Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Sunil Watagala has stated that the assets of former IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon may be frozen if he continues to evade court appearances. Despite an arrest warrant being issued several days ago, police have yet to locate Tennakoon. Watagala emphasized that if the former IGP fails to present himself before the court, legal steps to freeze his assets may be taken.
The incumbent Government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake can thank its stars and also the West-dominated ‘Sri Lanka Core Group’ at the UNHRC for the latter extending ‘diplomatic goodwill’ towards Colombo and welcoming the ‘peaceful elections and smooth transition-of-power’, as if they were expecting/anticipating something different this time (too). They have acknowledged that the new Government ‘has only been in place for four months’, a grace-period they have always given in the past during every ‘regime-change’, especially when the Rajapaksas were the losers.
Yet, without losing their ‘focus’ from the past decade and more, the Core Group has also urged the Government ‘to use the opportunity that this transition represents to address the challenges it faces’. In saying so, it did ‘appreciate the Government’s commitment to making meaningful progress on reconciliation and the initial steps taken, including returning land, lifting road-blocks, and allowing communities in the North and East to commemorate the past and to memorialise their loved ones’.
In the same vein, they did ‘welcome commitments to implement devolution in accordance with the Constitution and to make progress on governance reforms’. Ask the ‘affected communities’, particularly the war-affected Tamils, you will have ‘nay’ for a response to every one of the accolades that the Core Group has conferred on this Government as used to be the case with every new Government barring the Rajapaksas’.
Yet, as if to set the future agenda for the new Government, the Core Group, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and the UK, said that ‘in order to build and sustain trust, it is essential to ensure the protection of civil society spaces, including by ending surveillance and intimidation of civil society actors and organisations’. They took ‘note the Government’s stated intention to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act and emphasise that any new legislation should be in line with Sri Lanka’s international obligations’.
As the ‘Government seeks to make progress on human rights and corruption cases, we urge that any comprehensive reconciliation and accountability process carry the support of affected communities, build on past recommendations and meet international standards’, the group’s brief statement read. The victory, if it’s any, this time for the Sri Lankan State as an institution, independent of political identities, is that the Core Group has also sought to ‘encourage the Government to re-invigorate the work of domestic institutions focused on reparations and missing persons’.
Carrot and hidden stick
Therein also concealed is the stick that the West would want to wield or the brickbats that it would want to throw at Sri Lanka even while their hands seemingly offer carrots and bouquets, instead. By reaffirming their ‘willingness to work with the Government to ensure that any future transitional justice mechanisms are independent, inclusive, meaningful, and meet the expectations of affected communities’, the Core Group is actually telling the new rulers to ‘behave’ as told, politely for now but not always so in the future.
It is the kind of treatment that past governments in the post-war period have been dealt with, with each new resolution moved by them and passed by the Council against Colombo’s protests and abstentions. They have often added a new element for investigation by the even more controversial Office of Human Rights Commissioner (OHRC) that had nothing to do with the LTTE war, which was what their maiden resolution was all about.
For instance, it is anybody’s guess how ‘corruption’ can become a part of the UNHRC Charter or a Council resolution or even a statement of the Core Group kind. It may be a different matter if it’s about the impact of large-scale corruption over the years on the nation’s economy, but that is for the IMF to worry about as far as Sri Lanka is concerned at present.
Transitional justice
It is another matter that the Core Group’s insistence still on ‘transitional justice’ again has a loaded meaning under international human rights contexts as selectively applied by the West, that too at the time and place of their choosing – and as a diplomatic tool, for which lesser members of the Core Group, too, have no real use in the Sri Lankan context, especially. The same is true of their continued reference for ensuring that ‘transitional justice mechanisms are independent, inclusive, meaningful’, as if implying the deployment of foreign investigators, lawyers and judges – a less-veiled proposal that was rejected by Sri Lanka even when first made and repeated in the past.
That way, even the reference for the ‘transitional mechanism…. to meet the expectations of the affected communities’ does not have much meaning far away from the war-period that is still fifteen years young. If the reference is to the war-affected Tamils, their polity and society is so much divided within themselves, owing mainly to ego clashes, since the end of the war. Their place, especially that of the ‘non-Tamil’ Tamil parties in the Tamil-majority areas of the North and the East, has gone to the ruling centre-left JVP-NPP in the Parliamentary elections last year.
With the nation-wide Local Government Elections and the nine Provincial Council elections, both due later this year, will the West accept it as the voice of the ‘affected communities’ if the JVP-NPP records substantial victories in the Tamil areas, in either or both? And if the rulers in Colombo cite the endorsement of the elected representatives from the ‘affected communities’ for the Governments schemes on the reconciliation front, will the Core Group and the rest of the West be willing to accept it as all that needed doing?
Ritualistic, predictable
It is in this context that the Dissanayake Government’s concerns over UNHRC’s ‘inconsistent application of human rights principles’ needs to be viewed and understood. Of course, it is a repeat of all that the previous Governments had told the international community from the UNHRC and elsewhere, but coming as it does from the incumbent dispensation that is new to political administration, such a construct also implies a ‘national consensus’ that is a rarity in this country and mostly elsewhere.
The Government’s reaction was in response to the OHCHR’s ‘oral update’ to the full Council on Sri Lanka, a ritual that has become ritualistic for its predictability, and hence has become unexciting and boring for those who are all served the same old stuff in the same old bottle. Suffice to point out that any regular newspaper reader in Sri Lanka could tell you what more to expect in terms of incidents and episodes in the next instalment of the OHCHR’s report or the Core Group response or even a new resolution that they place before the full House for vote and approval.
We remain steadfast in our belief that national ownership with gradual reforms, is the only practical way forward to transformative change,’ Ambassador Himalee Arunatilaka, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative (PR) to the United Nations in Geneva said, responding to the OHCHR’s oral update. What her political masters back home however have to remember is that when their honeymoon with the West is over – whatever the fate of the same in the domestic context – the Core Group would dust past OHRC reports of the kind, and haul up Sri Lanka over the coals for ‘past sins’ that had been left ‘unpunished’.
It is this inevitable fall-out on an undated future that successive governments have ignored or overlooked or have deliberately left it behind as a ‘legacy issue’ for their successors to tackle in their time. It is also in this unsaid background that the Sri Lankan PR had this to tell the UNHRC, matter-of-factly: ‘We regret the continuing inconsistent application of human rights principles through the work of the Council. This has resulted in the erosion of trust in the human rights architecture making countries less likely to respect the noble purposes for which the Human Rights Council was created.’
In context, Ambassador Arunatilaka recalled how Sri Lanka has consistently spoken out against country-specific resolutions that do not have the concurrence of the country concerned. As she pointed out, the ‘external evidence-gathering mechanism on Sri Lanka within the OHCHR is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate, and contradicts its founding principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity’. After all, as she further pointed out, ‘No sovereign State can accept the super-imposition of an external mechanism that runs contrary to its Constitution and which pre-judges the commitment of its domestic legal processes’.
Rewind to the all-but-forgotten Darusman Report supposedly for the personal understanding of then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, but whose preliminary and final reports uncannily found their way to the media with persistent consistency, and you would also remember where it all was meant to head. Much of it became known when Ki-moon broke the ‘personal use’ charade and forwarded the reports officially to the then UN Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay, who was as controversial as the OHCHR that she headed and the UNHRC that she served – or, did she?
Hey, it’s the MIC, right? I’m thinking, of course, about the military-industrial complex. In this century, it’s taken more taxpayer dollars than perhaps any other part of the government, with a Pentagon budget” that’s now heading for $900 billion a year. At this moment, President Trump has dispatched Elon Musk to do some cutting there (as at so many other places in the government) and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is planning to lend him a hand. I have no doubt that they’ll find some immediate funds to slash and staff to obliterate. Still, I’d count on something else as well: Musk is a tech billionaire in an administration that simply loves tech billionaires — and this country’s tech billionaires like Peter Thiel of Palantir and Palmer Luckey of Anduril are clearly planning to make further fortunes off the MIC, as they provide the latest drone and AI weaponry to the place whose greatest skill in this century has been spending money while losing wars.
Oh, by the way, the Republicans in Congress recently released a blueprint for adding a future $150 billion to that very Pentagon budget! And count on one more thing: significant parts of that sum will undoubtedly go to producing futuristic high-tech weaponry. So don’t for a second think that the Pentagon will truly be cut back (no matter what future headlines may tell you), not — as TomDispatch regular Norman Solomon, author of War Made Invisible, suggests today — while the MIC is transformed into the MITC (for military-industrial-tech complex).
As Solomon makes clear, this country has become a warfare state (even if it’s been incapable of winning a war in this century) and that is indeed one way to pave a path to greater authoritarianism. Tom
How the Warfare State Paved the Way for a Trumpist Autocracy
Donald Trump’s power has thrived on the economics, politics, and culture of war. The runaway militarism of the last quarter-century was a crucial factor in making President Trump possible, even if it goes virtually unmentioned in mainstream media and political discourse. That silence is particularly notable among Democratic leaders, who have routinely joined in bipartisan messaging to boost the warfare state that fueled the rise of Trumpism.
Trump first ran for president nearly a decade and a half after the Global War on Terror” began in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The crusade’s allure had worn off. The national mood was markedly different than in the era when President George W. Bush insisted that our responsibility” was to rid the world of evil.”
Working-class Americans had more modest goals for their government. Distress festered as income inequality widened and economic hardships worsened, while federal spending on war, the Pentagon budget, and the national security” state continued to zoom upward. Even though the domestic effects of protracted warfare were proving to be enormous, multilayered, and deeply alienating, elites in Washington scarcely seemed to notice.
Donald Trump, however, did notice.
Pundits were shocked in 2015 when Trump mocked the war record of Republican Senator John McCain. The usual partisan paradigms were further upended during the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump denounced his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as trigger happy.” He had a point. McCain, Clinton, and their cohort weren’t tired of U.S. warfare — in fact, they kept glorifying it — but many in non-affluent communities had grown sick of its stateside consequences.
Repeated deployments of Americans to war zones had taken their toll. The physical and emotional wounds of returning troops were widespread. And while politicians were fond of waxing eloquent about the fallen,” the continual massive spending for war and preparations for more of it depleted badly needed resources at home.
Status-Quo Militarism
President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton represented the status quo that Trump ran against and defeated. Like them, he was completely insulated from the harsh boomerang effects of the warfare state. Unlike them, he sensed how to effectively exploit the discontent and anger it was causing.
Obama was not clueless. He acknowledged some downsides to endless war in a much-praised speech during his second term in office. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he affirmed at the National Defense University. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”
New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer hailed that instance of presidential oratory in a piece touting Obama’s anguish over the difficult trade-offs that perpetual war poses to a free society.” But such concerns were fleeting at the White House, while sparking little interest from mainstream journalists. Perpetual war had become wallpaper in the media echo chamber.
President Bush’s messianic calls to rid the world of evil-doers” had fallen out of fashion, but militarism remained firmly embedded in the political economy. Corporate contracts with the Pentagon and kindred agencies only escalated. But when Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, being a rigid hawk became a negative with the electorate as pro-Trump forces jumped into the opening she provided.
Six weeks before the election, Forbes published an article under the headline Hillary Clinton Never Met a War She Didn’t Want Other Americans to Fight.” Written by Doug Bandow, former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, the piece exemplified how partisan rhetoric about war and peace had abruptly changed. Clinton almost certainly would lead America into more foolish wars,” Bandow contended, adding: No one knows what Trump would do in a given situation, which means there is a chance he would do the right thing. In contrast, Clinton’s beliefs, behavior, and promises all suggest that she most likely would do the wrong thing, embracing a militaristic status quo which most Americans recognize has failed disastrously.”
