Features

Errant politicians, voodoo economists and the verdict of learned judges

Published

2 years ago

2023/11/24

by Chandre Dharmawardana
chandre.dharma@yahoo.ca

The Supreme Court has ruled (with one dissenting against four assenting voices) on 14^th November 2023 that three members of the Rajapaksa family, including two former Presidents and a coterie of their close officials were responsible for the country’s worst economic crisis that ended in bankruptcy.

The petition by civil society activists and NGOs named the current President, Ranil Wickremesinghe as the 1^st respondent, while the respondent no. 32A was Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of Pangiriwatte Rd, Mirihana.

Ajith Cabraal, P. B. Jayasundara and other mandarins with murky reputations were found guilty, while academics and economists like Prof. Lakshman learnt that those who lie with the hounds are condemned to contract their fleas.

We consider two aspects of the petition in the following.

· It was claimed that the petitioners were not challenging the policy of the government in these proceedings, but they were challenging the “illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious executive and or administrative actions and or inactions”, … arising from arbitrary and/or capricious decisions, by the executive and/or administrative branches of the Government. It is contended that the respondents breached the ‘public trust’ reposed in them.

· Petitioners claimed that a series of capricious decisions taken by these politicians and their officials, including the decisions to revise taxes, artificially control the exchange rate, failure to contain the depletion of reserves, failure to promptly seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the failure to optimally adjust interest rates were the main causes for this economic collapse.

When the learned judges concluded that these ministers and their mandarins were pursuing “illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious executive and or administrative actions and or inactions”, this can only resonate positively with the vast majority of Sri Lankans, as they themselves would have already come to that conclusion through their everyday experience.

However, it is the duty of the opposition to have highlighted these matters in Parliament, and exposed them through political, civil and judicial action. When Nanayakkara, Weerawansa and Gammanpila split off from the Rajapaksa-dominated cabinet in protest over signing of midnight deals and other shenanigans, they unwittingly triggered a process that was in sync with the Farmers’ Protests against the arbitrary banning of fertilisers, lack of gasoline and cooking fuel. So, it is surprising that the petitioners did not name as respondents some of the lethargic leaders of the opposition parties, and MPs who do not even attend parliament.

It is equally surprising that the petitioners did not indict the well-known architects of “Toxin-Free Lanka” who had paved the way for the collapse of the agriculture sector with the 2015 ban on glyphosate (weed killer) by the Sirisena administration, with the ban extended to all agrochemicals by Gotabhaya in 2021. The Aragalaya had in fact indicted all 225 MPs and demanded their demise.

The second aspect of the petition, covering economic strategies in regard to taxation, exchange rates, reserve funds, and the IMF constitute an epistemological conundrum since at least the time of Hammurabi.

While there was a “classical period” when people believed that economics can be made into a reliable science where predictions are possible, today we understand that economic systems are complex systems which may be fully deterministic and computable, but beyond prediction. Henri Poincare showed, towards the end of the 19^th century that even perfectly well-defined simple systems subject to many interactions (even just three agents) were beyond prediction even though fully determined. This insight, known to mathematicians and physicists was finally applied to economic systems by von Neumann and others in the context of chaos theory, in the latter half of the 20th century.

If we are to go with the observations of the Nobel Laureate von Hayek (see his Nobel-prize address), or the mathematician von Mises, economic prediction is a bit like predicting the outcome of a football match or a game of cricket. Even if we had all the details of the players, the state of the grounds, coaches etc., the outcome is technically unpredictable although a good educated guess may be possible.

So, even with a vast array of the very best computers, and with the cream of economists at his beck and call, Allen Greenspan, then head of the US Federal Reserve bank had to admit that their team did not foresee the 2008 Economic collapse of Western economies. In fact, just a week prior to the collapse, Greenspan had given a clean bill of health to the US economy. Arguably, the Fed’s easy money policy of the early 2000s ultimately led to the 2007-2008 economic crisis, largely regarded as the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression. However, no one has petitioned against Greenspan. (See Fig. 01)

Just as the economic collapse in the US in 2008 may have roots going back to a decade, even the economic collapse of Sri Lanka must be viewed within a time frame longer than the period chosen by the petitioners in their submission to the supreme court.

