Connect with us

Midweek Review

Is language social or psychological phenomenon?

Published

on

This essay was presented at The Philosophy Group of the University of London about 20 years ago. The thought provoking essay published in The Island on 22 April by Usvwatte-aratchi- Some languages confine you; some languages free you prompted me to try to get this essay published if possible. It may help the readers to further their ideas about the importance of usage of language.

Personally, I have firsthand experience in this subject. I was exposed to two different cultures and two languages. In my formative years I was brought up in a certain culture and spoke the language pertaining to that culture/language (Sinhalese -Sri Lanka). I spent all my studying and working life (55 years) using a different language in a different culture (English -England). I must mention that this was not recently. It was the early 1960’s. I can claim that I have enough knowledge and experience to justify this essay topic. In this essay I shall be investigating some of the social aspects of language with the aid of some opinions put forward by some philosophers. Then I shall be making an attempt to see what psychology has to offer before I draw my own conclusions. I am treating social aspects as part and parcel of the culture. In my view these are inseparable entities, unless one chooses to forget his or her cultural upbringing to suit a particular society.

Adoption of different culture

Socially, learning a different language and adopting a different culture is quite possible. In this case what dominates is one’s attitude or the circumstances. Attitude is psychological. I am convinced that circumstances may lead to a change of attitudes. Having said that, we must not forget that there are individuals who have not taken the trouble to learn the language of the culture in which they live. This has created a lot of socio-psychological problems in the community in which they live. It is obvious that the problem is one of communication. The main tool of communication is language. Philosophers and psychologists have spent many years investigating how language helps us to communicate and also how it may lead us to misunderstand our own fellow human beings. Understanding others (family members, members of the community in which we live, and the strangers we meet) is one of the most important aspects of living.

An awareness of the problem of language goes back to the early Greek philosophers. Parmenides gave us the first example of an argument from language to the world, saying that if we speak of a thing it must exist, since we speak of a thing at various times, it must continue to exist in a particular form. It is recently that language itself has come to be studied in a systematic way. The two landmarks in this respect were the development of Linguistics and the philosophy of language in the 20th century. The great philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) has admitted that until he became a middle-aged man, he did not think about language per se, but regarded it as ‘transparent’. I am sure this is true with most of us although we are not of Russell’s caliber when it comes to philosophy. And one may not have to wait until one reaches one’s middle age.

Linguistics and philosophy of language

It will help us if we understand the difference between Linguistics and philosophy of Language. What linguists discover may be applied to philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology or physiology. But as a discipline of study, it remains independent of them. The philosophy of language is different. One of the modern philosophers John Searle (1932-2025) thought, by contrast to linguistics, philosophy tries to solve philosophical problems by analyzing the ordinary use, meaning and relations of words in a particular language. Searle goes on to say that language is crucial to understand human experience. In my opinion this is a very valid comment. At a very practical level we spend a lot of time sharing our experiences. Verbal communication is vital in this area. According to Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking(1936-2023) the influence of language on philosophy has been profound and almost unrecognized. He indicates, if we are not to be misled by this influence, it is necessary to become conscious of it, and to ask ourselves deliberately how far it is legitimate.

It is appropriate to bring in Ludwig Wittgenstein(1889-1951) at this point. He brought in the subject predicate theory of language. For example, if we say “John is king”. Where John is the subject and king is the predicate. Here existence requires substance. For Aristotle, forms do not exist independently of things—every form is the form of something. A “substantial” form is a kind that is attributed to a thing, without which that thing would be of a different kind or would cease to exist altogether. Wittgenstein supports Saint Augustine’s view that words are names of objects and that combinations of words have the sole function of describing reality. For example, if we point at a certain object, say a table and try to say to a child “this is a table”, the child will be confused as to what we are pointing at. Is it the colour, the tabletop or one or more of its legs This is called the ostensive definition method of teaching. Ostensive definitions lead to a variety of interpretations. The child may understand a particular case of this definition but there is no guarantee that she will be able to make a transition from one case to others like it.

Plato’s theory

J G Herder (1744-1803) pointed out the object to which we make reference may be defined by numerous different terms. How then can we justify direct, one to one correspondence-either of so many to one, or of one to so many? How are we going to deal with situations where a term describes something non-existent or only possible? Plato’s “Forms” theory cannot be applied here as anything that we can speak of already exists as a Form. Critics of this theory ask the question: “how can the world be crowded with so many imaginary objects?” We use words to describe and define. Is there any room for slang language? This comes in handy in our day to day social communication. Ostensive definition raises the questions that require a constant selection of what counts as relevant. In Aldous Huxley’s novel Chrome Yellow, the character Old Rowley is confused as to: Does ‘pig’ refer to the quality of having a curly tail? Or standing in rows to eat? Or being pink skinned and fat? Or wearing no clothes? When we use the word “piggishness” is it something inherent to pigs, or simply, a matter of how we choose to describe them?

