Have you wondered why the same name (eg. Jayatillake) is often spelt differently?

(This is largely AI generated with some human intervention)

Sri Lankan people write their names in English in multiple different ways primarily because there is no single standardized system for converting Sinhala and Tamil sounds into the English alphabet. Variations stem from linguistic phonetics, centuries of colonial rule, and legal document traditions.

1. Phonetic Gaps Between Local Languages and English

Sinhala and Tamil scripts are strictly phonetic and possess sounds that do not have direct one-to-one equivalents in the 26-letter English alphabet.

Dental vs. Retroflex Consonants: Sinhala has distinct letters for dental ‘t/d’ sounds (made with the tongue against the teeth) and retroflex ‘t/d’ sounds (tongue curled back). When transliterated, some people use th for the dental sound (Rathnayake, Goonathilake), while others use t (Ratnayake, Gunatilake).

The Vowel Mapping Dilemma: The short schwa vowel sound (common in words like Vardhana or Krama) gets interpreted differently by different writers. This creates variations like Jayawardena vs. Jayewardene, or Wickramasinghe vs. Wickremesinghe.

2. Colonial British Spelling Conventions

During British rule in Ceylon (1796 1948), colonial administrators registered birth records and names in English. English speakers often struggle to pronounce a short ‘a’ at the end of a word (e.g., pronouncing Nayaka as “Nayak-ay”).

To force an English speaker to pronounce the ending vowel, British clerks frequently wrote an “e” at the end of Sanskrit- and Sinhala-derived roots:

-nayaka became -nayake (Rathnayake)

-singha became -singhe (Wickramasinghe)

-vardhana became -wardene (Jayewardene)

-ratna became -ratne (Karunaratne)

Family branches that adopted modern Sanskritized or academic transliterations later changed these back to -na, -ha, or -ka, while others kept the British-era spelling.

3. Portuguese and Dutch Colonial Influences

A large portion of Sri Lankans carry surnames of Portuguese origin due to 150+ years of Portuguese rule along the coasts. Over centuries, these names evolved into distinct English spellings:

Pereira vs. Perera

Pieris vs. Peiris vs. Peries vs, Peeris vs. Pireis (and more)

De Silva vs. de Silva vs. de Sylva vs. de Zilwa etc.

Fernandopulle vs. Fernando

Different families registered their inherited foreign names using whichever English spelling was used by the official clerk on duty at the time of birth registration.

4. Tamil Phonetics and Soft/Hard Consonants

In Sri Lankan Tamil name transliteration, a single Tamil consonant character can represent both a soft and a hard sound depending on its position in the word. English transliterators choose different letters to represent these sounds:

T vs. TH: Thiruchelvam vs. Tiruchelvam

K vs. G: Murugesan vs. Murukesan

P vs. B: Santhapillai vs. Santhabillai

5. Legal Document Inertia

In Sri Lanka, legal identity is tied strictly to the spelling on a person’s official Birth Certificate and National Identity Card (NIC). If a registrar in 1950 in handwriting spelled a grandfather’s surname as Gunasekara instead of Gunasekera, that exact spelling remains legally binding for subsequent generations, preserving minor spelling variations across extended families.

6. Caste spellings

The English spellings of Sri Lankan names sometimes have caste indicators. Eg. Goonewardene (karawa) vs. Gunawardene (govigama).

Some families have distinctive name spelling. Eg. Wikramanayake vs. more common Wickremanayake.

English language journalists once upon a time were told to “spell a man’s name the way he spells it.

(Excerpted from “Madame-Sir”, Manel Abeysekera’s memoir of SL’s first woman career diplomat. This book was first published in 2010)

It was when we were in the Residence at Soi 20 that I had to handle the second hi-jack — that of the Alitalia ‘plane by Sepala Ekanayake. It was a year after that by the Indonesian Muslim Fundamentalists and the aborted Coup in Bangkok.

I simply could not believe my ears when I was called by the Thai Foreign Ministry and informed that a Sri Lankan by the name of Sepala Ekanayake had hi-jacked an Alitalia Boeing with 169 passengers on board and wanted the ‘plane fuelled and flown to Colombo; my first reaction was that it must be an Eelamist under an assumed Sinhala name and I had our copy of our Immigration “black” list of those who should not be allowed to land in Sri Lanka checked for the name but, though there was an Ekanayake listed, his first name was not Sepala.

