Midweek Review

Training actors through Angampora:

Published

5 years ago

2021/01/27

Guru Karunapala and his angampora team at Sri Jayawardhanapura University, Gangodavila, Nugedoda. Photo credits Saumya Liyanage 2020.

A project to seek alternative paradigm at UVPA Colombo

By Saumya Liyanage | Lyudmyla Honcharova | Banduka Premawardhana

The concept of ‘actor training’ or ‘performer training’ has developed through the modern era of theatre and dance pedagogies. Western actor training traditions started with the influence of master actor trainer and theoretician Konstantin Stanislavski. As early as the beginning of the 19th century, Stanislavski started his theatrical exploration at his main laboratory known as the Moscow Arts Theatre (MAT) in Russia. His lifelong quest for actors’ arts and his passion for finding a methodology to develop an actor training system continued at the MAT theatre. However, Stanislavski’s actor training system is the most misinterpreted performer training system used in Europe, America, and Asia. As Alison Hodge argues, Stanislavski’s exploration of actors’ arts was more into actors’ inner and outer faculties and further discusses how this interior and exterior interact with each other (Hodge, 2010). Although Stanislavski’s teaching has been variously interpreted and adapted for diverse purposes to train actors, his influence in the modern theatre is still influential in theatre and performance studies (Liyanage 2016).

As Sharon Carnicke believes that Stanislavski wanted his actors to train their ‘selves’ to develop the rounded and full-fledged characters they portray (Sharon Marie Carnicke, 2009). For instance, Stanislavski’s early psychological approaches were influenced by French psychology, and he was continuing his exploration to cater to the emergence of the symbolism and naturalism introduced by the theatre texts of Ibsen, Gorki, Chekov, and others. The need of developing systematic ways to train actors was not an abrupt action that emerged at the MAT Theatre but a purposeful intervention to absorb the modern theatre tradition and the naturalistic dramatic texts that were germinating in early 19th century Europe.

Intercultural performer training

It is inevitable that Western actor training has been heavily influenced by Eastern performance traditions. From the father of modern acting, Konstantin Stanislavski, to Bertolt Brecht in Germany, Jerzy Grotowski in Poland, and Antonin Artaud in France, Western actor training has been directly or indirectly influenced by one or more Asian performer training paradigms such as hatha yoga, Balinese dance, or Indian dance dramas such as kathakali and kuttiyattam. Theatre historians have observed that at the MAT, Stanislavski was preparing to produce a Sanskrit play and conducting hatha yoga practices through an Indian yoga master. Further, it is widely discussed that Bertolt Brecht encountered Peking Opera actor Mei Lanfang during his visit to Russia (Tian, 1997, Brecht & Bentley, 1961).

In the late 19th century, theatre practitioners such as Eugenio Barba, John Littlewood, Peter Brook, and Mnouchkine borrowed intercultural performance elements from Asian traditions. However, borrowing and assimilating cultural elements from an alien culture posed several problems. Some critics have questioned the ways that the European avant-garde were looking at cultural ‘others’ in the peripheral world. They argued that the modernist theatre directors’ ideology behind cultural appropriation was constructed within the binaries of ‘culture and savage’ (Gale et al., 2016). Alison Hodge also argues that ‘Asian actor training traditions run the risk of being exoticised or simplistically appropriated by practitioners in the West’ (Hodge, 2010, p. xxi). Jerzy Grotowski has argued that Asian performance traditions are not to be directly used to codify actors’ bodies (Jerzy Grotowski et al., 2015). Rustom Bharucha has extensively discussed the misappropriation, misinterpretations, and mythologisation of Indian dramatic heritage by Western theatre practitioners such as Brook, Schechner and others (Bharucha 1984, P. 2-3).

Angampora

The project, which seeks to develop an actor training system through the Sri Lankan combative art, angampora, also bears such cultural complexities when adapting and assimilating a martial arts practice that has been passed down to generations of practitioners through guru-shishya-parampara model. There are many angampora groups and schools in the country and each group has its own ways of tracing their historical affiliations to myths and legends that explore various avenues and genealogies of angampora. Many believe that it was introduced by the Yakkha tribe. In more recent history, the ten warrior giants of King Dutugemunu were the first recorded practitioners of Illangam Satan (the use of weaponry in combat), each having specialised in a unique weapon, and technique.