How can we relate the above ideas and theories of language to our daily living? Daily living is a psychosocial activity.

Perceptions

The nature of language reflects the nature of our perceptions, and these are far from straight forward. Franz Brentano (1838-1917) developed his theory of intentionality: that every mental phenomenon has a relation of direction to its object, i.e. perceptions, desires, imagination etc. are related to what is perceived, desired or imagined. I presume this can be applied to any language irrespective of the culture (our social conditioning). Say for instance the images of art and the writings are given the ability to represent objects by imposing the intentionality on the object. Thus, when we assert that we see or believe something, we impose, by convention and intention, (that is true if and only if it is the case) on the statement, and these conditions are not contained intrinsically in the sounds that make it up, but in our perception of belief about the fact. I begin to wonder how this can be applied to non-physical and unseen situations. Sometimes our feelings and attitudes are unknown to the observer. A person may shout because he is angry but you cannot see the anger, only its physical expression. We will not be able to see the prior event that has led to the anger and the utterance. This shows that there is a limit to how much is revealed simply by observing a word and its context; there is often more than that can be said.

How can we account for unexpected linguistic behaviour? This has both social and psychological implications.

For a long time behavioural theorists believed that every development of the human being was controlled by environmental and social factors. This is similar to an ostensive explanation of meaning. It implied that everything was learnt through training and association. But Noam Chomsky (b.1928) was not happy with this idea. He thought language is a complex phenomenon and which is not taught bit by bit or systematically to infants. It is successfully acquired by (almost) everybody. From my own experience it is true to say that the difficulty in learning a second language is a very different process from that experienced with the first language. Chomsky argued that the first language is not in fact learned, but rather acquired through exposure to a particular language. According to him all languages share the same basic structure, and he called this “deep structure”, which may be expressed as surface structures through a process called ‘transformation’. Chomsky’s theory helps us to assume a universal system of grammar, which may generate an infinite number of particular sentences within a language. This explains how we may create sentences within a language we have never encountered before from a limited set of grammatical rules and this appears to be a rational scientific approach.

Social or psychological phenomenon

The argument/discussion whether language is a social or a psychological phenomenon requires much more investigation than this essay warrants. I have briefly brought in various philosophers’ work, which are invaluable to this topic in terms of philosophy of language. In conclusion I am tempted to state my own experiences as a bi-lingual person. When it comes to my first language, which is Sinhalese I don’t think I learned it. I heard my parents speaking it and I picked up a few words and I constructed my own sentences and gradually became proficient by accumulating more words. Of course, the proper grammatical use of even my own language was taught in school and not by my parents. Learning my second language i.e. English took a different form. I was taught to speak, read, and write English at school and I had to work harder at this than my first language, because my English was confined to the classroom situation only, i. e. I learnt English in a non- English environment. First language came naturally and the second one I had to learn to fit into the social and the education structure that prevailed at that time. Compulsion can motivate us to learn!I had no choice but to adopt myself culturally and linguistically as a university student in England and then as a university teacher in England. Apart from the native English students, I have taught students from different countries. European, African and Asian. I had the opportunity to intermingle with them and learned various different cultural and linguistic aspects. After almost a half a century in England, I am back to my own culture (language, customs, food etc) where I was born and started my life. I am still proficient in my own language Sinhalese. No conscious effort needed.

After all the foregoing arguments and philosophy that I have put forward, my own conclusion is Chomsky’s theories are more plausible to me than other theories on this issue. It is difficult to be exact and say whether language is a social or psychological phenomenon. From the above arguments, we can see that culture and language of a given society are tightly bound. This leads us to psychological adjustments in order to fit into a society. Who can deny that even the philosophers mentioned above have not been subjected to their own cultural environment?

by Prof. Sampath
Anson Fernando
Formerly University of
The Arts London



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

Govt. failure to fill top two courts’ vacancies leaves Judiciary in a conundrum

Published

on

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

The ruling NPP is in a deepening dilemma over a hotly disputed move to extend the retirement age of superior courts judges. The party is also under heavy fire for delaying fresh appointments to the superior courts consisting of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. 

A section of the Opposition wants Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne to take up the inordinate delay in filling vacancies in the superior courts. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Colombo High Court lawyers, Lawyers Collective, as well as the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Union have criticised the government’s move.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader Rauff Hakeem, MP, recently expressed concern over the alleged way Balachandran Prabhakaran, 12-year-old son of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed, in cold blood, on 19 May, 2009.

