Midweek Review

Whither the humanities and social sciences in the universities in Sri Lanka? – A short essay

Published

4 years ago

2022/02/16

By Prof. Susirith Mendis
Former Vice-Chancellor
University of Ruhuna.
(susmend2610@gmail.com)

I read with much interest, the article by Prof. Farzana Haniffa, Professor and Head, Department of Sociology, University of Colombo, titled ‘Undervaluing Social Science and Humanities teaching in the Sri Lankan University System’ which appeared in ‘The Island’ of 1st February 2022. I understand the predicament she talks about. In that article, Prof. Haniffa alleges that “there is very little recognition or acceptance of the kind of knowledge the H and SS can bring to the table at the level of the UGC mediated Quality Assurance process.” The good professor goes on to describe the diminished role and acceptance of the H and SS in the quality assurance process within our university community. Whereas I agree that there is a need to take immediate cognizance of the need of a large role for H and SS in those processes, I feel that this disregard has deeper and fundamental dimensions.

Hence, I thought it pertinent to submit this article which I wrote for a Prof. Vinnie Vitharana Felicitation volume that was published by the Department of Sinhala, University of Ruhuna. I am submittiing an appropriately re-written version to ‘The Island’ in response.

What I write here is likely to be controversial and may provoke those in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences faculties to disagree with some of the thoughts and, perhaps, some suggestions that I make herein.

When one writes on the humanities in the universities, it is imperative that we use some comparative measure. To my mind, without doubt, the ‘Gold Standard’ in this regard is the University of Peradeniya Faculty of Arts (then, the University of Ceylon). Among the great academics who walked tall down the corridors of Peradeniya was the intellectual colossus of that time, Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra, who gave real meaning to the Sinhala cultural revival of 1956.

Their students kept their ‘flame inviolate’. Professors, Leslie Gunawardene, KM de Silva, KNO Dharmadasa, Ashley Halpe, Merlin Peiris, K. Sivathamby and Ralph Peiris are some names that readily come to mind. They epitomised and represented the highest traditions of academics of post-independent Sri Lanka. Learned and cultured, many had excellent bilingual skills and were exacting in the quality and standards they expected of university academics.

Let me pose some questions. They will remain unanswered in this essay simply because the answers must necessarily lie in extensive and in-depth socio-anthropological research. I am a medical academic with not the slightest pretense to such capability.

Can we truthfully say that the situation improved thereafter? Were the academic qualities and standards maintained thereafter? Were the next generation of academics and scholars able to fit into their shoes once they departed the scene? There are a few exceptions, I agree. But we know that exceptions make the rule. And the rule is that the new generation has not made themselves accomplished as creative intellectuals in the genre and quality of their predecessors. Is there a formula to turnout ‘creative intellectuals’? If so, have we lost the formula?

Was the socio-political upheaval of 1956 itself to blame for this? Did we produce an inward-looking, insular, narrowly nationalistic intellectual class? Especially in the humanities? Or is the present unsatisfactory situation arising out of other causations?

Would some academics argue that the ‘nativisation’ of the intellectual and the academic, post’56, is in itself a positive outcome; that the pre-’56 intellectuals were the remnants of the British ruling class – the “Pukka Sahibs”; whereas the ‘children of 56’ are the true inheritors of the earth, born of earth, sons (and daughters) of the soil, nurtured by the cultural founts and milieu of indigenous Sri Lankan traditions?

One is reminded of the famous statement of the Black-Algerian political theorist, psychoanalyst and revolutionary-philosopher, Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) in his celebrated book “The Wretched of the Earth”. Referring to the elites of post-World War II, post-independent, post-colonial nations, he wrote that they use “glutinous words that stick to their teeth”. The sub-title of the book is more descriptive and intended – “A Negro Psychoanalyst’s Study of the Problems of Racism and Colonialism in the World Today”. Fanon argued that language has a role in moulding the attitudes of “natives”, particularly those victimised by colonisation. He believed that the language that the colonials taught us made us really incoherent when describing our socio-cultural and political predicaments. Almost saying that we spoke in a language, the real meaning of which we ourselves did not clearly understand. Or we were merely mouthing words of our colonial masters. So were our last generation of pre-independent, pre-’56 intellectuals, elites as Fanon describes them? Or are we now living in an era where the thoughts and words of Fanon and like-minded intellectuals have become irrelevant?

It might be opportune at this point in my essay to cite two Sri Lankans (intellectuals in their own right) that may give some insight to the current dilemma and predicament of the Humanities and Social Sciences. These are anecdotal, but since they were said in my presence, though not directly to me, I vouch for their veracity.