The advances of the Portuguese were resisted by fighters such as King Rajasinghe, the Battle of Mulleriyawa being one such instance. The Kandyan Kingdom resisted the colonizers with the use of angam fighting strategies and techniques. Eventually, the combative art form that received royal patronage through time became the first martial art in the world to be prohibited; the British banned it in 1818 under the governance of Robert Brownrigg.

Suspect practitioners were shot below the knee, while confirmed angampora martial artistes were put to death. angampora was hidden away in various dance forms such as the koti netuma, and more popular styles such as udarata and pahatharata schools of dance. Following Independence, angampora has resurfaced and is becoming popular in Sri Lanka.

Actor Training and Martial Arts

It might seem that actor training and martial arts are disciplines that have nothing in common. However, this assumption is wrong. Obviously, both are forms of art which share similar approaches. In many martial arts performances, one can observe that performing elements such as fighters’ presentations and demonstrations of fighting skills is accompanied with music. In line with this, theatre performance can also be considered the demonstration of an actor’s skills since the actor shows his/her body-mind integration during performance which are gained in a process of training. It is observed that body-mind integration is a common feature in both arts. Therefore, it is clear that martial arts practitioners and actors are experts of the body. ‘In most drama schools of European traditions, actors are trained to use their bodies (Barrault cited in Bloch, p. 220).

It should be noted that martial arts methodologies are comparatively older and have more defined training structure than actor training. Since first actor training systems evolved in the end of the 19th century in the West, it is not surprising that theatre practitioners were using martial art principles during the creation of their actor training methodologies. Such practitioners were Scott, Copeau, Zarilli, Suzuki, and others. For instance, ‘Scott used tai ji quan as an actor training discipline, was not only a rejection of American actors’ exclusive attention to a psychologically/behaviorally based paradigm of acting, but also an attempt to actualize an alternative paradigm’ (Zarrilli 1995, p. 185). They were paying attention to techniques that strive to develop presence, awareness, and a holistic approach to body-mind work in acting. Many of these actor trainers have referred to Asian martial arts styles.

AHEAD Project 2019-2021

In 2019, Prof. Saumya Liyanage and research assistant to the Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS) University of Visual and Performing Arts (UVPA) Mr Samal Vimukthi Hemachandra submitted a research proposal titled, ‘Lamp in a windless place: developing an actor training methodology through Sri Lankan martial art’. This research proposal won a competitive grant of Rs. 10 million from the Accelerating Higher Education Expansion and Development (AHEAD) project to pursue a three-year-long actor training exploration. The project was initially influenced by the works of the late Phillip B. Zarrilli, Professor of performance practice and well-known theatre scholar at Exeter University, UK. His research on kalaripayattu martial arts in Kerala India and his years of first-hand experience with kalaripayattu martial arts, kathakali and kuttiyattam dance dramas in India had allowed him to formulate an intercultural actor training system derived mainly from kalaripayattu martial arts in Kerala.

Project Team at UVPA Colombo

Prof. Paul Bowman and Prof. Jonathan Pitches are authorities on martial arts studies and performer training in the world and both professors work as foreign consultants to this actor training project. Prof. Bowman is working at Cardiff University, UK and he has written much about martial arts practice. His latest book is Deconstructing Martial Arts published by Cardiff University Press in 2019. Prof. Jonathan Pitches is a professor of theatre and performance at the University of Leeds and has published many leading academic texts on theatre and actor training. His latest publication is Performing Mountains published by Palgrave McMillan in 2020.

Prof. Saumya Liyanage works as the coordinator of the project and its chief investigator. Dr Samith Herath from the Faculty of Visual Arts is the deputy coordinator of the project. His expertise in virtual reality applications and biofeedback technology also help project researchers to capture and monitor actors’ movement works and their biofeedback impulses through cutting edge technology. Natasha Hillary and Sachini Athapaththu work as admin assistants of the project.