Clinton was following a timeworn formula for Democrats trying to inoculate themselves against charges of being soft on foreign enemies, whether communists or terrorists. Yet Trump, deft at labeling his foes both wimps and warmongers, ran rings around the Democratic nominee. In that close election, Clinton’s resolutely pro-war stance may have cost her the presidency.
Even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump,” a study by scholars Douglas Kriner and Francis Shen concluded. Our statistical model suggests that if three states key to Trump’s victory — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.” Professors Kriner and Shen suggested that Democrats might want to reexamine their foreign policy posture if they hope to erase Trump’s electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and alienated by 15 years of war.”
But such advice went unheeded. Leading Democrats and Republicans remained on autopilot for the warfare state as the Pentagon budget kept rising.
On the War Train with Donald Trump
In 2018, the top Democrats in Washington, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, boasted that they were fully aligned with President Trump in jacking up Pentagon spending. After Trump called for an 11% increase over two years in the already-bloated defense” budget, Pelosi sent an email to House Democrats declaring, In our negotiations, congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defense.” The office of Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer proudly stated: We fully support President Trump’s Defense Department’s request.”
By then, fraying social safety nets and chronic fears of economic insecurity had become ever more common across the country. The national pattern evoked Martin Luther King’s comment that profligate military spending was like some demonic destructive suction tube.”
In 2020, recurring rhetoric from Joe Biden in his winning presidential campaign went like this: If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever alter the character of our nation.” But Biden said nothing about how almost 20 years of nonstop war funding and war making had already altered the character of the nation.
At first glance, President Biden seemed to step away from continuing the war on terror.” The last U.S. troops left Afghanistan by the end of August 2021. Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly weeks later, he proclaimed: I stand here today, for the first time in 20 years, with the United States not at war.” But even as he spoke, a new report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University indicated that the war on terror” persisted on several continents. The war continues in over 80 countries,” said Catherine Lutz, the project’s co-director. The war’s cost to taxpayers, the project estimated, was already at least $8 trillion.
Biden’s designated successor, Vice President Kamala Harris, displayed a traditional militaristic reflex while campaigning against Trump. In her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention she pledged to maintain the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” Such rhetoric was problematic for attracting voters from the Democratic base reluctant to cast ballots for a war party. More damaging to her election prospects was her refusal to distance herself from Biden’s insistence on continuing to supply huge quantities of weaponry to Israel for the horrific war in Gaza.
Supplementing the automatic $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel, special new appropriations for weaponry totaling tens of billions of dollars enabled mass killing in Gaza. Poll results at the time showed that Harris would have gained support in swing states if she had called for an arms embargo on Israel as long as the Gaza war continued. She refused to do so.
Post-election polling underscored how Harris’s support for that Israeli war appreciably harmed her chances to defeat Trump. In 2024, as in 2016, Trump notably benefitted from the unwavering militarism of his Democratic opponent.
Overseas, the realities of nonstop war have been unfathomably devastating. Estimates from the Costs of War Project put the number of direct deaths in major war zones from U.S.-led actions under the war on terror” brand at more than 900,000. With indirect deaths included, the number jumps to 4.5 million and counting.” The researchers explain that some people were killed in the fighting, but far more, especially children, have been killed by the reverberating effects of war, such as the spread of disease.”
That colossal destruction of faraway human beings and the decimation of distant societies have gotten scant attention in mainstream U.S. media and politics. The far-reaching impacts of incessant war on American life in this century have also gotten short shrift. Midway through the Biden presidency, trying to sum up some of those domestic impacts, I wrote in my book War Made Invisible:
Overall, the country is gripped by war’s dispersed and often private consequences — the aggravated tendencies toward violence, the physical wartime injuries, the post-traumatic stress, the profusion of men who learned to use guns and were trained to shoot to kill when scarcely out of adolescence, the role modeling from recruitment ads to popular movies to bellicose bombast from high-ranking leaders, and much more. The country is also in the grip of tragic absences: the health care not deemed fundable by those who approve federal budgets larded with military spending, the child care and elder care and family leave not provided by those same budgets, the public schools deprived of adequate funding, the college students and former students saddled with onerous debt, the uncountable other everyday deficits that have continued to lower the bar of the acceptable and the tolerated.”
While the warfare state seems all too natural to most politicians and journalists, its consequences over time have been transformational for the United States in ways that have distinctly skewed the political climate. Along the way, militarism has been integral to the rise of the billionaire tech barons who are now teaming up with an increasingly fascistic Donald Trump.
The Military-Industrial-Tech Complex
While President Trump has granted Elon Musk unprecedented power, many other tech moguls have rushed to ingratiate themselves. The pandering became shameless within hours of his election victory last November.
Congratulations to President Trump on a decisive victory,” Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote. We have great opportunities ahead of us as a country. Looking forward to working with you and your administration.” Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, Whole Foods, and the Washington Post, tweeted: wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.”
Amazon Web Services alone has numerous government contracts, including one with the National Security Agency worth $10 billion and deals with the Pentagon pegged at $9.7 billion. Such commerce is nothing new. For many years, thousands of contracts have tied the tech giants to the military-industrial complex.
Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and smaller rivals are at the helm of corporations eager for government megadeals, tax breaks, and much more. For them, the governmental terrain of the new Trump era is the latest territory to navigate for maximizing their profits. With annual military outlays at 54% of all federal discretionary spending, the incentives are astronomical for all kinds of companies to make nice with the war machine and the man now running it.
While Democrats in Congress have long denounced Trump as an enemy of democracy, they haven’t put any sort of brake on American militarism. Certainly, there are many reasons for Trump’s second triumph, including his exploitation of racism, misogyny, nativism, and other assorted bigotries. Yet his election victories owe much to the Democratic Party’s failure to serve the working class, a failure intermeshed with its insistence on serving the industries of war. Meanwhile, spending more on the military than the next nine countries combined, U.S. government leaders tacitly lay claim to a kind of divine overpowering virtue.
As history attests, militarism can continue for many decades while basic democratic structures, however flawed, remain in place. But as time goes on, militarism is apt to be a major risk factor for developing some modern version of fascism. The more war and preparations for war persist, with all their economic and social impacts, the more core traits of militarism — including reliance on unquestioning obedience to authority and sufficient violence to achieve one’s goals — will permeate the society at large.
During the last 10 years, Donald Trump has become ever more autocratic, striving not just to be the nation’s commander-in-chief but also the commandant of a social movement increasingly fascistic in its approach to laws and civic life. He has succeeded in taking on the role of top general for the MAGA forces. The frenzies that energize Trump’s base and propel his strategists have come to resemble the mentalities of warfare. The enemy is whoever dares to get in his way.
A warfare state is well suited for such developments. Pretending that militarism is not a boon to authoritarian politics only strengthens it. The time has certainly come to stop pretending.
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made Easy, Made Love, Got War, and most recently War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine (The New Press). He lives in the San Francisco area.
Dear Friends, Greetings from the desk of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. Yes, the headline of this newsletter is accurate. As far as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is concerned, each person in the Global North is worth nine people in the Global South. We get that calculation from IMF data on voting power in the organisation relative to the population of the Global North and Global South states. Each country, based on its ‘relative economic position’, as the IMF suggests, is given voting rights to elect delegates to the IMF’s executive board, which makes all of the organisation’s important decisions. A brief glance at the board shows that the Global North is vastly overrepresented in this crucial multilateral institution for indebted countries. The United States, for instance, has 16.49% of the votes on the IMF’s board despite representing only 4.22% of the world population. Since the IMF’s Articles of Agreement require 85% of the votes to make any changes, the US has veto power over the decisions of the IMF. As a result, the IMF senior staff defers to any policy made by the US government and, given the organisation’s location in Washington, DC, frequently consults with the US Treasury Department on its policy framework and individual policy decisions. Armando Reverón (Venezuela), Ranchos (Ranches), 1933. For example, in 2019, when the United States government decided to unilaterally cease recognising the government of Venezuela, it put pressure on the IMF to follow suit. Venezuela – one of the founding members of the IMF – had turned to the IMF for assistance on several occasions, paid off outstanding IMF loans in 2007, and then decided to no longer come to the IMF for short-term aid (indeed, the Venezuelan government instead committed itself to building the Bank of the South to provide bridge loans for indebted countries in case of balance-of-payments shortfalls). During the pandemic, however, Venezuela, like most countries, sought to draw on its $5 billion reserves in special drawing rights (the ‘currency’ of the IMF) that it had access to as part of the fund’s global liquidity-boosting initiative. But the IMF – under pressure from the US – decided not to transfer the money. This followed an earlier rejection of a request by Venezuela to access $400 million from its special drawing rights. Though the US said that the real president of Venezuela was Juan Guaidó, the IMF continued to acknowledge on its website that Venezuela’s representative to the IMF was Simón Alejandro Zerpa Delgado, then the minister of finance in the government of President Nicolás Maduro. IMF spokesperson Raphael Anspach would not answer an email we sent in March 2020 about the denial of the funds, though he did publish a formal statement that the IMF’s ‘engagement with member countries is predicated on official government recognition by the international community’. Since there is ‘no clarity’ on this recognition, Anspach wrote, the IMF would not allow Venezuela to access its own special drawing rights quota during the pandemic. Then, abruptly, the IMF removed Zerpa’s name from its website. This was entirely due to US pressure. In 2023, at the New Development Bank (BRICS Bank) in Shanghai, China, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pointed to the ‘asphyxiation’ of IMF policy when it came to the poorer nations. Speaking of the case of Argentina, Lula said, ‘No government can work with a knife to its throat because it is in debt. Banks must be patient and, if necessary, renew agreements. When the IMF or any other bank lends to a Third World country, people feel they have the right to give orders and manage the country’s finances – as if the countries had become hostages of those who lend them money’. Ben Enwonwu (Nigeria), The Dancer, 1962. All the talk of democracy dissolves when it comes to the actual basis of power in the world: control over capital. Last year, Oxfam showed that the ‘world’s top 1% own more wealth than 95% of humanity’ and that ‘over a third of the world’s biggest 50 corporations – worth $13.3 trillion – [is] now run by a billionaire or has a billionaire as a principal shareholder’. Over a dozen of these billionaires are now in the cabinet of US President Donald Trump; they no longer represent the 1%, but in fact the 0.0001% or ten-thousandth percent. At the current rate, by the end of this decade, the world will see the emergence of five trillionaires. They are the ones who dominate governments and who, therefore, have an extraordinary impact on multilateral organisations. In 1963, Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Jaja Anucha Ndubuisi Wachuku expressed his frustration with the United Nations and other multilateral organisations. African states, he said, had ‘no right to express their views on any particular matter in important organs of the United Nations’. No African country – and no Latin American country – had a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council. At the IMF and the World Bank, no African country could drive an agenda. At the United Nations, Wachuku asked, ‘Are we only going to continue to be veranda boys?’. Though the IMF included one more chair for an African representative in 2024, this is far from adequate for the continent, which has more IMF members (54 out of 190 countries) and more active IMF lending programmes than any other continent (46.8% from 2000 to 2023) but the second-lowest voting shares (6.5%) after Oceania. North America, with two members, has 943,085 votes, while Africa, with 54 members, has 326,033 votes. Alioune Diagne (Senegal), Rescapé (Survivor), 2023. In the aftermath of the 2007 financial crisis and at the start of the Third Great Depression, the IMF decided to start a process for reform. The incentive for this reform was that when a country went to the IMF for a bridge loan – which should have been seen as non-prejudicial – it ended up hurting that country in capital markets because seeking a loan held the stigma of poor performance. Money was then lent to the country at higher rates, which only deepened the crisis that had set in motion the request for a bridge loan in the first place. Beyond this issue lay a deeper one: all of the IMF’s managing directors have been European, which means that the Global South has had no presence in the upper ranks of the IMF’s leadership. The entire voting structure at the IMF degraded with the quota votes (based on the size of the economy and the financial contribution into the IMF) increasing in scale while the more democratic ‘basic votes’ (one country, one vote) collapsed in impact. These different votes are measured in two forms: calculated quota shares (CQS), which are set by a formula, and actual quota shares (AQS), which are set through political negotiations. In a 2024 calculation, for instance, China has an AQS of 6.39%, while its CQS is 13.72%. To increase China’s AQS to match its CQS would require reducing that of other countries, such as the United States. The US has an AQS of 17.40%, which would have to be reduced to 14.94% to accommodate the increase to China. That decrease of the US share would, therefore, erode its veto power. For that reason, the US scuttled the IMF reform agenda in 2014. In 2023, the IMF reform agenda failed again. Antonio Souza (Brazil), Cadê minha praia? O mar levou (Where Is My Beach? The Sea Took It Away), 2019. The text in the painting reads, from top left to bottom right, ‘love’, ‘peace’, ‘us and the sea’, ‘save’, ‘planet’. Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. was the executive director for Brazil and several other countries at the IMF from 2007 to 2015, vice president of the New Development Bank from 2015 to 2017, and is a contributor to the international edition of the leading Chinese journal Wenhua Zongheng. In an important paper called AWay out for IMF Reform (June 2024), Batista offers a seven-point reform agenda for the IMF: Make conditionalities on loans less stringent. Cut surcharges on longer-term loans. Bolster concessionary lending to eradicate poverty. Increase the IMF’s overall resources. Increase the power of basic votes to give the poorer nations more representation. Give the African continent a third chair on the board. Create a fifth deputy managing director position, to be filled by a poorer nation. If the Global North ignores such basic, sensible reforms, Batista argues, ‘Developed countries will then be the sole owners of an empty institution’. The Global South, he predicts, will exit the IMF and create new institutions under the aegis of new platforms such as BRICS. In fact, such institutions are already being built, such as the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), which was set up in 2014 after the failed attempt to reform the IMF. But the CRA ‘has remained largely frozen’, writes Batista. Until a thaw, the IMF is the only institution that provides the kind of financing necessary for poorer nations. That is why even progressive governments, such as the one in Sri Lanka, where interest payments make up 41% of total expenditure in 2025, are forced to go to Washington. Hat in hand, they flash a smile at the White House on their way to the IMF headquarters. Warmly, Vijay
After 25 years since its compilation, the Government led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is set to discuss the controversial Batalanda Commission Report, a long-contested document detailing human rights abuses and alleged political involvement in torture and extrajudicial killings during the late 1980s and early 1990s, at this week’s Cabinet meeting, according to Minister of Health and Mass Media and Cabinet Spokesperson Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa.