The first is during the time I spent (1980-83) as Lecturer in Physiology at the Faculty of Medicine, Peradeniya. I was more at the Medical Education Unit (MEU) there, than the Department of Physiology, as it was a WHO Regional Training Centre in Medical Education and had many medical academics from South Asian countries visiting regularly. One regular visitor to the MEU was Prof. Thiru Kandiah (then Senior lecturer). Talking about the lack of originality of thought and hence academic creativity, Prof. Thiru Kandiah said (a quote from memory) “… Until our intellectuals begin thinking in their own native language (Sinhala and Tamil), we will not generate original thoughts that are essential for genuinely creative knowledge.” When I reminded him of this statement when I met him after a lapse of nearly 30 years, he could not quite remember that he said it. Neither did he say that he agrees with that thought. Perhaps, he had changed his mind about such a concept in the intervening years. I did not ask him whether he had. But taking it in the context of what Fanon wrote in 1961, this is a concept that needs to be debated by academic psychologists, linguists, anthropologists and other social scientists. But, if this theory is correct, since we now have academics who are mostly monolingual in academic accomplishments and training, and therefore they are likely to be ‘thinking’ in their own language, there has to be a gush of academic writings and publications that are truly creative. Is there?

The second is a chance conversation that I was party to during a tea break at a conference in Colombo. Prof. Chris Weeramantry was the keynote speaker. Again, on the subject of intellectual creativity, he observed that in the Sciences, which are based on the Western, Judeo-Christian, and Graeco-Roman traditions that we know today as the Western Philosophical Tradition, we will hardly, if ever, be creative. We will continue to mimic the West most often and if ever we become creative in the sciences, at best, they will be extremely marginal. He further said that we have real contributions to make to the world of knowledge in the humanities and law. Humanities, because our indigenous cultures and value systems are based on the Eastern Philosophical Tradition and in Law we have a very long legal tradition based on Buddhist Ethics. Do you agree?

Therefore, we should have had a great flowering of creative intellectual activity emanating from the humanities and social sciences and the law. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, we have not seen such creativity. Large numbers of academics in the humanities and social sciences, due to their limited language competencies have a limited world view. Generation of new knowledge requires an open and expansive mind set that can be acquired only through widening one’s experience directly or through extensive reading – particularly, readings from other experiences and cultures. I have observed that there is a resurgence in the translations of classics from English, Russian, German and French literature into Sinhala.

There are, but less so, even from the Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Are these truly quality works of translation? What is the readership? Have these had any impact on the ‘intellectual creativity of monolingual academics? If not, why?

Has the neo-liberal economics that pervade the globe affected the creativity in the humanities and the arts? Is globalization somehow responsible? Have our ‘thinkers’ who have no financial/economic value in the marketplace been replaced by commercial interests? Why have academics and intellectuals succumbed to the marketplace without much resistance? Not physical, but intellectual? Why is there no debate, as one would have expected, on whether education is a public good or a marketable commodity? Is it because our intellectual critical mass has so declined that the remaining cannot make the difference? Is this not due to the decline in the quality and standard of our academia in the Humanities and Social Sciences?

In my view, there is an intellectual/academic crisis in the areas of the humanities and social sciences in all universities in Sri Lanka at present. Though it is, perhaps, least in the University of Peradeniya, the situation has gone beyond the limits of complacency. I use a medical analogy to describe a university. The sciences – medicine, engineering, agriculture, applied and pure Sciences – form the bones, sinew and muscles and blood that runs in the veins of a university. The humanities and the arts must provide the ‘spirit’, the ‘soul’ of a university. This was how the Peradeniya Faculty of Arts played its true role in its best years. That is why it was a fount of creativity in its early years and the pride of our university system.

The Harvard Magazine in its 1998 issue (nearly 25 years ago), has an article titled ‘The Humanities at Harvard: A Profile’. The article commences with the following which I quote:

“For nearly two centuries, learning at Harvard largely meant learning in the humanities. Other fields were taught–mathematics, for instance, and, increasingly in the nineteenth century, natural science and the emerging social sciences. With foresight, Harvard often led the change away from higher education centered almost exclusively in humanistic pursuits. But the humanistic tradition remains vital.”

Later, it goes on to say:

“Although Harvard undergraduates in the humanities are heard to worry about the relevance and ‘utility’ of their studies for the purpose of later employment, no statistical evidence indicates that Harvard-minted humanists have a tougher time later in the job markets, or that they become any less successful than their peers.”

Though the registration of students for the humanities has fallen, and the demand is less compared with other professional study programmes, the fact that Harvard considers the humanistic tradition as vital, is noteworthy.

The online Harvard Business Review (31 March 2011) has this article titled ‘Want innovative thinking? Hire from the Humanities’ which is necessary reading for those in want of a justification for the persistence of humanities education in the universities. I will quote from it at length:

“How many people in your organization are innovative thinkers who can help with your thorniest strategy problems? How many have a keen understanding of customer needs? … There are plenty of MBAs and even PhDs in economics, chemistry, or computer science, in the corporate ranks. Intellectual wattage is not lacking. It’s the right intellectual wattage that’s hard to find… This is because our educational systems focus on teaching science and business students to control, predict, verify, guarantee, and test data. It doesn’t teach how to navigate “what if” questions or unknown futures…The knowledge I use as CEO can be acquired in two weeks…he main thing a student needs to be taught is how to study and analyse things (including) history and philosophy. People trained in the humanities who study Shakespeare’s poetry, or Cezanne’s paintings, (for instance) have learned to play with big concepts, and to apply new ways of thinking to difficult problems that can’t be analyzed in conventional ways.”

