Connect with us

Features

The root of all evil

Published

on

A file photo of a US House Committee on Foreign Affairs meeting

Professor Michael K. Jerryson of Youngstown State University, Ohio, USA,  testified on the subject of ‘Human Rights Concerns in Sri Lanka’ before the ‘Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, House Committee on Foreign Affairs (of the U.S. House of Representatives) on June 20, 2018. While delivering his statement, Jerryson submitted a written testimony into the record. He thanked Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and other Members of the Committee  for ‘addressing a very important issue facing Sri Lanka, which is also a larger issue of peace and stability for South and South Asia today’.

The witness described himself as ‘a professor of religious studies at Youngstown State University’ who had ‘worked on Buddhism and violence for over 20 years’ from 1998 until then (2018). He claimed that he had travelled, and done his fieldwork, in Asia. His work involved ‘living and interviewing Buddhist civilians and monks involved in Buddhist-supported violence’ (!). Then he mentioned a list of his then recent publications including his ‘Mongolian Buddhism: The Rise and Fall of the Sangha (Silk Worm, 2008) …, and ‘Violence and the world’s Religious Traditions (Oxford, 2016).

Jerryson explained that his ‘position’ as a scholar of religion was ‘not to judge a religion or its adherents, but rather to illuminate the ways in which religious values motivate or influence people and social patterns’. He said that, in his work, he ‘found that religion is one of the most undervalued and misunderstood causes for violence and for reconciliation in the contemporary world’. Moving towards his central topic, he identified ‘strong pervasive identifications’ as the basic cause of the current problems in Sri Lanka. Jerryson asserted that for many Sri Lankan Buddhists ‘a true Sri Lankan is a Sinhala Buddhist’.  He arbitrarily concluded that this was ‘a powerful normative influence throughout Sri Lanka’, and that the same social conformity inducing Buddhist influence was found within the larger South and Southeast Asian societies at present. So, he avers that ‘the change necessary in Sri Lanka … requires a systemic shift in the way Sri Lankans identify themselves and their concept of the nation (and, concurrently, patriotism)’. He told the Committee that, while drawing on the information that he gathered from scholars, journalists and NGO workers, he expressed his own (independent) views in his testimony.

I (RRW) was surprised to find that he mentions my name in a footnote with an extract from an article of mine published in the online news forum Lankaweb/June 17, 2018, that he uses as an example of what he alleges to be ‘Buddhist propaganda’ (something that I would have confidently challenged, had I known it at that time); but I came across Jerryson’s statement quite by chance only a couple of months ago while scouring the internet for any information about a possible letup in the strong bias against Sri Lanka that still persists in Western countries for no other reason than successfully overcoming mindless separatist terrorism in 2009 against their domestic vote bank based unholy expectations.

The footnote number 8 pertains to the following paragraph in the section of the written testimony under the heading ‘The power of Buddhist monks’:

‘The power behind Buddhist propaganda are Sri Lankan Buddhist monks. The more public and vocal conservative monks have stroked (sic) Sinhala Buddhist fears and angers of minority and marginalised identities. This behaviour is distinctly modern. Prior to British colonialism (1815 1948), Buddhist monks legitimated Sri Lankan governments; however, they did not directly participate in any political system. This historic role explains the Sri Lankan Buddhist monk’s  symbol as society’s moral foundation. When Buddhist monks publicly speak, they do so not only as religious voices, but also as political moral authorities.’

The footnote (8) is as follows:

‘A recent editorial by Rohana R. Wasala exemplifies this. Rohana writes, “Buddhist monks feel compelled to respond to what they perceive as aggressive acts by non-Buddhist religious extremists that adversely affect the rights of the exceptionally tolerant, accommodative Buddhists. “Anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer – III,” LankaWeb, June 11, 2018,…….’

