Connect with us

Features

Is ‘Knowing’ everything?

Published

on

by Panduka Karunanayake

The current fluid situation in the country has brought into focus some fundamental issues, as well. Ordinarily, in the midst of pressing problems, like what we are experiencing, it is customary to push fundamental issues to the back seat. But, it is exactly because such issues have been sidelined, in the past, that we have had to arrive in this sorry state today. In addition, in an extremely fluid and uncertain situation, such as this, the only stable and reliable position that remains for us to make decisions from is, in fact, with fundamentals.

In this essay, I wish to focus on a fundamental issue: the relationship between knowledge and expertise, on the one hand, and the societal weal on the other. This relationship came into sharp focus, in my mind, when I saw a social media posting, by one of my academic colleagues. Let me first anonymise the academic (after all, it is not only he who thinks like this) and quote the Google translation of a part of his posting:

“Everyone knows everything there is to know. Everyone can express things. There are also necessary media for that. Who are we? What do we need? No one can make monopoly decisions about, etc. Therefore, there is no democracy more than this. What is needed now is to make maximum use of that democracy.”

This argument implies that because we live in the Digital Age, where knowledge is distributed very democratically, decision-making by the ordinary citizen is at a level close to, if not identical to, that of the expert. It suggests that the next step is to discover an optimum governance mechanism. At its core is the suggestion that the time has come to supplant the expert with the knowledgeable citizen.

What is fundamentally wrong in this argument?

‘Knowing’ and ‘understanding’

‘Knowing’ is not everything. When we were schoolchildren, in the 1970s, we heard this explained to us clearly by Dr E.W. Adikaram, who made a distinction between දැනුම (‘knowing’) and අවබෝධය (‘understanding’). He pointed out that the task of education should be giving us the latter, not the former. But somehow, we seem to have forgotten (or ignored) that advice. This distinction is also seen in Albert Einstein’s famous quip that education is what is left when we have forgotten what we had learnt – අවබෝධය (‘understanding’) remains while දැනුම (‘knowing’) is forgotten with time.

The crucial point is this. The wide dissemination of knowledge that is seen in today’s Digital Age, by itself, actually promotes only ‘knowing’. We can do an Internet search and find any knowledge we want, and once we have got it, we can say that we ‘know it’ – seemingly, just like the expert. But there is a significant gap between this ‘knowing’ and the ‘understanding’ that is possessed by those who have studied this same quantum of knowledge, more systematically and in depth.

Such persons study this knowledge in relation to other quanta of knowledge, so that they are aware of a more whole, interconnected and integrated existence of the discrete quantum of knowledge. For instance, they then see not only that quantum, but also its origins, applications, limitations, fallacies and fallibilities, as well as how it is connected to the broader map of knowledge.

Of course, there are nowadays also the democratic distribution of learning experiences, too, such as open-access online courses. These would certainly give someone a much better view of the subject than a discrete webpage, but I would still caution, and point out the significant journey from knowing something to fully understanding it.

One clear indication of ‘understanding’ is the ability of the person, who possesses the knowledge, to apply it in different, seemingly unrelated situations. It is, in fact, this very point that is nowadays used by prestigious universities, overseas, when selecting students for their undergraduate courses – rather than the old-fashioned measures of superficial ‘knowing’, such as what we still mostly use here.

‘Understanding’ and ‘doing’

While there is a distinction between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’, our intellectual growth does not stop even there.

There is a whole heap of difference between merely ‘understanding’ and ‘doing’ something with that understanding. That is because understanding occurs strictly in the cognitive domain, while applying it to actually do something requires an engagement with the real world. That requires a lot more – things that remain implicit in the real world around us, which are abstracted only to a limited extent when they are written down as ‘knowledge’.

In the past, acquiring these real-life capabilities have been given terms, like ‘skills’, ‘experience’, ‘common sense’, ‘wisdom’ and so on. A more recent practice is to categorise them also as forms of knowledge (i.e., procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge). These weave together, as a person tries to translate an idea into action, and if the person succeeds, we say that this has created ‘functioning knowledge’. Naturally, only a very limited portion of this is found in books or Internet sources, and ‘knowing’ and even ‘understanding’ are thus only a very small part of what constitutes the intellect of a person who can actually do something in real-life situations.