Sepala Ekanayake

I next telexed the Foreign Ministry about the hi-jack and requested all information on Ekanayake to enable me have some idea of my protagonist. Our Police was simply marvelous and sent the information promptly: which was that [1] his father had re-married and his step mother had treated him badly resulting in his becoming unmanageable in school which in turn had made him a school drop out [2] he had later learnt electrical wiring and other technical skills [3] he had illegally slipped into Italy where he married an Italian Montessori teacher and they and their son lived in Modena [4] though he was not wanted for any offence in Sri Lanka or in Italy he had been involved in a brawl in Sri Lanka in which he had broken a man’s arm though there was no evidence on which to indict him [5] he had been given short jail sentences in Pakistan and Yugoslavia for drug peddling of small quantities of heroin-hence the short sentences.

Hector (my husband) and I accompanied by (embassy staffer) Premaratne went to the Airport and were directed to the Alitalia Office where there was also the Italian Ambassador Signor Ripandelli. Both he and I offered to board the ‘plane but were refused permission by the Alitalia authorities probably because the hi-jacker had threatened to blow up the plane if anything was done without his permission or his requests refused, by triggering off the explosives he said he had round his neck and shoulders which he had covered with a shawl.

We were briefed that he had boarded the ‘plane in New Delhi and hi-jacked it when it was approaching Bangkok. Unlike most hi-jackers, he had not toted a gun but said he would not hesitate to activate the explosives round his neck and shoulders. He had explained that he had boarded the ‘plane without them and that they had been brought on board by his collaborators and left in the toilet for him to collect and string together. After doing so he had astutely occupied the Air Hostess’ seat against the body of the aircraft so that no one could surprise him from behind and declared that he was hi-jacking it; the manouevre was carried out so smoothly that the passengers thought that the reason for the unscheduled stop was a technical problem.

Sepala Ekanayake

He had said that the reason for the hi-jack was because his wife had taken their four-year old son from Sri Lanka without his permission with the connivance of the Italian Embassy in Colombo; his demands were: [1] the child to be brought to Bangkok and handed over to him [2] $300,000 to pay his collaborators and [3] all passengers to be allowed to disembark without being searched to prevent his collaborators even accidentally being detained. The reason for the hi-jack was most unusual but we had no option but to accept it.

I was asked by the Thai Authorities to negotiate with him and I asked Premaratne to listen very carefully – as I was going to speak to him in Sinhala – to detect in his choice of language or accent any trace of his being a Tamil which might give him away as a possible Eelamist. I spoke to Ekanayake through the radio link provided between the Alitalia Office and the Captain for the purpose and, having introduced myself by name and as the Sri Lankan Ambassador to Thailand, I asked him whether he wished me to speak in English or Sinhala and he opted for the latter. After listening to his tale of woe, I informed him that he had committed an international crime and that it was hardly likely that his requests would be granted, little guessing at that time that they would!

Though everyone hoped that he would be overpowered at some stage, whenever he was tired or sleepy, it was not to be because, whenever anyone approached, he would become alert. Thus the hours passed and one of my problems was in communicating with our Foreign Secretary because Air Lanka did not have a direct telephone link to Colombo which I could have used and the Alitalia Office was much too pre-occupied and was connected to Rome.

However, the spirit of solidarity among women came to my rescue as some officials in charge of Airline and other offices at the Airport were women – Royal Nepalese Airlines and World Travel Service – and those ladies invited me to their offices and offered the use of their telephones for which I was extremely grateful. Ironically, the difference regarding action by the Italian Ambassador and myself in this tense situation was that, Rome asked him to take instructions from the Alitalia Captain, whereas I was left to my own devices!

As I have a deep belief in God and realized that I had only Him and my good sense to rely on, I prayed that God give me His help to save the lives of the 169 passengers. As if in answer, I often felt that He was putting words in my mouth as I found myself speaking to Ekanayake in different tones and equally amazingly that he was being cooperative with me in whatever I asked him to do. For example, I found myself speaking sternly to him at times and persuasively at others, especially once his wife and son were sent to Bangkok by the Italian Government.

Once she and the child joined me in the Alitalia Office, I even tried to counsel her regarding her marriage, pointing out that several foreign wives were living happily with their Sri Lankan husbands and that there was no reason why she too should not. I told her that, in my opinion, though her husband had committed an international crime, he did not seem criminal minded in that he had allowed meals to be taken on board and had not terrorized the passengers or the crew except threatening to blow himself and the ‘plane should his request for his son to be brought to him in Bangkok be refused.