The word ‘this’ at the end of the first sentence here refers to what is said in the paragraph above, beginning ‘The power behind……’ quoted from Jerryson’s attestation. He says there that Sri Lankan Buddhist monks, through their ‘Buddhist propaganda’, spread fears among Buddhists while at the same time infuriating ‘minority and marginalised identities’. But he argues that this behaviour of the monks is a new development. Jerryson takes a sweeping view of the Buddhist monks’ relationship with the Lankan state before the period of British colonial rule (1815-1948) as one of ‘legitimating’ governments without participating in any political systems. So, the alleged new element in Sri Lankan Buddhist monk’s conduct is that they have started interfering in politics fomenting social unrest to the detriment of so-called minorities and marginalised groups. (This implicit allegation is totally false.) He refers to my Lankaweb article cited above, which he erroneously calls ‘an editorial’ (implying misleadingly that I was the Editor of Lankaweb that he probably saw as a pro-Buddhist website carrying out ‘Buddhist propaganda’). The truth about me is that I am not a professional journalist. I can’t be called a freelancer either, for I don’t write for money. It’s only a post-retirement hobby for me. I write about these things purely  because I love Sri Lanka. Jerryson has arbitrarily let me be taken for the Editor of Lankaweb. I don’t know why he did that. Further, I abandoned religion at age 15 or 16, when I realised that Buddhism was not a religion at all, except in a cultural sense. I may be called a cultural Buddhist. I don’t subscribe to any particular political or economic ideology. But I believe that the secular democratic system of government is the most compatible with Buddhist moral and ethical values.

I must say at this point that everything that Jerryson maintains against Buddhist monks is false. He relies almost exclusively on questionable sources/biased non-Buddhist informants, while taking casual remarks made by persons like Piyadassi Thera and Dilanthe Vithanage, who are highly knowledgeable about the issue involving Buddhist monks vs minority religious extremists as serious but false assertions. It is incredible that a professor who claims to have done over twenty years’ research about the ridiculously implausible subject of ‘Buddhism and violence’ occurring in many Buddhist countries including Sri Lanka, showed so little knowledge of Buddhism, its history in Sri Lanka, and its vital importance for the majority Buddhist Sri Lanka. Shouldn’t the Sinhalese Buddhist community also enjoy the basic human right of freedom of religion. Buddhism co-exists with any other religion provided that extremist adherents of  other religions do not tread on Buddhists’ toes.

Jerryson mentions in his affidavit that, in 2013, he participated in a panel discussion with A.R.M. Imtiaz at the Association for Asian Studies (I found that this is a Michigan/USA based academic NGO, and that Imtiaz, a researcher with an impressive array of academic qualifications acquired in the West, had been teaching in the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, but is currently, in 2025, serving as a professor at Delaware Valley University, Pennsylvania, USA). At that discussion, Imtiaz read a paper on ‘the persecution of Sri Lankan Muslims in the post-civil war era’, where he argued that ‘the Sri Lankan flag serves as a harbinger for the Sri Lankan ethno-religious strife throughout the last four decades’ (that is, since 1972, the year that Sri Lanka declared itself an independent sovereign republic completely free from British colonial influence, an epoch making event for all Sri Lankans). ‘In his conference presentation, Imtiyaz explained that the Sinhala Buddhists first turned their “sword” to the Sri Lankan Tamils during the 26-year civil war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, 1983-2009). After the Sinhala Buddhist government conquered the last strongholds of the LTTE, they turned their “sword” to the next largest minority in their country: the Sri Lankan Muslims.1 For the last five years ….’

I quoted this piece of Imtiaz’s academic brilliance to prove that Jerryson’s testimony about alleged Buddhist propaganda and violence against ‘minority and marginalised identifications’ (there has never been any such problem in Sri Lanka) was not worthy of that august body in America, which claims to the only superpower in the world. Imtiaz’s argument was not original, though probably he didn’t tell Jerryson about it. ‘The lion turning its sword menacingly towards Tamils and Muslims’ meme  was popularly known in Sri Lanka before 2013. When an ordinary Muslim articulated this argument to his Sinhalese friend, the latter retorted: ‘Then let’s ask the government to reverse the picture of the lion, but then, won’t you grumble, saying that the lion is turning its tail-raised backside to Tamils and Muslims?’