The author goes on to say that the ‘liberal arts crowd’ can help when (i) there is ambiguity and complexity in business problems – both opportunities and threats – that the usual logical thinking cannot solve; (ii) where what is needed in innovation and ‘out of the box’ thinking; and (iii) when looking at the ‘big picture’. The author further says that a case in point is “….., who openly acknowledged how studying the beautiful art of calligraphy led him to design the Macintosh interface.”

Can Professor Haniffa tell us whether she and her department prepare students to be graduates who can fill in roles that the CEO above talks about? Forgive me, if I think that it is mostly unlikely except for may be – a significant few.

Unlike in Sri Lanka, the study of the humanities has been included into the sciences, including medicine. The Yale School of Medicine, for instance, has a Medical Humanities and the Arts Council based at the medical school. Based at the School of Medicine, the Council is an advocate for the medical humanities and the arts, encouraging and coordinating rigorous scholarship in these areas, including medical student research.

We did make attempts to do so at the Faculty of Medicine at Ruhuna, but it has gone into abeyance and a natural death, I think, due to a lack of interest. But, fortunately, the Colombo Medical School has recently established a Department of Medical Humanities and is doing, in my view, critically important pioneering work towards producing better, thinking, and more humanistic doctors.

The University of Cambridge, School of the Humanities and Social Sciences in its website proudly announced a few years ago that “outstanding graduates from across the world want to study the Humanities and Social Sciences at Cambridge, and the School wants to take them.” The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz had announced the creation of a £300,000 fund to be awarded to Cambridge University researchers in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Higher Education had committed about a decade ago, Rs. 100 million each year for the next five years to take six universities to international status. Together with the offers of financial support to the humanities and social sciences faculty academics to pursue doctoral studies, this is a golden opportunity for the academics in the humanities and social sciences to grasp with both hands. I wonder whether the scheme is still on.

Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, there is negative thinking at the present time that the learning of the humanities is a waste of time. Its graduates have no future in obtaining gainful employment and therefore the humanities must be replaced with ‘marketable’ degree programmes. Modules and courses in computer science and IT is beginning to be included in the humanities curricular to make ‘arts graduates’ more marketable. Why have we reached this viewpoint? I believe that the academics in the humanities must accept a large part of the blame. The faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Arts in our universities have not equipped themselves to meet the challenges of the present and the future. This must change, and change for the better, radically and very soon.

We need a more vibrant academic faculty in the humanities and social sciences; (i) a faculty that is grappling with the current social-political issues; (ii) academics that can develop new analytical tools and frames to dissect not only socio-cultural and political issues, but existential, ethical and philosophical issues as well; (iii) development of quality research programmes to search for answers to the Sri Lankan experiences in a post-conflict situation; (iv) look for explanations for the socio-cultural bases of violence in our society; (v) create a academic framework for a more responsible and intellectually responsive media culture; and (vi) build interdisciplinary degree programmes and research projects with the science and legal disciplines. These are some of the current imperatives that must be thought through among academics in the humanities and social sciences.

In this essay, I, who come from the sciences, have made a case for the resurgence of the Humanities and Social Sciences in our universities. It is up to the academics in these faculties to take up the challenges with rigorous scholarship and commitment and conviction. It is time, and never too late, for a definitive revival and rejuvenation of the best traditions of teaching, learning and intellectual creativity of the Humanities and Social Sciences in the universities in Sri Lanka. But I do not see that happening. Both at national policy level nor at the level of academics in the humanities and social sciences.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Dr. Jaishankar drags H’tota port to reverberating IRIS Dena affair

Published

6 days ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Sri Lanka reached an agreement with China to build the Hambantota port after India declined the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s request to take charge of the high profile project. The Indian decision may have been influenced by the war raging in the northern region at that time.

Indian Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar recognised Hambantota harbour as a Chinese military facility that underlined intimidating foreign military presence in the Indian Ocean. Jaishankar was responding to queries regarding India’s widely mentioned status as the region’s net security provider against the backdrop of a US submarine blowing up an Iranian frigate IRIS Dena, off Galle, within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

This happened at the Raisina Dialogue 2026 (March 5 to 7) in New Delhi. Raisina Dialogue was launched in 2016, three years after Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister.

The query obviously rattled the Indian Foreign Minister. Urging the moderator, Ms. Pakli Sharma Ipadhyay, to understand, what he called, the reality of the Indian Ocean, Dr. Jaishankar pointed out the joint US-British presence at Diego Garcia over the past five decades. Then he referred to the Chinese presence at Djibouti in East Africa, the first overseas Chinese military base, established in 2017, and Chinese takeover of Hambantota port, also during the same time. China secured the strategically located port on a 99-year lease for USD 1.2 bn, under controversial circumstances. China succeeded in spite of Indian efforts to halt Chinese projects here, including Colombo port city.

The submarine involved is widely believed to be Virginia-class USS Minnesota. The crew, included three Australian Navy personnel, according to international news agencies. However, others named the US Navy fast-attack submarine, involved in the incident, as USS Charlotte.

Diego Garcia is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, Africa and the Indo-Pacific. Dr. Jaishankar didn’t acknowledge that India, a key US ally and member of the Quad alliance, operated P8A maritime patrol and reconnaissance flights out of Diego Garcia last October. The US-India-Israel relationship is growing along with the US-Sri Lanka partnership.