‘Doing’ and ‘critiquing’

Even this is not the full story. All these steps – knowing, understanding, doing – are part of generally ‘how things are’, and not necessarily ‘how things should be’. One of the most important aspects of an academic’s or intellectual’s work is evaluating this ‘things as they are’ and providing a detached, dispassionate critique of it. More conventional terms used to describe this function are ‘critical thinking’ and ‘discourse analysis’. We would expect the academic or intellectual to harness his or her extensive knowledge of the subject with regard to past events, current trends and future possibilities; to then reflect deeply, imagine alternatives and weigh their pros and cons; and to tell us how we can ‘do things better’. This is the whole process that we call (or should call) ‘research’, ‘innovation’, ‘development’, ‘creativity’, etc.

This is the full spectrum of how the human mind works as it progressively becomes more functional and efficacious: knowing, understanding, doing and critiquing. The process of education, from primary to post-doctoral, should be designed with this in mind.

Enter ‘the expert’

There are two types of expertise. The first is routine expertise, which is the ability to carry out a certain task repetitively with a minimum amount of error. It is built by systematic learning with feedback, assiduous practice and extensive experience. The second is adaptive expertise, which is the ability to face new and unprecedented situations where there are little or no known standard procedures (and thus no routine expertise) and come up with innovative solutions that provide a way out. It is built, in addition to the above, by reflective practice and experience in innovative and creative behaviours.

It is not hard to see that in recent years, we have had the need for adaptive expertise – with both the COVID-19 pandemic and the current crisis. They have called upon our doctors, businesspersons, economists, etc., with adaptive expertise, to come forward and do what they know best.

Such past unprecedented events, in our country, led to complete transformations of society, leading to better times (albeit, after decades of effort): e.g., the 1870s coffee blight and the devastating malaria epidemic of 1934-35. Those were examples of (British) adaptive expertise in action.

The ‘knowledgeable’ citizen

The citizen who now shuns expertise is a person who thinks that, because he (or she) has access to knowledge, he has already ‘jumped’ from ‘knowing’ to ‘critiquing’ and that there is no difference between him and the expert. One should avoid jumping into this bandwagon. One should also take care not to throw the expert out in a hurried attempt to throw the politician out.

We cannot build a better governing system using people who lack ‘understanding’ and expertise, notwithstanding any level of ‘knowing’ that they might possess thanks to the Digital Age. We must keep these fundamentals in mind when we explore questions, such as the place of democracy or the value of a constitution, the notion that the gap between people and experts has narrowed, that people can decide for themselves, and so on.

Our post-Independence history is a litany of how our experts failed to produce a beneficial effect in Sri Lanka while contributing to the building of other nations. The solution is to overcome the blocks to this that have existed until now – rather than shunning expertise. We need more expertise, not less.

(The writer teaches in the University of Colombo, where he is currently the Director of the Staff Development Centre. He acknowledges the mentoring of Professor Suki Ekaratne in developing many of these ideas; Professor Ekaratne founded the country’s first SDC, 25 years ago.)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Playing blind man’s bluff with tariff man

Published

on

President Trump unleashing the tariff tsunami

While the whole world was waiting anxiously for President Donald J. Trump, a self- proclaimed “tariff man”, to present his plan for “reciprocal tariffs” on his “Liberation Day”, an American commentator Jon Stewart declared on “The Weekly Show” podcast that he knew what “Donald Trump’s whole plan” was. Since Trump was elected, I have been closely following the developments in Washington but didn’t come across any other such claims. Yet, I was not surprised by Jon Stewart’s claim because he is a highly paid comedian and his podcast was recorded on the day before President Trump unveiled his plan. But now I know Jon Stewart was not the only person who knew how Trump’s plan for “reciprocal tariffs” would unfold. Most of our politicians (other than those in the government) had known what the plan was, much in advance of the official announcement. Now they are on our evening TV news blaming the government for not taking measures to pre-empt Trump’s move and providing their expert advice on how the government should engage with the US!

Tariff Tsunami

Unlike these politicians and their advisers, I did not expect President Trump to slap punitive tariffs of 44 percent on our exports. Our garment exports to the United States expanded from the early 1980s to December 2004, due to a very generous textile and apparel quota extended by the United States under the now-defunct Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. It was a clear and very successful example of providing trading opportunities as development aid by a development partner. However, we were also paying high tariffs for these exports but remained competitive in the US market as quotas ensured a reasonable market share. But after 2004, with the end of the quotas, the Sri Lankan exporters started to face strong competition in the US market, particularly from countries that had duty-free market access. So, in December 2004, Sri Lanka was hit by two tsunamis, the Asian Tsunami and the Tariff Tsunami.