The report, which implicates former President and United National Party (UNP) Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe in the abuses at the Batalanda Housing Scheme, has resurfaced in public discourse following a recent interview with Al Jazeera and political developments calling for his accountability.
When contacted by The Sunday Morning, Dr. Jayatissa acknowledged the allegations against Wickremesinghe, stating: We all know that Wickremesinghe was involved in the Batalanda case, so it is a common truth. We cannot deny the allegation.”
However, he refrained from specifying the precise actions the Government would take, noting that a decision would be made after the Cabinet discussion.
When asked whether Wickremesinghe’s civic rights could be revoked based on the report’s findings, he confirmed that the report’s existence was sufficient grounds for action.
During the interview with Mehdi Hasan telecast on 6 March on Al Jazeera, Wickremesinghe addressed several allegations including those related to the Batalanda Commission Report.
When confronted about a Government report naming him as a key figure in illegal detention and torture at Batalanda in the 1980s, he denied the allegations and questioned the report’s validity, stating that it was never tabled in Parliament.
Wickremesinghe emphasised that the accusations were unfounded, reiterating his stance that he had no involvement in the alleged activities at Batalanda.
The Batalanda Commission, established in 1994 by then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, investigated allegations of torture, illegal detentions, and extrajudicial killings at the Batalanda Housing Scheme, which was used as a detention and interrogation centre during the Government’s crackdown on the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrection.
The commission’s report, submitted in 1997, implicated security forces and political figures, including Wickremesinghe, who was then a senior Minister.
The report alleged that he had knowledge of the activities at Batalanda and had visited the site, although it did not conclusively prove his direct involvement in the abuses. It recommended legal action against those responsible, including revoking civic rights and filing cases in court, but these recommendations were never implemented.
The report’s findings have remained a contentious issue, with critics accusing Kumaratunga of protecting Wickremesinghe by not tabling the report in Parliament or pursuing its recommendations.
Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) Propaganda Secretary Duminda Nagamuwa recently highlighted this in a scathing critique of Wickremesinghe’s political career. Kumaratunga protected Wickremesinghe by concealing the Batalanda Commission Report without bringing it to Parliament or revoking his civic rights,” he stated.
Nagamuwa also accused Wickremesinghe of manipulating the legal system during his tenure, citing the withdrawal of cases against political allies as evidence of his influence over the Attorney General’s (AG) Department.
He further stressed the need for accountability, urging the current Government, which includes members of the JVP, to act on the report’s recommendations. There is no need for a gazette or new legislation. Simply enforce the report, present it in Parliament, revoke Wickremesinghe’s civic rights, and file a case,” he said.
Beijing will resolutely counter” U.S. pressure on tariffs and the fentanyl issue, China’s foreign minister said on Friday, adding that major powers should not bully the weak”, in a veiled swipe at the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
Top diplomat Wang Yi also presented China as a reliable global power in the midst of geopolitical turmoil and U.S. President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from international institutions, part of a clear appeal from Beijing to Europe and countries in the Global South.
The U.S. levied an additional 10% tariff on Chinese imports this week over the continued flow of the deadly opioid fentanyl into the country, threatening to worsen an escalatory spiral of trade actions.
If one side blindly exerts pressure, China will resolutely counter that,” Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a press conference on the sidelines of China’s annual parliamentary meeting.
The U.S. should not repay kindness with grievances, let alone impose tariffs without reason,” Wang added, referring to the various assistance” Beijing has provided Washington on tackling the flow of fentanyl precursor drugs into the U.S.
No country can suppress China on the one hand and develop good relations with China on the other, said Wang, when asked how China would engage with the Trump administration over the next four years.
Such a two-faced” approach is not helpful to stable ties, he said, without identifying any individual in the U.S. administration.
Wang’s largely subdued remarks on the U.S., without mentioning Trump once by name, suggested Beijing wishes to keep the prospect of potential future trade talks alive, said Wen-Ti Sung, a Taiwan-based nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.
They want to pursue any room for de-escalation with Trump when it comes to trade,” Sung said. One way of doing it is to keep the level of rhetorical intensity down to manageable size to preserve room for manoeuvre for both sides.”
UKRAINE STANCE
On resolving the Ukraine war, China wants to achieve a fair, lasting and binding peace agreement” acceptable to all parties, Wang Yi said.
China is willing to continue to play a constructive role in the final resolution of the crisis and the realisation of lasting peace, in accordance with the wishes of the parties concerned, together with the international community.”
Western countries have urged Beijing to take a more active role in using its economic leverage over Russia to stop the war, but Beijing has so far refused to publicly criticise its strategic partner or halt its economic support of Moscow.
China-Russia relations are a constant in a turbulent world, not a variable in geopolitical games,” Wang told the press conference.
Chinese President Xi Jinping recently reaffirmed Beijing’s no limits” partnership with Moscow in a telephone call with his Russian counterpart on the third anniversary of Moscow’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Trump has upended U.S. policy on Ukraine after taking office last month, showing a more conciliatory stance towards Russia that has unnerved Washington’s traditional allies in the West.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday the Ukraine conflict is a proxy war” between Washington and Moscow that needs to end, and has previously said that Washington wishes to peel off” Moscow from Beijing.
Analysts say Beijing wishes to exploit the growing transatlantic rift to bolster its ties with European countries, which have been strained over Ukraine and trade tensions.
China still has confidence in Europe, and believes Europe can still be China’s trusted partner,” Wang said.
GLOBAL SOUTH
Wang also urged developing countries to continue to improve our representation and discourse power in global governance”.
If every country emphasizes its own national priorities and believes in strength and status, the world will regress to the law of the jungle, small and weak countries will bear the brunt,” said Wang in a veiled reference to Washington’s actions.
Major powers … should not be profit-driven, and they should not bully the weak.”
Within the first two months of taking office, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from several multilateral organisations and climate agreements, suspended most foreign aid, and voted against a United Nations resolution condemning Russia for the Ukraine invasion.
At a time when the Trump administration’s foreign policy is revising a lot of established expectations, China wants to present itself as preserving the status quo,” said Sung, the analyst.
When the Global South sees a retrenching, inward-looking U.S., there’s a fear of a strategic vacuum – one that China intends to help fill.”
Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara has announced that steps will be taken to swiftly pass a bill prohibiting the corporal punishment of children.
The Minister made this statement in Parliament today (March 8) during the Committee Stage Debate on expenditure head of the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs, in response to a statement made by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa.
During the debate, Premadasa emphasized the importance of incorporating children’s and women’s rights into the country’s fundamental rights chapter.
He proposed amending the Constitution to guarantee these rights and strengthening Sri Lanka’s commitments to international agreements on women’s and children’s rights.
I also specifically propose the announcement and implementation of two special presidential task forces—one for children and the younger generation, and another for women in this country,” he said.
Minister Nanayakkara, in his response, acknowledged the necessity of a robust legal framework to protect women and children.
He agreed with the Opposition Leader’s call for constitutional amendments but pointed out that legal measures alone may not be sufficient to change societal attitudes.
Can attitudes be changed solely through law? These attitudes are shaped during childhood,” Minister Nanayakkara said.
A child’s character develops based on what they see in their environment. If we want to create a society where women are safe and respected, it starts at home. While we can enact laws and amend the Constitution, I believe that if every mother and father teaches their children to respect women from a young age, we will gradually build a society where men stand up for the protection of women.”
The Minister also reiterated his commitment to addressing corporal punishment in children’s upbringing.
We specifically need to ban corporal punishment that harms children,” he stated.
A bill has already been drafted, and as the Minister of Justice, I will take the necessary steps to present it to Parliament as soon as possible,” Minister added.
Sri Lanka is unique in that she adopted a piece of land-legislation – Act 21 of 1998 – while it yet remained under the Jurisdiction of the previous land-legislation, Ordinance 23 of 1927.
The two laws are dissimilar, and no serious attempt has been made to reconcile the two, even after a lapse of a quarter century.
The register maintained by the Land registry is prone to fraud and legislation requires the digitalization of land records even though it may be fraudulent.
The necessity to digitalize came not from within the country but from outside; the World Bank funded the project initially; thereafter the funding came from Australia; reportedly, the funding thus far has amounted to about 12 million dollars.