The Indian Foreign Minister emphasised the deployment of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, one of the countries that had been attacked by Iran, following the US-Israeli assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader, and key government functionaries, in a massive surprise attack, aiming at a regime change there. The Indian Minister briefly explained how they and Sri Lanka addressed the threat on three Indian navy vessels following the unprovoked US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Whatever the excuses, the undeniable truth is, as Sharma pointed out, that the US attack on the Iranian frigate took place in India’s backyard.

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath who faced Sharma before Dr. Jaishankar, struggled to explain the country’s position. Dr. Jaishankar made the audience laugh at Minister Herath’s expense who repeatedly said that Sri Lanka would deal with the situation in terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and international laws. Herath should have pointed out that Hambantota was not a military base and couldn’t be compared, under any circumstances, with the Chinese base in Djibouti.

Typical of the arrogant Western power dynamics, the US never cared for international laws and President Donald Trump quite clearly stated their position.

Israel is on record as having declared that the decision to launch attacks on Iran had been made months ago. Therefore, the sinking of the fully domestically built vessel that was launched in 2021 should be examined in the context of overall US-Israeli strategy meant to break the back of the incumbent Islamic revolutionary government and replace it with a pro-Western regime there as had been the case after the toppling of the democratically elected government there, led by Prime Minister Mossadegh, in August, 1953.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that IRIS Dena “thought it was safe in international waters’ but died a quiet death.” A US submarine torpedoed the vessel on the morning of March 4, off Galle, within Sri Lanka’s exclusive economic zone and that decision must have been made before the IRIS Dena joined International Fleet Review (IFR) and Exercise Milan 2026, at Visakhapatnam, from February 15 to 25.

The sinking of the Iranian vessel, a Moudge –class frigate attached to Iran’s southern fleet deployed in the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz, had been calculated to cause mayhem in the Indian Ocean. Obviously, and pathetically, Iran failed to comprehend the US-Israeli mindset after having already been fooled with devastating attacks, jointly launched by Washington and Tel Aviv against the country’s nuclear research facilities, while holding talks with it on the issue last June. Had they comprehended the situation they probably would have pulled out of the IFR and Milan 2026. Perhaps, Iran was lulled into a false sense of security because they felt the US wouldn’t hit ships invited by India. The US Navy did not participate though the US Air Force did.

The US action dramatically boosted Raisina Dialogue 2026, but at India’s expense. Prime Minister Modi’s two-day visit to Tel Aviv, just before the US-Israel launched the war to effect a regime change in Teheran, made the situation far worse. BJP seems to have decided on whose side India is on. But, the US action has, invariably, humiliated India. That cannot be denied. The Indian Navy posted a cheery message on X on February 17, the day before President Droupadi Murmu presided over IFR off the Visakhapatnam coast. “Welcome!” the Indian Navy wrote, greeting the Iranian warship IRIS Dena as it steamed into the port of Visakhapatnam to join an international naval gathering. Photographs showed Iranian sailors and a grey frigate gliding into the Indian harbour on a clear day. The hashtags spoke of “Bridges of Friendship” and “United Through Oceans.”

US alert

Dr. Jaishankar

Altogether, three Iranian vessels participated in IFR. In addition to the ill-fated IRIS Dena, the second frigate IRIS Lavan and auxiliary ships IRIS Bushehr comprised the group. Dr. Jaishankar disclosed at the Raisina Dialogue 2026 that Iran requested India to allow IRIS Lavan to enter Indian waters. India accommodated the vessel at Cochin Port (Kochi Port) on the Arabian Sea in Kerala.

At the time US torpedoed IRIS Dena, within Sri Lanka’s EEZ, IRIS Lavan was at Cochin port. Sri Lanka’s territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles (approximately 22 km) from the country’s coastline. The US hit the vessel 19 nautical miles off southern coastline.

Sri Lanka, too, participated in IFR and Milan 2026. SLN Sagara (formerly Varaha), a Vikram-class offshore patrol vessel of the Indian Coast Guard and SLN Nandimithra, A Fast Missile Vessel, acquired from Israel, participated and returned to Colombo on February 27, the day before IRIS Lavan sought protection in Indian waters.

Although many believed that Sri Lanka responded to the attack on IRIS Dena, following a distressed call from that ship, the truth is it was the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) that alerted the Maritime Rescue Coordination centre (MRCC) after blowing it up with a single torpedo. The SLN’s Southern Command dispatched three Fast Attack Craft (FACs) while a tug from Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) joined later.

The INDOPACOM, while denying the Iranian claim that IRIS Dena had been unarmed at the time of the attack, emphasised: “US forces planned for and Sri Lanka provided life-saving support to survivors in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.” In the post shared on X (formerly Twitter) the US has, in no uncertain terms, said that they planned for the rescuing of survivors and the action was carried out by the Sri Lanka Navy.

IRIS Lavan and IRIS Bushehr are most likely to be held in Cochin and in Trincomalee ports, respectively, for some time with the crews accommodated on land. With the US-Israel combine vowing to go the whole hog there is no likelihood of either India or Sri Lanka allowing the ships to leave.

Much to the embarrassment of the Modi administration, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal has said that IRIS Dena would not have been targeted if Iran was not invited to take part in IFR and Milan naval exercise.