She, while admitting that her husband was not really criminal minded, said that she could not cope with his sudden impulses such as wanting to go to Australia with their son without any plans as to how he would earn a living there. When she was with me I spoke sternly with him that I had no intention of sending her and their son to him in the ‘plane as she was petrified; before the ‘plane in which they had flown to Bangkok landed, he had wanted to hear his son’s voice to make sure that it was indeed he, and this had been facilitated from ‘plane to ‘plane and so he knew that both of them had come.

Manel Abeysekera who died on Sept. 10 at age 93 was Sri Lanka’s first woman career diplomat

One advantage I had was that I understood Italian as it was the language assigned to me in the Foreign Service and which I had studied for one academic year at New Hall. Cambridge. No one knew it nor did I tell anyone at the Airport but I had the good fortune to be able to understand what was being said by the Alitalia officers and the Captain, which enabled me to follow developments – even the Italian Ambassador had forgotten that I had exchanged pleasantries with him in his language when I had called on him when I took up duties in Bangkok.

I asked Ekanayake to allow the passengers to disembark and, after what seemed an eternity, they were allowed to do so, without any security check as was one of his demands; thereafter, I asked that he allow the stewardesses and stewards to disembark and that too was done. Then only the Captain and Ekanayake remained on board and he asked that his wife come on board with the $300,000. I said that she would go up the gangway with the satchel of money but not board the ‘plane. However, before she did that, I asked him to divest himself of what he had round his shoulders and place it between him and the Captain as otherwise she would not do so.

At first he did not reply, but to my great relief, he complied as was conveyed by the Captain to the Alitalia Office. Thereafter, Ekanayake met his wife halfway on the gangway and took over the satchel of money and went back to the ‘plane.

How the money was obtained was most interesting. As I have already indicated, the Alitalia Office was invariably crowded. This was because there were passengers of several nationalities and representatives of their diplomatic missions were there to took after their interests. Unlike in the Indonesian Garuda hi-jack, these passengers spoke different languages and they did not collectively understand a common tongue.

When I learnt that Ekanayake wanted $300,000 I mentioned it to the Japanese representative, pointing out that as it was evening it may not be possible to get such a large sum of money quickly, which in turn might annoy Ekanayake and result in dire consequences. He got the message and shot out of the room; not much later a Thai woman bank official appeared with the satchel. I suspect that the Japanese had loaned the Thais the money who paid it to Ekanayake and later recovered it from Alitalia.

As I was marooned in the Alitalia Office for nearly 38 hours without a shower or a change of clothes, I used to visit the nearby ladies room to have a wash. On these occasions as I went along I saw several media personnel sleeping on the floor, longing to have news of developments on the hi-jack. When they saw me they would sit up and ask me for news and I tried to oblige as best I could without revealing details of the negations; I used to also tease them by saying that one thing was sure and when they excitedly asked what that would be, I said that it was that they would not get any sleep that night, which made them laugh and relax!

In contrast, the Italian Ambassador, who also passed them on his way to the men’s room, would ignore their questions or be abrupt with them; this resulted in the “Nation” newspaper reporting in an article on the hi-jack that they give the Sri Lankan Ambassador a big bouquet and the Italian Ambassador a brickbat! As I have said, my prayer helped me no end – to think clearly and act with foresight, so that, for instance, I had had the presence of mind to ask Premaratne to bring along the visa stamp and ink pad in case we had to give Ekanayake’s wife a visa to go to Sri Lanka, which we did.

The root cause of Ekanayake’s errant behaviour as I have stated from our Police reports was his early childhood aggravated by his having to steer his own canoe as a youth and rely on his brains of which, in my opinion, he had plenty but which, alas, had not been guided. For instance, his intelligence can be seen from the fact that he had prudently obtained a visa for India in case his collaborators failed to bring on board the electrical gadgetry he required for the hi-jack.

Other aspects in which the Police reports helped me was that, since they said that he had learnt electrical wiring, his claim that he had explosives round his shoulders which he could detonate may well be true and that one could not take any risks over that. Further, the fact that the Police report said that though he was not wanted in Italy or Sri Lanka, made me realize that, if the hi-jack issue ended in negotiations, he may ask to go to Italy or Sri Lanka. I also knew that his going to Italy was unlikely as the Italian Authorities would not allow it; under our Constitution however, if a citizen was not wanted for a crime – and he was not – he could return home provided he was not carrying arms against the State.