Incidentally, before I conclude, let me point out a very real form of discrimination or even harassment that the majority Sinhala speakers were or probably still are being subjected to by the powers that be, due to anti- Sinhalese Buddhist prejudice (apparently repeated in Jerryson’s own thesis): the appointment of a local office to keep tabs on Sinhala language FB content during the Yahapalanaya of 2015-2019. The Island newspaper published (Thursday, May 3, 2018) an article by me criticizing this anomaly under the title ‘A local office to monitor FB content: Is it a wise move?’

Following this, I wrote a long article about ‘Anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer’, which was carried in the online Lankaweb in three installments I, II, and III, respectively on June 5, 8, and 11, 2018. It was prompted by the writing of a similarly ill-informed Swedish intellectual

mentioned in the opening paragraph of my ‘Anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer – I’ published on June 5, 2018, thus:

‘A recent  article titled ‘Why Violent Buddhist Extremists Are Targeting Muslims in Sri Lanka’ by Andreas Johansson of Lund University in Sweden available at … is a classic example of the relentless anti-Buddhist propaganda carried on by the Western and allied media outlets for a long time now. Johansson’s inexplicable antipathy towards the Sinhalese Buddhist majority of Sri Lanka is clearly reflected in both the title and the opening paragraph ….’

It’s as if Michael K. Jerryson of Youngstown State University, USA, responded to my reply to Andreas Johanson of Lund University in Sweden with a better example of anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer.

Whatever social unrest took place in the past in the field of interreligious relations in Sri Lanka, it was not initiated by Buddhists; it was always triggered by non-Buddhist extremists bent on proselytising and on encroaching on the traditional Buddhist religious space. The Tamil Hindu minority faces the same threat from those extremists, who promote separatism and proselytisation, pampered and manipulated by the global geopolitical puppet masters in the Indo-Pacific Ocean region where Sri Lanka is located at such a geostrategically sensitive point.

It goes without saying that unity between the religiously nonrigid Sinhalese Buddhist majority and the similarly religiously nonrigid Tamil Hindu minority joined by the non-extremist majority of mainstream Christian and Muslim communities would be the eminently feasible ideal solution to Sri Lanka’s existing problems, if only our pan-Sri Lankan national political leaders developed the collective will to do so without unnecessarily succumbing to the temporary regional and global hegemonies that try to exploit our internal divisions and rivalries to their advantage and to our detriment.

by Rohana R. Wasala



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Silence of the majority keeps West Asian conflict raging

Published

on

Pope Leo the XIVth / President Donald Trump

With no military quick-fix in sight to the ongoing, convoluted West Asian conflict it ought to be clear to the rationally inclined that there is no other way to a solution to the blood-letting other than through a negotiated one. Unfortunately, there are not many takers the world over for such an approach.

Consequently the war rages on incurring the gravest human costs to all relevant sides. Whereas it should be obvious to the Trump administration that Iran wouldn’t be backing down any time soon from its position of taking on the US frontally and with the required military competence in the Hormuz Strait and adjacent regions, the US demonstrates a stubbornness to persist with war strategies that are showing no quick, positive results on the ground.

Clearly, the virtual ‘lock down within a lock down’ situation in the Strait is not proving beneficial for either party. Instead, the spilling of civilian blood in particular continues with unsettling regularity along with an all-encompassing economic crisis that carries a staggering material toll for ordinary people all over the world.

From this viewpoint it is commendable for Pakistan to offer itself as a peace mediator and go ‘the extra mile’ to keep the principal parties engaged in some sort of negotiatory process. But its efforts need to win greater support from the world community. It is a time for peace-makers the world over to stand up and be counted.

It is also a time for straight-talking. To his glowing credit Pope Leo XIV is doing just that and he is the only religious head worldwide to do so. Very rightly he has called on President Trump to end the war through negotiations and described it as ‘unjust’ and ‘a scandal to humanity’.

May this crucial cause be taken up by more and more world leaders, is this columnist’s wish. Instead of speaking fatalistically about a ‘Third World War’, decision and policy makers and commentators, and these are found in plenty in Sri Lanka as well, would do better to help in drumming-up support for a peaceful solution and the latter is within the realms of the possible.

Incidentally, the commonplace definition of the phrase ‘World War’ is quite contentious and it would be premature to speak forebodingly about one right now. The fissures within the West on the Middle East conflict alone rule out the possibility of a ‘World War’ occurring any time soon.