“We were the hosts. As per protocol for this exercise, ships cannot carry any ammunition. It was defenseless. The Iranian naval personnel had paraded before our president,” he said in a post on X.

Sibal argued that the attack was premeditated, pointing out that the US Navy had been invited to the exercise but withdrew at the last minute, “presumably with this operation in mind.”

Sibal added that the US ignored India’s sensitivities, as the Iranian ship was present in the waters due to India’s invitation.

He stressed that India was neither politically nor militarily responsible for the US attack, but carried a moral and humanitarian responsibility.

“A word of condolence by the Indian Navy (after political clearance) at the loss of lives of those who were our invitees and saluted our president would be in order,” Sibal said.

Iran and even India appeared to have ignored the significance of USN pullout from IFR and Milan exercise at the eleventh hour. India and Sri Lanka caught up in US-Israeli strategy are facing embarrassing questions from the political opposition. Both Congress and Samagi Jana Balwegaya (SJB), as well as Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), exploited the situation to undermine respective governments over an unexpected situation created by the US. Both India and Sri Lanka ended up playing an unprecedented role in the post-Milan 2026 developments that may have a lasting impact on their relations with Iran.

The regional power India and Sri Lanka also conveniently failed to condemn the February 28 assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while that country was holding talks with the US, with Oman serving as the mediator.

Condemning the unilateral attack on Iran, as well as the retaliatory strikes by Iran, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday (March 3, 2026) questioned India’s silence on the Middle East developments.

In a post on social media platform X, Gandhi said Prime Minister Narendra Modi must speak up. “Does he support the assassination of a Head of State as a way to define the world order? Silence now diminishes India’s standing in the world,” he said.

Under heavy Opposition fire, India condoled the Iranian leader’s assassination on March 5, almost a week after the killing. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri met the Iran Ambassador in Delhi and signed the condolence book, though much belatedly.

SL-US relations

The Opposition questioned the NPP government’s handling of the IRIS Dena affair. They quite conveniently forgot that any other government wouldn’t have been able to do anything differently than bow to the will of the US. Under President Trump, Washington has been behaving recklessly, even towards its longtime friends, demanding that Canada become its 51st state and that Denmark handover Greenland pronto.

SJB and Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa cut a sorry figure demanding in Parliament whether Sri Lanka had the capacity to detect submarines or other underwater systems. Sri Lanka should be happy that the Southern Command could swiftly deploy three FACs and call in SLPA tug, thereby saving the lives of 32 Iranians and recovering 84 bodies of their unfortunate colleagues. Therefore, of the 180-member crew of IRIS Dena, 116 had been accounted for. The number of personnel categorised as missing but presumably dead is 64.

There is no doubt that Sri Lanka couldn’t have intervened if not for the US signal to go ahead with the humanitarian operation to pick up survivors. India, too, must have informed the US about the Iranian request for IRIS Lavan to re-enter Indian waters. Sri Lanka, too, couldn’t have brought the Iranian auxiliary vessel without US consent. President Trump is not interested in diplomatic niceties and the way he had dealt with European countries repeatedly proved his reckless approach. The irrefutable truth is that the US could have torpedoed the entire Iranian group even if they were in Sri Lankan or Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that extends to 200 nautical miles from its coastline.

In spite of constantly repeating Sri Lanka’s neutrality, successive governments succumbed to US pressure. In March 2007, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government entered into Acquisition and Cross- Servicing Agreement (ACSA) with the US, a high profile bilateral legal mechanism to ensure uninterrupted support/supplies. The Rajapaksas went ahead with ACSA, in spite of strong opposition from some of its partners. In fact, they did not even bother to ask or take up the issue at Cabinet level before the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a US citizen at the time, and US Ambassador here Robert O. Blake signed it. Close on the heels of the ACSA signing, the US provided specific intelligence that allowed the Sri Lanka Navy to hunt down four floating LTTE arsenals. Whatever critics say, that US intervention ensured the total disruption of the LTTE supply line and the collapse of their conventional fighting capacity by March 2009. The US favourably responded to the then Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda’s request for help and the passing of intelligence was not in any way in line with ACSA.

That agreement covered the 2007 to 2017 period. The Yahapalana government extended it. Yahapalana partners, the SLFP and UNP, never formally discussed the decision to extend the agreement though President Maithripala Sirisena made a desperate attempt to distance himself from ACSA.

It would be pertinent to mention that the US had been pushing for ACSA during Rail Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the Premier, in the 2001-2003 period. But, he lacked the strength to finalise that agreement due to strong opposition from the then Opposition. During the time the Yahapalana government extended ACSA, the US also wanted the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed. SOFA, unlike ACSA, is a legally binding agreement that dealt with the deployment of US forces here. However, SOFA did not materialise but the possibility of the superpower taking it up cannot be ruled out.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who won the 2019 presidential election, earned the wrath of the US for declining to finalise MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Compact on the basis of Prof. Gunaruwan Committee report that warned that the agreement contained provisions detrimental to national security, sovereignty, and the legal system. In the run up to the presidential election, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe declared that he would enter into the agreement in case Sajith Premadasa won the contest.