In the initial stages of this project, the research team explored the traditional practice of angampora of Guru Karunapala, an 80-year-old angampora master, at his angampora maduwa located in Mirihana, Nugegoda. The field research and embodied practice of angampora are conducted and his legacy of angampora martial arts and indigenous corporeal practices are further explored. Research assistant Lyudmyla Honcharowa explores angampora martial arts with Guru Karunapala while investigating indigenous healing practices of body and mind. Lyudmyla Honcharowa is an actor from Ukraine reading for her MPhil research degree under Prof. Saumya Liyanage’s supervision to explore the connections of actor training methodologies in Europe and Asia. Banduka Premawardhana. also a research assistant of this project, is also reading for his MPhil degree under Prof. Liyanage. He explores how a traditional martial art like angampora could facilitate the training of actors for film and digital medium.

The second phase of the project will start with establishing an actor training laboratory at the Faculty of Dance and Drama, UVPA Colombo. The AHEAD grant supported in renovating an existing rehearsal room into a fully equipped studio space. At the first stage, a group of actors will go through angampora training under supervision of Guru Karunapala to understand and embody angampora principles. During the second phase of laboratory work, actors will be introduced to methods that will be an amalgamation of acting methodologies and angampora martial arts. All stages of actors’ laboratory work are going to be video recorded. Further, actors will be writing personal journals with reflection on the training process which will serve as a source of material for developing a new actor training methodology. In the last stage of the project, a workshop demonstration will be created and performed in front of a selected audience to evaluate the impact of actors and their engagement with the audience. As a part of the project, several angampora groups are chosen for field visits around the country. Project members will also be presenting papers and sharing their findings at international conferences during the project.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the activities designed for this actor training project in 2020. The project team was planning to conduct a six-month-long actor training laboratory at the newly renovated studio located at the Faculty of Dance and Drama. However, due to the pandemic situation, these actor training activities have not been able to proceed. In 2021, and with institutional support, the project team is looking forward to launch their laboratory actor training sessions.

UVPA Vice Chancellor Senior Professor Rohana Mahaliyanaarachchi and his office, the Dean of the Faculty of Dance and Drama, Dr Indika Ferdinando and the OTS office director Dr Anusha Jayasiri and her team have extended their fullest support for the project, which is the first actor training project initiated in a State University in Sri Lanka. This project further intends to work with the University Business Linkage (UBL) office and the Director of UBL, Dr Priyeshni Peiris to seek a business model to use this methodology in the creative industry in Sri Lanka and beyond.

Acknowledgements

Authors of this paper wish to thank Himansi Dehigama and Sachini Senevirathne for proof-reading this paper.

About authors: Prof. Saumya Liyanage is a well-known actor and an academic currently working at the Faculty of Dance and Drama, University of the Visual and Performing Arts, Colombo. Lyudmyla Honcharova and Banduka Premawardhana are both working as research assistants to AHEAD DOR HEMS actor training project and they are reading two MPhil degrees exploring martial arts and actor training under the AHEAD grant scheme.

References

Bharucha, R. (1984). A Collision of Cultures: Some Western Interpretations of the Indian Theatre. Asian Theatre Journal, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1124363

Brecht, B., & Bentley, E. (1961). On Chinese Acting. The Tulane Drama Review, 6(1), 130. https://doi.org/10.2307/1125011

Gale, M. B., Deeney, J. F., Rebellato, D., & Lavery, C. (2016). The Routledge drama anthology and sourcebook : from modernism to contemporary performance. Routledge.

Hodge, A. (2010). Actor training. Routledge.

Jerzy Grotowski, Barba, E., & Brook, P. (2015). Towards a poor theatre. Bloomsbury Methuen Drama.

Ministry of Higher Education, A. O. (2020). Accelerating Higher Education Expansion and Development (AHEAD). https://ahead.lk/

Saumya Liyanage. (2016). Meditations on acting : essays on theory, practice and performance. Dev Publishing.

Sharon Marie Carnicke. (2009). Stanislavsky in focus : an acting master for the 21st century. Routledge.

Tian, M. (1997). “Alienation-Effect” for Whom? Brecht’s (Mis)interpretation of the Classical Chinese Theatre. Asian Theatre Journal, 14(2), 200. https://doi.org/10.2307/1124277

Zarrilli, P. B. (2002). Acting (re)considered : a theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.