Act 21 of 1998 has come under much criticism and has been described in circles, as a mechanism that was slyly introduced, to enable external forces to grab Sri Lanka’s land and deprive the Sri Lankans of their land; with digitalisation, proprietary rights of land would no longer be identifiable by name; land would be identified by a number and the owner by a nomenclature.
In Sri Lanka, the digitisation of the land registry was devised under the much-decried MCC intrigue whose modus operandi of obtaining land ownership was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court;
The land-grab scheme is now masquerading under a political catchphrase; the pressure to digitalise, without the necessary security precautions, is gaining momentum with President AKD distributing large tracts of land in a scheme that is not dissimilar to the outlawed MCC project.
In his book ‘Equality and Freedom- Some Third World Perspectives’ Justice C G Weeramantry discusses how Sri Lanka has embarked on vital changes to land administration, in a manner ‘the next-door Jones’ would have; viz the superficial attraction to electronics and paperless transactions [ sans a dress] without a proper understanding of the law that works well for Australia.
Australia has taken precautions to – if not eliminate – minimise fraud with daily revision programs and to assess and audit the methods of fraud adopted, thereby facilitating effective management of the Register.
In Sri Lanka, there were moves afoot to do research and establish an internationally recognised, compulsory, and comprehensive digital register.
The World Bank granted a loan of $ 5 million to do research to improve the Register under the ‘Learn Innovative Loan’ (LIL) scheme.
Unfortunately, the ‘Chandrika – Government’ in 1998 very abruptly introduced a statute to duplicate the land register by Act 21 (of 1998) resulting in the discontinuation of the research and the pilot projects undertaken.
The inexplicable action of the government resulted in two separate registers operating simultaneously, one governed by Act 21 of 1998 and the other by Ord 23 of 1927; both registers are not compulsory and both are not comprehensive.
Yo-yoing between the two pieces of legislation, there were sporadic attempts to reconcile the two.
In 2021 there was a Cabinet memorandum (2o/2100/322/007 of 11 Jan 21) which recommended research to be done with reference to other jurisdictions and to introduce an internationally recognized land register; the memorandum specifically mentions the South African model which would be ideal for our country that has long operated with the land registry law provided by Ord 23 of 1927.
During a period of listless wandering, to resolve the issue, various opinions were sought from those who had a stake in the ‘Land ownership process’.
In 2016, the Registrar General giving his opinion on Ord 23 of 1927 by his letter of 06 Apr 16 (ref RG/TRB/03/278[2] PM Advisor ref JCR/SEC/PMO), apprises the senior advisor to the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe, The register is not suitable to determine owners; it is a ‘Priority register’ and not a compulsory register where all owners are registered.” Continuing, the Registrar General added, Under Ord 23 Section 7[4] the Registrar has no power to reject invalid forged deeds.”
It was indeed ludicrous when the notaries, in 2024, were instructed to register all deeds. This instruction carried no weight whatsoever, because instructions cannot override any provision of the law including what the Registrar General had adverted to.
A while before, two committees, independent of each other, were appointed by the President and the Minister of Justice respectively to give an opinion on Act 21 of 1998. Both committees were of the opinion, that the Registrar cannot, under the Act, accommodate all owners. Special reference was made to the fact that the Act repeals the right to access court when affected by fraud.
Both committees also opined that the Act repealed many customary laws and laws relating to land usage.
Act 21 was roundly categorised by the two committees as one that would result in ‘an incomplete register’.
In the wake of the many negative comments on Act 21 of 1998, the World Bank too said, It is the opinion of the World Bank that Sri Lanka’s land registry under the Act is not reliable and comprehensive to introduce e-registration.
In the light of the many warnings Sri Lanka has received (as indicated afore) it would be foolish to digitalise the Land Registry without taking the necessary precautions. The Hans Wijesuriya committee, must make serious note of this.
As the first step in the project, a single compulsory Register needs to be introduced as advised by Cabinet Memorandum No. 20/2100/322/007 of 11.01.21.
registering under Act 21 of 1998 should be terminated; many are of the view that Ord 23 of 1927 – the manual – should be considered as the bed-rock of the country’s single compulsory Register.
It should be the Registrar’s responsibility to ensure the physical security and good condition of the records and equipment in the registry; if despite his best efforts some records are damaged, mutilated, soiled, or stained, it should be the Registrar’s responsibility to reconstruct those records as indicated in the Reconstruction of Folios Ord 18 of 1945.
There is a serious lacuna in the land-administration in the absence of a standing-research team of qualified and competent stakeholders. It would be the responsibility of the standing-research team to keep themselves updated on the latest, laws, judicial determinations, systems and practices, and relevant equipment, used in land registries globally; they would recommend those, which are useful and in harmony with the country’s laws, and customs.
It would be the responsibility of the Registrar to establish interdepartmental coordination and data interchangeable mechanisms between key departments administering land.
If it is considered prudent, the amended Ord 23 of 1927 could be digitalised and maintained by the Land registry once approval has been obtained.
Considering that satellite systems, digital platform-systems etc are beyond Sri Lanka’s control, for legal purposes the Manual land register only, will be considered the ‘original’ and shall prevail over the digital if the two are at variance with each other.
The Registrar shall ensure the spatial and cyber security of the registers as appropriate; he would draw up a graded system of access, for persons referring to the data in the two registries.
The Registrar is responsible to perform random audits on a regular basis to ensure there is no discrepancy between the manual and digital records.
With land frauds prevalent the world over, the need of the hour is to prevent fraud; for this purpose, zero tolerance needs to be applied against any stakeholders found contravening the legal systems and the laws laid down.
After Ranil Wickremasinghe and Anura Kumara Dissanayake became president one after the other (in 2022 and 2024 respectively) without any sign of full-hearted public approval, though, their social media admirers shared posts that claimed that they both had made a substantial contribution to ending the separatist terrorism that had plagued the country for decades. They may have their arguments to support their claims. Those who know the facts, however, would hardly agree with them. But there is one distinguished UNP politician, who was opposed to the SLFP-led UPFA, about whom such a claim can probably be safely made. He is none other than Karu Jayasuriya.
In an interview with The Island’s Shamindra Ferdinando (‘Parliament approved USAID and other foreign funded projects: Karu J’/February 25, 2025), former UNP MP and Speaker of Parliament during the Yahapalanaya government (2015-20), Karu Jayasuriya, showed the least awareness of or concern about the subversive agenda run by the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) projects launched in Sri Lanka. In response to the recent flurry of criticism against the USAID, veteran politician Karu Jayasuriya (84) pointed out that all agreements with the USAID implemented during the 2016-20 period had full parliamentary approval and that there was nothing secret about the projects. He also mentioned that Parliament received assistance and expertise from many foreign countries other than the US, including China.
Jayasuriya refused to comment on domestic criticism in America itself about taxpayer money being squandered by the USAID in Sri Lanka on wasteful subversive projects as alleged by Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) newly formed by president Donald Trump. I am not surprised. Jayasuriya is wise. He has one thing in common with Trump and Musk: He’s been a successful businessman like them. Both he and Trump are professional politicians as well; but I don’t think Musk is one. Trump seems to be rewarding him for funding his election campaign as well as speaking at his rallies, though Musk is not in need of material rewards, as Trump himself said. Musk has found a chance to avenge himself on the LGBTQ+ lobby and the USAID that supports it for causing him to reluctantly agree as a parent to a sex change operation that turned 18 year old Griffin Musk, his eldest son by his first wife Vivian Wilson, into a woman (dead named Vivian Jenna Wilson) in 2022. Musk called the USAID a criminal organisation” that ought to be terminated forthwith, for he said, (It was) ……time for it to die!”. Whereas Trump’s conclusion was different. He didn’t find fault with the USAID itself, but with those who have been running it lately. So he described it as having been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out”. Unlike the younger Musk stricken by personal tragedy, Trump hadn’t forgotten the fact that the USAID was set up in 1961 by president John F. Kennedy to unite a number of US aid agencies into one body and that it is a vital instrument of US foreign policy. A shrewd politician himself, Jayasuriya must have understood whose utterances should be taken more seriously in this context. Clearly, Trump’s utterances indicate the importance Trump attaches to the perpetuation of the USAID itself.
In my perception, during his interview with The Island, Jayasuriya tries to let it appear as if he didn’t have enough information about the controversy to express an opinion about it. However, it can’t be that he is unaware of what actually is the problem about. It involves, as he surely knows, the locally hotly disputed subject of expressly planned promotion of non-binary gender identities ideology that remains culturally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority in our deeply religious {Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Muslim} society. The promotion of the LGBTQ+ ideology is allegedly done in ways including teaching young YouTubers and other journalists to avoid the use of the normal, established gender binary in language. The gender binary uses the pronouns ‘he’ for male and ‘she’ for female. LGBTQ+ lobbyists want to avoid using these established masculine and feminine pronouns on themselves in the accepted way as the usual gender binary pronouns (that recognise only the two sexes that really exist) do not accommodate the multiplicity of sexual identities they want to adopt or claim, against nature.
If confronted with an explicit explanation of the controversy and pressed for a response, Jayasuriya might give an evasive answer like ‘Let Americans sort out their own unique gender identity problems, leaving us free to solve our real problems in our own way’.I won’t be surprised by such an answer. But his ignorance of the issue is fake. Jayasuriya was a key local collaborator of the regime change operation of 2015, which was a good example of political subversion by America of a vulnerable small nation that is of strategic importance for maintaining its global hegemony. Located at a geostrategically critical point in the Indo-Pacific Ocean, Sri Lanka has great attraction for America in pursuing its central goal in the region of containing China’s influence. This harks back to how the perceived need to curb the growing power of the Soviet Union outside its own borders during the Cold War period (1947-1991) gave rise to the setting up of the USAID organisation in 1961, in the first place.
While judiciously avoiding the LGBTQ+ issue, Jayasuriya dwelt on the immense benefits that Parliament allegedly derived from foreign funded programmes. Explaining how this happened, he said that Parliament was able to maintain good relations with both the US and China. He asked the reporter: Don’t you think having nearly 200 out of 225 lawmakers (get) an opportunity to visit China on a familiarisation tour in groups is an achievement on our part?”. Jayasuriya stressed that even the parliamentary staff benefited from the various projects implemented with the financial backing of external parties (meaning, no doubt, USAID and others). Both parliamentarians and senior officials were secured laptops from China, justifying which, he said: An MP may serve one term, but parliamentary staffers may continue for 20 or 25 years. Therefore they should have received proper training and been given the opportunity to develop contacts”.
Is subjecting parliamentarians who are democratically elected for a short five years and unelected, state appointed civil functionaries like the parliament staffers who serve indefinitely long until retirement to the manipulative influence of powerful foreign governments on equal terms, good diplomacy or sound statecraft?
Strangely, Jayasuriya never once mentioned whether or how or in what form these benefits were transmitted to the general public who should be the true legitimate beneficiary of whatever material help or expertise that a friendly nation makes available to the country. Countries maintain diplomatic relations for mutual benefit. Foreign diplomats work to promote their own national interests, when necessary, even to the detriment of the host country’s interests, which is what Sri Lanka is experiencing today with the US, India and China (perhaps the last should be excluded from this list). When countries are unequal partners, the weaker nations become subject to various forms of subversion (political, economic, cultural, etc.,) exerted by the stronger nations. Willing submission to international subversion seems to be Jayasuriya’s creed.
