By Rohana R. Wasala

Continued from January 02, 2026

From my perspective, it is an obvious fact that Sri Lanka as a country/nation is still left in the lurch politically, economically and morally. The biggest problem is that there is no inspiring leadership. Strong moral leadership is a key component of good governance. ‘Raja bhavatu dhammiko’ (May the ruler be righteous) is the perennial chant of the bhikkhus we hear every morning. A country’s moral leadership is interwoven with its ethical foundation, which, in Sri Lanka’s case, is built on Buddhist moral values, which resonate with the best found in other faiths.  

The two dynamic social activist monks, mentioned towards the end of Part I of this article, are being targeted for severe public denunciation as rabid racists in the media in Sri Lanka and abroad due to three main reasons, in my view: First, they are victims of politically motivated misrepresentation; second, when these two monks try to articulate the problems that they want responsible government servants such as police and civil functionaries to address in accordance with the law, they, due to some personality defect, fail to maintain the calm sedateness and composure normally expected of and traditionally associated with Buddhist monks; third, (perhaps the most important reason in this context), these genuine fighters for justice get wrongly identified, in public perception, with other less principled politician monks affiliated to different political parties. Unlike these two socially dedicated monks, monks engaged in partisan politics are a definite disadvantage to the parties they support, especially when they appear on propaganda platforms. The minstrel monk mentioned later in this writeup is one of them.

The occasional rowdy behaviour of Madakalapuwa Hamuduruwo is provoked by the deliberate non-responsiveness of certain greasy palmed government servants of the eastern province (who are under the sway of certain racist minority politicians) to his just demands for basic facilities (such as permits for plots of land and water for cultivation) for traditional Sinhalese dwellers in some isolated villages in the area ravaged by war. That is something that the government must take responsibility for. The well known Galagoda-aththe Himi had long been warning about the Jihadist threat that finally led to the Easter Sunday attacks, but he was in jail when it actually happened. The Yahapalana government didn’t pay any attention to his evidence-based warnings. Instead they shot the messenger. Had the authorities heeded his urgent calls for alarm, the 270 innocent men, women and children dead, and the 500 or so injured, some grievously, would not have met such a calamity.

The Mahanayakes should have taken a leaf out of the Cardinal’s book. The Cardinal knows that his responsibility is to look after his flock as a single unanimously approved/accepted leader within the Christian Church. He fulfills that responsibility well. But, the Mahanayakes couldn’t have resorted to the Cardinal’s strategies which he chooses in accordance with his Catholic/Christian conscience (ultimately fashioned by Christian moral values). The Mahanayakes however, like the Cardinal, could have brought pressure on any one or all  of the presidents and prime ministers elected/appointed since the end of the separatist conflict in 2009 to implement Article 9 of the existing Constitution in its letter and spirit and the powerful earlier Antiquities Ordinance of 1940 fully (I hope it is not in abeyance now) to protect the extensive Buddhist archaeological heritage sites spread throughout the North and East provinces that have been encroached on and vandalized for decades now, and to look after the poverty-stricken Sinhalese peasants who have somehow managed to survive in the isolated wartorn villages of  the Batticaloa district. The Cardinal’s strength is the unanimous call of the united Church demanding reparation for Easter Sunday attack victims that he broadcasts. In contrast, the Mahanayakes have failed to elect or proclaim a unified leadership (in the form of a powerful prelate) having undisputed authority over all the monks in the country. 

 These few errant monks, in my opinion, owe their existence primarily to the failure of two groups of people, as already hinted: opportunistic politicians and the indifferent Sangha leadership, to put it plainly.  Politicians  use monks for securing the Buddhist vote to come to power, with the connivance of the Mahanayake theras, who fail to take a united stand against them. As a rule, politicians forget about monks after getting elected to power, apparently, in the hope of not alienating non-Buddhist voters, who naturally favour candidates of their own at elections. Their leaders acquire the influence they need to survive in politics by rubbing those in power the right way. But those non-Buddhist voters are as innocent and peace-loving as the traditionally hoodwinked Buddhist voters. 