Zarrilli, P. B., T Sasitharan, & Anuradha Kapur. (2019). Intercultural acting and performer training. Routledge.

All News Advertisement

Features

Handunnetti and Colonial Shackles of English in Sri Lanka

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/10

Thilina Walpola

Handunetti at the World Economic Forum

“My tongue in English chains.
I return, after a generation, to you.
I am at the end
of my Dravidic tether
hunger for you unassuaged
I falter, stumble.”
– Indian poet R. Parthasarathy

When Minister Sunil Handunnetti addressed the World Economic Forum’s ‘Is Asia’s Century at Risk?’ discussion as part of the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2025 in June 2025, I listened carefully both to him and the questions that were posed to him by the moderator. The subsequent trolling and extremely negative reactions to his use of English were so distasteful that I opted not to comment on it at the time. The noise that followed also meant that a meaningful conversation based on that event on the utility of learning a powerful global language and how our politics on the global stage might be carried out more successfully in that language was lost on our people and pundits, barring a few commentaries.

Now Handunnetti has reopened the conversation, this time in Sri Lanka’s parliament in November 2025, on the utility of mastering English particularly for young entrepreneurs. In his intervention, he also makes a plea not to mock his struggle at learning English given that he comes from a background which lacked the privilege to master the language in his youth. His clear intervention makes much sense.

The same ilk that ridiculed him when he spoke at WEF is laughing at him yet again on his pronunciation, incomplete sentences, claiming that he is bringing shame to the country and so on and so forth. As usual, such loud, politically motivated and retrograde critics miss the larger picture. Many of these people are also among those who cannot hold a conversation in any of the globally accepted versions of English. Moreover, their conceit about the so-called ‘correct’ use of English seems to suggest the existence of an ideal English type when it comes to pronunciation and basic articulation. I thought of writing this commentary now in a situation when the minister himself is asking for help ‘in finding a solution’ in his parliamentary speech even though his government is not known to be amenable to critical reflection from anyone who is not a party member.

The remarks at the WEF and in Sri Lanka’s parliament are very different at a fundamental level, although both are worthy of consideration – within the realm of rationality, not in the depths of vulgar emotion and political mudslinging.

The problem with Handunnetti’s remarks at WEF was not his accent or pronunciation. After all, whatever he said could be clearly understood if listened to carefully. In that sense, his use of English fulfilled one of the most fundamental roles of language – that of communication. Its lack of finesse, as a result of the speaker being someone who does not use the language professionally or personally on a regular basis, is only natural and cannot be held against him. This said, there are many issues that his remarks flagged that were mostly drowned out by the noise of his critics.

Given that Handunnetti’s communication was clear, it also showed much that was not meant to be exposed. He simply did not respond to the questions that were posed to him. More bluntly, a Sinhala speaker can describe the intervention as yanne koheda, malle pol , which literally means, when asked ‘Where are you going?’, the answer is ‘There are coconuts in the bag’.

He spoke from a prepared text which his staff must have put together for him. However, it was far off the mark from the questions that were being directly posed to him. The issue here is that his staff appears to have not had any coordination with the forum organisers to ascertain and decide on the nature of questions that would be posed to the Minister for which answers could have been provided based on both global conditions, local situations and government policy. After all, this is a senior minister of an independent country and he has the right to know and control, when possible, what he is dealing with in an international forum.

This manner of working is fairly routine in such international fora. On the one hand, it is extremely unfortunate that his staff did not do the required homework and obviously the minister himself did not follow up, demonstrating negligence, a want for common sense, preparedness and experience among all concerned. On the other hand, the government needs to have a policy on who it sends to such events. For instance, should a minister attend a certain event, or should the government be represented by an official or consultant who can speak not only fluently, but also with authority on the subject matter. That is, such speakers need to be very familiar with the global issues concerned and not mere political rhetoric aimed at local audiences.

Other than Handunnetti, I have seen, heard and also heard of how poorly our politicians, political appointees and even officials perform at international meetings (some of which are closed door) bringing ridicule and disastrous consequences to the country. None of them are, however, held responsible.