In Figure 1 we show the evolution of Sri Lanka’s reserve coverage from 1950 to 2020. It is clear that the country was in the red already from 2010, and already too close to call since 1998. The sharp kink in 2008, coinciding with the Western economic collapse under Greenspan was followed by a period in Sri Lanka where the country’s reserve coverage went from bad to worse.

Availability of energy is the key factor determining economic and social evolution – a fact mostly ignored by social theorists who focus on chimeras like the class struggle, globalization or “industrialisation”. Industrialisation needs energy. A small country like Sri Lanka, importing fuel and even foodstuffs that it can grow in the country is captive to global fluctuations in trade that are beyond its control. Sri Lanka has to, and it can, generate most of its energy needs (see: Partitioning water between agriculture and hydro-power to maximise Sri Lanka’s clean energy output, Island 12-08-21). It can also achieve self-sufficiency in food.

This “home-grown” solution itself cannot be achieved to modern levels of sophistication without external inputs. Hence, Sri Lanka must also promote and invite foreign capital and investments. The country has been in the red since at least 2010. The Colombo Port City (CPC) project that was to infuse a large amount of forex into the country via the Chinese Belt Road initiative was converted into a disaster by Sri Lanka’s leaders bent on undermining the good works of each other.

It was during this “in the red” period (March 2011) that the CPC project was initiated under Mahinda Rajapaksa, with Xi Jinping himself visiting Sri Lanka, with a 15-billion-dollar budget. In addition, extensive investment complementing the Chinese-funded Hambantota harbour was envisaged. The international ambience was such that Western companies were investing in Chinese projects. There were immense prospects of a much-needed forex inflow into the country. The Western Province, the most dynamic regional entity in the country would have seen an immense efflorescence, synergizing the other neighbouring provinces if the full CPC had gone according to plan. Indonesia has successfully followed such a whole-hog “Chinese-Belt-Road” policy even though it has to face the full brunt of the China-US Pacific region’s power-play.

Unfortunately, the Yahapalanaya government of 2015 abruptly stopped the CPC as well as developments in the Hambantota port. Self-styled environmentalists claimed dire consequences from the CPC, although they have not garnered supporting environmental data even to date. Any confidence that investors would have had in coming to Sri Lanka evaporated with the capricious and politically short-sighted actions of the Yahapalanaya government, even though some of its leaders was committed to an extreme Ayan-Randian pro-trade policy.

Although the CPC and the Hambantota project were resumed, after paying large amounts of compensation in forex, and under terms less favourable to Sri Lanka, foreign-investor confidence remained shattered. Interestingly, it was during this period that Sri Lanka took upon itself large international sovereign-bond (ISB) loans. Meanwhile, President Sirisena initiated a 52-day coup that further shattered investor confidence. The ISB loans became critical factors in debilitating the yet-to-come Gotabhaya government with its inept finance ministers who believed that wheeler-dealing would always work. (See Fig. 02)

The reserve coverage continued to fall under the Yahapalanaya, as seen in Fig. 1. The purchase of ISGs continued without care, as seen in Figure. 2. Although the New York Times had invented the hypothesis of a “Chinese debt trap”, it is clear that the ISGs were the biggest debt burden of the Island nation. If civil society activists had gone before the supreme court and indicted the then President (Sirisena), and the then Prime Minister (Ranil Wickremasinghe) for their capricious and arbitrary actions, what would have been the verdict?

Decisions to “print money”, raise or lower taxes, and other tricks belong to the grey area of voodoo economics. A banker can “create money” by a mere book entry and lend it to an investor. The banker is betting on the future being rosy and recovering the money with interest! A central banker may lower taxes betting that it will help promote business and hence reap more tax revenue in the future. But what if this expected rosy future fails to arrive? What if an epidemic arrives, as actually happened in 2019?