In this context I remember having watched a YouTube video uploaded over four months ago featuring MP Namal Rajapaksa. The video (2025-08-30) contained a news clip taken from a mainstream TV channel that showed the young MP being snubbed by a certain Anunayake Himi in Kandy. This was when the MP, during his audience with the high priest, mentioned to him how a retired senior naval officer who had done so much selfless service in ridding the country of Tamil separatist terrorism had been arrested and remanded unjustly (as it appeared) under the present government which is being accused of succumbing unnecessarily to global Tamil diaspora pressure. The monk’s dismissive and insensitive comment in response to MP Namal Rajapaksa’s complaint revealed the senior monk’s blissful ignorance and careless attitude: We can’t say who is right, who is wrong.” Are we any longer to believe that the Maha Sangha that this monk is supposed to represent are the Guardians of the Nation?  

Please remember that the country has been plunged into the current predicament mainly due to the opportunistic politicians’ policy of politics for politics’ sake and the Mahanaykes’ inexplicable can’t be bothered” attitude. It is not that they are not doing anything to save the country, the people, and the inclusive, nonintrusive Buddhist culture. Both groups are members of a gerontocracy that has outlived its expiry date. By stating this plain truth, I do not mean any disrespect towards the venerable monks and the veteran politicians, if any, who are sincerely desirous of serving the nation until their last breath.

A young political leadership must emerge free from the potentially negative influence of both these factors. SLPP national organizer MP Namal Rajapaksa, among a few other young politicians like him of both sexes, is demonstrating the qualities of a person who could make a successful bid for such a leadership position. In a feature article published in The Island in September 2010 (well over fifteen years ago) entitled ‘Old fossils, out! Welcome, new blood!’ I welcomed young Namal Rajapaksa’s entry into politics on his own merits as a Sri Lankan citizen, while criticising the dynastic ambitions of his father, president Mahinda Rajapaksa. Namal was already a cabinet minister then, I think. I have made complimentary observations on his performance as a maturing politician on several occasions in my subsequent writings, most recently in connection with the Joint Opposition ‘Maha Jana Handa’ rally at Nugegoda that he organized on November 21, 2025 on behalf of the SLPP (The Island December 9 and 16). A novel feature he had introduced into his programme was having no monk speakers. I, for one, as a patriotic senior Sri Lankan, wholeheartedly approve of that change from the past. Let monks talk about politics, if they must, from a national platform, not from party political stages. That is, they should provide a disciplined, independent ethical voice on broad societal issues. Ulapane Sumangala Thera is approximating that in his current  outspoken criticism of PM Harini Amarasuriya’s controversial sex education reforms. But I am not sure whether he will continue with non-partisan politics and also infuse some discipline and decency into his speech.

My advice to MP Namal is: Please avoid the trodden path in a plausible manner. Get rid of the minstrel monk who insists on accompanying you wherever you go and tries to entertain your naturally growing audiences with his impromptu recitations”. 

This monk reminds me of Rafiki the old mandrill in the 1994 The Lion King animation movie. But there is a world of difference between the monk and the mandrill. The story of The Lion King is an instructive allegory that embodies a lesson for a budding leader. One bright morning, while the royal parents are proudly watching behind him, and, as the sun is rising, Rafiki, the old wise shaman, presents lion king Mufasa’s new born cub, Simba, from the top of Pride Rock to the animals of the Pride Lands assembled below. Rafiki, though a bit of an eccentric old shaman, is a wise spiritual healer, devoted to his royal master, the great king Mufasa, Simba’s father. The film depicts how Simba grows from a carefree cub to a mature king through a life of troubles and tribulations after the death of his father, challenged by his cruel younger brother Scar, Simba’s uncle. Simba learns that ‘true leadership is rooted in wisdom and respect for the natural order, a realisation that contrasts Mufasa’s benevolent rule with Scar’s tyranny’.  

Years later, another dawn, animals gather below the Pride Rock, from where Rafiki picks up the wiggling little first born cub of King Simba and Queen Nala and raises him above his head. All the animals cheer and stamp their feet.

The film closes with Simba standing at the top of Pride Rock watching the sun set beyond the western hills.

Everything is all right, Dad”, Simba said softly. You see, I remembered ……….”. He gazed upward. One by one each star took its place in the cold night sky.

The film describes the Circle of Life, the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living things, and the cycle of birth, death, and renewal. For me, this is a cheerful negation of T.S. Eliot’s pessimistic philosophical reflection on life: Eating and drinking, dung and death”. 

Namal has already developed his inherited political leadership skills, which he will be capable of enhancing further with growing experience. Let’s hope there are other promising, potential young leaders of both sexes as well, to offer him healthy competition eventually,  so that, in the future, the country will be ruled by the best leaders. 

Concluded