Such reflective considerations are simple yet essential and pragmatic policy matters on how the government should work in these conditions. If this had been undertaken, the WEF event might have been better handled with better global press for the government. Nevertheless, this was not only a matter of English. For one thing, Handunnetti and his staff could have requested for the availability of simultaneous translation from Sinhala to English for which pre-knowledge of questions would have been useful. This is all too common too. At the UN General Assembly in September, President Dissanayake spoke in Sinhala and made a decent presentation.

The pertinent question is this; had Handunetti had the option of talking in Sinhala, would the interaction have been any better? That is extremely doubtful, barring the fluency of language use. This is because Handunnetti, like most other politicians past and present, are good at rhetoric but not convincing where substance is concerned, particularly when it comes to global issues. It is for this reason that such leaders need competent staff and consultants, and not mere party loyalists and yes men, which is an unfortunate situation that has engulfed the whole government.

What about the speech in parliament? Again, as in the WEF event, his presentation was crystal clear and, in this instance, contextually sensible. But he did not have to make that speech in English at all when decent simultaneous translation services were available. In so far as content was concerned, he made a sound argument considering local conditions which he knows well. The minister’s argument is about the need to ensure that young entrepreneurs be taught English so that they can deal with the world and bring investments into the country, among other things. This should actually be the norm, not only for young entrepreneurs, but for all who are interested in widening their employment and investment opportunities beyond this country and in accessing knowledge for which Sinhala and Tamil alone do not suffice.

As far as I am concerned, Handunetti’s argument is important because in parliament, it can be construed as a policy prerogative. Significantly, he asked the Minister of Education to make this possible in the educational reforms that the government is contemplating.

He went further, appealing to his detractors not to mock his struggle in learning English, and instead to become part of the solution. However, in my opinion, there is no need for the Minister to carry this chip on his shoulder. Why should the minister concern himself with being mocked for poor use of English? But there is a gap that his plea should have also addressed. What prevented him from mastering English in his youth goes far deeper than the lack of a privileged upbringing.

The fact of the matter is, the facilities that were available in schools and universities to learn English were not taken seriously and were often looked down upon as kaduwa by the political spectrum he represents and nationalist elements for whom the utilitarian value of English was not self-evident. I say this with responsibility because this was a considerable part of the reality in my time as an undergraduate and also throughout the time I taught in Sri Lanka.

Much earlier in my youth, swayed by the rhetoric of Sinhala language nationalism, my own mastery of English was also delayed even though my background is vastly different from the minister. I too was mocked, when two important schools in Kandy – Trinity College and St. Anthony’s College – refused to accept me to Grade 1 as my English was wanting. This was nearly 20 years after independence. I, however, opted to move on from the blatant discrimination, and mastered the language, although I probably had better opportunities and saw the world through a vastly different lens than the minister. If the minister’s commitment was also based on these social and political realities and the role people like him had played in negating our English language training particularly in universities, his plea would have sounded far more genuine.

If both these remarks and the contexts in which they were made say something about the way we can use English in our country, it is this: On one hand, the government needs to make sure it has a pragmatic policy in place when it sends representatives to international events which takes into account both a person’s language skills and his breadth of knowledge of the subject matter. On the other hand, it needs to find a way to ensure that English is taught to everyone successfully from kindergarten to university as a tool for inclusion, knowledge and communication and not a weapon of exclusion as is often the case.

This can only bear fruit if the failures, lapses and strengths of the country’s English language teaching efforts are taken into cognizance. Lamentably, division and discrimination are still the main emotional considerations on which English is being popularly used as the trolls of the minister’s English usage have shown. It is indeed regrettable that their small-mindedness prevents them from realizing that the Brits have long lost their long undisputed ownership over the English language along with the Empire itself. It is no longer in the hands of the colonial masters. So why allow it to be wielded by a privileged few mired in misplaced notions of elitism?

Features

Finally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/10

Thilina Walpola

Clandestine visit to Speaker’s residence:

Finally, former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena has set the record straight with regard to a controversial but never properly investigated bid to swear in him as interim President. Abeywardena has disclosed the circumstances leading to the proposal made by external powers on the morning of 13 July, 2022, amidst a large scale staged protest outside the Speaker’s official residence, situated close to Parliament.

