one go. In Sri Lanka, on the other hand, we can discern not one but two ruptures vis-a-vis the Sinhala theatre: political revolt and cultural revival in 1956, followed by a rejection of theatrical and artistic forms which 1956 had valorised and popularised.

Let me deconstruct this further. Whereas in Britain the revival of theatre and the emergence of a radical class of dramatists was simultaneous, in Sri Lanka these developments unfolded sequentially. I suggest that this was not just necessary, but also unavoidable.

Uditha Devapriya is an independent researcher, author, columnist, and analyst whose work spans international relations, history, anthropology, and politics. He holds an LL.B. from the University of London and a Postgraduate Diploma in International Relations from the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS). In 2024 he was a participant in the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) conducted by the US State Department. From 2022 to 2025 he served as Chief International Relations Analyst at Factum, an Asia-Pacific focused foreign policy think-tank. In 2025 he did two lecture stints in India, one as a Resident Fellow at the Kautilya School of Public Policy in Hyderabad and another on art and culture at the India International Centre in New Delhi. Since 2023, he has authored books on Sri Lankan institutions and public figures while pursuing research projects spanning art, culture, history, and geopolitics. He can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.comudakdev1@gmail.com.

All News Advertisement

Features

‘The devil is in the details’ in West Asian peace

Published

9 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Donald Trump at the current G7 summit in France. Evelyn Hockstein/Getty Image

It is obviously too early for an outpouring of joy over the seeming cessation of hostilities between the main antagonists in West Asia. While the prospect of there being a measure of calm in the region is being welcomed by considerable sections of the international community, what is ‘on the table’ currently is only a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran to give peace a chance. The hard part in the peace effort remains to be achieved.

In the Middle East of today we have one of the most complex conflicts to break out in modern international politics and the observer would be naive in the extreme to expect a facile and early closure to the tangle. Yet, for the sake of the world’s publics who have been hurting badly in the prolonged hostilities one could only hope that the US-Iran MoU that is expected to be signed by the sides on Friday would lead eventually to a substantive peace. The world’s thanks are due to Pakistan in this connection for its sustained support in the peace drive.

While the sides have agreed to a ceasing of hostilities in the most general terms and have reached accord on the facilitation of uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, for instance, the ‘devil will prove to be in the details’ in an envisaged comprehensive peace settlement. It is these details that would make or break peace if the negotiations go on in earnest.

Nevertheless, the details would need to be worked out consensually in a spirit of compromise with an eye to the greater good of the world community. Realpolitik or a narrow focus on solely the national interest among the protagonists, for example, would need to give way to a measure of humanity that would encompass within it a consideration of the overall well being of the world. In other words, it is statesmanship that would crucially matter.

The next few weeks would establish whether humanists are ‘asking for far too much’ when they broach the questions at issue in these terms. Yet it is essentially self interest and national security considerations of the first importance that drove the conflict from even prior to February this year and these questions would need to be taken up and resolved to the satisfaction of the US and Iran in the main if some headway is to be made towards a durable settlement.

The nuclear issue would prove to be the proverbial Gordian Knot. From a realistic viewpoint, Iran could not be expected to be without a potential nuclear deterrent in the face of perceived nuclear threats emanating for it from the West and Israel. In the short term, Iran would need to possess this deterrent to a measure, within a mutually agreed international legal framework maybe, until wide agreement is reached on the nuclear tangle. Specifically, Iran’s immediate threat perceptions with regard to her nuclear-powered rivals would need to be defused during initial negotiations.

Ideally it is a world free of nuclear weapons that must be aimed at but since this goal cannot be achieved in the near or medium terms, unfolding negotiations would need to ensure Iran’s absolute security in a world of powers that continue to swear by the nuclear deterrent, if it is to give up the suspected latter capability.

However, it is to the degree to which the present nuclear powers divest themselves of this capability that Iran could be put at ease on this score. Accordingly, it is nothing short of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world that could dissuade keenly security conscious states from developing nuclear weapons of their own with a mass destruction capability.

This is the number one dilemma the international community needs to grapple with going forward and it is to the extent to which it resolves it that a nuclear weapons free world could be envisaged. No doubt, an uphill challenge.

Compelling Israel to support the present negotiatory process constitutes another grueling challenge for the US. Currently the Iranian position essentially is that a Middle East peace is inseparable from a normalization of the security situation in Lebanon. That is, the present Israeli attacks on the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon must cease if a comprehensive peace is to be realized in West Asia.