On 06 January 2005, The Wall Street Journal published on its op-ed page an opinion piece titled, “Tariff Tsunami,” highlighting this: “… some eye-popping statistics showing how U.S. tariffs discriminate against world’s poor, including in particular those in Sri Lanka. The duties paid on Sri Lankan garment exports to the US in 2003 were $238.5 million – which was more than the total duties ($227 million) paid that same year on every product exported to the U.S. from all six countries of Scandinavia. That’s despite the fact that Scandinavia exports roughly 12 times more to the US than does Sri Lanka – $23.8 billion versus $1.8 billion in 2003. The average US duty rate from products from those rich nations of Northern Europe is about 1%, while the average rate on Sri Lankan goods is 13.8% and 16.6% on the bulk of its exports, which happens to be clothing.”

Twenty-one years later, if one checks the US Customs data for 2024 a similar pattern will be observed, as our exports’ basket to the US and the import duties in the US have not changed much. Though, some of our exports, like tea, gem stones and rubber products, have duty free access. for some apparel products we pay 25% tariff resulting in very high average tariff.

When Trump promised, during his campaign for the White House, a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries and a higher tariff on China, I expected Sri Lanka to improve her competitiveness and anticipated a shift in sourcing from China to other Asian countries. I also believed that the “slow surge in orders” received by Sri Lankan apparel exporters after the US elections, as well as the investment by an American engineering technology group at Wathupitiwala, could have resulted from this discreet shift of sourcing. (Please read my article published on 8th January in “The Island.”). It also appeared that when US Ambassador Julie Chung stated, last October, at the foundation stone laying ceremony for a new American factory at Wathupitiwala, “SHIELD’s decision to shift its facility in China to establish a manufacturing facility here in Sri Lanka is a testament to the growing interest of US investment in Sri Lanka …. If the new government can strengthen the investment climate, implement anti-corruption measures, and strengthen business-friendly governance and transparency, there is potential for even more manufacturers to make similar moves,” she, too, didn’t expect that, six months later, the United States would hit us with punitive tariffs. Because no American investor would ever think of investing in Sri Lanka with an over 44% tariff.

A guessing game on the tariff plan

When President Trump announced, in early February, his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade, he did not provide much information about the plan. Then a few weeks later, the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, stated that 10 to 15 countries accounted for America’s “entire trillion-dollar trade deficit” and the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, mooted a plan for a higher tariff for the ‘Dirty 15’, a group of countries that have large trade imbalances. But they did so without naming the countries they were planning to target. Based on these two statements a guessing game started all over the world on the composition of this group. Still, most of the observers expected these countries to be those with highest goods trading deficit with the United States. In 2024, the United States faced highest trade deficits with China ($291 billion), the EU ($236 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), Vietnam ($124 billion), and Taiwan ($74 billion). Compared to these countries, Sri Lanka’s trade deficit with the United States is relatively insignificant.

However, with these declarations, there was a remote possibility of Sri Lanka getting hit by a higher tariff due to our relatively large trade deficit as a percentage of the total trade. For many years this was always raised by the American negotiators during the negotiations at bilateral multilateral levels. Though we had always managed to settle it amicably, with mutually acceptable explanations, the issue had remained as an irritant in our bilateral relations. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Embassy in Washington, and appropriate government agencies in Colombo, with inside knowledge of the views of the US trade officials on the bilateral trade deficit, should have prepared for this worst-case scenario, however remote it was, and strategised on possible responses.

Highest tariff on countries “which nobody has ever heard of”

A few weeks after the American elections, at a birthday party, I bumped into a Sri Lankan expert on the United States who works on these issues for the government. During our conversation I raised Trump’s proposed tariff with him, and inquired whether they had initiated any study on it, particularly any possible adverse impact on Sri Lanka. “Don’t worry,” he quipped, “…

Trump doesn’t know where Sri Lanka is. So, we will be the last to get hit!” As we were standing at the bar, sipping our first round of drinks, I didn’t take the conversation any further. But what he said reminded me of my first visit to the office of the United States Trade Representative, in Washington. That was in January 1998. After examining my freshly issued State Department diplomatic ID, the security guard inquired, very politely, where Sri Lanka was. And I explained, with the help of a quick sketch, where we are located. During the next three years, during my frequent visits to that building, she always welcomed me with a broad smile and remembered my name and where I was from. During my tour in the United States, I met few other people who had never heard of a country called Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately, predictably unpredictable Donald J. Trump had decided to impose the highest reciprocal tariffs on countries “which nobody has ever heard of,” Lesotho and the French Archipelago of Saint Pierre and Miquelon! Both got 50% tariffs under the new reciprocal tariff plan. Since the beginning of the century, Lesotho, a tiny landlocked African country, managed to expand her exports to the US under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and is considered as one of the success stories under that programme. But during his annual address to Congress last month, President Trump, while defending his extensive cuts in the US aid budget, singled out a past aid project of “eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho … a country that nobody has ever heard of.” In spite of its size, Lesotho refused to ignore the comment or take the matter lightly.