Lastly, the former parliamentarian has revealed that it was then Indian High Commissioner, in Colombo, Gopal Baglay (May 2022 to December 2023) who asked him to accept the presidency immediately. Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, who served as Senior Advisor (media) to President Ranil Wickremesinghe (July 2022 to September 2024), disclosed Baglay’s direct intervention in his latest work, titled ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ (Power of Aragalaya).

Prof. Maddumabandara quoted Abeywardena as having received a startling assurance that if he agreed to accept the country’s leadership, the situation would be brought under control, within 45 minutes. Baglay had assured Abeywardena that there is absolutely no harm in him succeeding President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in view of the developing situation.

The author told the writer that only a person who had direct control over the violent protest campaign could have given such an assurance at a time when the whole country was in a flux.

One-time Vice Chancellor of the Kelaniya University, Prof. Maddumabandara, launched ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ at the Sri Lanka Foundation on 20 November. In spite of an invitation extended to former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the ousted leader hadn’t attended the event, though UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was there. Maybe Gotabaya felt the futility of trying to expose the truth against evil forces ranged against them, who still continue to control the despicable agenda.

Obviously, the author has received the blessings of Abeywardena and Wickremesinghe to disclose a key aspect in the overall project that exploited the growing resentment of the people to engineer change of Sri Lankan leadership.

The declaration of Baglay’s intervention has contradicted claims by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa (Nine: The hidden story) and award-winning writer Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: System change for anarchy) alleged that US Ambassador Julie Chung made that scandalous proposal to Speaker Abeywardena. Weerawansa and Thoradeniya launched their books on 25 April and 05 July, 2023, at the Sri Lanka Foundation and the National Library and Documentation Services Board, Independence Square, respectively. Both slipped in accusing Ambassador Chung of making an abortive bid to replace Gotabaya Rajapaksa with Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.

Ambassador Chung categorically denied Weerawansa’s allegation soon after the launch of ‘Nine: The hidden story’ but stopped short of indicating that the proposal was made by someone else. Chung had no option but to keep quiet as she couldn’t, in response to Weerawansa’s claim, have disclosed Baglay’s intervention, under any circumstances, as India was then a full collaborator with Western designs here for its share of spoils. Weerawansa, Thoradeniya and Maddumabandara agree that Aragalaya had been a joint US-Indian project and it couldn’t have succeeded without their intervention. Let me reproduce the US Ambassador’s response to Weerawansa, who, at the time of the launch, served as an SLPP lawmaker, having contested the 2020 August parliamentary election on the SLPP ticket.

“I am disappointed that an MP has made baseless allegations and spread outright lies in a book that should be labelled ‘fiction’. For 75 years, the US [and Sri Lanka] have shared commitments to democracy, sovereignty, and prosperity – a partnership and future we continue to build together,” Chung tweeted Wednesday 26 April, evening, 24 hours after Weerawansa’s book launch.

Interestingly, Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been silent on the issue in his memoirs ‘The Conspiracy to oust me from Presidency,’ launched on 07 March, 2024.

What must be noted is that our fake Marxists, now entrenched in power, were all part and parcel of Aragalaya.

A clandestine meeting

Abeywardena should receive the appreciation of all for refusing to accept the offer made by Baglay, on behalf of India and the US. He had the courage to tell Baglay that he couldn’t accept the presidency as such a move violated the Constitution. In our post-independence history, no other politician received such an offer from foreign powers. When Baglay stepped up pressure, Abeywardena explained that he wouldn’t change his decision.

Maddumabandara, based on the observations made by Abeywardena, referred to the Indian High Commissioner entering the Speaker’s Official residence, unannounced, at a time protesters blocked the road leading to the compound. The author raised the possibility of Baglay having been in direct touch with those spearheading the high profile political project.

Clearly Abeywardena hadn’t held back anything. The former Speaker appeared to have responded to those who found fault with him for not responding to allegations, directed at him, by revealing everything to Maddumabandara, whom he described in his address, at the book launch, as a friend for over five decades.