So, when the Thai Minister of Communications, H.E.Admiral Amorn Sirigaya, was earlier inquiring from me what was likely to be the denouement of the whole episode, I told him that if he allowed everyone to disembark, then he would have to go somewhere from Bangkok unless he was shot or arrested by the Thai Authorities when he stepped off the ‘plane; knowing the Thai dislike of blood being spilt on Thai soil – from my experience of the previous Garuda hi-jack – I felt that they would let him go.

Yet, when the Minister asked me whether he would be allowed to go to Sri Lanka, I did not answer him but said that I could make the enquiry provided Thailand would give him safe passage; later the Minister told me that he had consulted his Prime Minister and the answer was in the affirmative. ‘So I informed our Foreign Secretary Mr. W. T. Jayasinghe accordingly and also about my understanding of our Constitutional provision to which I have already referred.

(Next week: The drama continues)

Japan in 1945 and Iran today are fundamentally different cases. Nor can the atomic bomb of 1945 simply be compared with today’s sophisticated nuclear arsenals.

By By Milinda Moragoda

Eight decades ago, US President Harry S Truman faced a decision that would change the nature of warfare forever.

Japan was still fighting after the surrender of Nazi Germany. The US possessed a weapon unlike anything the world had seen. Truman and his advisers had to decide how best to use America’s overwhelming military power to end the war.

Today, Donald Trump faces a different problem. Iran has suffered substantial military damage, but military success has not translated into the decisive political outcome the US seeks.

Japan in 1945 and Iran today are fundamentally different cases. Nor can the atomic bomb of 1945 simply be compared with today’s sophisticated nuclear arsenals.

Yet, there is a common strategic problem: How does a great power turn military superiority into a political outcome? If Washington were pushed into a corner — by the cost of the conflict, the inability to compel Iran’s submission or pressure to demonstrate that American power can still deliver a decisive result — the temptation to consider previously unacceptable options could arise.

What would other nuclear powers learn if the nuclear threshold were crossed? The decision-making process surrounding Truman was more complex than the familiar image of a President simply deciding whether to drop the bomb. The views of members of the administration, military leaders and the scientific community were all sought, and they were not identical. The principal US objective was to force Japan to surrender while avoiding the heavy American casualties that an invasion was expected to entail.

An atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6. Japan did not immediately surrender. Three days later, Nagasaki was struck. Around the same time, the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. The sequence matters. Even unprecedented destruction does not automatically translate into political capitulation. Japan’s surrender followed a combination of factors. The decision also had consequences beyond Japan. Moscow was watching. At Potsdam, Truman informed Stalin that the US possessed a powerful new weapon. US officials understood that possession and use of the bomb could affect the emerging relationship with the Soviet Union. Some policymakers hoped that America’s nuclear monopoly might strengthen Washington’s position in dealing with Moscow.

It would be wrong to reduce Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a message to Stalin. The historical debate over “atomic diplomacy” remains contested. But it would be equally wrong to assume that the Soviet Union was absent from American strategic calculations.

We cannot know what is being said privately in the White House, nor should we invent positions for advisers whose deliberations are not public. Trump has not publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. But the possibility has nevertheless entered public debate as the conflict has remained unresolved.

Any American administration confronting an inconclusive conflict with Iran would have to consider not only what further military action might achieve in Iran, but also what its consequences would be elsewhere. Capitals around the world would ask whether an American action demonstrated restraint, established a new threshold or created a precedent. They would examine whether escalation produced political results or merely greater destruction.

The most consequential message may be the precedent that other States believe has been established.

For almost eight decades, nuclear weapons have occupied a peculiar place in international politics: Their paradoxical purpose has been to ensure that they are never used. If that understanding were to change, the consequences would extend far beyond the country against which a weapon was used. Other nuclear powers would examine the circumstances, the justification offered, the international response and, above all, whether nuclear use achieved its political objective. India has its own nuclear doctrine and strategic assumptions. If the circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be contemplated were to change elsewhere, New Delhi would have to examine what that meant for its own security. That would require a serious debate about deterrence, escalation and thresholds.

A great-power action can have several audiences at once. An adversary may see a warning. An ally may see reassurance. A rival may see an opportunity — or a precedent. The meaning of an action is never entirely controlled by the power that takes it. The world of 2026 is also very different from that of 1945. Information travels instantly, and every major use of force is subject to scrutiny by far more actors, each making its own calculations. Military superiority can destroy an adversary’s capacity to fight. It cannot, by itself, determine what comes after the fighting. That is the enduring problem of converting power into political order.

(Milinda Moragoda is founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, strategic affairs think tank. can be contacted via . courtesy Hindustan Times)