Post-Aragalaya setup

Since the last presidential election held in September 2024, Admiral Steve Koehler, a four-star US Navy Admiral and Commander of the US Pacific Fleet visited Colombo twice in early October 2024 and February this year. Koehler’s visits marked the highest-level U.S. military engagement with Sri Lanka since 2021.

Between Koehler’s visits, the United States and Sri Lanka signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalising the defence partnership between the Montana National Guard, the US Coast Guard District 13, and the Sri Lanka Armed Forces under the Department of War’s State Partnership Programme (SPP). The JVP-led NPP government seems sure of its policy as it delayed taking a decision on one-year moratorium on all foreign research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters though it was designed to block Chinese vessels. The government is yet to announce its decision though the ban lapsed on December 31, 2024.

The then President Ranil Wickremesinghe was compelled to announce the ban due to intense US-Indian pressure.

The incumbent dispensation’s relationship with US and India should be examined against allegations that they facilitated ‘Aragalaya’ that forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The Trump administration underscored the importance of its relationship with Sri Lanka by handing over ex-US Coast Guard Cutter ‘Decisive ‘to the Sri Lanka Navy. The vessel, commanded by Captain Gayan Wickramasooriya, left Baltimore US Coast Guard Yard East Wall Jetty on February 23 and is expected to reach Trincomalee in the second week of May.

Last year Sri Lanka signed seven MoUs, including one on defence and then sold controlling shares of the Colombo Dockyard Limited (CDL) to a company affiliated to the Defence Ministry as New Delhi tightened its grip.

Sri Lanka-US relations seemed on track and the IRIS Dena incident is unlikely to distract the two countries. The US continues to take extraordinary measures to facilitate war on Iran. In a bid to overcome the Iranian blockade on crude carriers the US temporarily eased sanctions to allow India to buy Russian oil.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared a 30-day waiver was a “deliberate short-term measure” to allow oil to keep flowing in the global market. The US sanctioned Russian oil following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, forcing buyers to seek alternatives.

The US doesn’t care about the Ukraine government that must be really upset about the unexpected development. India was forced to halt buying Russian oil and now finds itself in a position to turn towards Russia again. But that would be definitely at the expense of Iran facing unprecedented military onslaught.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

A Living Legend of the Peradeniya Tradition:

Published

6 days ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prof. H. L. Seneviratne

A Tribute to Professor H. L. Seneviratne – Part I

My earliest memories of the eminent anthropologist, Professor H. L. Seneviratne date back to my childhood, when I first encountered his name through the vivid accounts of campus life shared by my late brother, Sugathapala de Silva, then a lecturer in the Department of Sinhala at the University of Peradeniya. By the time I became a first-year sociology student in 1968/69, I had the privilege of being taught by the Professor, whose guidance truly paved the way for my own progression in sociology and anthropology. Even then, it was clear that he was a towering presence—not just as an academician, but as a central figure in the lively cultural and literary renaissance that defined that era of the university’s intellectual history.

H.L. Seneviratne stood alongside a galaxy of intellectuals who shaped and developed the literary consciousness of the Peradeniya University. His professorial research made regular appearances in journals such as Sanskriti and Mimamsa, published Sinhala and English articles, and served as channels for the dissemination of the literary consciousness of Peradeniya to the population at large. These texts were living texts of a dynamic intellectual ferment where the synthesis of classical aesthetic sensibilities with current critical intellectual thought in contemporary Sri Lanka was under way.

The concept of a ‘Peradeniya tradition or culture’, a term which would later become legendary in Sri Lankan literary and intellectual circles, was already being formed at this time. Peradeniya culture came to represent a distinctive synthesis: cosmopolitanism entwined with well-rooted local customs, aesthetic innovation based on classical Sinhala styles, and critical interaction with modernity. Among its pre-eminent practitioners were intellectual giants such as Ediriweera Sarachchandra, Gunadasa Amarasekara, and Siri Gunasinghe. These figures and H.L. Seneviratne himself, were central to the shaping of a space of cultural and literary critique that ranged from newspapers to book-length works, public speeches to theatrical performance.

Unlimited influence

H.L. Seneviratne’s influence was not limited to the printed page, which I discuss in this article. He operated in and responded to the performative, interactive space of drama and music, situating lived artistic practice in his cultural thought. I recall with vividness the late 1950s, a period seared into my memory as one of revelation, when I as a child was fortunate enough to witness one of the first performances of Maname, the trailblazing Sinhala drama that revolutionised Sri Lankan theatre. Drawn from the Nadagam tradition and staged in the open-air theatre in Peradeniya—now known as Sarachchandra Elimahan Ranga Pitaya—or Wala as used by the campus students. Maname was not so much a play as a culturally transformative experience.

H.L. Seneviratne was not just an observer of this change. He joined the orchestra of Maname staged on November 3, 1956, lending his voice and presence to the collective heartbeat of the performance. He even contributed to the musical group by playing the esraj, a quiet but vital addition to the performance’s beauty and richness. Apart from these roles, he played an important part in the activities of Professor Sarathchandra’s Sinhala Drama Society, a talent nursery and centre for collaboration between artists and intellectuals. H.L. Seneviratne was a friend of Arthur Silva, a fellow resident of Arunachalam Hall then, and the President of the Drama Circle. H.L. Seneviratne had the good fortune to play a role, both as a member of the original cast, and an active member of the Drama Circle that prevailed on lecturer E.R. Sarathchandra to produce a play and gave him indispensable organizational support. It was through this society that Sarachchandra attracted some of the actors who brought into being Maname and later Sinhabhahu, plays which have become the cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s theatrical heritage.