Instead, it would be preferable for the international community, under the aegis of the UN, to take the ‘straight and narrow’ path to a peaceful solution. As implied, this path is no easy avenue; it is cluttered with obstacles that only doughty peace makers could take on and clear.

However, the path to a negotiated peace is worth taking and no less a power than the US should know this. After all, the US ‘bled white’ in Vietnam and had to bow out of the conflict, realizing the futility of pursuing a military solution. A similar lesson should have been learned by Russia which bled futilely in Afghanistan. It too is in an unwinnable situation in Ukraine.

The Pope’s observations to President Trump on negotiating peace have earned for him some snarls and growls of criticism but with time these critics would realize that peace could come only by peaceful means and not through ‘the barrel of a gun.’

For far too long the ‘silent majority’ of the world has allowed politicians to take the sole initiative on working towards peaceful solutions to conflicts and wars. As could be seen, the results have been disastrous. The majority of politicians speak the language of Realpolitik only and this tendency runs contrary to the ways of the selfless peace maker.

Power, which is the essence of Realpolitik, and peace are generally at loggerheads in the real world. Power and self-aggrandizement have to be shelved in the pursuit of durable peace anywhere and it is a pity that the likes of Donald Trump and his team are yet to realize this.

At this juncture the ‘peace constituency’ or the silent majority would need to take centre stage and play their rightful role as the ‘Conscience of the World’. If the latter begins to take on the cause of peace in earnest everywhere, the politicians would have no choice but to pay heed to their cause and take it up, since a contrary course would earn for them public displeasure and votes.

An immediate challenge would be for the ‘peace constituency’ to come together and act as one. Right now, such a coordinating role could be played effectively by only the UN and its agencies. Practical problems are likely to get in the way but these need to be managed insightfully and resourcefully by all stakeholders to peace.

In fact the time couldn’t be more appropriate for the backers of peace to come together and work as one. Right now, economic pressures are increasing worldwide and no less a public than that in the US is beginning to feel them in a major, crushing way.

Going ahead the US public, along with other polities, would find the economic consequences of war to be intolerable. There would be no choice but for governments and peoples to champion peace. Peace makers would need to ‘strike while the iron is hot.’

The success of the above endeavours hinges on the importance humans attach to their consciences. The danger about prolonged wars is that they deaden consciences; particularly those of politicians. The latter deaden their consciences to the extent that they prove impervious to the pain and suffering wars incur.

Thus, the ‘peace constituency’ has its work cut out; it cannot rest assured that politicians would prove sensitive to their demands. The latter would need to be constantly dinned into the hearts and minds of politicians and decision-makers if peaceful solutions to conflicts are to be arrived at.

Likewise, the publics of war-torn countries would need to demand the activation and sustaining of accountability processes with regard to those sections that are suspected of committing war crimes and like atrocities. Those publics that cease to demand accountability from powerful sections among them which are faced with war-time atrocity charges are as good as condemning themselves to lives of permanent dis-empowerment and enslavement.

Continue Reading

Features

Don’t take the baby: In the quiet night, mother always returns

Published

on

Grey Slender Loris

Chaminda Jayasekara

There is a particular stillness in Sri Lanka’s forests, after dusk — a kind of hushed expectancy where shadows lengthen, cicadas soften their chorus, and the night begins to breathe in its own rhythm. It is a world that does not reveal itself easily. You have to wait for it. You have to listen.

And then, suddenly, you see them — a pair of luminous, unblinking eyes suspended in the dark.

The Grey Slender Loris, or unahapuluwa, emerges, not with drama, but with quiet precision. Small, slow-moving, and almost impossibly delicate, it is one of Sri Lanka’s most enigmatic nocturnal primates — a creature that has survived millennia by mastering the art of stillness.

Yet, during these months — from late March through July — the forests hold a more tender story. It is the breeding season of the slender loris, and with it comes a scene that is often misunderstood by those who encounter it for the first time: a tiny infant, alone on a branch, barely three inches long, its fragile body silhouetted against the night.

Grey Slender Loris with twin babies

To many, it appears to be a moment of abandonment.

To nature, it is a moment of trust.

