Update, 14 October: Two days on, the meeting has produced an intra-coalition rebuke. SJB ally Mano Ganesan has written to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa objecting to what Lakshman Kiriella said in the room — and his letter names the claim NewsFirst reported without attribution. Madduma Bandara has separately identified one of the past violent incidents this article flagged as unreported. See Update, 14 October below.

Update, 16 October: Kiriella has now publicly refused to withdraw the remarks, under sustained questioning at a media briefing, and has gone further on the pardon than he did in this room. See Update, 16 October below.

A Samagi Jana Balawegaya delegation that went to put a series of claims about Buddhism to the Malwathu Mahanayake Thera found several of them questioned by the prelate they had come to brief, NewsFirst reports.

The delegation of senior opposition leaders, led by SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara, met the Most Venerable Thibbatuwawe Sri Sumangala Mahanayake Thera of the Malwathu Chapter of the Siam Nikaya on Monday. The discussion covered governance, Buddhism and social media.

What the delegation put

SJB representatives were critical of the government’s handling of several recent matters and raised concerns about issues affecting the Buddhist clergy and the Buddha Sasana. As the meeting went on they alleged that the government’s support base was weakening, and claimed efforts were being made to appeal to minority communities at the expense of Buddhist interests.

The delegation also raised content circulating on social media, alleging that some Buddhist monks had been subjected to criticism and defamatory campaigns online. Madduma Bandara said those campaigns were being conducted by individuals linked to the government.

What the prelate said back

On the social media allegation, the Mahanayake Thera first asked a practical question — whether mechanisms existed to identify those responsible and prevent such content from spreading. He then declined to accept the attribution.

Various individuals engage in such activity, he observed, and it would be difficult to attribute it to a particular political party without evidence.

“We should not say that,” the prelate remarked when sweeping claims were made, stressing that such conduct was inappropriate regardless of who was responsible.

On the broader claim that Buddhism was being undermined, he urged caution, noting that some earlier claims about restrictions on Buddhist activities had not materialised, and pointing out that government leaders continue to attend Buddhist as well as other religious events.

When opposition representatives went on to link certain present-day political figures to past violent incidents, he challenged the assertions and asked on what basis they were being made, emphasising the need for evidence before drawing conclusions.

The legislation in the background

The exchange sits on top of a live dispute, and one detail from it is new.

Former Parliamentarian Lakshman Kiriella argued that matters relating to the Buddhist robe and the clergy should be handled with due respect until the relevant legislation is enacted, and suggested the Executive President has the authority to make interim arrangements pending legal reform.

Responding, the Mahanayake Thera said the government had indicated that legislation on the matter would be introduced within a short period.

That is the first indication from the Malwathu Chapter of a legislative timeline. The dispute began when the imprisoned Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera appeared in court in civilian clothing rather than his robes, drawing protests from a section of the clergy. The Mahanayake Theras of the four main chapters wrote to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake saying only they may decide on the removal of a monk’s robe. A committee appointed to update the regulations and standing orders under the Prisons Ordinance is due to hand its report to the Presidential Secretary on 15 October, and the Mahanayake Theras are to review it.

Kiriella’s point and the prelate’s answer are about the same gap: what happens to monks in custody between now and whenever that law is passed.

A note on sourcing

NewsFirst filed the account of the meeting itself on Monday evening and was the only verified newsroom to carry it. The photograph it published shows the prelate receiving a delegation of roughly eight people in white in a temple reception room, which is consistent with its account of the occasion.

The aftermath of the meeting has since been reported independently by the Daily Mirror in two filings on 14 October, which is what the update below rests on. Those filings corroborate that the meeting took place and that Kiriella and Madduma Bandara spoke at it, but neither is an account of the meeting itself — both report what participants and others said about it afterwards. No outlet has produced a second first-hand account of the discussion.

Not reported

Two of the gaps below have since been partly closed — see Update, 14 October. One of the past violent incidents has been identified, and the Premadasa question has been indirectly addressed. The paragraph is kept as filed, with the remaining gaps still standing.

NewsFirst does not name the other members of the delegation beyond Madduma Bandara and Kiriella, and does not say whether party leader Sajith Premadasa attended. It does not identify the past violent incidents the opposition raised, or the political figures it linked to them.

It gives no detail of the promised legislation — what it would cover, when it was indicated, or by whom — and carries no response from the government or the Buddhasasana Ministry to the delegation’s claims. It does not say whether the SJB has met the other chapters, or what the delegation asked the Mahanayake Thera to do. Those four gaps remain open.

Update, 14 October: an SJB ally objects, and names the claim this article could only paraphrase

Tamil Progressive Alliance leader Mano Ganesan — an SJB ally — has written to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa expressing concern over what Lakshman Kiriella said at this meeting, the Daily Mirror reported at 3.24 p.m. on Wednesday.

Ganesan opened by welcoming the visit itself, then separated it from what was said.

“I wish to convey my appreciation for the visit by a delegation of the SJB to meet the Most Venerable Mahanayake Thera in Kandy. However, I am deeply concerned and disappointed by the reported remarks made by senior SJB member Mr Lakshman Kiriella during this meeting.”

The euphemism, named

This is the substantive gain. The account above records the delegation claiming “efforts were being made to appeal to minority communities at the expense of Buddhist interests” — reported without attribution to any individual and in general terms. Ganesan attributes that claim to Kiriella and states it far more specifically:

“As I understand it, he reportedly suggested that the Government was using the issue concerning the Venerable Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera to appease Tamil-speaking citizens and other citizens who do not belong to the Sinhala-Buddhist community.”