Foreign Minister Lejone Mpotjoane declared that the Lesotho government was “shocked and embarrassed” by the comments because Lesotho “… did not expect a head of state to refer to another sovereign nation in such a manner” and had sent an official protest note. Now, Mr. Mpotjoane must be a contented man. With the highest tariffs in place, the entire world has heard of a country called Lesotho! Saint Pierre and Miquelon, with a population of roughly 6,000 people and very limited trade with the US was the other country to get hit by 50% tariff. However, for this a tiny French archipelago, located off the shores of Canada, the time under the global limelight was short-lived as soon after the announcement the US administration made a U-turn and reduced the tariff to 10%.

Some of the other countries in this group with highest tariffs are not so tiny and are more well known. The table illustrates the United States imports from these countries and trade balance (in USD million) during 2023. (See Table 1)

Although President Trump has declared that these reciprocal tariffs are necessary to tackle America’s massive $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit, from this group of countries only Vietnam with $109 billion surplus and Cambodia with $11.8 billion surplus can contribute meaningfully towards a reduction of that deficit. The US trade deficit with all other countries in the group are minimal and together accounts for less than $5 billion. Based on 2023 statistics it is difficult to even understand Syria’s inclusion in the list. Then how did these countries end up with highest reciprocal tariffs?

Calculation of reciprocal tariffs

President Trump, while presenting his new tariff plan, stated that “reciprocal means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get simpler than that,” and according to his Executive Order on the reciprocal tariffs, these are based on the average tariff rate charged to US exports, plus currency manipulation and other trade barriers. However, in many countries it is very difficult to quantify the tariffs, currency manipulation and other trade barriers. So, the calculation was simply done for each country by taking its trade in goods deficit for 2024, then dividing that by the total value of imports which provides the size of the trade imbalance in percentage terms. The US administration simply presumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Therefore, it divided that percentage number by 2 to fix the amount of reciprocal tariff. If the presumption on which the tariff is fixed is inaccurate then the burden of proof is with the country affected by the tariffs.

Way forward – ‘Make Haste Slowly’

With a 90-day grace period, Sri Lanka has sufficient time to move forward thoughtfully, appropriately, and discreetly. However, it is essential to negotiate with the American Administration the removal of the reciprocal tariffs, and if that is not negotiable, then reduce them to the global average. As the livelihood of thousands of poor workers are dependent on it, the government should act fast without making any wrong moves. In other words, it is time to make haste, slowly. But it is important to understand, as of now, it is a guessing game like blind man’s bluff, with modified rules: only two players at a time, and you are blindfolded. You have to guess where the other player stands and catch him, while the game is played on a cliff edge.

By Gomi Senadhira

(The writer, a former public servant and a diplomat, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Continue Reading

Features

New species of Bronzeback snake, discovered in Sri Lanka

Published

on

Dendrelaphis thasuni

In a rare and a prestigious honour in the world of biological sciences, a newly discovered species of bronzeback snake has been named after one of Sri Lanka’s foremost herpetologists, Dr. A. A. Thasun Amarasinghe. The new species, scientifically named Dendrelaphis thasuni, was found in Eastern Sri Lanka and belongs to the genus Dendrelaphis— a group of slender, tree-dwelling snakes known for their agility and distinctive colouration.

This naming is more than symbolic. It reflects global recognition of Dr. Amarasinghe’s invaluable contributions to the field of herpetology and biodiversity research, not only in Sri Lanka but across South and Southeast Asia. The discovery and naming were published in the prestigious journal Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, one of the leading international platforms for herpetological research.

Fitting Tribute to a Career in Conservation

For Dr. Amarasinghe, the gesture is both humble and meaningful. “To have a species from my own country named after me is one of the greatest honours I could receive,” he said in response to the announcement. “Over the past two decades, I’ve dedicated myself to the study of reptiles and amphibians. This recognition is a reflection not only of my work but also of the importance of scientific exploration in Sri Lanka and our region.”