Tamil Separatist Movement steadily established new Tamil settlements in the north and east after Independence. The purpose was to strengthen the Tamil population on the Eastern coast. The northern and eastern provinces were under populated and there was lot of empty space which had to be filled up.
J. D. Arudpragasam’s father, J. Arulappu, bought land owned by the Catholic Church in Kannadi near the Madhu Church and set up his own farm in 1964. That encouraged others to migrate to the agriculturally rich Vanni. [1]
Vavuniya district had many small and large farms owned by Tamils or held on long lease by Tamil-owned business enterprises. [2] The 99-year lease was granted by the government in 1965. The individual holdings varied from ten to fifty acres. Business concerns held large farms and 16 of them were a thousand acres and more. Among the large farms were: Navalar farm, Ceylon Theatres farm, Kent farm, Railway Group Farm, Postmaster Group Farm and Dollar arm. the rich Jaffna Tamils who had obtained these large tracts of land employed illicit immigrants to work the land.[3]
New Tamil settlements were also created. In the late 1960s there was new colonization scheme in the North, at Muthuiyyan Kaddu kulam, near Oddusuddan.
When there was competition for settlement between Sinhala and Tamil, the Tamil Separatist Movement managed to obtain something. In 1966 the Youth League of the Federal Party heard that Sinhala farmers were to be settled around a renovated tank in Kithul Oorttu in Trincomalee district, Tamil youths forcibly occupied the settlement.
Government Agent, Trincomalee a Sinhalese, ordered them to evacuate the area. When they refused, with the help of the police and his officials set fire to the huts and got them arrested. The Federal Party, which was in the Dudley Senanayake government, persuaded the Prime Minister to work out a settlement whereby some of the allotments were given to the Tamils, said Sabaratnam.
Gamini Iriyagolle in his book ‘Tamil claims to land[4] said that though the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact (1957)and Dudley Chelva Pact (1965) were publicly torn up, the government secretly permitted Tamils to exclusively settle in the north and east.
Since 1957 ,there were secret agreements between successive governments and Tamil political parties, that land in the north and east would be exclusively given to Tamils. Neville Jayaweera who was GA in Jaffna, Trincomalee and Vavuniya in the 1960s confirmed this. The BC and DC pacts were torn up but their contents were applied scrupulously,” he said.[5]
The Tamils in Jaffna were not interested in helping to start new settlements. They wanted government jobs. Young Tamil school leavers refused to join new settlements . [6] Therefore Tamil refugees from the hill country were settled in these areas.
Estate Tamils were willing to settle down in the northeast and do agriculture. Their lives had been disrupted following the nationalization of British-owned estates in the 1970s. Some had been forcibly evicted from the estates where they had lived for generations and were unemployed. They drifted towards the northeast, especially to Vavuniya and Batticaloa.
Estate Tamils due for repatriation to India were also taken into the north and east. The Sirima-Shastri Pact of 1964 had agreed that 525,000 estate Tamils would be repatriated to India. The period of repatriation was 15 years starting 1964.These persons were picked up from the estates and taken away, but they never got to India . The Tamil Separatist Movement intercepted these Tamils and settled them in the north and east, such as the Vanni. This was done silently without the knowledge of the public
Anil Ameresekera said, at Menik Farm, I found several Indian Tamils who spoke good Sinhalese. They were estate Tamils who had lived in the hill country, they were to be repatriated under the Sirima Shastri pact to India, but had been resettled in Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi by NGOs such as Redd Barna.[7]
Jayatissa Bandaragoda noted that a large number of families of estate Tamils had been settled on state land in Mannar, Vavuniya, and Kilinochchi district between 1971 and 1981. about 80,000 people had been added to the population of these three districts. They were persons repatriated in Sirima- Shastri pact. They were presumably stopped on their way to India and taken to these areas for settlement, A number of NGOs were involved in providing financial and organization assistance to these settlers.
Ceylon Workers Congress had given leadership to this and had retained the full loyalty of the Tamils. Each house we visited in the new settlements had Thondaman’s photo and each house donated a rupee per month to the CWC fund. The new land cleared by the settlers was cultivated with green gram. The government did not eject them and later they were given citizenship.[8]
Jayatissa Bandaragoda was GA Trincomalee in the period 1978- 1981. During this time Bandaragoda had come across clandestine Tamil settlements in jungle areas insideTrincomalee, in China Bay, Kuchchaveli, Morawewa and Tampalagamam areas. This was a well-planned scheme intended to colonize vacant land with Tamils, he said.
The estate Tamils who had been chased out of the hill country by Sinhalese mobs during the 1977 riots also ended up in the north and east. One settler, Pandian was from a rubber estate in Avissawella. The line room he lived in was burnt down during the 1977 riots. He lived in a refugee camp for some time and then migrated to Vavuniya, where he had learnt Indian Tamil refugees were being settled. [9] We were doing well. We cultivated black grams and chillie. We had good harvests., he told the interviewer.
Dimbulagala told ‘ Weekend’ newspaper in 1983 that illegal settlers of Indian origin were settled on state land in Vavuniya, Trincomalee and Batticaloa[10] .
He gave them information on Tamil settlements in Batticaloa area. There were large areas of barren land there which have been encroached on by Indian Tamils from the tea estates. They were illegal settlers. Nearly 15,000 acres have been colonized in this manner in Pullimalai, Unnichchai, Rugama and Pumnakuda. Devanayagam when he heard this replied that Batticaloa was part of the Tamil homeland. It is the Sinhalese, who are encroaching into Kalkudah.
Dimbulagala also recalled that in 1971 K.W Devanayagam brought estate Tamils to Kalkudah and settled them in the area. I opposed this. Tamil in Batticaloa carried out a smear campaign against me. I wrote to Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Prime Minister summoned a meeting in which I participated. I explained the position and Prime Minister agreed to send officials to look into the matter.
There was an inquiry and it was decided to remove the squatters but Devanayagam intervened and asked for time for the arrivals to reap the harvest. They were given three months but instead of leaving, the encroachers went into the jungle and hid. Later they got land in Vadumunai area and assistance from Sarvodaya, World Food Programme and Gandhian Movement.
Devanayagam admitted at the press conference called by him in September 1983 that there were Tamil settlements at Maduru Oya. In 1974. Ten Tamil families of Indian origin were allocated land in Wadamunai under an agreement Devanayagam had reached with the Irrigation Ministry. After the 1977 riots, 48 estate Tamil families were allocated 50 acres of land at Wadamunai under another agreement with Gamini Dissanayake, reported Sabaratnam. [11]
A further 200 Sri Lankan Tamil families from these villages had encroached on 600 acres of the land earmarked for development under the Maduru Oya Right Bank Development Scheme, admitted Devanayagam. They have not been regularized but these encroachments are long standing, he said . Under the scheme of regularization of encroachments of state land implemented by Gamini Dissanayake in 1979, these families were entitled to those lands.
Tamils were settled at Wadamunai and Uthuchanari by KW Devanayagam in 1960s to protect the boundaries of Batticaloa district from Sinhala settlers said S Hisbullah. [12] The colonization scheme of Wadamunai had begun in 1958. It continued in he 1970s.
48 families of stateless estate Tamils sent by GA Hambantota , were settled on 50 acres at Meerandavillu in Wadamunai. Meerandavillu had are 5 LDO ( Land Development Ordinance) allotments and 52 enumerated allotments .
AGA report as given in Malinga Gunaratne’s book, said, there was 200 encroachments of about 600 acres by person from the purana villages of Kallichenai and Oothuchenai in Wadamunai .These encroachments are of long standing and would have been regularized except that they now fell within the Mahaweli area. Kallichenai and Oothuchenai described as purana villages are not purana at all, the villagers are estate Tamils who came after 1977. Karadiurichakulam, near Punani has lands that have been alienated under Land Development Ordinance to local residents.
In the 1980s LTTE had encouraged Tamils to bring relatives from Tamilnadu over. Grama Niladhari was then bribed to state in an affidavit that they had been long time residents of Kilinochchi.[13]
Redd Barna has carried out a resettlement programme of Tamil people from up country to Vavuniya in 1985, with the assistance of Sarvodaya, said Vijitha Herath. in his 2008 interim report to Parliament as Chairman, Select Committee of Parliament for investigation of the operations of NGOs and their impact.[14]
Tamil Separatist Movement also suppressed the Sinhala settlements started in the north and east . Padaviya was started by Prime Minister D.S.Senanayake in the late 1950s. Padaviya was one of the first post-independence Sinhala settlements in the north . Padaviya had around 50,000 people in 1984.
Padaviya was created and then ignored, said critics. . It is only two miles to the sea from Padaviya as the crow files if the Padaviya settlement had gone up to the sea, Eelam would not have been possible, critics observed.
Ma Oya which flows into Kokkilai, lies between Padaviya in its south and the districts of Mullaitivu and Vavuniya in the north. Tamil politicians had for years objected to the linking up of Mullaitivu district with Padaviya . But a small causeway had been built across the Ma Oya river, linking Padaviya to Mullaitivu during the Accelerated Mahaweli project. BH Hemapriya had initiated this, using a cable wire obtained from Victoria dam.
Padaviya was bursting at the seams by 1980. The area could not accommodate the 2nd and 3rd generations. They would have had to fan out to Vavuniya and Mullaitivu on the north, Kokkilai on the east and Yan Oya on the south. Tamil Separatist Movement saw this and started installing Tamil settlements on the border of Padaviya leaving a massive buffer zone between the new Tamil settlement and Vavuniya and Mullaitivu. They were creating a buffer for Eelam.
In 1983 two Mahaweli Authority officers, Karunatilleke and Hemapriya reported to Mahaweli Director General, NGP Panditeratne that the second generation of Padaviya settlers were in serious difficulties. They are doing chena and rain fed paddy in about 10,000 to 15,000 acres in the last piece of chena land available to Padaviya settlers in the south. They cannot expand to west, east or north as these are occupied by Tamil villages and encroachments.
At the rate of expansion of Tamil encroachments, this land will also go within a few months, they said. Tamil settlements will spread up to the boundary of Padaviya in a few months. Very soon the Padaviya settlement will be threatened. Settlers live in fear and some settlers are thinking of returning to their place of origin, they said in 1983.
Tamil settler colonialism was actively at work during the Accelerated Mahaweli project. Tamil Separatist Movement had studied the Accelerated Mahaweli plan carefully and had marked out two strategic locations where Sinhala settlements could puncture Eelam .They were Maduru Oya and Yan Oya deltas. At Yan Oya illegal Tamil settlements were established by 1983.
there were Tamil settlements in Maduru Oya as well. In1980 the engineers at Maduru Oya had informed Mahaweli authorities that the Tamil officials in Batticaloa were creating illegal Tamil settlements at Maduru Oya. These settlements were known to the Tamil politicians. Sinhala politicians in the government were also supporting. There will not be an inch of land left by the time the project is ready, they told him.
In August 1983 Malinga Guneratne received information of a massive encroachment of lands on Maduru Oya right bank. Maliga dispatched two Mahaweli officials to Maduru Oya to report. They reported back that organized settlements around numerous small tanks were taking place in Maduru Oya. They were being made in a systematic and methodical manner. Food supplies were coming to the settler from an organized body. Houses were e coming up overnight. Villages were given Tamil names, district boundaries were altered. The Tamil officials in Batticaloa were behind this.