At the time, soon after Baglay’s departure from the Speaker’s official residence, alleged co-conspirators Ven. Omalpe Sobitha, accompanied by Senior Professor of the Sinhala Faculty at the Colombo University, Ven. Agalakada Sirisumana, health sector trade union leader Ravi Kumudesh, and several Catholic priests, arrived at the Speaker’s residence where they repeated the Indian High Commissioner’s offer. Abeywardena repeated his previous response despite Sobitha Thera acting in a threatening manner towards him to accept their dirty offer. Shouldn’t they all be investigated in line with a comprehensive probe?

Ex-President Wickremesinghe with a copy of Aragalaye Balaya he received from its author, Prof. Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, at the Sri Lanka Foundation recently (pic by Nishan S Priyantha)

On the basis of what Abeywardena had disclosed to him, Maddumabanadara also questioned the circumstances of the deployment of the elite Special Task Force (STF) contingent at the compound. The author asked whether that deployment, without the knowledge of the Speaker, took place with the intervention of Baglay.

Aragalaye Balaya

is a must read for those who are genuinely interested in knowing the unvarnished truth. Whatever the deficiencies and inadequacies on the part of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, external powers had engineered a change of government. The writer discussed the issues that had been raised by Prof. Maddumabandara and, in response to one specific query, the author asserted that in spite of India offering support to Gotabaya Rajapaksa earlier to get Ranil Wickremesinghe elected as the President by Parliament to succeed him , the latter didn’t agree with the move. Then both the US and India agreed to bring in the Speaker as the Head of State, at least for an interim period.

If Speaker Abeywardena accepted the offer made by India, on behalf of those backing the dastardly US backed project, the country could have experienced far reaching changes and the last presidential election may not have been held in September, 2004.

After the conclusion of his extraordinary assignment in Colombo, Baglay received appointment as New Delhi’s HC in Canberra. Before Colombo, Baglay served in Indian missions in Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, Nepal and Pakistan (as Deputy High Commissioner).

Baglay served in New Delhi, in the office of the Prime Minister of India, and in the Ministry of External Affairs as its spokesperson, and in various other positions related to India’s ties with her neighbours, Europe and multilateral organisations.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to examine who deceived Weerawansa and Thoradeniya who identified US Ambassador Chung as the secret visitor to the Speaker’s residence. Her high-profile role in support of the project throughout the period 31 March to end of July, 2022, obviously made her an attractive target but the fact remains it was Baglay who brought pressure on the then Speaker. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s clarification has given a new twist to “Aragalaya’ and India’s diabolical role.

Absence of investigations

Sri Lanka never really wanted to probe the foreign backed political plot to seize power by extra-parliamentary means. Although some incidents had been investigated, the powers that be ensured that the overall project remained uninvestigated. In fact, Baglay’s name was never mentioned regarding the developments, directly or indirectly, linked to the devious political project. If not for Prof. Maddumabandara taking trouble to deal with the contentious issue of regime change, Baglay’s role may never have come to light. Ambassador Chung would have remained the target of all those who found fault with US interventions. Let me be clear, the revelation of Baglay’s clandestine meeting with the Speaker didn’t dilute the role played by the US in Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s removal.

If Prof. Maddumabandara propagated lies, both the author and Abeywardana should be appropriately dealt with. Aragalaye Balaya failed to receive the desired or anticipated public attention. Those who issue media statements at the drop of a hat conveniently refrained from commenting on the Indian role. Even Abeywardena remained silent though he could have at least set the record straight after Ambassador Chung was accused of secretly meeting the Speaker. Abeywardena could have leaked the information through media close to him. Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, too, could have done the same but all decided against revealing the truth.

A proper investigation should cover the period beginning with the declaration made by Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government, in April 2022, regarding the unilateral decision to suspend debt repayment. But attention should be paid to the failure on the part of the government to decide against seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to overcome the crisis. Those who pushed Gotabaya Rajapaksa to adopt, what they called, a domestic solution to the crisis created the environment for the ultimate collapse that paved the way for external interventions. Quite large and generous Indian assistance provided to Sri Lanka at that time should be examined against the backdrop of a larger frightening picture. In other words, India was literally running with the sheep while hunting with the hounds. Whatever the criticism directed at India over its role in regime change operation, prompt, massive and unprecedented post-Cyclone Ditwah assistance, provided by New Delhi, saved Sri Lanka. Rapid Indian response made a huge impact on Sri Lanka’s overall response after having failed to act on a specific 12 November weather alert.