Dr. Amarasinghe’s career has been marked by an unwavering commitment to uncovering and understanding the hidden diversity of reptiles and amphibians, particularly within the biodiverse Indo-Malayan region. His efforts have helped bring international attention to the unique and often endangered herpetofauna of South Asia.

So far, he has been involved in the discovery and formal description of more than 35 new species, including frogs, lizards, and snakes. These include six species of snakes from countries like Sri Lanka, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia—each one expanding the scientific understanding of ecosystems that are rapidly being altered by human activity.

The Discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni

The new species was discovered during fieldwork conducted in Eastern Sri Lanka by a diverse team of researchers, including Anusha Aththanagoda, Dr. Anslem de Silva, Dr. Gernot Vogel (Germany), Sithar Udayanga, Champika Bandara, Majintha Madawala, Dr. L. Lee Grismer (USA), and Suranjan Karunaratne. The team’s findings led them to identify a previously undocumented member of the Dendrelaphis genus.

Bronzeback snakes are arboreal, non-venomous colubrids widely distributed across Asia. However, Dendrelaphis thasuni exhibits several unique morphological traits—such as distinct colouration, scale arrangement, and body proportions—that justified its classification as a new species.

The species was named using Dr. Amarasinghe’s first name, “Thasun,” in accordance with international zoological naming conventions. This gesture not only immortalises his name in scientific literature but also connects his legacy to Sri Lanka’s ecological history.

Rich and Fragile Habitat

The discovery location—Eastern Sri Lanka—is part of a region known for its ecological richness, containing a mix of dry zone forests, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems. These habitats are home to many endemic species, making them crucial for conservation.

Sri Lanka itself is one of the world’s top biodiversity hotspots. With high rates of endemism and relatively unexplored terrain, the island continues to yield new species even in the 21st century. However, this biodiversity is under increasing threat due to deforestation, urban expansion, agriculture, and climate change.

The discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni underlines the importance of continued research and conservation efforts. As Dr. Amarasinghe has frequently noted in his writings and interviews, documenting biodiversity is a critical first step in protecting it.

 “We cannot conserve what we do not know exists. Each new species we discover is another piece of the puzzle, another reason to fight for the ecosystems that sustain them.”

Global Collaboration

One of the most inspiring aspects of this discovery is the international collaboration it represents. Scientists from Sri Lanka, Germany, and the United States worked together to conduct fieldwork, analyse morphological data, and publish their findings. It showcases the growing network of researchers who are committed to preserving global biodiversity.

Such collaborations are vital in herpetology, a field that often relies on both deep local knowledge and advanced global research techniques. The research team behind Dendrelaphis thasuni exemplifies this synergy—combining traditional field surveys with modern scientific methodologies to deliver world-class outcomes.

Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe with his daughter

Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe: A Scientist, Educator, and Conservationist

Dr. Amarasinghe is not only a prolific researcher but also a mentor and advocate for conservation. Over the years, he has co-authored numerous scientific papers, trained young researchers, and raised public awareness about the importance of reptiles and amphibians in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

He is known for his ability to bridge the gap between science and conservation policy, often emphasising the role of taxonomy—the science of naming and classifying organisms—as a tool for environmental protection. His work has influenced local and international efforts to safeguard species and habitats that would otherwise be overlooked.

His contributions have been recognised through fellowships, international speaking invitations, and now, with a species named in his honor—a rare distinction in the scientific world.

More Than Just a Name

While having a species named after someone is often considered one of the highest accolades in biology, Dr. Amarasinghe views it as part of a broader mission.

“This isn’t just about me. It’s about the science, the ecosystems, the communities who live alongside these species, and the young researchers who will carry this work forward. Naming a species is not the end—it’s the beginning of a deeper responsibility to protect it.”

The discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni adds a significant chapter to Sri Lanka’s natural history and serves as a reminder of the urgent need to conserve the country’s fragile ecosystems. It also shines a spotlight on the people behind the scenes—scientists like Dr. Amarasinghe—whose dedication makes such discoveries possible.

With biodiversity loss accelerating globally, the role of field biologists and taxonomists has never been more critical. Their work not only reveals the hidden wonders of nature but also provides the data necessary for policymakers, educators, and conservationists to act.

As Sri Lanka continues to emerge as a key player in global biodiversity research, recognitions like this one highlights the nation’s scientific potential—and the global importance of preserving its wild spaces.