A section of the Tamil media highlighted Kandy District lawmaker Hakeem’s comments regarding the alleged way Balachandran, the youngest of the three children of Tiger Supremo, met his end. Prabhakaran himself was also killed on the same day.

What prompted MP Hakeem to raise a contentious but now largely forgotten issue! Both the Sinhala and English print and electronic media failed to report the SLMC leader’s comments. Some questioned the purpose in lawmaker Hakeem raising Balachandran’s death. Some even suggested a Tamil Diaspora hand in Hakeem’s unexpected interest in Balachandran’s death.

The Island obtained the video, released by the Parliament, of the SLMC leader’s 10-minute speech, delivered on 10 June. Reference to Balachandran’s killing had been made towards the tail end of his fiery speech that primarily dealt with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s continuing failure to fill existing vacancies in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The deliberate and utterly contemptible holding up of judicial promotions, for whatever reasons, cannot be discussed without examining a disputed bid to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to increase the retirement age of the Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the leader of two registered political parties, namely the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the National People’s Power (NPP), seems to be on a collision course with the Opposition. With a commanding 159 MPs in Parliament, meaning a 2/3 majority, Dissanayake can easily introduce the required amendment, regardless of protests. But, the electorate won’t like that dictatorial attitude. Those who exercised their franchise for Dissanayake and the NPP at the September 2024 and November 2024 national polls, respectively, wouldn’t expect them to adopt, what can be safely described as, a dogmatic approach.

Attorney-at-law and one-time Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem castigated the President and the ruling party, ahead of the joint Opposition action, to pressure the President to fill the vacancies. Their appeal to Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne in this regard can be also interpreted as a collective opposition to the proposed amendment to increase the retirement age of judges.

The SLMC group in Parliament consists of five MPs. Of them, three had been elected under the SLMC symbol (two elected and one on the National List) and two through the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), one of them on the latter’s National List.

Lawmaker Hakeem, who had served the Parliament for over 30 years, at the onset of his speech, questioned the sudden decision to bring in regulation to compel exporters to convert their export proceeds into USD. The SLMCer declared that such panic action was taken by the government in view of the rapid deterioration of the Rupee against the USD.

Commenting on the extension of the Emergency continuously, MP Hakeem alleged that it was done for the NPP’s own parochial purposes and the Opposition expected the government to discontinue the practice.

Then he dealt with the alleged move to extend the retirement age of top judges. Referring to Chief Government Whip Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa’s shameless declaration that the issue hadn’t been even discussed among the government. The ex-justice Minister, however, disputed Jayatissa’s claim made at the post-Cabinet media briefing, while highlighting the statements issued by the Bar Association, Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association. In addition, the Lawyers’ Collective and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association strongly opposed the alleged move. In spite of the Cabinet spokesman’s denial, Justice Minister and Attorney-at-Law Harshana Nanayakkara, in his comments on the issue, indicated that the matter was under discussion. In fact, Nanayakkara mentioned a comparatively higher retirement age of top judges in other countries to support the NPP’s controversial and unnecessary move.

Obviously, the NPP is not talking in one voice.

Rauff takes a strong stand

Emphasising that he addressed the issue at hand as a member of the BASL, Hakeem pointed out that there were four vacancies, each in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, for the past six months. The SLMC leader said: “The President has failed in his constitutional duty to nominate judges for promotion. From the High Court to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. By denying the rights of the judges, undue pressure is being brought on them. What will happen? This very President, when he was in the Opposition, when the previous Presidents failed to gazette the names decided on by the Constitutional Council, he made a big protest. Several times he spoke about this very vociferously in the House. But, since becoming the President, he has not nominated any names. Very clearly, the 21 Amendment provision was made to prevent Presidents from delaying the decisions taken by the Constitutional Council. He is doing the reverse by not nominating anyone to the top two courts. This is much worse. As a consequence, even our fundamental rights are impacted. Because we as litigants or lawyers or public, our right for the expeditious disposal of cases is being impacted by the delay in appointing judges to the Superior Courts.

Moreover, you are frustrating the judges who served years in the judiciary. What happens to the minor judiciary and others? There are heavy concerns among the judiciary about extending the retirement age. That’ll block their path. That’ll deprive many suitably qualified individuals the right to get onto the bench or the superior bench. High court judges will now await their chances of being promoted. Undue pressure will be brought upon them.”

Hakeem alleged that the Constitution was being deliberately violated by the President. Having directed serious allegations at the President, Hakeem emphasised the responsibility on the part of the Speaker to take up this matter with the President on their behalf. Hakeem questioned as to why the President unduly delayed the promotions. The President’s deliberate failure has caused unnecessary frustration among the judicial ranks in the country and deprived those who served the judiciary of their due rights.”

