Sri Lanka has suddenly found itself confronting a question that goes far beyond the fate of one controversial Buddhist monk. When the Bodu Bala Sena organisation’s General Secretary Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera appeared before court in white civilian clothing rather than his saffron robe, the country witnessed an extraordinary collision between the Judiciary, the Prison administration and the Buddhist clergy.
The Government says the Prison regulations require inmates serving rigourous imprisonment (RI), including those sentenced to more than three years, to wear Prison-issued clothing. The Cabinet of Ministers Spokesperson Dr Nalinda Jayatissa has said that no special procedure was followed and that the same rules apply to Buddhist monks serving Prison sentences.
But, for senior Buddhist monks, the matter is not so simple. An Anunayake Maha Thera of the Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte Sri Kalyani Samagri Dharma Maha Sangha Sabha, Ven. Kotapitiye Rahula Thera has formally asked the Prison authorities to allow Gnanasara to retain his robes. He has stated that the Sangha Sabha accepts the court's judgement and the supremacy of the Judiciary, but maintains that the question of a monk's robes is a matter for Sangha Sabha to decide.
The Registrar of the Asgiriya Sect, Ven. Dr Medagama Dhammananda Thera, Ven. Dr Omalpe Sobitha Thera, Ven. Thunhitiyawe Dhammaloka Thera and many other leading monks, while acknowledging that the court sentence must be respected, questioned whether Prison officials had crossed into an area traditionally administered by the Buddhist clergy.
That distinction deserves serious national attention. If a court finds a person guilty of an offence and imposes a lawful sentence, religious status cannot provide immunity from punishment. The State must have the authority to enforce the sentence.
The dangerous mistake would be to assume that enforcing a Prison sentence automatically gives Prison officials the authority to determine whether a Buddhist monk remains a monk.
Rahula has said that the Sangha Sabha has received no information indicating that Gnanasara committed a Vinaya (discipline) offence of the kind that would warrant the removal of his robes.
There is another side that cannot simply be dismissed. Prisons cannot operate on the basis of individual preferences. A Prisons Commissioner has explained that inmates sentenced to RI are required to wear Prison-issued clothing, while monks serving simple imprisonment may retain their robes. He has also said that prisoners serving more than three years must be produced before court in prison attire.
However, the Government should recognise that the uniform application of a rule does not automatically settle whether the rule itself has been correctly applied to a religious office-holder. That is precisely why this controversy should be subjected to legal clarification rather than political argument.
For a Buddhist monk, the robe is the visible symbol of ordination. That is why the sight of a senior Buddhist monk being taken to court in civilian or Prison clothing has produced an emotional reaction among sections of the Buddhist clergy and lay Buddhists. The reaction should not automatically be interpreted as opposition to the court or as an attempt to place monks above the law. Senior monks themselves have been careful to make that distinction.
The Kotte Sangha Sabha has expressly said that it accepts the Judiciary while objecting to what it considers an intrusion into a religious disciplinary order. That distinction is essential in a democracy.
Article 9 of the Constitution gives Buddhism the foremost place and places a duty upon the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana (doctrine). That Constitutional recognition cannot mean that Buddhist monks are beyond the reach of ordinary law.
Nor should it mean that Government officials automatically acquire authority over affairs of the Buddhist order. No Government official should casually assume religious authority that belongs to the religious institution itself.
The defence has already raised Article 9 in objecting to the removal of Gnanasara's robes, arguing that the authority to remove a monk's robe belongs to the Sangha Sabha rather than Prison officials. The High Court indicated that the defence could pursue the matter before a higher court.
This episode provides Sri Lanka with an opportunity to establish a useful precedent. The courts could clarify the precise relationship between the Prisons Ordinance, Prison regulations, the Constitutional protection of Buddhism and the authority of the Buddhist clergy. Such clarification would prevent the same dispute from recurring whenever a monk is imprisoned.