By Ifham Nizam 

Continue Reading

Features

Why Sinhala omitted in famous stone inscription by ancient Chinese Admiral ?

Published

on

A plaque erected to mark the opening of a new electronic library at the Attorney General’s Department was removed because the writing thereon was only in Sinhala and English, and Tamil had been left out. This reminded me of a stone plaque bearing the date 15th February 1409 put up by Chinese Admiral Zheng He at the Galle harbour during one of his grand voyages to Sri Lanka, India and the African Continent.

Zheng He was a Chinese mariner, explorer, diplomat, fleet admiral , and court eunuch during China’s early Ming Dynasty. Born as Ma He or Ma Sanbao into a Muslim family in 1371, he later adopted the surname Zheng conferred by the Yongle Emperor. He completed seven historical voyages to trade and gather knowledge from other parts of the world. He died in 1433, at the age of 62, during his last voyage near Calicut (now Kozhikode), India. His remains were dropped to Davy Jones’ locker (buried at sea) off Coromandel coast of India.

Zheng He had his voyages a long time before the European powers visited this part of the world. (The Portuguese first landed in India on 20 May 1498). Zheng visited Sri Lanka almost a century before him, and his stone stela is about the offerings he made to the Buddha, Allah and Hindu God Vishnu seeking their blessings for successful trade with Sri Lanka.

Sinhala omitted

Now, this historical stela is at the National Museum, Colombo. What he offered to Buddhist temples, Mosques and Hindu temples is fascinating and the whole list has been inscribed on the stela, which was erected in a predominantly Sinhala area, is in three languages—Tamil, Persian and Chinese; he omitted Sinhala!

Admiral Zheng He’s fleet was unbelievably large. He had sailing ships which were more than 120 metres in length (longer than the Sri Lanka Navy’s flagship) and had five decks each. Unconfirmed stories say their crews grew fresh vegetables on the top decks and had piggeries in the bottom bilge decks, where pigs were fed with leftover food of the crew during passage. These ships were floating fortresses.

Admiral Zheng He had more than 100 ships of this size and smaller vessels; his fleet consisted of 217 ships and 28,000 sailors/marines. In comparison, Columbus, in 1492, had only three ships and 90 sailors. “Santa Maria”, the flagship of Columbus, was only 30 meters in length.

Admiral Zheng He’s big ships carried valuable cargo, like silk, gold and silver coins, porcelain vases and plates for trading around the world.

When Admiral Zheng He first visited Sri Lanka, in 1405, at the Beruwala harbour, which was popular among Arab traders at that time, he visited the Kotte Kingdom and climbed Sri Pada. His first visit was only limited to India and Sri Lanka. During his second voyage in 1411, he clashed with the Kotte kingdom, and King Alakeshwara tried to attack his ships. The Admiral launched a counterattack with his expeditionary forces and captured Alakeshwara, who was subsequently replaced with King Parakramabahu VI. He sailed to China with the Sinhalese prisoners, including King Alakeshwara.

According to historical records, Admiral Zheng He presented captured King Alakeshwara and his followers to Yongle Emperor (third Emperor of Ming dynasty), only to be told that the Chinese went on voyages to promote their trade and not to wage war, and ordered to take the captives to Sri Lanka during his next voyage itself. The Admiral took them back to Sri Lanka, as ordered by the Emperor. They were looked after well during their stay in China.

The present-day Chinese leaders have said the same thing as regards their Belt and Road initiative: “We are for trade and investment and not war.”

After his sixth voyage, Admiral Zhang He concluded that there was nothing China could learn from the outside World. True enough, China was very much advanced compared to the outside world at that time. He reported this to the Emperor, who later had the fleet dismantled after the Admiral’s last voyage and funds were utilised for keeping the Mongolian invaders at bay. Admiral Zheng He spent 28 years of his adult life on voyages.

Stone tablet

In 1911, S.H. Thomlin, a British engineer working in Galle, along the southwestern coast of Sri Lanka, found the stone tablet lying in a culvert.

I am only a seafarer and not a historian. Can someone enlighten me on why the Sinhala language was not used in this plaque?

Were the Sinhalese upset and angry then as there was no inscription in Sinhala. Let us have a discussion on this interesting subject.

(I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention the help I received from Ravi junior for gathering some historical details.)

(The writer Admiral Wijegunaratne WV, RWP& Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc (Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff, Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd., Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and Former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne

Continue Reading

Trending