Hakeem explained how even senior officers of the Attorney General’s Department had been affected by the President’s inaction. Those officials have been deprived of the opportunity to move onto one of the superior courts, Hakeem alleged, accusing the President of, what he called, deliberate inaction and a constitutional violation.

Then Hakeem made a very serious allegation. The ex-Justice Minister alleged that the NPP was delaying the process until a favoured person is eligible to get onto the bench, “You are picking and choosing people by that thereby undermining the judiciary.”

MP Hakeem also dealt with the vexed issue of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) that had been opposed by many political parties, civil society as well as organisations such as Amnesty International. The Sttorney-at-Law took up the issue in the wake of the controversial arrest of Maj. Gen. (retd.) Suresh Sallay, Director of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI/2012-2016) and Director, State Intelligence Service/2019-2024) in terms of the PTA.

MP Hakeem chided the NPP for proposing to bring in a new anti-terrorism law, under a different title, to replace the existing PTA. Declaring that the new Act would be definitely far worse than the current law, the lawyer faulted the police and the Attorney General’s Department for abusing the PTA. The former Minister said so while alleging the continuous deterioration of the standards of the police and the Attorney General’s department, due to their dependence on the draconian PTA.

Killing of Balachandran

Referring to Tamil media reports regarding the new UK Channel 4 video that dealt with the killing of Prabhakaran’s 12-year-old son, lawmaker Hakeem discussed how the military dealt with the families of the LTTE leader and that of the JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera, killed on the night of 13 November, 1989.

Pointing out that Wijeweera who had been apprehended, along with his family, by the military, was killed, Hakeem stressed that the family members weren’t harmed. They lived under the protection of successive governments but in Prabhakaran’s case the situation was entirely differently.

Hakeem scorned the JVP/NPP government for conveniently forgetting its leaders, though an annual ceremony was held in Colombo in memory of those who perished during the insurgency. Hakeem said that even the daughter of Zahran Hashim, who led the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, was spared. But, if Prabharatan’s daughter, Duwaraka, had been killed, as alleged, that should be investigated, Hakeem said. Hakeem ended his speech addressing the Parliament in Tamil.

Prabhakaran’s wife Mathivathani, too, had been killed during the final phase of the ground offensive. Prabhakaran’s eldest son, Charles Anthony, was killed in the Karayamullavaikkal area of the Mullaitivu district, the day before Prabhakaran, wife Mathivathani, daughter Duwaraka and younger son Balachandran were killed.

Acknowledging the SLMC leader’s right to rake up the controversy over the alleged manner the deaths of the LTTE leader and his family, while in government custody, took place. It would be pertinent to mention that Hakeem, in his capacity as the Justice Minister, from November, 2010, to December, 2014, could have pushed the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to inquire into the incident.

In fact, the writer once sought a meeting with the then Minister Hakeem to discuss accountability issues and the failure on the part of the government to address them. Although the Minister gave a patience hearing and acknowledged the urgent need to take remedial measures, the war-winning Rajapaksa government, instead of taking tangible measures, played politics. By late 2014, the SLMC switched its allegiance to the UNP-led coalition, formed with the US blessings to back the candidature of another political turncoat, Maithripala Sirisena, at the 2015 presidential election.

Hakeem received the Urban Development, Water Supply and Drainage portfolio in the succeeding Yahapalana government. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), that had been an integral part of that alliance, served the Yahapalana interests well, though it refrained from accepting any Cabinet portfolio. The JVP, too, refrained from joining the Cabinet but their role in the Yahapalana operation is in the public domain.

The Yahapalana government betrayed the armed forces at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in October, 2015, but the extent of their treachery was highlighted two years later when that administration unceremoniously dismissed Lord Naseby’s revelations pertaining to the final phase of the war.

What made the SLMC leader Hakeem to compare three incidents – the killing of Wijeweera, and government protection for his family, in November, 1989; killing of Prabhakaran and his family on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, in May, 2009; and the rescue of Zahran Hashim’s daughter, following the Sainthamaruthu blasts in April, 2019. Whatever the SLMC leader’s motive in highlighting the LTTE’s case now, the need for collective response on the part of the Parliament to address the concerns of the loved ones of those who engaged in terrorism cannot be overemphasised.

The circumstances of Prabhakaran, his wife and their daughter and youngest son remained mired in controversy. Like over 11,000 LTTE cadres, both men and women, including suicide cadres who surrendered to the advancing troops on multiple fronts, Prabhakaran and his family could have given themselves up to the Army on the Vanni front. They ignored that opportunity believing in a US operation to evacuate them.