The issue of the monk’s robe did not arise when two Buddhist monks were convicted for the assassination of Prime Minister S W R D Bandaranaike on 26 September 1959. Ayurvedic monk, Ven. Talduwe Somarama Thera and the powerful Chief Incumbent of the Kelaniya Viharaya, Ven. Mapitigama Buddharakkhita Thera were among those prosecuted.
The historical record is particularly relevant to the present Gnanasara robe controversy, because Somarama himself provides an important precedent. However, it also shows that the circumstances were not identical. During the trial, Somarama stopped wearing his yellow robes when appearing in court. Justice Thusew Samuel Fernando reportedly remarked that Somarama had "a streak of conscience" because he did not attend court in saffron robes.
That makes the 1959 precedent useful, but it should not be presented as proof that Prison authorities in that era had a general legal power to disrobe convicted monks.
Sri Lanka's democracy will be better served if the country remembers these distinctions. The court should decide the sentence. The Prison should administer the sentence. The Buddhist clergy should decide the robe. That may be the most sensible way out of Sri Lanka's latest saffron-robe dilemma.
Durian flavour
When the former Indian Ambassador to Germany and Indonesia, Gurjit Singh launched his book, The Durian Flavour: India and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) after a Decade of the Act East Policy in Colombo this month (October), the discussion that followed focused on Sri Lanka’s collaboration, or the lack of it, with multilateral organisations. The author pointedly said that regional organisations are not charitable clubs and that they reward countries that negotiate hard, build relationships with several power centres, and develop credible institutions. The recurring critique is that Sri Lanka often behaves as if diplomatic obedience will eventually be rewarded with invitations, instead of proactively creating its own space.
For Sri Lanka, the question is no longer simply whether it should trade with Asia. The question is whether Sri Lanka will participate sufficiently in the institutions that are shaping Asian trade.
Sri Lanka's relationship with the ASEAN is an obvious example of an opportunity that has been underdeveloped.
Way back in the early 1980s, President J R Jayewardene, who had a long vision, sent feelers to the ASEAN, through Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa, expressing interest to join the regional economic Bloc. But the effort did not work out as Sri Lanka is geographically outside South-East Asia and therefore cannot become an ASEAN member. But the ASEAN has a system of external partnerships, including Dialogue Partnerships, Sectoral Dialogue Partnerships and Development Partnerships.
Four decades later, Sri Lanka submitted a letter of intent for the ASEAN Sectoral Dialogue Partnership in 2019, but the initiative did not advance. In March of last year (2025), the Cabinet approved a new work plan with clear timelines to revive the application.
That delay is significant, says Singh. A Sectoral Dialogue Partnership would not magically transform Sri Lanka's economy. It could provide a structured platform for cooperation in trade, investment, tourism, maritime affairs, education, digitalisation, disaster management and connectivity.
Singh is of the view that Sri Lanka should be among the countries pushing hardest for the completion of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) economic agenda. BIMSTEC links South Asia with South-East Asia through the Bay. Sri Lanka's geographical location gives it an obvious role in maritime transport, transshipment, logistics, fisheries, tourism, blue-economy industries, renewable energy and digital connectivity.
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) presents a different kind of opportunity. Sri Lanka was among the countries invited to become partners, although the official BRICS information indicates that only some invitees had accepted the invitation at the time of that source.
BRICS should not be presented as an alternative to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the ASEAN or Western markets as Sri Lanka needs multiple economic doors, not one new door replacing another.
The author of Durian Flavour questions what would happen when a country has strong political and strategic relations with a region but fails to extract an equivalent economic value.
The outspoken diplomat said that any country should be smart enough to derive the maximum from regional institutions for the development of their economies
In a nutshell, Sri Lanka cannot afford another decade of hesitation. For Sri Lanka, the time has come to taste the “Durian flavour” of Asian economic diplomacy, not by copying India, the ASEAN or anyone else, but by understanding how the regional system works and securing a place within it.
When questioned about comparing Sri Lanka to a tasty fruit with an obnoxious smell, Singh defended his decision saying, Duriyan has a tough interior with pricks and is difficult to encroach, but, when reached, one finds that the inside is soft and sweet.
The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with experience in public communication and international media relations
----------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication