AI Overview 

If evaluated by modern legal standards, the severe counter-insurgency tactics authorized by Governor Sir Robert Brownrigg (1818) and Governor Lord Torrington (1848) would indeed face intense scrutiny under international humanitarian law frameworks like the Nuremberg trials or the International Criminal Court (ICC). Both governors deployed scorched-earth policies, martial law, and mass executions to dismantle the Kandyan and Matale Sinhala resistance movements.

The 1818 Uva-Wellassa Rebellion under Brownrigg

Governor Brownrigg responded to the 1818 uprising with a systematic scorched-earth campaign designed to starve and terrorize the population into submission.

• Scorched-earth orders: Brownrigg authorized the destruction of entire villages, the burning of homes, and the slaughter of livestock.
• Agricultural devastation: British troops systematically cut down jackfruit trees, destroyed paddy fields, and diverted irrigation canals to induce artificial famine.
• Mass executions: Captured rebels and suspected sympathizers were summarily executed without formal trials, and prominent leaders like Keppetipola Disawa were beheaded.

The 1848 Matale Rebellion under Torrington

Governor Lord Torrington utilized swift, disproportionate violence to crush the 1848 tax rebellion before it could escalate to the scale of the 1818 uprising.

• Excessive martial law: Torrington immediately declared martial law and used it to bypass civil judicial processes.
• Public executions: Buddhist monks, including Ven. Kudahapola Thero ( Kadahapola Unnanse”), was executed in public on 26th of August 1848 in his robes to terrify the local populace. Puran Appu suffered the same fate of death by execution.
• https://sinhalasangha.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/1800-1848-kadahapola-unnanse/
• Property confiscation: The colonial administration confiscated the lands and properties of anyone suspected of sympathizing with the rebellion.

Modern legal implications

Under modern international frameworks, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, these actions would likely be classified as severe violations of international law:

• War crimes: The intentional targeting of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and starvation of populations as a method of warfare are strictly prohibited.
• Crimes against humanity: Widespread, systematic murder, expropriation of property, and persecution directed against a civilian population meet the criteria for international prosecution.
• British parliamentary backlash: Even in the 19th century, Torrington’s brutal methods caused a massive scandal in London, leading to a parliamentary investigation and his subsequent recall from Ceylon in 1850.
• Why is the Sri Lankan legal fraternity including the Bar and legal educational institutions like Sri Lanka Law College and Colombo University Law Faculty not showing hardly any interest in re- visiting these Crimes against Humanity committed against our own people by the British Army in occupation of Ceylon ? Contrast this conduct with practices in other countries such as Israel, Germany where the past is not allowed to be buried if there are grave lessons to be learnt by the modern generation. 
• Where the leadership lacks backbone no amount of pussy footing can make amends for failing to hold or even the point the finger at  British Governors Robert Brownrigg and Lord Torrington retrospectively criminally liable for crimes against humanity committed against our own, the people of Sri Lanka, in 1818 and 1848, among others. Even a re-visit and highlighting colonial crimes is tantamount meting out some measure of Justice.
• A critical view on British colonial atrocities in Sri Lanka through International Law by Punsara Amarasinghe
• https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2018/01/22/a-critical-view-on-british-colonial-atrocities-in-sri-lanka-through-international-law/

·         COLONIAL CRIMES IN BRITISH OCCUPIED CEYLON

·         https://ceehale.org/colonial-crimes-in-british-occupied-ceylon/

·         Source:  AI Overview