Can a small nation entirely in the hands of wildly fluctuating global trade go gambling when its reserve holdings are themselves in the red? A country like the USA can get away with “just printing money” and such Voodoo economics; its currency is under-pinned in myriad ways including being the “petro-dollar”. Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan government threw caution to the winds and set sail on Voodoo economics. The Learned judges have rightly recognized this in their verdict.

The petitioners had indicted the respondents for not going to the IMF soon enough. However, as far as the present writer could ascertain, there was no national consensus of any sort in going to the IMF. The parliamentary debates show that no political leader, either in the government or in the opposition, clearly and unequivocally proposed that Sri Lanka should forth-with seek IMF assistance. Instead, we see much brave and resounding sovereignty statements where the IMF is presented (with good reason) as the mother of disaster capitalism and the harbinger of fire-sales of the assets of the country.

The degree of success obtained by the Wickremasinghe government in obtaining aid from the IMF is unlikely to have been achieved by the Rajapaksa regime that had no effective friends in Washington, Paris or Tokyo, while being hounded by the UN Huma-Rights secretariate under pressure from the US, Canada and UK with their large diasporas hostile to the Rajapaksas.

The regime had deeply angered its friendly Muslim Nations by its refusal of burials to Muslims who died of Covid. The unsubstantiated fear-mongering against burials was done by the very academics and medics who had pushed organic agriculture, claiming that agrochemicals are toxins fed to Sri Lankans since the 1970s. Not surprisingly, the Rajapaksa regime had to beg bilateral emergency help form Sri Lanka’s neighbours.

Availability of energy is the key to development. The first step in “saving Sri Lanka” is to achieve energy sovereignty using (a) its vast extent of aquatic bodies that can be used for floating solar installations while also conserving water; (b) cultivating fast-growing non-edible oil-producing plants like Castor for use as diesel and other fuels, and developing bio- and wind energy; (c) boosting Sri Lanka’s very low investment in higher education and research sharply; (d) following evidence-based science advise and rejecting eco-extremism and occult pseudoscience .

As energy becomes available, the corresponding Forex savings can be used for industrial and technical developments, with emphasis on agricultural, mineral and microbial techniques rather than highly capital-intensive technologies. Fast electric trains should take priority over highways for cars. The constitution has to be changed so that the public is not forced to select MPs from the same lists of corrupt candidates fielded by the leading parties. This Gordian knot of stale candidates can be broken by using the model of sortition to choose at least half the MPs, as discussed elsewhere.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:economists Gotabhaya Rajapaksa Judges Ranil Wickremesinghe

Up Next

VISUAL PARAPHRASES of SARATH CHANDRAJEEWA

Don't Miss

Contrasts in the House by the Diyawanna; glimmer of hope

Click to comment

Features

The Venezuela Model:The new ugly and dangerous world order

Published

2 days ago

2026/01/9

Thilina Walpola

The US armed forces invading Venezuela, removing its President Nicolás Maduro from power and abducting him and his wife Cilia Flores on 3 January 2026, flying them to New York and producing Maduro in a New York kangaroo court is now stale news, but a fact. What is a far more potent fact is the pan-global impotent response to this aggression except in Latin America, China, Russia and a few others.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro described the attack as an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America, thereby portraying the aggression as an assault on the whole of Latin America. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva referred to the attack as crossing “an unacceptable line” that set an “extremely dangerous precedent.” Again, one can see his concern goes beyond Venezuela. For Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum the attack was in “clear violation” of the UN Charter, which again is a fact. But when it comes to powerful countries, the UN Charter has been increasingly rendered irrelevant over decades, and by extension, the UN itself. For the French Foreign Minister, the operation went against the “principle of non-use of force that underpins international law” and that lasting political solutions cannot be “imposed by the outside.” UN Secretary General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” about the “dangerous precedent” the United States has set where rules of international law were not being respected. Russia, notwithstanding its bloody and costly entanglement in Ukraine, and China have also issued strong statements.