The best chronicler of Maname

H.L. Seneviratne is the best chronicler of Maname. (Towards a National Art, From Home and the World, Essays in honour of Sarath Amunugama. Ramanika Unamboowe and Varuni Fernando (eds)). He chronicles the genesis of Ediriweera Sarachchandra’s seminal play Maname, framing it as a pivotal attempt to forge a sophisticated national identity by synthesizing indigenous folk traditions with Eastern theatrical aesthetics. Seneviratne details how Sarachchandra, disillusioned with the ‘artificiality’ of Western-influenced urban theatre and the limitations of both elite satires and rural folk plays, looked toward the Japanese Noh and Kabuki traditions to find a model for a ‘national’ art that could appeal across class divides. The author emphasises that the success of Maname was not merely a solo intellectual feat but a gruelling, collective effort involving a ‘gang of five’ academics and a dedicated cohort of rural, bilingual students from the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya. Through anecdotes regarding the discovery of lead actors like Edmund Wijesinghe and the assembly of a unique orchestra, Seneviratne highlights the logistical struggles—from finding authentic instruments to managing cumbersome stage sets—that ultimately birthed a transformative ‘oriental’ theatre rooted in the nadagama style yet refined for a modern, sophisticated audience.

Born in Sri Lanka in 1934, in a village in Horana, he was educated at the Horana Taxila College following which he was admitted to the Department of Sociology at the University of Peradeniya. H.L. Seneviratne’s academic journey subsequently led him to the University of Rochester for his doctoral studies. But, despite his long tenure in the United States, his research has remained firmly rooted in the soil of his homeland.

His early seminal work, Rituals of the Kandyan State, his PhD thesis turned into a book, offered a groundbreaking analysis of the Temple of the Tooth (Dalada Maligawa). By examining the ceremonies surrounding the sacred relic, H.L. Seneviratne demonstrated how religious performance served as the bedrock of political legitimacy in the Kandyan Kingdom. He argued that these rituals at the time of his fieldwork in the early 1970s were not static relics of the past, but active tools used to construct and maintain the authority of the state, the ideas that would resonate throughout his later career.

The Work of Kings

Perhaps, his most provocative contribution arrived with the publication of The Work of Kings published in 1999. In this sweeping study, H.L. Seneviratne traced the transformation of the Buddhist clergy, or Sangha, from the early 20th-century ‘social service’ monks, who focused on education and community upliftment, to the more politically charged nationalist figures of the modern era. He analysed the shift away from a universalist, humanistic Buddhism toward a more exclusionary identity, sparking intense debate within both academic and religious circles in Sri Lanka.

In The Work of Kings, H.L. Seneviratne has presented a sophisticated critique and argued that in the early 20th century, influenced by figures like Anagarika Dharmapala, there was a brief ‘monastic ideal’ centred on social service and education. This period saw monks acting as catalysts for community development and moral reform embodying a humanistic version of Buddhism that sought to modernize the country while maintaining its spiritual integrity.

However, H.L. Seneviratne contends that this situation was eventually derailed by the rise of post-independence nationalism. He describes a process where the clergy moved away from universalist goals to become the vanguard of a narrow ethno-religious identity. By aligning themselves so closely with the state and partisan politics, H.L. Seneviratne suggests that the Sangha inadvertently traded their moral authority for political influence. This shift, in his view, led to the ‘betrayal’ of the original social service movement, replacing a vision of broad social progress with one centred on political dominance.

The core of his critique lies in the disappearance of what he calls the ‘intellectual monk.’ He laments the decline of the scholarly, reflective tradition in favour of a more populist and often inflammatory rhetoric. By analysing the rhetoric of key monastic figures, H.L. Senevirathne illustrates how the language of Buddhism was repurposed to justify political ends, often at the expense of the pluralistic values that he believes are inherent to the faith’s core teachings.

H.L. Seneviratne’s work remains highly relevant today as it provides a framework for understanding contemporary religious tensions. His analysis serves as a warning about the consequences of merging religious institutional power with state politics. By documenting this historical shift, he challenges modern Sri Lankans—and global observers—to reconsider the role of religious institutions in a secular, democratic state, urging a return to the compassionate and socially inclusive roots of the Buddhist tradition.

Within the broader context of Sri Lankan anthropology, H.L. Seneviratne is frequently grouped with other towering figures of his generation, most notably Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah and Gananath Obeyesekere. Together, this remarkable cohort revolutionized the study of Sri Lanka by applying structural and psychological analyses to religious and ethnic identity. While Tambiah famously interrogated the betrayal of non-violent Buddhist principles in the face of political violence, H.L. Seneviratne’s work is often seen as the essential sociological counterpart, providing the detailed historical and institutional narrative of how the monastic order itself was reshaped by these very forces.