Critically important combined stand

As mentioned by the SLMC leader during his 10 June speech in Parliament, a group of Opposition MPs handed over a letter expressing their concerns over the inordinate delay in filling the vacancies in the superior courts. Pointing out that the President, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Constitutional Council, had failed to fill those vacancies, the Opposition MPs stressed the responsibility on the part of the President to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. They also reminded the Speaker that it would be his responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary, which is an important part of the sovereignty of the people.

Kandy District MP Anuradha Jayaratne, represented the new Democratic Front (NDF) in the SJB-led effort, while NDF MP Ravi Karunanayake, too, joined, though he is in logger heads with the UNP over taking the National List slot won by the NDF at the last parliamentary election. Former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe threw his weight behind the NDF, at the November, 2024, General Electio, but could not achieve the anticipated results. The NDF managed to secure just five seats, two of them National List slots.

All Ceylon Tamil Congress leader Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, representing the Jaffna electoral district, signed the petition, along with the Sarvajana Balaya leader Dilith Jayaweera. Unfortunately, the SLPP hadn’t been part of that grouping. Responding to The Island queries, SLPP sources assured that though they didn’t sign the petition handed over to Speaker Wickremaratne, they wholeheartedly supported the initiative.

Whatever efforts by political parties/governments in power to interfere with the judiciary should be opposed at every level. The Rajapaksas went to the extent of impeaching Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and removing her under the most despicable circumstances. Belligerent Rajapaksas reacted, as expected, following the Supreme Court rulings, including one against the then SLFP/UPFA strongman Basil Rajapaksa.

The ruling UPFA directed a series of unsubstantiated allegations against her, including financial impropriety and interfering in legal cases. SJB MP Dayasiri Jayasekera recently made reference to the impeachment of Dr. Bandaranayake when he censured the NPP move to extend the retirement age of judges of the superior courts. MP Jayasekera questioned whether the NPP wanted to retain Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena beyond the stipulated retirement age.

Although there had been a spate of interventions, the 2013 impeachment of CJ 43 was undoubtedly the worst case ever and the appointment of former Attorney General Mohan Peiris as her successor made matters worse.

The UPFA hit back hard at Dr. Bandaranayake following unprecedented controversy over The Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill and Divi Neguma, gazetted in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The UPFA abandoned the first Bill and then amended the second to avoid a referendum and the required 2/3 approval. By then, the cocky UPFA had decided to impeach Dr. Bandaranayake who stood up to outright political intimidation.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, during his tenure as the President (July, 2022, to September, 2024) reacted angrily to the Supreme Court ruling that he, in his capacity as the Finance Minister and the Election Commission, violated voters’ rights by arbitrarily delaying the Local Government polls in 2023. Wickremesinghe had been also angered by his failure to secure Supreme Court endorsement for his bid to appoint Dehabandu Tennakoon as the IGP in the run-up to the 2024 Presidential Election.

There had been so many other instances when the political party/coalition, in power, felt that the judiciary undermined its agenda. There cannot be better examples of the daunting challenge faced by the UPFA due to the Supreme Court stand during Dr. Bandaranayake’s tenure as the Chief Justice.

But post-Aragalaya period, no one expected President Dissanayake to pursue an agenda that compelled the BASL to issue hard hitting statements. Since May Day 2026, there had been two such statements from the BASL that should have triggered alarm bells. The NPP is obviously on the wrong path, believing that it can proceed with a 2/3 super majority unhindered in Parliament.

The first BASL statement dealt with President Dissanayake’s controversial May Day prediction of a court ruling in a high profile case. The second one responded to a move to extend superior court judges’ retirement age.

The government should rethink its strategy. With the national economy experiencing severe difficulties and the government under pressure to abolish fuel and electricity subsidies at the behest of the IMF, the NPP should concentrate on saving the economy instead of creating fresh issues that it cannot just brush aside just because of its steamroller majority in Parliament.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

The Legacy Lost

Published

on

Gladdening was the sight at morn,

For the folk of the invisible village,

Of mirthful children trekking to school,

And refuge did they take in the thought,

That at least their young would be spared,

The crushing ordeals of tenant farming,

Since they would come by some erudition,

But our elders are now up against the truth,

That all is not well at the humble school,

Since even the morsel of education,

Painstakingly dished out there,

Comes with scary price tags attached;

Making dropping out the best thing to do.