Comparatively however, many other countries, many of whom are long term US allies who have been vocal against the Russian aggression in Ukraine have been far more sedate in their reaction. Compared to his Foreign Minister, French President Emmanuel Macron said the Venezuelan people could “only rejoice” at the ousting of Maduro while the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz believed Maduro had “led his country into ruin” and that the U.S. intervention required “careful consideration.” The British and EU statements have been equally lukewarm. India’s and Sri Lanka’s statements do not even mention the US while Sri Lanka’s main coalition partner the JVP has issued a strongly worded statement.

Taken together, what is lacking in most of these views, barring a negligible few, especially from the so-called powerful countries, is the moral indignation or outrage on a broad scale that used to be the case in similar circumstances earlier. It appears that a new ugly and dangerous world order has finally arrived, footprints of which have been visible for some time.

It is not that the US has not invaded sovereign countries and affected regime change or facilitated such change for political or economic reasons earlier. This has been attempted in Cuba without success since the 1950s but with success in Chile in 1973 under the auspices of Augusto Pinochet that toppled the legitimate government of president Salvador Allende and established a long-lasting dictatorship friendly towards the US; the invasion of Panama and the ouster and capture of President Manuel Noriega in 1989 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq both of which were conducted under the presidency of George Bush.

These are merely a handful of cross border criminal activities against other countries focused on regime change that the US has been involved in since its establishment which also includes the ouster of President of Guyana Cheddi Jagan in 1964, the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 stop the return of President Juan Bosch to prevent a ‘communist resurgence’; the 1983 US invasion of Grenada after the overthrow and killing of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop purportedly to ensure that the island would not become a ‘Soviet-Cuban’ colony. A more recent adventure was the 2004 removal and kidnapping of the Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which also had French support.

There is however a difference between all the earlier examples of US aggression and the Venezuelan operation. The earlier operations where the real reasons may have varied from political considerations based on ideological divergence to crude economics, were all couched in the rhetoric of democracy. That is, they were undertaken in the guise of ushering democratic changes in those countries, the region or the world irrespective of the long-term death and destruction which followed in some locations. But in Venezuela under President Donald Trump, it is all about controlling natural resources in that country to satisfy US commercial interests.

The US President is already on record for saying the US will “run” Venezuela until a “safe transition” is concluded and US oil companies will “go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money” – ostensibly for the US and those in Venezuela who will tag the US line. Trump is also on record saying that the main aim of the operation was to regain U.S. oil rights, which according to him were “stolen” when Venezuela nationalized the industry. The nationalization was obviously to ensure that the funds from the industry remained in the country even though in later times this did lead to massive internal corruption.

Let’s be realistic. Whatever the noise of the new rhetoric is, this is not about ‘developing’ Venezuela for the benefit of its people based on some unknown streak of altruism but crudely controlling and exploiting its natural assets as was the case with Iraq. As crude as it is, one must appreciate Trump’s unintelligent honesty stemming from his own unmitigated megalomania. Whatever US government officials may say, the bottom line is the entire operation was planned and carried out purely for commercial and monetary gain while the pretext was Maduro being ‘a narco-terrorist.’ There is no question that Maduro was a dictator who was ruining his own country. But there is also no question that it is not the business of the US or any other country to decide what his or Venezuela’s fate is. That remains with the Venezuelan people.

What is dangerous is, the same ‘narco-terrorist’ rhetoric can also be applied to other Latin American countries such as Columbia, Brazil and Mexico which also produce some of the narcotics that come into the US consumer markets. The response should be not to invade these countries to stem the flow, but to deal with the market itself, which is the US. In real terms what Trump has achieved with his invasion of Venezuela for purely commercial gain and greed, followed by the abject silence or lukewarm reaction from most of the world, is to create a dangerous and ugly new normal for military actions across international borders. The veneer of democracy has also been dispensed with.

The danger lies in the fact that this new doctrine or model Trump has devised can similarly be applied to any country whose resources or land a powerful megalomaniac leader covets as long as he has unlimited access to military assets of his country, backed by the dubius remnants of the political and social safety networks, commonsense and ethics that have been conveniently dismantled. This is a description of the present-day United States too. This danger is boosted when the world remains silent. After the success of the Venezuela operation, Trump has already upended his continuing threats to annex Greenland because “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” Greenland too is not about security, but commerce given its vast natural resources.