It was not possible to fill up all the land with settlers, there were not enough Tamil settlers for that, therefore another strategy was used. Large tracts of land in the area were demarcated as elephant corridors, forest reserves, national parks and no settlement was allowed in them. There are more elephant corridors and forest reserves here than in the rest of Sri Lanka, said Hemapriya.
This is confirmed in the report made to KW Devanayagam, MP for Kalkudah, by GA Batticaloa, regarding the Maduru Oya Sinhala settlement led by Dimbulagala Hamuduruwo in September 1983. GA Batticaloa complained in a report dated 4.9.83 that the new Sinhala settlement at Meeranadavillu came within the Barons Gap proposed reserve, and Mathavanai Mahaella settlement came within the Umunugala Forest reserve. Punani settlement came under Koralai forest reserve .
There was also another tactic , that of declaring grazing lands for cattle. The Barons Gap proposed reserve had also been used as traditional grazing land for cattle in the Kalkudah electorate, said Tamil officials. ( continued)
Music has been essential to human culture for thousands of years, evolving through different civilisations, technological advancements, and cultural influences. From ancient tribal chants to the digital streaming age, music reflects human emotions, traditions, and innovations.
My attempt to explore the historical development and transformation of Papare music in Sri Lanka takes me back to the day I first witnessed the Royal Thomian cricket match at Colombo Oval in 1961, the year I entered Royal College.
My dad thought I was too young to go for the big match alone and arranged for two of my cousins and their friend (a Chinese guy) to take me to the match. They are much older than me and from Wesley College (Wesleyites). Their eldest brother was the captain of the Wesley cricket team that year. They dropped me at the Boys Tent entrance and proceeded to the visitors’ entrance.
I located and joined my friends and joined the cheering squad chanting, Come on, Nanda” (Senanayake), ball him out! Come on, Darrell” (Lieversz), ball him out, etc., and when the Thomian batsman whacks the ball to the boundary, the cheerleader shouts, Are we worried?” and we shout, No, no.” When a batsman was given out leg before, Thomians shouted Umpire Hora.” (Thank God that problem is not there now because of Senaka Weeraratne’s concept of Decision Review System, or DRS.)
Later my cousins came looking for me and took me to their visitors’ pavilion.
There was a makeshift tent next to their pavilion. I noticed the spectators of this tent were a bunch of old codgers. My cousins whispering to each other identified some of the prominent elites of the time. Some of them, as I understood, were politicians and captains of the business world of the time.
They were enjoying the music played by a Naga Salang Band.” Naga Salang was probably a Sinhala term for the Carnatic music of southern India played in the Sri Lankan Hindu Temples (Kovils). The main instrument of the group was a double-reed wind instrument called Nadaswaram, which was among the world’s loudest non-brass acoustic instruments. The other instruments, as I remember, were the Mridangam (drum), Tabla, and Violin.
Later came to know the tent was called Mustang Tent.”
The Mustang is the oldest exclusive tent at the Royal-Thomian cricket match, which started over 100 years ago. Only the distinguished gentlemen from both schools were allowed to enroll at this tent. One needs to be invited to be part of the Mustangs. During the colonial era, the custom was to invite the governor, who invariably came to watch the match and have a cup of tea at the tent on the second day of the match.
During the lunch interval, some senior students and prefects from both schools invited the Naga Salang Band” members to join a parade going around the ground. They also brought bands that provided music at the boys’ tents of two schools. These bands, generally called funeral bands,” were organised by dedicated senior students, brought from the Jaela Wattala area and paid through hat collections.
When the Naga Salang Band” joined the parade, they immediately changed over to the then-popular song Vanga Machan Vanga” from the MGR movie Madurai Veeran. As a ten-year-old, I was flabbergasted by the way students of both schools danced. There was Baila, rock & roll, Kavadi, and then popular Twist all mixed in their dancing.
I believe this was the beginning of the now-popular Papare music.
The big-match culture of parading around the grounds would have originated from early influences of the colonial era when military bands introduced brass instruments to Sri Lanka and conducted parades to demonstrate the might of the British Empire.
In the early days, big-match bands used to play popular tunes, initially mainly English numbers like Glory, Glory, Hallelujah—popularised during the American Civil War” and Get Me to the Church on Time—from the film My Fair Lady.” Later came Tamil Dingiri Dingale Meenakshi Dingiri Dinkale,” which had a similar Sinhala song sung by Jothipala. In the late sixties, the tunes of songs like Uma Pocha’s Bombay Meri Hai” and C.T. Fernando’s Sihina Love” became very popular at big match bands, not only at Royal Thomian but also at all other school big matches.
The inaugural men’s Cricket World Cup was in 1975, organised by the ICC and officially called the Prudential Cup ’75, and was held in England. Sri Lanka was not a test-playing nation at the time but participated as an associate. The format was a 60-over-day match played with a red ball. At the second World Cup in 1979, Sri Lanka beat India by 47 runs under the leadership of former Nalandian Captain Bandula Warnapura, played at Old Trafford, Manchester, England.
This victory and Sri Lanka being granted test status in 1981 were two of the greatest achievements in Sri Lanka’s cricketing history up to then. As a result, more and more people were interested in the game, but the spectators at the matches were not many. The school’s big matches drew more crowds than Test matches or limited formats because of the amount of entertainment they provided.
Then came Arjuna Ranatunga and his team winning the World Cup in March 1996.
Kumar Sangakkara, in his MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture, said, The leadership of Arjuna during this period was critical to our emergence as a global force. It was Arjuna who understood most clearly why we needed to break free from the shackles of our colonial past and forge a new identity, an identity forged exclusively from Sri Lankan values, an identity that fed from the passion, vibrancy, and emotion of normal Sri Lankans. Arjuna was a man hell-bent on making his mark on the game in Sri Lanka, determined to break from foreign tradition and forge a new national brand of cricket.”
Arjuna’s teammate Sanath Jayasuriya was named the Most Valuable Player of the 1996 Cricket World Cup. Sanath together with his opening partner Romesh Kaluwitharana is credited for having revolutionized one-day international cricket with their explosive batting in the 1990s, which initiated the hard-hitting modern-day batting strategy of all nations. The late Tony Greig, former England captain and well-known cricket commentator, called Sanath the Master Blaster” and Romesh Little Kalu.” He used to say, Sanath was a butcher and Aravinda de Silva was a surgeon. For they had two different styles of batting. Sanath had the ability with the bat to brutalize pretty much any attack, and Aravinda, a natural and just gifted with supreme timing, good technique, and skill.
The spectators realised Sanath’s type of attacking batting provided good entertainment and flocked together to see “Ape Kollo” or our boys playing.
They moved in tens and thousands and brought the Big Match Bands” to the venue. Playing popular tunes of Sinhala songs and Baila together with dancing changed the cricketing culture in Sri Lanka. The trumpet and drums were the main instruments used.
Later these bands added cymbals, trombones, saxophones, rabana, etc., which created a unique brand of music. A veteran of the Papare band once said, Even if the song is slow, we can increase the beat and create a fast tempo.”
As kids, we used to imitate the sounds of Trumpet” with our mouths, similar to Papara pan, pan pan.” I believe the name Papare” was derived from this practice.
The Calypso bands from Caribbean islands are now seen playing at West Indian matches.
The Papare, a vibrant and energetic form of street music, has evolved from Naga Salang bands played at Royal-Thomian Mustang Tent to a symbol of national pride. This showcases Sri Lanka’s rich cultural heritage and the genre’s enduring appeal across different contexts.
This signature music of Sri Lanka has now expanded internationally. Sri Lankans living in countries like Australia, the UK, New Zealand, the USA, and Canada have formed their own Papare Bands.
Former MP Chandima Weerakkody, speaking at a press briefing at the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) headquarters on Wednesday, claimed that public expectations of President Anura Dissanayake and the National People’s Power (NPP) government have now faded.
He stated that many who had placed their hopes in President Dissanayake and the NPP for change were now feeling disillusioned.
What has happened to many groups today is similar to moths drawn to light. All the country’s teachers united to elect Anura Dissanayake as President. Advanced Level teachers urged students to vote for him, believing he would bring about change. Teachers even visited students’ homes to convince parents to support the NPP,” he said.
During the election campaign, the NPP had promised executive-level salaries for teachers. While salary revisions have been made, the increment is negligible, he said.
Doctors played a key role in enabling the NPP’s victory. However, allowances previously granted for extra services and leave have now been cut, leaving doctors frustrated. Nurses, who campaigned for Anura Dissanayake in uniform, are now facing cuts to their additional allowances.
Similarly, graduates without employment were assured that immediate steps would be taken to provide them with jobs. However, when unemployed graduates took to the streets demanding employment, the government deployed the police to suppress them. These very graduates who played a crucial role in electing Anura Dissanayake are now being treated inhumanely. Their hopes have been shattered,” he said.
Weerakkody further criticised the government for focusing on issues that do not address pressing national concerns. He stated that instead of conducting a census to assess the number of people living in poverty or carrying out the necessary survey to address unemployment, the government is prioritising the counting of monkeys and langurs.
This raises serious concerns about the direction in which the country is heading.”
Colombo, March 6 (Daily Mirror) – Expressing his dissatisfaction with the interview with Al Jazeera which was broadcast today, former President Ranil Wickremeisnghe raised questions on the integirty of the panelists who were part of the interview.
Speaking to the media soon after the interview was released, Wickremesinghe claimed that two of the three panelists, who joined broadcaster Mehdi Hasan, had pro-LTTE stances.
I was informed that Human Rights Lawyer and Former Commissioner of Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Ambika Sathkunanathan will participate in the interview. I was happy as I have known her, though our ideologies were different. However I found out that there were two other panelists instead of Ms. Sathkunanathan. I have been told that the two of them had pro-LTTE links,” he said.
This interview was different. Interviews which I do with local media are different. They go live and everything good and bad comes out. However Al Jazeera interviewed me for two hours but they have released a one-hour interview. The best part was missing,” Wickremesinghe said.
“I was asked about the happenings during the reign of the Rajapaksas. I said I was not in power then. Also, I told them that the Mahanayaka of Malwathu chapter is the foremost religious leader in Sri Lanka while others including Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith is just another religious leader,” he added.
Former Sri Lankan President and six-time Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe denied shielding ousted president Gotabaya Rajapaksa from prosecution, during an interview for Al Jazeera English’s ‘Head to Head’ that aired today. He also rebuffed renewed accusations that his own administration failed to credibly investigate alleged government links to deadly terrorist attacks that rocked Sri Lanka in 2019.
Wickremesinghe, who was voted out of office in 2024, threatened to leave 8 minutes into the hour-long interview with Mehdi Hasan, but ultimately remained seated for a heated debate that also covered the government’s handling of war crimes investigations following the country’s civil war, and allegations of torture committed under his watch in the late 1980s.
In my country, it’s the attorney general, who is not a political figure, who decides on prosecution – We can only send the evidence before him,” Wickremesinghe said when asked if he’d covered for ex-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who fled the country in 2022 following mass protests.
Both Gotabaya and his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former Prime Minister and President, have been widely accused of corruption and war crimes and driving the country into a major financial crisis.
On letting Gotabaya Rajapaksa back into the country without arrest after Wickremesinghe took over the presidency in 2022, the latter said: He could come [back] in. There’s no charge against him. How could I? Am I a dictator?”
Hasan also pressed Wickremesinghe on renewed accusations by the Catholic Church that his own government had protected other forces” involved in the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings carried out by an ISIS-affiliate.