 

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

July 09: An inexcusable overall security failure and exceptional contingency plan

Published

on

A massive throng of people inside the President's House after mobs forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee on 09 July, 2022

Ulugetenne

The Sri Lanka Navy, on 04 June, commissioned SLNS Samudravijaya, formerly United States Coast Guard Cutter Decisive. It is the fourth mothballed US Coast Guard cutter transferred to the SLN through the US Excess Defence Articles Programme. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake attended the ceremony at the Colombo Port. The US Embassy in Colombo, in a statement issued on the same day, quoted Defence Attaché Lieutenant Colonel Matthew House as having said: “Few partners have demonstrated the commitment to maintaining and operating these vessels as successfully as the Sri Lanka Navy. The outstanding condition and operational performance of SLNS Samudura, SLNS Gajabahu, and SLNS Vijayabahu are a testament to the professionalism and technical expertise of Sri Lankan sailors. Their stewardship of these vessels helped build the confidence that made this fourth transfer possible.” The first of the four vessels SLNS Samudura was commissioned on 19 February, 2005, during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President. Milinda Moragoda, Economic Reforms and Science and Technology Minister of the previous UNP-led UNF government, played a significant role in acquiring that vessel. SLNS Samudura boosted SLN and participated in numerous operations, including the high profile hunt for LTTE floating warehouses, during the Eelam War IV. But, the US refrained from transferring any more big ships during the war though on the then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Wsantha Karannagoda’s request to provide intelligence and Washington obliging, made the successful hunt for LTTE floating arsenals in the last stages of the war possible. The transfer of the second vessel took place 19 years after the end of the war. Ex USCG Sherman was commissioned 06 June, 2019, as SLNS Gajabahu (P626). The third vessel was transferred to the Sri Lanka Navy on October 26, 2021, as the country was heading towards an unprecedented economic crisis. That vessel was commissioned as SLNS Vijayabahu at the Colombo Port with the participation of President Ranil Wickramasinghe and US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung on November 20, 2022. Ironically SLNS Gajabahu, one of the ex-US vessels prominently figured in the contingency plan to save President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but whose downfall was engineered by the US.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The moment President Gotabaya Rajapaksa decided to take up residence at the President’s House (Janadhipathi Mandiraya), Fort, in the first week of April, 2022, the Navy had no option but to prepare a thorough contingency plan, in case the regime change project posed a realistic threat to the life of the President.

The President, in consultation with senior military officers, made his move within 48 hours after violence erupted outside his private residence at Pangiriwatte, Mirihana, on the night of 31 March, 2022. That decision seemed realistic and sensible at that time.

But, in the wake of the disastrous overall armed forces response to the coordinated violence unleashed by the regime change project on 09 May, 2022, in the aftermath of the Temple Trees ordered attack on Galle Face protesters, the top brass must have recognised the urgent need for total overhauling of security strategy. But, unfortunately, that hadn’t been the case. With violent crowds overwhelming the armed forces, deployed to block them, rapidly approaching the President’s House, those who had been at the makeshift Operations Room there were stunned.

In hindsight, the President’s decision to remain at the President’s House, regardless of the near failure on the part of the armed forces to repulse the raid on Temple Trees, on 09 May, seemed unwise. The rescue operation could have gone wrong and the war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa could have ended up in the hands of an angry mob.

Perhaps, the conspirators envisaged the President’s move, from Pangiriwatte to the President’s House, situated walking distance away from the Galle Face protest site, where they could draw additional strength.

The failure on the part of the government to take tangible measures, in the wake of the President’s House becoming the sole target on that fateful day, is a contentious issue that needs to be properly investigated. Don’t forget that the court case filed over the 09 May attacks on the residences and properties belonging to SLPP politicians, and some supporters ,was later withdrawn. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government never investigated the 09 May incidents.

Exactly two months after the mobs almost succeeded in breaking through defences at Temple Trees, on the night of 09 May/10, where Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was residing, they mounted the assault on the President’s House.

In the wake of the 09 May mayhem, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa named Lt. Gen. Vikum Liyanage as the Commander of the Army. He succeeded General Shavendra Silva who served as the CDS but was out of the country when all-out mayhem was unleashed by the Aragalaya mobs on 09 July, 2022, to oust the sitting government.

In spite of a direct and growing threat to the President’s House, on 09 July, 2022, the President felt confident in meeting the challenge. The President issued a directive to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, General (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne, to shift the Operations Room from the Defence Force Headquarters, at Akuregoda, to the President’s House. Having shifted the Operations Room on 08 July, 2022, to the President’s House, as directed by the President, the top brass prepared to face the challenge.

Maj. General K.B. Egodawela, who served as an Additional Secretary (Administration) to the President, from the day the President moved to the President’s House, till he vacated on 09 July, 2022, in his memoirs ‘Aragalaya: Adarayen Prachandathwayata’ (From Love to Violence) revealed that though the top brass opposed the shifting of the Operations Room they carried out the directive. While the President felt that the top brass could collectively work at the President’s House to bring the situation under control, Gen Gunaratne proposed that the President should move to Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters, according to Egodawela. In fact, Gunaratne, who had been with Gotabaya Rajapaksa from the very beginning of the sinister campaign, strongly opposed the President’s decision to remain there.

