Midweek Review

How former CID Chief Shani ended up in Geneva agenda and clampdown on Ranjan’s tapes

Published

5 years ago

2021/07/7

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Many eyebrows were raised when the Geneva-based UK Mission to the WTO, UN and other International Organizations recently referred to one-time Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Gnendra Shani Abeysekara.

In a brief statement, dated June 22, 2021, that dealt with Sri Lanka, the UK, on behalf of the literally self-appointed Sri Lanka Core Group (whether we like it or not), comprising Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Malawi, Montenegro and the UK, demanded the safety of Abeysekara. The grouping told the world: “We call for former CID director Shani Abeysekara’s safety to be ensured.”

The Geneva statement was made ahead of Abeysekara’s retirement. At the time Abeysekara retired on June 30, 2021, he was on bail having been arrested, in July 2020, in connection with the alleged fabrication of evidence against former DIG Vass Gunawardena and several others. The latter group had been arrested over the alleged abduction and killing of Mohammed Shyam, on May 22, 2013. Along with Abeysekara, the Appeal Court bench consisting of Justices Nissanka Bandula Karunaratne and R. Gurusinghe on June 16, 2021 also granted bail to former Sub Inspector of CID Sugath Mendis. Both were subjected to strict bail conditions.

Attorney-at-Law K.W. Janaranjana, the editor of Annidda, has meticulously dealt with the killing of Mohammed Shyam, investigations conducted by Abeysekara, the 2019 change of government, the probe taking a new turn, Abeysekara’s arrest and, finally, the Court of Appeal granting the former CID Director and SI Sugath Mendis bail. The full page article authored by the civil society activist, formerly with Ravaya, carried on its June 27, 2021 edition, is a must read.

The UK-led Core Group addressed the Abeysekara’s arrest, pertaining to the alleged fabrication of evidence. Yahapalana Justice Minister Thalatha Atukorale, too, called for an end to what she called persecution of Abeysekara. The Sri Lanka Core Group wouldn’t have taken up Abeysekara’s case in Geneva without being pushed by the Colombo-based civil society group. There had never been such a Western intervention on behalf of a law enforcement officer here, though there were intrusions by individual countries. Switzerland accommodating Abeysekara acolyte Chief Inspector Nishantha Silva and his family in its asylum programme is a case in point. CI Silva, accompanied by his family, left the country just over a week after the 2019 presidential election. Their departure to Switzerland paved the way for those who had been involved in the conspiracy to accuse newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government of abducting local Swiss Embassy employee, Francis Garnier, formerly Sriyalatha Perera.

The London headquartered Amnesty International, in late Nov 2020, expressed concerns over Abeysekara’s safety, in prison, after he was tested Covid-19 positive. According to the AI, the police officer who had been interdicted over alleged fabrication of evidence, in respect of Mohammed Shyam’s case, earned the wrath of the second Rajapaksa government for exposing human rights abuses implicating top politicians.

SC endorses HC ruling

One of the high profile cases, handled by Abeysekara, was the killing of four persons, including former lawmaker Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, who had been assigned to handle the UPFA trade union activity. The then Attorney General filed 17 indictments against 13 defendants for the murders of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, Damitha Darshana Jayathilake, Jalaldeen Mohamed Azeem and Manuel Kumaraswamy, on October 8, 2011, the day of the Local Government Elections, at Himbutana, Angoda. Following an extensive trial, High Court judges Padmini M. Ranawaka and M.T.B.S. Moraes (believed to be in Fiji as a judge) sentenced the defendants to death on Dec 8, 2016. However, the President of the trial-at-bar, Judge Shiran Gooneratne (now in the Supreme Court) disagreed. He acquitted 13 defendants from all charges filed against them whereas Judge Padmini Ranawaka, with Judge M.T.B.S. Moraes, agreeing, acquitted 08 of the 13 defendants from all charges.

At the time of the Himbutana incident, Duminda Silva had been Colombo District lawmaker and Monitoring MP for the Defence Ministry. The other Monitoring MP in that Rajapaksa administration was Sajin Vass Gunawardena, assigned to the Foreign Ministry.

The Supreme Court, on Oct 11, 2018, dismissed an appeal filed by Duminda Silva and the three others. The SC bench comprised five judges. Duminda Silva and the three other accuseds, filed an appeal against the death penalty imposed by the High Court on Dec 8, 2016. At the SC proceedings, the 01st accused, Police Constable Anura Thushara de Mel was acquitted of all charges by the bench consisting of the then Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Nalin Perera, Priyantha Jayawardena and Vijith Malalgoda. Thereby the SC reaffirmed the death penalty imposed on Duminda Silva, Srinayake Pathiranage, Chaminda Ravi Jayanath alias Dematagoda Chaminda and Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Sarath Bandara.

However, the releasing of audio tapes of conversations among Abeysekara (he hadn’t been appointed Director CID then), Deputy Minister of Social Empowerment Ranjan Ramanayake, the then High Court judge Mrs. Padmini Ranawaka and President Maithripala Sirisena, in the wake of the 2019 Presidential Election, sent shock waves through political parties, the judiciary, the police and the civil society. Controversy still surrounds the circumstances under which the police received the recordings, secretly made by Ramanayake. Selected tapes were released to both the print and electronic media. Social media prevented efforts to hush up the shocking revelations, pertaining to the Himbutana killings, and the subsequent judgment.