“People often act out of compassion, but without understanding what they are seeing,” explains Chaminda Jayasekara of the University of Hertfordshire. “A baby loris left alone is not necessarily in danger. In fact, it is part of a natural process that is critical for its survival.”

According to Jayasekara, when a baby loris is about a month old, the mother begins a remarkable routine. As darkness settles, she gently places her infant on a secure branch and moves off into the forest to forage. Her journey can take her hundreds of metres away — sometimes close to 800 metres — as she searches for insects and other small prey.

In those hours of solitude, the infant is not abandoned. It is learning.

Clinging to the branch, it begins to explore its immediate surroundings. Tentatively, almost hesitantly, it reaches out — testing balance, grip, and instinct. It may attempt to catch tiny insects, mimicking behaviours it will one day rely on entirely. This is its first classroom, and the forest its only teacher.

“Those early nights are crucial,” Jayasekara says. “The baby is developing motor skills, coordination, and the ability to interact with its environment. These are things that cannot be replicated in captivity.”

And yet, this is precisely where human intervention often disrupts the process.

Across rural and even semi-urban Sri Lanka, stories circulate of well-meaning individuals who come across a lone baby loris and assume the worst. Driven by concern, they pick it up, take it home, or attempt to hand-rear it — believing they are saving a life.

Grey Slender Loris

But the reality is far more complex — and far more tragic.

“When a baby is removed unnecessarily, it loses something fundamental,” Jayasekara emphasises. “It loses the chance to learn how to survive in the wild. Without that, even if it survives in the short term, its long-term prospects are extremely poor.”

The forest, after all, is not just a habitat. It is a living, evolving system of lessons — how to detect predators, how to navigate branches, how to hunt silently, how to recognise territory. These are not instincts alone; they are behaviours refined through experience.

And the mother, contrary to assumption, is rarely far away.

“If people simply waited — even for several hours — they would often see the mother return,” Jayasekara explains. “She knows exactly where she left her baby. Her absence is temporary, purposeful.”

The advice from conservationists is clear and consistent: observe, but do not interfere.

If you encounter a baby loris, watch quietly from a distance. Avoid using bright lights or making noise. Give it time — at least 10 to 12 hours — before drawing conclusions. In most cases, the situation will resolve itself, just as nature intended.

35 days old Grey Slender Loris

Only if the animal is clearly injured, or if there is strong evidence of abandonment after prolonged observation, should intervention be considered — and even then, it must be done through the proper channels, particularly the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

Attempting to care for such a delicate animal at home is not only ineffective but often fatal.

Sri Lanka is home to two species of slender loris — the Grey Slender Loris and the Red Slender Loris — each adapted to specific ecological zones across the island. Both are protected under national legislation and recognised internationally as species requiring urgent conservation attention.

Their threats are many: habitat loss, road mortality, illegal pet trade, and, increasingly, human misunderstanding.

Yet, in the midst of these challenges, there are also signs of hope.

In recent years, the slender loris has become the focus of a unique form of wildlife tourism — one that values patience over spectacle. Night walks, conducted with trained naturalists and strict ethical guidelines, offer visitors a chance to witness the loris in its natural environment without disturbing its behaviour.

At places like Jetwing Vil Uyana, this approach has been refined into a model of responsible eco-tourism. Over more than a decade, the property has developed a dedicated Loris Conservation Project, recording thousands of sightings while educating visitors and supporting local communities.

Here, the loris is not handled, chased, or exploited. It is simply observed — a quiet presence in a carefully protected landscape.

“The success of such initiatives shows that conservation and tourism do not have to be at odds,” Jayasekara reflects. “When done responsibly, tourism can actually support conservation by creating awareness and value for these species.”

There is something profoundly moving about encountering a loris in the wild. It does not roar or charge. It does not demand attention. Instead, it exists — quietly, deliberately — as it has for millions of years.

And perhaps that is why it is so easily misunderstood.

In a world that often equates visibility with importance, the loris reminds us that some of the most extraordinary lives unfold beyond the spotlight.

It also reminds us of something else — something simpler, yet harder to practice.

Restraint.

Because conservation is not always about stepping in. Sometimes, it is about stepping back. About recognising when nature does not need our help, but our patience.