Obviously, the President’s House pathetically failed to ascertain the scale of the protest and the rapidity with which protesters overwhelmed troops deployed outside the President’s House stunned the top brass. Had they swiftly reached consensus on Gen. Gunaratne’s suggestion, perhaps the 09 July regime change operation could have been thwarted. The armed forces could have resorted to tougher measures to prevent a march on Akuregoda Defence Forces Headquarters had the President agreed to move there.

Within two hours after the protest, targeting the President’s House began, video footage provided by drones indicated that troops couldn’t hold the rampaging mobs any longer. According to Egodawela, the top brass had been prepared to remove the President, even without his consent, by landing a helicopter in the Colombo harbor or by ship. Finally, they resorted to the second option. As the President and First Lady Ayoma got into a vehicle and took the rear exit into the adjoining former Navy Headquarters, mobs entered the President’s House. Another vehicle carrying several other persons followed.

The then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenne who had been with the President at the President’s House got into the vehicle carrying the President. Had they stayed at the President’s House for 10 more minutes, the consequences could have been devastating. https://island.lk/gotabayas-escape-from-aragalaya-mob-in-rti-spotlight/

Egodawela, who had been with the President from the very beginning of the presidential term, alleged that the raiders planned to kill the President and several others and display their bodies. The author quoted an unidentified intelligence officer as having told him that the raiders wanted to display the bodies the way LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s body was shown.

Perhaps shifting the Operations Room from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters to the President’s House had been a risky move that, in a way, facilitated the regime change operation. The rationale in bringing those who had been tasked with countering the impending threat to one place (President’s House) to be with the target (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) seems unbelievably a dicey move. The President had been influenced by what he described as inordinate and unforgivable delay on the part of the Akuregoda Operations Room to carry out timely evacuation of Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on the night of 09 May from Temple Trees. Most probably, the President wanted to oversee the 09 July counter operation personally. But, in hindsight, the decision to shift the Operations Room from Akuregoda to the President’s House obviously hadn’t been a clever move.

SLN preparations

When mobs threatened to overwhelm the President’s security at Pangiriwattta, on 31 March, additional police and STF contingents were brought in. They were followed by the Navy and Air Force. The Army arrived at the scene, subsequently.

As pointed out by the President himself, the situation at Temple Trees, on 09 May, had been far worse and the combined police and armed forces response revealed that they hadn’t taken precautionary/counter measures, even after the Pangiriwatta fiasco.

At the time of the incidents, the overall Temple Trees security deployment included about 60 elite Special Boat Squadron (SBS) personnel deployed within the premises and were supplemented by seven SLN platoons. The Army also moved in to strengthen Temple Trees defences but the mobs pressed on till troops fired blank ammunition.

The top brass, directing counter measures from Akuregoda Defence Force Headquarters, had to act swiftly and decisively to evacuate those at the Temple Trees or face the consequences. As there hadn’t been any other alternative place of living proposed, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, wife Shiranthi and their eldest son Namal were escorted to nearby former Air Force Headquarters and from there flown to the Trincomalee Navy base. VA Ulugetenne, over the phone, issued instructions to the relevant officer in Trincomalee to make arrangements as two helicopters carrying the group took off from the helipad on the top of the former Air Force Headquarters. The helicopters departed around 04 in the morning.

They had stayed at Trincomalee Navy House for about a week and, as requested by the Navy, paid for their stay because by then Mahinda Rajapaksa had resigned. Perhaps, they could have taken refuge at the Panagoda Army cantonment or at Saliyapura, home to the Gajaba Regiment, but, at the end, sought the protection at the Trincomalee Navy base.

Ironically, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, too, had to take refuge at the Trincomalee Navy base, exactly two months later. Ever since the President moved into the President’s House, Fort, the Navy had been on their toes to meet any eventuality. The daunting task of arranging evacuation by sea fell on the shoulders of VA Ulugetenne, who, meticulously, planned the operation with his staff.

Having informed the President of the contingency plans, VA Ulugetenne stationed two Advanced Offshore Patrol Vessels (AOPVs), namely SLNS Sindurala and SLNS Gajabahu and four Fast Attack Craft (FACs), at the Colombo Port. It would be pertinent to mention that SLNS Sindurala, built at the Goa shipyard, in terms of an agreement signed at the tail end of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, was adjudged the best vessel in the SLN fleet in 2022.