It would be pertinent to mention that all governments, and the useless Parliament, never wanted the public to know the truth regarding regime change project. Prof. Maddumabandara discussed the role played by vital sections of the armed forces, lawyers and the media in the overall project that facilitated external operations to force Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The author failed to question Wickremesinghe’s failure to launch a comprehensive investigation, with the backing of the SLPP, immediately after he received appointment as the President. There seems to be a tacit understanding between Wickremesinghe and the SLPP that elected him as the President not to initiate an investigation. Ideally, political parties represented in Parliament should have formed a Special Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to investigate the developments during 2019 to the end of 2022. Those who had moved court against the destruction of their property, during the May 2022 violence directed at the SLPP, quietly withdrew that case on the promise of a fresh comprehensive investigation. This assurance given by the Wickremesinghe government was meant to bring an end to the judicial process.

When the writer raised the need to investigate external interventions, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) sidestepped the issue. Shame on the so-called independent commission, which shows it is anything but independent.

Sumanthiran’s proposal

Since the eradication of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, the now defunct Tamil National Alliance’s (TNA) priority had been convincing successive governments to withdraw the armed forces/ substantially reduce their strength in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led TNA, as well as other Tamil political parties, Western powers, civil society, Tamil groups, based overseas, wanted the armed forces out of the N and E regions.

Abeywardena also revealed how the then ITAK lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, during a tense meeting chaired by him, in Parliament, also on 13 July, 2022, proposed the withdrawal of the armed forces from the N and E for redeployment in Colombo. The author, without hesitation, alleged that the lawmaker was taking advantage of the situation to achieve their longstanding wish. The then Speaker also disclosed that Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella and other party leaders leaving the meeting as soon as the armed forces reported the protesters smashing the first line of defence established to protect the Parliament. However, leaders of minority parties had remained unruffled as the situation continued to deteriorate and external powers stepped up efforts to get rid of both Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe to pave the way for an administration loyal and subservient to them. Foreign powers seemed to have been convinced that Speaker Abeywardena was the best person to run the country, the way they wanted, or till the Aragalaya mob captured the House.

The Author referred to the role played by the media, including social media platforms, to promote Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor. Maddumamabandara referred to the Hindustan Times coverage to emphasise the despicable role played by a section of the media to manipulate the rapid developments that were taking place. The author also dealt with the role played by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in the project with the focus on how that party intensified its actions immediately after Gotabaya Rajapaksa stepped down.

Disputed assessment

The Author identified Ministers Bimal Rathnayaka, Sunil Handunetti and K.D. Lal Kantha as the persons who spearheaded the JVP bid to seize control of Parliament. Maddumabanda unflinchingly compared the operation, mounted against Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with the regime change operations carried out in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Ukraine. Asserting that governments loyal to the US-led Western block had been installed in those countries, the author seemed to have wrongly assumed that external powers failed to succeed in Sri Lanka (pages 109 and 110). That assertion is utterly wrong. Perhaps, the author for some unexplained reasons accepted what took place here. Nothing can be further from the truth than the regime change operation failed (page 110) due to the actions of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In case, the author goes for a second print, he should seriously consider making appropriate corrections as the current dispensation pursues an agenda in consultation with the US and India.

The signing of seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with India, including one on defence, and growing political-defence-economic ties with the US, have underscored that the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) may not have been the first choice of the US-India combine but it is certainly acceptable to them now.

The bottom line is that a democratically elected President, and government, had been ousted through unconstitutional means and Sri Lanka meekly accepted that situation without protest. In retrospect, the political party system here has been subverted and changed to such an extent, irreparable damage has been caused to public confidence. External powers have proved that Sri Lanka can be influenced at every level, without exception, and the 2022 ‘Aragalaya’ is a case in point. The country is in such a pathetic state, political parties represented in Parliament and those waiting for an opportunity to enter the House somehow at any cost remain vulnerable to external designs and influence.

Cyclone Ditwah has worsened the situation. The country has been further weakened with no hope of early recovery. Although the death toll is much smaller compared to that of the 2004 tsunami, economic devastation is massive and possibly irreversible and irreparable.

By Shamindra Ferdinando