Features
Reimagining Dutugemunu : A Problem of interpretation
By Uditha Devapriya
The int
erpretation of historical chronicles presents an intriguing challenge for the modern scholar and writer. The main problem, as it stands, lies in terminology. Words present no challenge to the translator, but to the historian and the archaeologist, it is not enough to translate; it is more important to contextualise. That is why contemporary interpretations of historical narratives often go on a tangent: they try to essentialise and in doing so end up imputing contemporary meanings to archaic and pre-modern ideas.
In Sri Lanka the two main such narratives would be the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa, the latter more than the former. Here the issue of interpretation is somewhat compounded by the fact that these two works are among the oldest and most credible of their kind in South Asia, indeed probably the most important such documents for any historian of the region or of surrounding regions like South-East Asia. The Mahavamsa alone is a useful compendium of the social and economic relations that prevailed before the advent of Buddhism in the 3rd century BC and the advent of Vijaya in the 6th. Among other things, it presents an early example of the colonisation myth, in the form of the Vijaya-Kuveni legend.
The myth itself is presented as a sequel to two other historical events, Gautama Buddha’s three visits to Sri Lanka, and the convening of the Three Buddhist Councils after his passing away or parinibbana. There is then a break of sorts in the narrative after these incidents when the story, as such, shifts to the Sinhabahu myth, which in my opinion, to put it rather crudely, is no more and no less than an Indianised – or Asianised if you will – version of the Oedipal myth. Origin and colonisation myths are strewn with three elements: guilt, incest, and parricide. Vijaya’s birth, visit to Lanka, and his subsequent actions in the island involve all three. Guilt, in fact, lies at the heart of the Kohomba Kankariya, which is a ritual centred on the quest for absolution for what Vijaya does to Kuveni.
Here we need to be mindful of an important point. The authors of the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa may have worked from an oral tradition, but that tradition is so replete with common motifs, themes, and problematics – the main problematic being, in my view, the question of how to legitimise, or authenticate, the purist claims of the monarchs of Lanka when these monarchs traced their origins to a neighbouring country – that it is difficult not to be swayed and dazzled by them. Even the historian and archaeologist feel tempted, from time to time, to overlook the mythical aspects of these stories.
It is against this backdrop that we must examine the main historical problem of the Pali Chronicles, namely the problem of what meanings to ascribe to the stories and concepts employed by their authors. We need to be aware that meanings of words change from time to time, era to era, and that, as I mentioned in my earlier article on Alan Keenan’s point about Sinhala (and non-Sinhala) names, ascribing contemporary meanings to archaic terms is a crime of which the most ardent nationalist is as guilty as the most fervent liberal. This is why both groups, opponents though they are, tend to get it wrong, very wrong, over the more controversial stories in these narratives, and the question of interpreting them. Chief among them, in my view, would be Dutugemunu’s defeat of Elara.
There are two reasons why Dutugemunu’s conquest has become the most misinterpreted historical episode – I hesitate to use the word myth because, as Gananath Obeyesekere has reminded us, Dutugemunu was an actual historical personage – in Sri Lanka. Firstly, it is to Dutugemunu that nationalist ideologues, those propounding an exclusivist interpretation of Buddhism and those considering Sri Lanka as Buddhism’s last haven – turn, to validate if not legitimise their claims. In their reading, Dutugemunu is a saviour-king, a great unifier whose actions can only be emulated, but never quite equalled: hence the tendency to adulate later unifier-monarchs, like Parakramabahu I, along Dutugemunist lines. As Newton Gunasinghe and Nalin de Silva – occupying different ideological grounds – has reminded us regarding this, the Dutugemunu story contradicts the universalism of Buddhism by grounding it in Sri Lanka and specifically among Sinhala speaking communities.