Hours after Venezuela, Trump threatened the Colombian President Gustavo Petro to “watch his ass.” In the present circumstances, Canadians also would not have forgotten Trump’s threat earlier in 2025 to annex Canada. But what the US President and his current bandwagon replete with arrogance and depleted intelligence would not understand is, beyond the short-term success of the Venezuela operation and its euphoria, the dangerous new normal they have ushered in would also create counter threats towards the US, the region and the world in a scale far greater than what exists today. The world will also become a far less safe place for ordinary American citizens.

More crucially, it will also complicate global relations. It would no longer be possible for the mute world leaders to condemn Russian action in Ukraine or if China were to invade Taiwan. The model has been created by Trump, and these leaders have endorsed it. My reading is that their silence is not merely political timidity, but strategic to their own national and self-interest, to see if the Trump model could be adopted in other situations in future if the fallout can be managed.

The model for the ugly new normal has been created and tested by Trump. Its deciding factors are greed and dismantled ethics. It is now up to other adventurers to fine tune it. We would be mere spectators and unwitting casualties.

Features

Beyond the beauty: Hidden risks at waterfalls

Published

2 days ago

2026/01/9

Thilina Walpola

Bambarakanda waterfall. Image courtesy LANKA EXCURSIONS HOLIDAYS

Sri Lanka is blessed with a large number of scenic waterfalls, mainly concentrated in the central highlands. These natural features substantially enhance the country’s attractiveness to tourists. Further, these famous waterfalls equally attract thousands of local visitors throughout the year.

While waterfalls offer aesthetic appeal, a serene environment, and recreational opportunities, they also pose a range of significant hazards. Unfortunately, the visitors are often unable to identify these different types of risks, as site-specific safety information and proper warning signs are largely absent. In most locations, only general warnings are displayed, often limited to the number of past fatalities. This can lead visitors to assume that bathing is the sole hazard, which is not the case. Therefore, understanding the full range of waterfall-related risks and implementing appropriate safety measures is essential for preventing loss of life. This article highlights site-specific hazards to raise public awareness and prevent people from putting their lives at risk due to these hidden dangers.

Flash floods and resultant water surges

Flash floods are a significant hazard in hill-country waterfalls. According to the country’s topography, most of the streams originate from the catchments in the hilly areas upstream of the waterfalls. When these catchments receive intense rainfalls, the subsequent runoff will flow down as flash floods. This will lead to an unexpected rise in the flow of the waterfall, increasing the risk of drowning and even sweeping away people. Therefore, bathing at such locations is extremely dangerous, and those who are even at the river banks have to be vigilant and should stay away from the stream as much as possible. The Bopath Ella, Ravana Ella, and a few waterfalls located in the Belihul Oya area, closer to the A99 road, are classic examples of this scenario.

Water currents

The behaviour of water in the natural pool associated with the waterfall is complex and unpredictable. Although the water surface may appear calm, strong subsurface currents and hydraulic forces exist that even a skilled swimmer cannot overcome. Hence, a person who immerses confidently may get trapped inside and disappear. Water from a high fall accelerates rapidly, forming hydraulic jumps and vortices that can trap swimmers or cause panic. Hence, bathing in these natural pools should be totally avoided unless there is clear evidence that they are safe.

Slipping risks

Slipping is a common hazard around waterfalls. Sudden loss of footing can lead to serious injuries or fatal falls into deep pools or rock surfaces. The area around many waterfalls consists of steep, slippery rocks due to moisture and the growth of algae. Sometimes, people are overconfident and try to climb these rocks for the thrill of it and to get a better view of the area. Further, due to the presence of submerged rocks, water depths vary in the natural pool area, and there is a chance of sliding down along slippery rocks into deep water. Waterfalls such as Diyaluma, Bambarakanda, and Ravana Falls are likely locations for such hazards, and caution around these sites is a must.