However, Israel is showing no signs of drawing back from its attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon since the security of the Israeli state is being seen as threatened by the militant group. Co-opting Israel into the negotiatory effort therefore would turn out to be a matter of paramount concern for the US.

Moreover, elements in the rightist administration in Israel are seeing the current peace efforts as a ‘sell out’ to the enemies of Israel. They would have none of it. It is left to be seen how the US would be managing these virtual storm centres in the diplomatic process that could very well bring down the overall purported peace drive.

A recent pronouncement by US Vice President J.D. Vance points to yet another problem area in the US’ current peace overtures. He said that, ‘Regional peace and stability includes stopping the funding of terrorist organizations.’ He was obviously referring to the support extended by Iran to Hezbollah when he mentioned ‘terrorist organizations’ but he has given fresh life to the age-old conundrum of ‘Who is a terrorist?’ by these words.

To the Netanyahu government the Hezbollah and other militant organizations fighting Israel are ‘terrorists’ but from the viewpoint of the Iranian regime they are ‘freedom fighters’. This seemingly insurmountable definitional issue would not only stubbornly bedevil the peace effort but could even figure in bringing about its collapse, unless judiciously handled.

Thus, it’s the thorny details that need to be watched to keep the West Asian peace process afloat, once it gets going in earnest. There is no doubt that US President Trump would be receiving a considerable amount of support from the G7 in this historic peace undertaking and his personal appeals to the grouping currently meeting in France for continuous support are likely to elicit a positive response from it.

Likewise, Trump would need to appeal to also the BRICS countries if almost total global support is to be garnered for the peace drive in West Asia. BRICS’ solidarity with the US and the West is likely to carry considerable weight with Iran and other Eastern actors who are key to a sustained peace drive in the Middle East.

Features

Sri Lanka’s elephant paradox: Govt. counts tourism dollars while playing a dangerous numbers game: Expert

Published

9 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

At a time when Sri Lanka is enjoying a resurgence in wildlife tourism, with elephants remaining the undisputed stars of the country’s national parks and one of its most marketable natural assets, elephant conservationist Supun Lahiru Prakash has sounded a stark warning: the nation is in danger of losing the very species that helps attract millions of tourism dollars while sustaining some of the island’s most important ecosystems.

Supun says repeated claims by authorities that Sri Lanka’s elephant population is increasing, despite the absence of a final survey report and amid continuing elephant deaths, risk creating a misleading narrative that could undermine conservation efforts and encourage retaliation against elephants.

According to Supun, the issue is not merely about numbers. It is about political priorities, scientific credibility and the future of one of Sri Lanka’s most iconic species.

“Repeatedly claiming that the elephant population is increasing appears to be an attempt to hide the Government’s inability to manage the rising annual elephant death rate and the complications of human-elephant conflict,” Supun said.

For decades, the Sri Lankan elephant has been a symbol of the country’s rich natural heritage. It is the centrepiece of wildlife tourism, drawing visitors from across the globe to national parks such as Yala, Udawalawe, Minneriya, Kaudulla and Wilpattu. International wildlife documentaries, tourism campaigns and social media promotions frequently place elephants at the heart of Sri Lanka’s nature tourism brand.

Yet, according to Supun, the country’s conservation policies do not reflect the value of the species.

“On one hand, the Government is enjoying increasing tourism revenue, and elephants remain one of Sri Lanka’s most important wildlife attractions. On the other hand, narratives are being promoted that could encourage retaliation against the very species that contributes significantly to the country’s tourism industry,” Supun said.

According to the First Countrywide National Survey of Elephants conducted in 2011, Sri Lanka had 5,879 elephants. However, official statistics show that 4,167 elephants died between 2012 and 2024.

Supun stressed that these figures represent only the deaths officially recorded by the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

“In a context where more than 70 percent of the country’s elephant population reported in 2011 has died within 13 years, it is difficult to accept claims that the population has increased,” Supun said.

The conservationist pointed out that elephants have the longest gestation period among land mammals and that scientific studies have reported increasing interbirth intervals among female elephants together with high calf mortality.

“When such biological realities are taken into consideration, claims of a dramatic increase in elephant numbers become difficult to understand,” Supun said.

Supun believes that repeated references to increasing elephant populations risk fuelling public hostility towards elephants, particularly among farming communities already affected by crop raids and property damage.

“Such claims can create the impression that elephant populations are exploding and thereby promote retaliation against elephants as well,” Supun said.

According to Supun, Sri Lanka’s elephant crisis cannot be understood solely through population estimates. The real issue lies in the country’s failure to address human-elephant conflict through long-term, science-based solutions.