The Newton-Nalin congruence is interesting. It leads me to my second point, which is that the failure of interpretation, or misinterpretation, in the Dutugemunu story, or specifically the Dutugemunu-Elara encounter, is not merely the nationalist ideologue’s, but also his or her liberal opponent’s. For both groups, the Dutugemunist reading of history contrasts with another variant of Buddhism. Nalin de Silva, for instance, contrast Dutugemunist Buddhism (DB) with Olcott Buddhism (OB), which is then contrasted with the missionary zeal of the foremost Buddhist propagandist of 20th century Sri Lanka, Anagarika Dharmapala. In other words, historical stories and chronicles are used to justify the superiority of an exclusionary variant of Buddhism over a more universalist and all-encompassing one.
The liberal rejoinder to the nationalist reconstruction of the Dutugemunu story is, simply, that Dutugemunu’s actions, particularly his defeat of Elara, his momentary remorse over the deaths of his opponents, and his recovery from remorse through the intervention of a group of Buddhist monks, suggest an absence of empathy associated with Buddhist monarchs, of whom the supreme figurehead would have to be Asoka Maurya. Here, it is interesting to note and acknowledge that, like their nationalist opponents, liberal commentators resort to a common set of assumptions when commenting on such stories: prime among them, that the wars depicted in these stories were between two racial groups and not, as the likes of R. A. L. H. Gunawardana and H. L. Seneviratne have argued, two dynastic ones.
The episode involving Dutugemunu’s confessions of guilt to a Buddhist monk, and the Buddhist monk’s blanket absolution of the hero-king, is a case in point. What we see here is not so much a contradiction but an inversion of a similar episode from Asoka’s life, after the Kalinga War. The contradiction is so patently visible that it’s hard not to judge the episode without summoning a contrast with its Indian equivalent, or dis-equivalent. Nationalists may argue, as many of them indeed do, that Dutugemunu’s recovery from remorse indicates the sacrosanct nature of Buddhism as is practised in Sri Lanka: no matter what, even if it takes the murder of thousands or millions, the king’s foremost duty is to preserve the faith of the land. In fact, the author of the Mahavamsa, putting words into Dutugemunu’s mouth, argue that this takes precedence over “the sovereignty of the State.”
Liberal scholars, conversely, would contend that this episode provides a justification of ethnic cleansing, genocide, the murder of one’s own subjects in the interests of a faith or the State, and so on. This, like the nationalist argument, is not entirely without its merits. But it depends on how you look at the words and terms, or assumptions, underlying such stories. The question to ask here is, are we looking at history through an historical lens, depriving entire episodes and stories of their specificity in the interests of certain political and cultural biases – nationalist or liberal, exclusivist or cosmopolitan? I would say so. But the issue isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with this notion of history; it is about coming up with a solution that address the concerns of both ideological groups.
The solution I propose is hardly a radical or innovative one, but it is the best one there is. While agreeing with Gananath Obeyesekere’s polemic against interpreting these stories in a too literal light – an approach which, as he rightly notes, paves the road to fundamentalism of the sort that has bedevilled this country for the last 75 years – I would note that we need to ground them in the way in which they were related, imagined, or witnessed at the time of their recounting. Another feasible solution would be to prioritise inscriptional evidence over literary texts: even though there are convergences between the two (the historical actuality of Dutugemunu’s personage), there are also significant divergences (the arrival of Vijaya). In other words, we need to be aware of the mythical connotations of historical narratives and compare, and contrast, them with actual archaeological evidence.
I am aware, however, of a problem – one noted for me by a renowned political analyst and commentator. The issue with interpreting stories like Dutugemunu’s defeat of Elara and his recovery from remorse with the aid of a Buddhist monk, at one level, linguistic: we need to be careful when using terms whose meanings change dramatically from era to era. At the same time, as linguists themselves will tell you, some words have meanings that transcend specificity, context, space and time, geography, history. What, then, do we make of a monk who, after hearing Dutugemunu’s confession, assures him that “from this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven”? Certain episodes can be grounded in a specific period and excused on the basis of their specificity. Certain others, like the extermination of six million Jews, cannot. The problem for me is, where does Dutugemunu belong?
The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