Rockfalls

Rockfalls are a significant hazard around waterfalls in steep terrains. Falling rocks can cause serious injuries or fatalities, and smaller stones may also be carried by fast-flowing water. People bathing directly beneath waterfalls, especially smaller ones, are therefore exposed to a high risk of injury. Accordingly, regardless of the height of the waterfall, bathing under the falling water should be avoided.

Hypothermia and cold shock

Hypothermia is a drop in body temperature below 35°C due to cold exposure. This leads to mental confusion, slowed heartbeat, muscle stiffening, and even cardiac arrest may follow. Waterfalls in Nuwara Eliya district often have very low water temperatures. Hence, immersing oneself in these waters is dangerous, particularly for an extended period.

Human negligence

Additional hazards also arise from visitors’ own negligence. Overcrowding at popular waterfalls significantly increases the risk of accidents, including slips and falls from cliffs. Sometimes, visitors like to take adventurous photographs in dangerous positions. Reckless behavior, such as climbing over barriers, ignoring warning signs, or swimming in prohibited zones, amplifies the risk.

Mitigation and safety

measures

Mitigation of waterfall-related hazards requires a combination of public awareness, engineering solutions, and policy enforcement. Clear warning signs that indicate the specific hazards associated with the water fall, rather than general hazard warnings, must be fixed. Educating visitors verbally and distributing bills that include necessary guidelines at ticket counters, where applicable, will be worth considering. Furthermore, certain restrictions should vary depending on the circumstances, especially seasonal variation of water flow, existing weather, etc.

Physical barriers should be installed to prevent access to dangerous areas by fencing. A viewing platform can protect people from many hazards discussed above. For bathing purposes, safer zones can be demarcated with access facilities.

Installing an early warning system for heavily crowded waterfalls like Bopath Ella, which is prone to flash floods, is worth implementing. Through a proper mechanism, a warning system can alert visitors when the upstream area receives rainfall that may lead to flash floods in the stream.

At present, there are hardly any officials to monitor activities around waterfalls. The local authorities that issue tickets and collect revenue have to deploy field officers to these waterfalls sites for monitoring the activities of visitors. This will help reduce not only accidents but also activities that cause environmental pollution and damage. We must ensure that these natural treasures remain a source of wonder rather than danger.

(The writer is a chartered Civil Engineer specialising in water resources engineering)

By Eng. Thushara Dissanayake ✍️

Features

From sacred symbol to silent victim: Sri Lanka’s elephants in crisis

Published

2 days ago

2026/01/9

Thilina Walpola

The year 2025 began with grim news. On 1st January, a baby elephant was struck and killed by a train in Habarana, marking the start of a tragic series of elephant–train collisions that continued throughout the year. In addition to these incidents, the nation mourned the deaths of well-known elephants such as Bathiya and Kandalame Hedakaraya, among many others. As the year drew on, further distressing reports emerged, including the case of an injured elephant that was burnt with fire, an act of extreme cruelty that ultimately led to its death. By the end of the year, Sri Lanka recorded the highest number of elephant deaths in Asia.

This sorrowful reality stands in stark contrast to Sri Lanka’s ancient spiritual heritage. Around 250 BCE, at Mihintale, Arahant Mahinda delivered the Cūḷahatthipadopama Sutta (The Shorter Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint) to King Devanampiyatissa, marking the official introduction of Buddhism to the island. The elephant, a symbol deeply woven into this historic moment, was once associated with wisdom, restraint, and reverence.

Yet the recent association between Mihintale and elephants has been anything but noble. At Mihintale an elephant known as Ambabo, already suffering from a serious injury to his front limb due to human–elephant conflict (HEC), endured further cruelty when certain local individuals attempted to chase him away using flaming torches, burning him with fire. Despite the efforts of wildlife veterinary surgeons, Ambabo eventually succumbed to his injuries. The post-mortem report confirmed severe liver and kidney impairment, along with extensive trauma caused by the burns.

Was prevention possible?

The question that now arises is whether this tragedy could have been prevented.

To answer this, we must examine what went wrong.

When Ambabo first sustained an injury to his forelimb, he did receive veterinary treatment. However, after this initial care, no close or continuous monitoring was carried out. This lack of follow-up is extremely dangerous, especially when an injured elephant remains near human settlements. In such situations, some individuals may attempt to chase, harass, or further harm the animal, without regard for its condition.