Those in authority conveniently refrained from conducting a proper investigation into the scandalous interventions made by Ramanayake, as well as the conduct of HC judge Mrs. Ranawaka, and Abeysekara, though the police recorded some statements, including that of Mrs. Ranawaka. Parliament, through a statement issued by its Director Department of Communication, Shan Wijetunga, explained its position. That statement dated Feb 7, 2021, based on the decisions taken by the Committee on Parliamentary Business, as regards Ramanayake’s tapes, is reproduced here: “The CDs containing the recorded telephone conversations which were handed over to the Hansard Department of Parliament by MP Ranjan Ramanayake was taken into a lengthy discussion during the Committee on Parliamentary Business held today (Feb. 07, 2021).

Accordingly, the Committee Members directed Parliament officials to submit the alleged CDs to the Speaker of Parliament, Karu Jayasuriya, to examine matters concerning national prejudice, insults directed at elite persons and words which are inconsistent with Parliament.

The Committee then decided that the Speaker should examine it further and take appropriate action. The decision to table the CDs and give access to the MPs was deferred for later consideration.”

Parliament never released the CDs. Karu Jayasuriya’s recent call to grant presidential pardon to Ramanayake should be examined against the backdrop of how Parliament responded to the disturbing revelations and the suppression of CDs.

Meeting press outside Temple Trees

Ramanayake got into trouble for a statement he made outside Temple Trees, on August 21, 2017, following a parliamentary group meeting of the then ruling party. A simmering controversy erupted over the leaked tapes in the wake of the Supreme Court sentencing Ramanayake on January 12, 2021. A three-judge bench, comprising Justices Sisira de Abrew, Vijith Malalgoda and Preethi Padman Surasena, sentenced Ramanayake to four years rigorous imprisonment after convicting him of contempt of court. The Attorney General filed the case following a complaint filed in the Supreme Court by Ranawaka Sunil Perera of 43/11, Walawwatta Road, Gangodawila, Nugegoda. The case has been in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

Ranawaka Sunil Perera moved the Supreme Court on the day after Ramanayake accused lawyers and judges of being corrupt.

Rasika Dissanayake, with Sandun Senadhipathi, appeared for the petitioner, on the instructions of Sanath Wijewardena, whereas Tamil National Alliance lawmaker M.A. Sumanthiran, PC, with Viran Corea and J.C. Thambiah, appeared for the respondent on the instructions of D. Vithanapathirana. Sarath Jayamanne PC ASG, with Suharshi Herath SSC, represented the Attorney-General.

But, interventions made by Ramanayake, throughout 2016, in respect of judgment in the Himbutana killings, had never been properly investigated, though Parliament, and the police, received the tapes well over a year ago. The bottom line is that the appalling disclosures in audio tapes had never been subjected to judicial proceedings.

Now Karu Jayasuriya, in his new capacity as the Chairperson of the NMSJ (National Movement for Social Justice), pioneered by the late Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha wants President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to pardon Ranjan Ramanayake, the way he freed Duminda Silva. Following the last parliamentary election, in August 2020, Prof Sarath Wijesuriya gave up the NMSJ leadership for Jayasuriya’s entry. Those who are genuinely interested in good governance and accountability should listen to those tapes and take tangible measures to conduct a thorough investigation into the whole affair. The conversations involving Abeysekara and Ramanayake, President Sirisena, Ramanayake and Judge Mrs. Ranawaka depict a pathetic situation.

Before the writer dealt with the leaked conversations, it would be pertinent to mention that Abeysekara received promotion to the rank of SSP on August 8, 2016, and appointed as Director, CID, in the first week of Sept 2017. Abeysekara served as CID Director till he received a transfer, on Nov 21, 2019, as Personal Assistant to DIG, Galle.

Did Ramanayake speak to High Court Judge Mrs. Ranawaka to influence the murder conviction against Duminda Silva, sans permission from the party leadership? Did the then top UNP leadership ask him to approach judges in respect of various cases? Ramanayaka is also on record phoning High Court judge Gihan Pilapitiya and Magistrate Dhammika Hemapala. Following the disclosure of a fraction of the tapes secretly recorded by Ramanayake, the police compiled statements from Mrs. Ranawaka (retired), Pilapitiya and Hemapala. Let me focus on the conversations involving Mrs. Ranawaka, Ramanayake, Abeysekara and President Sirisena (now SLPP Polonnaruwa district MP. Sirisena remains the SLFP leader).