In response, Wickremesinghe called the allegations all nonsense” and an example of the politics of the Catholic Church.”
The head of the Catholic Church [in Sri Lanka] is talking nonsense?” Hasan clarified. Yes,” Wickremesinghe said.
Wickremesinghe, who was Prime Minister in 2019, was responding to public statements by local Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, as well as exclusive comments the Cardinal had made to Al Jazeera’s Head to Head team before the TV recording. In a phone call with Al Jazeera, Ranjith said Wickremesinghe had failed to heed the Church’s request for a truly independent investigation and called an earlier inquiry and report during Wickremesinghe’s presidency not worth the paper it was written on”.
Turning to truth and reconciliation for Sri Lanka’s civil war with the LTTE (also known as the Tamil Tigers), Hasan asked if justice had been served to the thousands of victims of the conflict that ended in 2009. Wickremesinghe conceded: No. Justice has not been served to any of the communities.”
He accepted that aid had been blocked to war victims and some hospitals had been bombed but denied that such bombings were systematic.
There had been occasions where the Air Force had bombed [hospitals] and action was taken against some of them. But on a large-scale, this thing? I wouldn’t say that.”
According to a U.N. panel […], Sri Lankan government forces blocked the delivery of aid to victims of the war,” Hasan prompted.
I admit that took place,” Wickremesinghe conceded, who was the opposition leader at the time of the final phase of the war.
Pressed on why, as President, he reappointed General Shavendra Silva – whom the US State Department accuses of war crimes – to head Sri Lanka’s armed forces, Wickremesinghe said, It’s a practice not to replace military commanders during [an] election.” He added, When I took over, I checked on it and I was satisfied that General Silva was not involved in it.”
Wickremesinghe went on to deny allegations made by a government commission that he knew of illegal detention, torture and killings happening at Batalanda, a housing complex he was living in as a minister in the late 1980s.
I deny all those allegations,” he said when confronted with a government inquiry that named him as a main architect” of securing the housing complex and alleged he, to say the least, knew” about the violations taking place there.
Wickremesinghe first denied the existence of the report, of which Al Jazeera had obtained a copy, and later questioned its validity, saying it had never been discussed in parliament. That was not tabled in Parliament and there is nothing to be found against me.”
Wickremesinghe, who was appointed president by parliament in 2022 amidst one of the biggest political and financial crises in Sri Lankan history, defended his own presidency and 2024 election loss:
In two years, I put the economy back on track. And that means disinflation, compression. It’s very, very difficult. Will you survive that? No, I can’t see that,” he said about last year’s election in which he finished third.
I’m quite happy. I did the job,” he said, referring, in part, to a landmark IMF deal he brokered as president. There would have been a political and economic collapse of the country” (if he hadn’t taken over the Presidency).
Hasan and Wickremesinghe were joined by a panel of experts:
Former BBC Sri Lanka correspondent and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead’, Frances Harrison; Former UK MP and envoy to Mr Wickremesinghe during his presidency, Nirj Deva; and Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of human rights organization PEARL and Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics at City, University of London.
Sri Lanka is facing a significant demographic shift as its population ages rapidly. Currently, about 12.3% to 12.4% of the population is over 60 years old, but this figure is projected to rise dramatically to 22% by 2037 and potentially reach 25% by 2041. This rapid ageing poses substantial economic, healthcare, and social challenges for senior citizens, exacerbated by the ongoing economic crisis.
Economic Vulnerability
Senior citizens in Sri Lanka face higher poverty rates compared to other age groups. Limited coverage of social protection programs and pension schemes, particularly for those in the informal sector, further exacerbates their economic vulnerability. The economic crisis has severely impacted their income security, with many struggling to afford necessities due to inflation and shortages. Those who worked in the private sector or informal sectors are particularly affected, as they often rely on dwindling savings to survive.
Healthcare Challenges
Access to healthcare is another significant challenge for older adults. Shortages of essential drugs and medical tools, compounded by the economic crisis, make it difficult for them to receive necessary care. Chronic illnesses are prevalent among seniors, but many cannot afford the travel costs required for healthcare, further complicating their situation.
Social Challenges
Changes in family structures and migration patterns have reduced support networks for older adults, leading to social isolation. There is also a potential for neglect and abuse, though precise data is lacking. The economic crisis has intensified these social challenges, as families struggle to support their elderly members financially.
Food Security
Food insecurity is a critical issue for seniors, as the economic crisis has led to severe shortages and inflation, affecting their ability to access nutritious food. Many have had to reduce their meals to one or two per day, with some relying on water and sleep when they cannot afford food.
Social Protection
The need for stronger social protection systems is evident, as current measures are insufficient to support vulnerable older populations. The government offers temporary monthly allowances to over 650,000 elderly individuals, but these are often inadequate given the scale of the crisis.
Coping Mechanisms
Despite these challenges, seniors are finding ways to cope. Many spend hours queuing for essentials like cooking gas, kerosene oil, fuel, and food items, which is particularly challenging due to their frailty and existing health conditions. Charitable organizations like HelpAge Sri Lanka provide support, including mobile medical units and home care services, though these efforts are insufficient to meet the growing demand. Some elderly individuals have resorted to begging or seeking help from charities as their families can no longer support them financially. Promoting home gardening has been suggested as a strategy to improve food security by increasing local agricultural production.
Potential Solutions
To alleviate these challenges, several potential solutions have been proposed. One approach is to exempt all individuals above the age of 60 from taxes, including value-added, capital gains, and withholding taxes, and offer them better interest rates for their savings. Historically, there was a provision for this, but it was scrapped. Recently, the government indicated some extra payments for seniors with fixed deposits, though this initiative seems to have stalled.
Collective Action
For these solutions to be implemented effectively, seniors need to unite and demand change. By using their collective bargaining power and voting wisely, they can influence policy decisions that affect their lives. If opposition parties are willing to address their grievances, seniors should seek written pledges that are contestable in a court of law before committing their support.
Sri Lanka’s ageing population faces significant economic, healthcare, and social challenges. Addressing these issues requires urgent action from policymakers, including strengthening social protection systems, improving healthcare access, and supporting economic security for seniors. Collective action by seniors themselves can also play a crucial role in advocating for policies that better support their needs.
Guwahati: Expressing annoyance over the latest development, where a State minister allegedly made unwanted comments on Bhaona and later his clarification denying it with a strong message for suing the propagator, Press Club of Assam (PCA) urges the journalist concerned to clarify his stand. Many media bodies including Gauhati Press Club (GPC) have already condemned minister Ashok Singhal for his ‘irresponsible views’ on the traditional performing art form and now they remain silent after Singhal out-rightly refuted the accusation, stated a PCA release. The controversy erupted following the recent social media post by a television journalist, associated with the news channel owned by the State government chief’s family, where the scribe claimed that Assam Health & Family Welfare minister disrespected a delegation from GPC, who went to invite Singhal for a forthcoming Bhaona performance in the city. During interactions, the minister allegedly questioned the necessity of a press club to organise a Bhaona, which is not secular in nature. Soon the issue went viral as many individuals, outfits, media outlets and opposition political leaders and their sympathisers started making a hue & cry demanding an apology from the minister. Some even termed him as a ‘non-Assamese’ who has no idea about the religious performing art form (Ankiya Bhaona), developed by the sixteenth century Vaishnavite saint, scholar and philosopher Srimanta Sankardev and his prime disciple Madhavdev to enact plays primarily on mythological characters. The excitement lasted for a short period, as CM Himanta Biswa Sarma commented that he did not believe his cabinet colleague made such an immature comment. It was followed by a formal clarification from Singhal denying the allegation that he made derogatory remarks regarding Bhaona. In a social media post, Singhal stated that it was completely false and fabricated. Acknowledging that a group of scribes visited him to invite for the cultural program, Singhal however expressed his annoyance that a fabricated story was generated and made public by a particular scribe. “We are devoted followers of Mahapurush Srimanta Sankardev and always embracing Gurujona’s creations with deep reverence. Needless to mention that, Sankardev’s immense contributions and creations continue enriching the great Assamese society,” said Singhal, adding that the journalist involved with the episode should tender an apology to the people of Assam. Otherwise, he would be compelled to take legal actions, concluded the minister. Many social media users questioned the GPC for inviting Singhal, as he is neither the State IPR or cultural minister. Was it not done with the sole aim to get some hefty donations from the minister (which somehow did not materialise !), otherwise why a minister would make derogatory comments just to receive an invitation letter for any event, questioned a senior journalist while speaking publicly during his live presentations. The acclaimed television scribe even asked the GPC to apologise with an aim to resolve the matter soon. As the issue has seemingly gone out of proportions, the GPC should come out with a clarification so that the issue comes to end. Otherwise, it will only help the anti-media elements in the society to launch another series of attacks on the journalist community,” said PCA president Kailash Sarma, working president Nava Thakuria and general secretary Hiren Ch Kalita. They also wished a success for the Bhaona titled Gandharir Abhishap, hosted by GPC in association with NEZCC, which is scheduled for 15 March 2025 at Shilpagram premises.
Professor Nishan C. Wijesinha (Professor German School of Medicine)
Concerning the above post elephants and the plantations Posted on March 3rd, 2025
Otara Gunawardene personally contacted me through Instagram and thanked me for having highly esteemed her; but she is not willing to take on any projects of such nature,now as she has finished her task for the people and has retired fom such busy life. Therefore she said, “it is not correct for me to have requested such involvement at this time of retirement”.
Therefore I really, feel very sorry and hope she would take it as an humble error by me in absolute good intentions.
Therefore this is an apology by me, so that people will not bother her, calling her to take on the project.
I felt compelled to add a crucial missing element, the idea of Cricket Reformation through the advent of the Decision Review System (DRS). While Lorenz’s piece covered many aspects of modern cricket, it overlooked how DRS has fundamentally reshaped the way the game is played and perceived.
Riyas Aluher
………………..
Cricket has witnessed many changes, but few have been as groundbreaking and paradigm shifting as the Decision Review System (DRS). This revolutionary game changing system, rooted in Senaka Weeraratna’s Player Referral concept, has fundamentally transformed the game by allowing players to challenge umpiring decisions that go against the foundational premise of cricket – ‘the Umpire’s decision is final’. It is no longer accepted today because Senaka Weeraratna argued with vehemence that greater accuracy in decision making can only be achieved by going ‘against the grain’ using new technology.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) accepted the Player Referral concept of Senaka Weeraratna in 2006 and renamed it as the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS later abbreviated into DRS). With the integration of advanced technology such as Hawk-Eye, UltraEdge, and Hot Spot, DRS has enhanced fairness, minimized human error, and brought greater accuracy to decision-making in cricket.
Cricket Reformation
The wider picture is Cricket Reformation. Senaka Weeraratna is Cricket’s version of the iconic Martin Luther. The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 when Martin Luther published a document called ‘Disputation on the Power of Indulgences’ and pasted his 95 ideas or Theses on the door of a castle church in Wittenberg, Germany. The theses were a series of ideas that challenged the Catholic Church’s teachings.
What were Luther’s ideas? 1. The Church needed reform 2. The Catholic Church’s practices that focused on good works were immoral 3. Sale of Indulgences, or payments to the Church were wrong 4. There is no need for a controlling Church hierarchy
Martin Luther is the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation that later swept Europe.
Martin Luther
What are Senaka Weeraratna’s ideas?