A similar sequence of events occurred in the case of Bathiya. He was initially wounded by a trap gun—devices generally intended for poaching bush meat rather than targeting elephants. Following veterinary treatment, his condition showed signs of improvement. Tragically, while he was still recovering, he was shot a second time behind the ear. This second wound likely damaged vital nerves, including the vestibular nerve, which plays a critical role in balance, coordination of movement, gaze stabilisation, spatial orientation, navigation, and trunk control. In effect, the second shooting proved far more devastating than the first.

After Bathiya received his initial treatment, he was left without proper protection due to the absence of assigned wildlife rangers. This critical gap in supervision created the opportunity for the second attack. Only during the final stages of his suffering were the 15th Sri Lanka Artillery Regiment, the 9th Battalion of the Sri Lanka National Guard, and the local police deployed—an intervention that should have taken place much earlier.

Likewise, had Ambabo been properly monitored and protected after his injury, it is highly likely that his condition would not have deteriorated to such a tragic extent.

It should also be mentioned that when an injured animal like an elephant is injured, the animal will undergo a condition that is known as ‘capture myopathy’. It is a severe and often fatal condition that affects wild animals, particularly large mammals such as elephants, deer, antelope, and other ungulates. It is a stress-induced disease that occurs when an animal experiences extreme physical exertion, fear, or prolonged struggle during capture, restraint, transport, or pursuit by humans. The condition develops when intense stress causes a surge of stress hormones, leading to rapid muscle breakdown. This process releases large amounts of muscle proteins and toxins into the bloodstream, overwhelming vital organs such as the kidneys, heart, and liver. As a result, the animal may suffer from muscle degeneration, dehydration, metabolic acidosis, and organ failure. Clinical signs of capture myopathy include muscle stiffness, weakness, trembling, incoordination, abnormal posture, collapse, difficulty breathing, dark-coloured urine, and, in severe cases, sudden death. In elephants, the condition can also cause impaired trunk control, loss of balance, and an inability to stand for prolonged periods. Capture myopathy can appear within hours of a stressful event or may develop gradually over several days. So, if the sick animal is harassed like it happened to Ambabo, it does only make things worse. Unfortunately, once advanced symptoms appear, treatment is extremely difficult and survival rates are low, making prevention the most effective strategy.

What needs to be done?

Ambabo’s harassment was not an isolated incident; at times injured elephants have been subjected to similar treatment by local communities. When an injured elephant remains close to human settlements, it is essential that wildlife officers conduct regular and continuous monitoring. In fact, it should be made mandatory to closely observe elephants in critical condition for a period even after treatment has been administered—particularly when they remain in proximity to villages. This approach is comparable to admitting a critically ill patient to a hospital until recovery is assured.

At present, such sustained monitoring is difficult due to the severe shortage of staff in the Department of Wildlife Conservation. Addressing this requires urgent recruitment and capacity-building initiatives, although these solutions cannot be realised overnight. In the interim, it is vital to enlist the support of the country’s security forces. Their involvement is not merely supportive—it is essential for protecting both wildlife and people.

To mitigate HEC, a Presidential Committee comprising wildlife specialists developed a National Action Plan in 2020. The strategies outlined in this plan were selected for their proven effectiveness, adaptability across different regions and timeframes, and cost-efficiency. The process was inclusive, incorporating extensive consultations with the public and relevant authorities. If this Action Plan is fully implemented, it holds strong potential to significantly reduce HEC and prevent tragedies like the suffering endured by Ambabo. In return it will also benefit villagers living in those areas.

In conclusion, I would like to share the wise words of Arahant Mahinda to the king, which, by the way, apply to every human being:

O’ great king, the beasts that roam the forest and birds that fly the skies have the same right to this land as you. The land belongs to the people and to all other living things, and you are not its owner but only its guardian.

by Tharindu Muthukumarana ✍️
tharinduele@gmail.com
(Author of the award-winning book “The Life of Last Proboscideans: Elephants”)