Sri Lanka continues to record among the highest levels of human-elephant conflict in the world. Every year, hundreds of elephants and dozens of people lose their lives as competition for land and resources intensifies.

Despite the scale of the crisis, Supun says authorities continue to rely on strategies that have repeatedly failed.

Lahiru Prakash

These include driving elephants into protected areas, strengthening electric fences to confine them there and allocating additional manpower to maintain fencing systems.

Supun was also critical of several proposals that emerged from district-level discussions on conflict mitigation, including the sowing of paddy and corn using Air Force drones and the planting of fruit orchards within protected areas.

“Such proposals fail to address the real ecological and social dimensions of the conflict,” Supun said.

While welcoming reports that the Government intends appointing a national-level mechanism to tackle human-elephant conflict, Supun said the challenge required intervention at the highest level of government.

“Given the gravity, complexity and geographical spread of human-elephant conflict, appointing any committee other than a Presidential Task Force is not useful,” Supun said.

He argued that a Presidential Task Force chaired by either the President or the Secretary to the President would be better positioned to overcome the bureaucratic delays and institutional fragmentation that have hindered previous efforts.

Supun also stressed the urgent need to restore and protect elephant corridors and home ranges that allow elephants to move safely across landscapes.

He cited the Koholankala elephant corridor in Hambantota as one example where removing obstacles could help reduce conflict while improving habitat connectivity.

At the same time, Supun questioned policies that permit the allocation of forest lands in areas identified by environmental assessments as crucial elephant ranges and movement corridors.

“The opening of elephant corridors and the protection of elephant home ranges must be carried out scientifically and consistently if they are to succeed,” Supun said.

Beyond tourism, Supun emphasised the ecological importance of elephants.

“Elephants are ecosystem engineers. Through their feeding habits and movements, they help maintain habitats that support numerous other species. In many ways, they create safer and healthier environments for wildlife,” Supun said.

According to Supun, protecting elephants means protecting entire ecosystems and the biodiversity upon which Sri Lanka’s wildlife tourism industry depends.

“By protecting elephants, we are also protecting the biodiversity that makes Sri Lanka one of the world’s premier wildlife tourism destinations,” Supun said.

As Sri Lanka seeks to expand tourism earnings and strengthen its reputation as a wildlife destination, Supun believes the country faces a defining choice: continue with policies that have failed to stem elephant deaths and human-elephant conflict, or embrace a science-based conservation strategy that safeguards both people and wildlife.

Without a fundamental shift in policy and political will, Supun warned, Sri Lanka risks losing not only one of its most iconic species but also the ecological and economic benefits that elephants continue to provide.

“The suffering of both farmers and elephants will only intensify unless meaningful action replaces rhetoric,” Supun said.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Top Model of the World 2026

Published

9 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

Back-to-back victory for Colombia

Katherine Castaño of Colombia claimed the Top Model of the World 2026 crown, securing a historic back-to-back victory for her country. Angelica Sanchez of Puerto Rico was named first runner-up, and Eunice Deza of the Philippines finished as second runner-up.

Katherine was crowned by outgoing titleholder Natalia Garizabal Vera of Colombia.

Several special category awards, and subsidiary titles, were also presented during the Top Model of the World 2026 pageant.

These awards recognised excellence in modelling, peer support, and regional representation.

Primary Subsidiary Titles

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage: Top 16 at
the grand finale

Miss Globe 2026: Valentina Tabares (Ecuador) — Awarded to the contestant who perfectly balances fashion modelling with traditional beauty queen qualities.

Queen of Europe 2026: Mia Danielle Williams (United Kingdom) — Given to the highest-ranking candidate from a European nation.

Special Awards Recognition

Audience Iconic Award: Charly (Dominican Republic) — Won via the official public online vote, granting her a fast-track direct entry into the Top 6.

Exotic Model of the World: Angel Emeka (Nigeria) — Awarded for exceptional editorial presence and strong runway performance.

Best Body Award: Thailand — Voted directly by fellow contestants at the Flow Spectrum Hotel. The highest-ranking runners-up for this category included Zambia, South Africa, Colombia, and Ghana.

Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico): 1st Runner-up

Final Placement

Winner: Katherine Castaño (Colombia)

1st Runner-Up: Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico)

2nd Runner-Up: Eunice Deza (Philippines)

Top 6 Finalists: Included contestants from the Dominican Republic, Romania, and Germany.

The pageant, known for focusing on professional modelling careers over just beauty, brought together 36 models from around the globe for two weeks of runway, photoshoots, and cultural events.

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage walked among 36 of the world’s best and powered her way into the Top 16 at the grand finale.