He also objected to what he called the use of outdated terminology and labels in referring to the Tamil and Muslim communities, describing them as integral to Sri Lanka’s plural society and as fellow citizens.

“Such remarks, if accurately reported, risk reinforcing divisive narratives and undermining the dignity of our fellow citizens.”

“It is regrettable that language of this nature should be used in a discussion with the country’s highest Buddhist religious leadership.”

Note his repeated qualifier — “as I understand it”, “if accurately reported”. Ganesan was not present and is objecting to an account of the meeting, not to something he heard. He is a leader of the TPA, one of the six Tamil and Muslim parties that agreed a common platform in July, and simultaneously part of the SJB-led opposition — which is what makes the letter a rebuke from inside the coalition rather than from an opponent.

Where he lands on Gnanasara

Ganesan’s own position is not the government’s either. He said the Rule of Law remains fundamental and that “many of us have generally refrained from questioning the judicial outcome on that basis” — then went further than the government has:

“Should the current President, after due consideration and in accordance with the law, correct the deficiencies and grant a fresh pardon, I would not object to such an exercise of lawful presidential discretion.”

He stated that the previous presidential pardon had “subsequently been found to be legally defective” — consistent with the record in our coverage, where the Thera lost that pardon and was returned to Welikada to serve the remainder of the six-year term. So an SJB ally from a Tamil party is on record as open to a fresh, lawfully-constituted pardon, while objecting to the communal framing a senior SJB figure used to argue a related point.

Premadasa, indirectly

This article noted that NewsFirst did not say whether Premadasa attended. That is not settled, but the letter is addressed to him and describes the remarks as “reported” rather than heard — which reads more consistently with his absence than his presence. It is an inference from the form of the letter, not a reported fact, and no filing states whether he was there.

Update, 14 October: one of the past violent incidents is identified

SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara has named an attack on the Sri Dalada Maligawa as one of the matters raised, and asked for fresh investigations, the Daily Mirror reported at 1.59 p.m. on Wednesday.

This partly closes the question above about the unidentified past violent incidents. Speaking at a media briefing, Madduma Bandara responded to a comment by the Mahanayake of the Malwathu Chapter, Most Venerable Thibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera, concerning the attack on the temple.

“Though bombing and shooting are two different words, but both are similar, as they are violent acts.”

“We thank the Mahanayake Thera for explaining the truth. However, we request a fresh probe into it and other attacks such as the bombing of the Kataragama Perahera where 13 people were killed.”

What the exchange appears to have been

Read against the account above, the shape is recoverable but not the substance. This article recorded that when opposition representatives linked present-day political figures to past violent incidents, the prelate challenged the assertions and asked on what basis they were being made. Madduma Bandara’s framing — thanking the prelate for “explaining the truth” and then arguing that bombing and shooting are morally equivalent — indicates the prelate corrected a characterisation, most plausibly that the Dalada Maligawa attack was a shooting rather than a bombing, and that the SJB is accepting the correction while denying it matters.

That is an inference from two filings written two days apart, and the Daily Mirror does not report what the prelate actually said. The distinction between a rebuttal, which is how NewsFirst described the prelate’s intervention, and an explanation of the truth, which is how the SJB’s general secretary now describes it, is doing real work in the politics and should not be collapsed.

What is still missing

The filing does not date or identify either attack. It does not say when the Dalada Maligawa was attacked, by whom, or which incident is meant; it does not date the Kataragama Perahera bombing or say who was held responsible; and it does not say which present-day political figures the SJB has linked to them — the half of this article’s original question that remains unanswered. This desk has no coverage of either attack to date, and is reporting both strictly as Madduma Bandara described them.

Nor does the filing say to whom the request for a fresh probe is addressed, whether any authority has responded, or whether the SJB has made the request formally rather than at a briefing. The Mahanayake Thera’s own remarks are not quoted.

Separately, the Dalada Maligawa is where a six-day march over the Thera’s treatment set out on 10 October, due to reach Colombo on 15 October.

Update, 16 October: Kiriella refuses to withdraw, and hardens his position on the pardon

Four days after this meeting, Lakshman Kiriella spent a media briefing declining to retract what he said in it. He told reporters his criticism had been aimed at the government and not at minority communities, and that those objecting had not heard his full remarks — a defence set out in detail here.

Two points bear directly on the account above.

First, the argument this article recorded — that the Executive President could make interim arrangements pending legal reform — has moved. Kiriella now says no legislation is needed at all for a pardon, telling the Daily Mirror’s briefing: “You don’t have to bring in new laws to pardon Gnanasara Thera.” The Mahanayake Thera’s answer in this room was that the government had indicated legislation would be introduced shortly. Four days on, the SJB’s position is that the law is beside the point.

Second, the question of what Kiriella actually said here remains unresolved. This article could only paraphrase the claim; Ganesan’s letter named its substance; Kiriella now says both renderings are incomplete and has asked to be quoted in full. No verified newsroom has published his actual words, so the dispute cannot be settled from the record.

Sources: NewsFirst, Daily Mirror — Ganesan, Daily Mirror — Madduma Bandara, NewsFirst — Kiriella defends, Daily Mirror — Kiriella defends.