Additional SBS personnel and snipers, too, had been brought in to Colombo though none of them knew exactly what their task would be. The OPV and FAC crews most probably felt that they were awaiting orders for a major anti-drug operation in the high seas.

As the decision was made to evacuate the President and the First Lady, the Chief alerted the vessels and quickly deployed tugboats to pull SLNS Sindurala and, shortly thereafter, SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, carrying the President and the First Lady. By the time the two AOPVs moved in different directions, on the instructions of VA Ulugetenne, the hand phones of SLNS Gajabahu crew were collected to prevent them from revealing what was happening. Along with the AOPVs, two pairs of FACs had moved out to sea. (https://island.lk/ranil-reveals-bid-to-get-rid-of-him-while-gr-was-fleeing-to-trinco-on-board-slns-gajabahu/)

Nearly 12-hour journey to Trinco

The SLNS Gajabahu, formerly of the US Coast Guard, had a crew consisting of over 100 officers and men. Someone, most probably a port employee, posted a short clip of some unidentified persons taking large travelling bags into the ship but the President, First Lady and VA Ulugetenne going in were never captured on a camera.

As the vessel began its journey towards Trincomalee, it remained approximately 12 nautical miles from land and the President received many calls, some of which weren’t answered. VA Ulugetenne, too, received quite a number of calls. Those familiar with the developments at that time said that some felt that SLNS Gajabahu should move out of Sri Lankan waters. There had been suggestions that the destination should be the Maldives, India or Singapore. Regardless of such suggestions, SLNS Gajabahu proceeded towards Trincomalee where the Navy made necessary arrangements to host them.

Captain Marlon Perera, who still serves the Navy, had been the Commanding Officer of the vessel. Perera now holds the Commodore rank.

During the journey precautions were taken to ensure the safety and security of the President and the First Lady. Although the crew hadn’t been aware that they would be entrusted with such a sensitive task at a time the country was in crossroads against the backdrop of an economic collapse and sovereign default, there were fears of the crew being affected by propaganda in support of regime change operation.

The attempt made by sailor Wijemuni Vijitha Rohana de Silva to cause harm to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, way back in July, 1987, underscored the necessity to take precautions during the Colombo-Trincomalee journey as the possibility of anti-Gotabaya campaign having an impact on at least some members of the ship crew couldn’t be ruled out.

On July 30, 1987, during a guard of honor in Colombo, the 21-year-old naval rating struck Gandhi on the shoulder and back with the butt of his rifle. Gandhi narrowly avoided the full impact of the blow by evasive ducking.

On the invitation of VA Ulugetenne, Gotabaya Rajapaksa attended all the formalities in respect of a visit undertaken by the President to the Trincomalee Navy base. The President participated in those formalities knowing that he couldn’t attend the commissioning parade that was scheduled to be held on 15 July, 2022. The Navy was not in a position to put off the commissioning parade hence the decision to invite Defence Secretary Gunaratne as the Chief Guest.

Ulugetenne retired from active naval service on 18 December, 2022, following a distinguished career, spanning over 37 years. He received the appointment as the 24th Commander of the Navy in July, 2020, just a couple of months after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election as the President.

Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor, appointed Ulugetenne as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Cuba. The appointment was made in late 2023 and the retired Navy Chief presented his credentials to Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel on 13 February, 2024 (https://island.lk/from-fonseka-convictions-to-arrest-of-ulugetenne/)

However, within weeks after the last presidential election held in late November, 2024, the NPP government recalled over a dozen top envoys appointed by the previous administration. Admiral Ulugetenne was among them. The government deprived a decorated officer, who had served the country for nearly four decades, from completing his term in Havana. Within months after his return, he became the target of a murder investigation.

Then out of the blue the retired Navy Chief became the focus of a murder investigation, that, too, post-war. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested him on 28 July, 2025, over the disappearance of a person reported in July, 2020.

Kurunegala High Court Judge Tikiri Jayatilleke, on 14 October, 2025, granted him bail. Jayatilleke declared that the CID acted in an illegal manner in respect of the former Navy Commander. His counsel Kalinga Indatissa, PC, alleged in court that his client had been apprehended only on the basis of an ex-LTTE cadre’s allegation in the absence of any evidence

The next hearing is scheduled for 08 July, 2026. Ulugetenne was held at the Kegalle Prison for four days and then transferred to the Dumbara (Pallekale) Prison. Altogether, he was in prison for 80 days, like a common criminal, despite him being a former Navy Commander with an unblemished career record.

Wartime Chief of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral (retd) Sarath Mohotti, who had been also arrested in connection with the same investigation, was also granted bail, a few weeks later.

Continue Reading

Trending