So if, on some future night, you find yourself walking beneath the trees, and your light catches a tiny figure sitting alone on a branch — do not rush forward.

Pause.
Watch.
Let the moment unfold.

Because somewhere, moving silently through the darkness, guided by instinct and memory, a mother is already on her way back.

And by morning, the forest will be whole again.

 

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Kumar de Silva: 40 years of fame and flair

Published

on

Kumar de Silva: The four-decade journey

We first saw him on the small screen in January 1986 – a relatively raw, totally untrained and a very nervous 24-year-old presenting ‘Bonsoir’ on ITN.

And now, 40 years later, and as one looks back, one realises what a multi-dimensional journey Kumar de Silva has navigated across the small screen yes, from your television screens to your laptops, and iPads, tabs, and mobile phones.

Says Kumar: “It is the French language I speak that opened the world of television to me, 40 years ago. It was ‘Bonsoir’ alone, and so to my French teacher at Wesley College, Mrs. BA Fernando, to ‘Bonsoir’, and to the Embassy of France in Sri Lanka, I am eternally grateful”.

Promoting the French language, and culture, in Sri Lanka, in a big way

Kumar went on to say that on the heels of ‘Bonsoir” came ‘Fanclub’, on ITN, describing it as yet another resounding success story which saw him as a music DJ on TV.

His inherent talent saw him handle a range of contrasting programmes across ITN, TNL, Prime TV and SLRC with consummate ease – from News Reading, Business Talk Shows, Celebrity Chats, to Dhamma discussions, on Poya Days, to name a few.

Kumar – the 1986 look

Trained in Paris in television production and presentation, the Government of France, in 2012, conferred on him the title of ‘Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Arts et Lettres’ (Chevalier in the Order of Arts and Letters) in recognition of his contribution to promoting the French language, and culture, in Sri Lanka.

In celebration of his four decades on the small screen, Kumar recently launched ‘Bonsoir Katha’, the Sinhala translation (by Ciara Mendis) of his English book ‘Bonsoir Diaries’ (2013), at a gala soiree. at the Alliance Francaise de Colombo, under the distinguished patronage of the French Ambassador in Sri Lanka, Remi Lambert, and francophone President Chandrika Kumaratunga.

He’s now excited about launching the French version of this book, ‘Les Coulisses de Bonsoir’, in Paris, in autumn this year. It is currently being translated by Guilhem Beugnon, a former Deputy Director of the Alliance Francaise de Colombo. This will, co-incidentally, also be Kumar’s 30th visit to Paris.

Chief Guest French Ambassador in Sri
Lanka Remi Lambert

Says Kumar: “The word GRATITUDE means a lot to me and so I always make it a point to spend time with two very special French people every time I go to France. One is Madame Josiane Thureau, formerly of the French Foreign Ministry, who began ‘Bonsoir’ in Sri Lanka. way back in the mid-1980s. The other is Madame Aline Berengier, the lady who designed the ‘Bonsoir’ logo – the Sri Lankan elephant in the colours of the French national flag”.

Kumar is also a much-sought-after Personal Development and Corporate Etiquette Coach in Colombo’s corporate world. Over the past 15 years, tens of thousands of corporates, have been through the different modules of his interactive training sessions. There have also been thousands of school leavers and undergraduates from national and private universities, many of whom will constitute the corporates of tomorrow.

Guest of Honour francophone President Chandrika Kumaratunga at the gala soiree
at the Alliance Francaise de Colombo

The multi-talented Kumar turns 65 next year, and his journey on the small screen still continues – you see him on the (monthly) ‘Rendez-Vous with Yasmin and Kumar’ on the French Embassy’s YouTube Channel, and (every Friday) on ‘Fame Game with Rozanne and Kumar’ on Daily Mirror Online, Hi Online and The Sun Online.

There’s yet another podcast in the pipeline, he indicated, but diplomatically declined to give us details. All he said, with a glint in his eye, was, “It will hit your screens soon.”

Whatever he has in mind, one can be certain that the new programme will continue to showcase Kumar de Silva’s enduring presence in Sri Lanka’s entertainment scene.

Continue Reading

Trending