1. Cricket needed Reform 2. Cricket’s integrity and commitment to fair play were compromised because of its failure to employ technology to correct an Umpire’s decision 3. His aphorism published in the ‘Time’ Magazine (Letters to the Editor – June 07, 1999) and other international publications stating ‘ If you have the technology to detect an error of an Umpire, then the same technology must be used to correct the error of an Umpire’, is now universally acknowledged as the trigger that set the pace of the Cricket Reformation enshrining DRS. 4. DRS impact on cricket DRS has removed the finality of decisions made by on-field umpires. It has brought integrity and justice to the game by replacing an over-exaggerated, flawed, and abused method of adjudication.
5. The Dawn of a New Era Since DRS was introduced, cricket has experienced a remarkable transformation. The system has not only minimized human error in umpiring decisions but also brought with it a series of welcome changes: • No More ‘Hora Umpire’ Shouts: Gone are the days when the loud, often humorous, Hora Umpire” calls from the stands would fill the air. With technology stepping in, decisions are made more accurately and objectively. • Reduced Tensions on the Field: The constant friction between cricket-playing nations over umpiring errors has eased considerably. With decisions now being double-checked, the focus has shifted to the quality of play rather than disputes over officiating. • Enhanced Respect for Umpiring: There is now a greater acknowledgment of the precision involved in umpire decisions, which has elevated the integrity of the game. The reliance on advanced tools like Hawk-Eye, Ultra Edge, and Hot Spot has brought a renewed trust in how the sport is governed
Senaka Weeraratna’s theory was groundbreaking at the time and has since reshaped sports officiating worldwide, including in football, tennis, and rugby, where systems like VAR and Goal Line Technology have become integral to decision-making.
Shashi Tharoor Shashi Tharoor, the celebrated Indian writer, and author, has expressed his views on the impact that the Decision Review System (DRS) has had on the modern game, and he stated unequivocally that it has been one of cricket’s best innovations. Tharoor further said that international cricket should never be without DRS in the future, given how many errors technology prevents. DRS is such a major innovation. I never want to see international cricket without DRS ever again. It is so indispensable and eliminates so many bad decisions, and it creates an additional form of excitement for the viewer. It adds an extra element of tension to the plot and it is a very welcome addition as far as I’m concerned,” Tharoor said.
DRS inventor Sri Lanka’s Senaka Weeraratna is known as the “Father of DRS”
Despite its universal acceptance, it is crucial to acknowledge the true origins of DRS. The Player Referral idea, first proposed by Senaka Weeraratna, laid the foundation for this paradigm shift, influencing not only cricket but also other sports that now rely on technology for fair play. His concept was groundbreaking at the time and has since reshaped sports officiating worldwide, including in football, tennis, and rugby, where systems like VAR and Goal Line Technology have become integral to decision-making.
Innovation in sports must be recognized, and credit should be given to the minds behind these game-changing ideas. Senaka Weeraratna’s vision was the catalyst for a transformation that has redefined cricket’s decision-making process. His contribution goes beyond an individual achievement—it marks a historical turning point in sports technology and fair play.
A Legacy Worth Celebrating The Decision Review System stands as one of the most significant milestones in cricket history, ushering in an era of strategic depth, accuracy, and player empowerment. However, the true pioneer behind this revolutionary change remains largely unrecognized. It is time for the sporting world to formally acknowledge Senaka Weeraratna’s role in shaping modern cricket and sports officiating.
As sports continue to evolve with technological advancements, history must ensure that those who paved the way for these innovations receive their due recognition. Senaka Weeraratna’s legacy as the architect of player-driven decision reviews must be honored, ensuring that his contribution to the game is remembered and celebrated for generations to come.
Senaka Weeraratna is the seminal figure of the Cricket Reformation beginning with the DRS.
Adani’s Green Energy Limited last month announced that it had withdrawn from the second phase of a proposed project in an ecologically sensitive region
A flock of migratory brown-headed gulls (Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus) in Mannar with windmills in background. | Image courtesy of Lahiru Walpita, via Mongabay.
Indian industrialist Gautam Adani’s Green Energy Limited, or AGEL, has withdrawn from the second phase of a proposed wind power project in northern Sri Lanka. The project, which was planned to generate 250 MW through the installation of 52 wind turbines in Mannar in the island country’s north, faced strong opposition since the beginning due to serious environmental implications and allegations of financial irregularities.
Renewable energy is a crucial need in the era of climate change but Sri Lankan environmentalists opposed the project, citing potential ecological damage to the sensitive Mannar region. Additionally, concerns arose over the way the contract was awarded, without a competitive bidding process.
The former government, led by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, had inked an agreement with AGEL, setting the power purchase price at $0.82 per unit for 20 years. This rate was significantly higher than rates typically offered by local companies. This is an increase of about 70%, a scandalous deal that should be investigated,” said Rohan Pethiyagoda, a globally recognised taxonomist and former deputy chair of the IUCN’s Species Survival Commission.
In January, the newly elected government expressed its desire to cancel the initial agreement and to renegotiate its terms and conditions, citing the high electricity tariff. Environmentalists welcomed the decision, believing the project would be scrapped entirely. However, their relief was short-lived when AGEL clarified that the project itself was not cancelled, only the tariff agreement.
Government spokesperson Nalinda Jayatissa later confirmed that the project would proceed after renegotiating a lower power purchase rate. However, two weeks later, AGEL announced its complete withdrawal from the project, a decision widely believed to be influenced by the government’s stance.
Power lines distributing electricity from the already established wind farm near the Vankalai Ramsar Wetland have already proven to be a death trap for unsuspecting Brahminy kites. Image courtesy of Gayomini Panagoda, via Mongabay.
Wind energy potential
Sri Lanka has been exploring wind energy potential for more than two decades, with the first large-scale wind farm in Mannar named Thambapavani commissioned in 2020. This facility, comprising 30 wind turbines, currently generates 100 MW of power. With an additional 20 turbines planned, the Mannar wind sector would have surpassed 100 towers.
The Adani Group had pledged an investment totalling $442 million, and already, $5 million has been spent in predevelopment activities. On February 15, the Adani Group formally announced its decision to leave the project. In a statement, the group stated: We would respectfully withdraw from the said project. As we bow out, we wish to reaffirm that we would always be available for the Sri Lankan government to have us undertake any development opportunity.”
Environmentalists argue that Mannar, a fragile peninsula connected to the mainland by a narrow land strip, cannot sustain such extensive development. If built, this project would exceed the carrying capacity of the island,” Pethiyagoda noted.
Mannar is not only a growing tourism hub, known for its pristine beaches and archaeological sites, but also Sri Lanka’s most important bird migration corridor. As the last landmass along the Central Asian Flyway, the region hosts millions of migratory birds, including 20 globally threatened species, he added.
Sampath Seneviratne of the University of Colombo, who has conducted satellite tracking research on migratory birds, highlighted the global importance of Mannar. Some birds that winter here have home ranges as far as the Arctic Circle,” he said. His research has shown how extensively these birds rely on the Mannar Peninsula.
Although mitigation measures such as bird monitoring radar have been proposed to reduce turbine collisions, power lines distributing electricity remain a significant threat, particularly to species like flamingos, a major attraction in Mannar. The power lines distributing electricity from the already established wind farm near the Vankalai Ramsar Wetland and are already proven to be a death trap for unsuspecting feathered kind.
Mannar is a wildlife lover’s paradise that is already gaining popularity as a birding hotspot. Image courtesy of Mevan Piyasena, via Mongabay.
Nature-based tourism
Given Mannar’s ecological significance, conservationists say the region has greater potential as a destination for ecotourism rather than large-scale industrial projects. Mannar’s rich biodiversity and historical value make it ideal for nature-friendly tourism, which would also benefit the local community,” Pethiyagoda added.
With AGEL’s withdrawal, Sri Lanka now faces the challenge of balancing its renewable energy ambitions with environmental conservation. However, there are other sites in Sri Lanka having more wind power potential, and Sri Lankan environmentalists hope ecologically rich Mannar will be spared from unsustainable wind farms projects.
Despite positive developments and recovery expected this year, Sri Lanka’s economy is still vulnerable, and it is critical to sustain the reform momentum for long-term growth, a top International Monetary Fund (IMF) official said yesterday.
Addressing a virtual press conference, Senior Mission Chief for Sri Lanka Peter Breuer said that the IMF Executive Board approved the third review under the 48-month Extended Fund Facility Arrangement with Sri Lanka.
It provides the country with immediate access to US $ 334 million to support its economic policies and reforms and brings the total IMF financial support disbursed so far to about U.S. $ 1.3 billion.
The IMF continues to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to restore and maintain macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability, while protecting the poor and vulnerable, rebuilding external buffers, safeguarding financial sector stability, and enhancing growth-oriented structural reforms, including by strengthening governance,” he said.
The IMF Executive Board’s approval to complete the third review recognizes the strong programme performance. All quantitative targets for the end of December 2024 were met, except for the indicative target on social spending. Most structural benchmarks due by the end of January 2025 were either met or implemented with delay, he said.
Commenting on the macroeconomic situation, he said it is encouraging to see that reforms in Sri Lanka are bearing fruit, with economic recovery gaining momentum.
Inflation remains low, revenue collection is improving, and reserves continue to accumulate. Economic growth averaged 4.3 percent since growth resumed in the third quarter of 2023. The recovery is expected to continue in 2025. Despite these positive developments, the economy is still vulnerable. It is critical to sustain the reform momentum, to ensure macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability, and to promote long-term inclusive growth,” he said.
He emphasized that sustained revenue mobilization is crucial to restoring fiscal sustainability and ensuring that the government can continue to provide essential services.
By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana Courtesy The Daily Mirror
Colombo, March 5 (Daily Mirror) – The Central government of India and the state government of Tamilnadu should enforce the law on its fishermen who are destroying the livelihood of Sri Lankan fishermen in the North, Leader of the House Bimal Ratnayake told Parliament today.
The best assistance India should provide for the Northern Fishermen in Sri Lanka is to enforce its laws and prevent its fishermen from destroying the livelihood of Sri Lankan fishermen in the North,” Ratnayake said.
The Genuineness of India could be exhibited only through stopping its fishermen from infiltrating into Sri Lankan waters,” he added.
The Minister said Northern fishermen are poor compared to fishermen in the South of Sri Lanka.
Opposition MP Mano Ganesan who responded at this moment requested that the Sri Lankan government take this matter with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he visits Sri Lanka in April this year,” he said.
Northern fishermen are helpless because of the Indian fishermen. This has to stop at some point,” he said.
The Sri Lankan government has approved the land transfer for a 100 MW solar project in the south. The site will be handed over to the Sustainable Energy Authority to advance the project.
Image: Oskar Kadaksoo, Unsplash
Sri Lanka’s Cabinet of Ministers has approved the transfer of land to the country’s Sustainable Energy Authority for a 100 MW solar project.
The Siyambalanduwa PV array will be built on 220 hectares in Sri Lanka’s Uva province. The Cabinet approved transferring the land to the Sustainable Energy Authority to allow work to begin immediately, according to a government statement.
Colombo-based Rividhanavi, a joint venture between Lakdhanavi Ltd. and Windforce PLC, is developing the project. The company won a competitive tender in 2022 and signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with state-owned Ceylon Electricity Board in February 2024.
Sri Lanka aims to source 70% of its electricity from renewables by 2030. The country reached 966 MW of installed solar capacity at the end of 2023, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
Sri Lanka announced plans in October 2024 to install rooftop PV on places of worship, aiming to add 25 MW of solar capacity.