Reation to Seneviratne’s critque

The reaction to H.L. Seneviratne’s critique has been as multifaceted as the work itself. In academic circles, particularly those influenced by post-colonial theory, he is celebrated for speaking truth in a public place. Scholars have noted that because he writes as an insider—both a Sinhalese and a Buddhist, that makes them both credible and, to some, highly objectionable. His work has paved the way for a younger generation of Sri Lankan sociologists and anthropologists to move beyond traditional functionalism towards more radical articulations of competing interests and political power.

However, his analysis has also made him a target for nationalist critics. Those aligned with ethno-religious movements often view his deconstruction of the Sangha’s political role as an attack on Sinhalese-Buddhist identity itself. These detractors argue that H.L. Seneviratne’s intellectualist or universalist view of Buddhism fails to account for the necessity of the clergy’s role in protecting the nation against neo colonial and modern pressures. This tension highlights the very descent into ideology that H.L. Seneviratne has spent his career documenting.

H.L. Seneviratne’s legacy is defined by this ongoing dialogue between scholarship and social reality. His transition from the detached scholar seen in his early work on Kandyan rituals to the socially concerned intellectual of The Work of Kings mirrors the very transformation of the Sangha and Buddha Sasana he studied. By refusing to look away from the complexities of the present, he has ensured that his work remains a cornerstone for any serious discussion on the future of religion and governance in Sri Lanka.

Focus on good governance

In his later years, H.L. Seneviratne has pivoted his focus toward the practical application of his theories, specifically examining how the concept of ‘Good Governance’ interacts with traditional religious structures. He argues that for Sri Lanka to achieve true stability, there must be a fundamental reimagining of the Sangha’s role in the public sphere—one that moves away from the ‘work of Kings’ and returns to a more ethical, advisory capacity. This shift in his recent lectures reflects a deep concern about the erosion of democratic institutions and the way religious sentiment can be harnessed to bypass the rule of law.

Building on this, contemporary scholars like Benjamin Schonthal have expanded H.L. Seneviratne’s inquiry into the legal and constitutional dimensions of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. While H.L. Seneviratne provided the anthropological groundwork for how monks gained political power, this newer generation of academics examines how that power has been codified into the very laws of the state. They explore the ‘path dependency’ created by the historical shifts H.L. Seneviratne documented, looking at how the legal privileging of Buddhism creates unique challenges for a pluralistic society.

New Sangha

Furthermore, his influence is visible in the work of local scholars who focus on ‘engaged Buddhism.’ These researchers look back at H.L. Seneviratne’s description of the early 20th-century social service monks as a blueprint for modern reform. By identifying the moment where the clergy’s mission shifted from social welfare to political nationalism, these scholars use H.L. Seneviratne’s historical milestones to advocate a ‘New Sangha’ that prioritizes reconciliation and inter-ethnic harmony over state-aligned power.

The enduring power of H.L. Seneviratne’s work lies in its refusal to offer easy answers. By mapping the transition within Buddhist practice from ritual to politics, and from social service to nationalism, he has provided an analytical framework in which the nation can see its own transformation. His legacy is not just a collection of books, but a persistent, rigorous habit of questioning that continues to inspire those who seek to understand the delicate balance between faith and the modern state.

H.L. Seneviratne continues to challenge his audience to think beyond the immediate political moment. By documenting the arc of Sri Lankan history from the sacred rituals of the Kandyan kings to the modern halls of parliament, he provides a vital sense of perspective. Whether he is being celebrated by the academic community or critiqued by nationalist voices, his work ensures that the conversation regarding the soul of the nation remains rigorous, historically grounded, and unafraid of its own complexities.

Anthropology and cinema

H.L. Seneviratne identifies the mid-1950s as the critical turning point for this cinematic shift, specifically anchoring the move to 1956 with the release of Lester James Peries’s “Rekava.” This period was a watershed moment in Sri Lankan history, coinciding with a broader nationalist resurgence that sought to reclaim a localized identity from the influence of colonial and foreign powers. H.L. Seneviratne suggests that before this era, the ‘South Indian formula’ dominated the screen, characterized by studio-bound sets, theatrical acting, and musical interludes that felt alien to the island’s actual social fabric. The pioneers of this movement, led by Lester James Peries and later followed by figures like Siri Gunasinghe in the early 1960s, deliberately moved the camera into the open air of the rural village to capture what H.L. Seneviratne describes as the ‘authentic rhythms’ of life. This transition was not merely aesthetic but deeply ideological; it replaced the mythical, exaggerated heroism of commercial cinema with a nuanced exploration of the post-colonial middle class and the crumbling feudal hierarchies. By the 1960s, through landmark works like ‘Gamperaliya,’ these filmmakers were successfully crafting a modern mythology that reflected the internal psychological tensions and the social evolution of a nation navigating its way between traditional Buddhist values and a rapidly modernizing world.

His critique of the relationship between art and the state is particularly evident in his analysis of historical epics, where he has argued that certain cinematic portrayals of ancient kings and battles serve as a form of ‘visual nationalism,’ translating the ideological shifts he documented in The Work of Kings onto the silver screen. By analysing these films, he shows how popular culture can become a powerful tool for constructing a simplified, heroic past that often ignores the multi-ethnic and pluralistic realities of the island’s history.

(To be concluded)

by Professor M. W. Amarasiri de Silva