How Prez’s intervention
sought for promotion

Mrs. Ranawaka had no qualms in declaring that she had no confidence in President Sirisena though she subsequently directly pleaded with him to promote her to the Court of Appeal. Mrs. Ranawaka expressed doubts about President Sirisena when Ramanayake phoned her on July 14, 2016, in the wake of Abeysekara expressing serious concerns over the way the Duminda Silva matter, and related issues, were being handled. Nearly two dozen conversations, involving Ramanayaka and Abeysekara, should be examined without taking them in isolation. According to conversations now in public domain, Mrs Ranawaka asked Ramanayaka to intervene on her behalf when the latter pressed her on the pending judgment on the Himbutana killings. The judge also made reference to the then lawmaker and Attorney-at-Law Ajith P. Perera during her conversation, initiated by Ramanayake. The way the conversation continued, clearly indicated that the call taken by Ramanayake, on July 14, 2016, couldn’t have been the first and they knew each other very well. Mrs. Ranawaka, obviously exploited Ramanayake’s intervention to explore the possibility of moving up the ladder with unbridled political patronage.

Let me stress that Ramanayake didn’t mince his words when he repeatedly sought assurances from Mrs Ranawaka and Abeysekara, in separate conversations, whether they were sure of a guilty verdict in respect of the Himbutana killings. Abeysekara repeatedly assured Ramanayake he was convinced of a guilty verdict. At one point, Abeysekara declared all three judges would take a common stand. Abeysekara had been so confident of the impending ruling, at one point he assured Ramanayake that he was 10,000 percent sure of the verdict. Abeysekara warned Ramanayake of dire consequences if he made any further direct interventions, particularly with Mrs. Ranawaka.

Abeysekara, however, pointed out to Ramanayake that calling Mrs Ranawaka was nothing but a mistake but he cut a sorry figure by pleading with the UNP Deputy Minister not to discuss the issue at hand with anyone, including President Sirisena. Ramanayake ignored Abeysekara’s advice.

After the three-member bench delivered judgment on the Himbutana killings, Ramanayake, on Sept 12, 2017, arranged for President Sirisena to talk with Mrs. Ranawaka. She unashamedly sought President Sirisena’s intervention to secure a promotion to the Court of Appeal. Having repeatedly assured good governance and accountability, the yahapalana grandees caused unprecedented turmoil. In the absence of a proper inquiry at any level, Ramanayake’s interventions in judicial matters were never dealt with.

In spite of Ramanayake’s deplorable conduct, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the breakaway faction of the UNP, had no misgivings in accommodating him on its Gampaha District list at the August 2020 General Election. The SJB cannot absolve itself of the UNP’s culpabilities, ranging from Treasury bond scams, perpetrated in Feb 2015 and March 2016, to failure to prevent the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, despite being forewarned with precise intelligence.

Former Speaker Karunaratne Jayasuriya, despite always being clad in immaculate lily white national attire, like most shrewd politicians, however failed to inquire into Ramanayake’s sordid vigilante type justice. What we should understand is that he is foremost a politician. Jayasuriya, one-time UNP Deputy Leader and a member of the 2015 UNP parliamentary group, was named the Speaker, therefore his actions/failures can be explained. However, the pathetic failure on the part of the SLPP to initiate an inquiry into the Ramanayake affair, nearly a year after the last general election, is an indication of the utterly irresponsible Parliament, where many a backroom deal is made.

All parties represented in Parliament, particularly the SLPP, and the SJB, with nearly 200 lawmakers in Parliament should take a clear stand on political interventions in judgments. Whatever the shortcomings, those drafting a new Constitution, at a great cost to the taxpayer, should do away with constitutional provisions in respect of presidential pardons and formulate a mechanism for judicial review of previous rulings in case of the emergence of fresh evidence. Presidential pardon shouldn’t be a ‘tool’ available for the executive, under any circumstances. Political parties should reach a consensus on the need to abolish the presidential pardon, as such powers make a mockery of democracy.

But, in the so-called greatest democracy, the USA, even if we leave aside the erratic and unscrupulous behaviour of President Trump and take for example the actions of President Obama, one of the darlings of the liberal media there, he pardoned nearly 2000 felons before he left office At least in the local instance of Duminda Silva, the presidential pardon managed to undo a grave injustice to a man, who was shot first in the head. So the President overturning his murder conviction for the other killings that took place after he was incapacitated, amidst shenanigans involving Ranjan Ramanayake, Shani Abeysekara and Judge Padmini Ranawaka, was the right thing to do.

The government should go for a thorough inquiry into Ramanayake’s tapes. Let us hope Parliament, without further delay, makes all tapes available to its members and takes tangible measures to facilitate no holds barred investigations. The way Abeysekara used Ramanayake to target Brigadier Suresh Salley of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) is evidence how all stakeholders exploited various situations to their advantage. Abeysekara wanted Ramanayake to set the stage for Salley’s removal. Whatever the circumstances, the then Premier Wickremesinghe unceremoniously removed Salley.

Perhaps, the Foreign Ministry should make available certified translations of all available telephone conversations among former High Court judge Padmini Ranawaka, retired SSP Shani Abeysekara, former lawmaker Ranjan Ramanayake and former President Maithripala Sirisena to members of Sri Lanka Core Group. The Foreign Ministry should seriously consider briefing the Core Group members, particularly the UK, Canada and Germany, to prevent them from further exploiting Abeysekara’s case.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

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

Published

14 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

14 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