Features
In bid to counter China, US ramps up effort to boost military ties in Asia
On May 30, the United States accused China of intercepting one of its spy planes in an “unnecessarily aggressive manoeuvre” over the South China Sea. The American RC-135 plane, according to the US military, was conducting routine operations over the sensitive waterway when the Chinese fighter jet flew directly in front of its nose.
A video shared by the US Indo-Pacific Command showed the cockpit of the RC-135 shaking in the wake of turbulence of the Chinese jet.
Days later, on June 5, the US again accused China of carrying out what it said was an ‘unsafe’ manouver near one of its vessels. This time it was around a warship in the Taiwan Strait. The US Indo-Pacific Command again released a video of the incident, showing a Chinese navy vessel cutting sharply across the path of a US destroyer at a distance of some 137 metres (150 yards), forcing the latter to slow down to avoid a collision.
Washington said the near misses showed China’s “growing aggressiveness”, but Beijing said the US was to blame, accusing its rival of deliberately “provoking risk” by sending aircraft and vessels for “close in reconnaissance” near its shores – moves it said posed a serious danger to its national security.
The close calls evoked memories of a deadly incident on April 1, 2001, when a Chinese fighter jet and a US surveillance plane collided in the sky over the South China Sea. The impact caused the Chinese jet to crash and killed the pilot, while the US plane was forced to make an emergency landing in China’s Hainan. Beijing held the 24 American aircrew members for 11 days and only released them when Washington apologised for the incident.
While the two countries were able to de-escalate tensions then, there are worries that a similar mishap today could widen into a bigger conflict due to the deterioration in relations between the rivals.
The US views China as the biggest challenge to the Western-dominated international order, pointing to Beijing’s rapid military buildup – the biggest in peacetime history – as well as its claims over the self-governed island of Taiwan and in the East and South China Seas. The US military’s so-called “freedom of navigation exercises” in the contested waterways near China are part of a push by the administration of President Joe Biden to deepen and expand its diplomatic and military presence in the Asia Pacific.
The campaign – which has accelerated over the past year – stretches from Japan to the Philippines and Australia, and from India to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The “once in a generation effort,” as Gregory Poling, director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts it, involves the opening of new embassies in the region, deployment of troops and more advanced military assets, as well as obtaining access to sites in key areas facing the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

For its part, China accuses the US of pursuing a policy of “containment, encirclement and suppression”, all aimed at holding back its economic development. And its leaders have pledged to resist.
Chinese President Xi Jinping said the US campaign has “brought unprecedented sever challenges to our country’s development”, and in a speech in March called on his countrymen to “dare to fight”. His former Defence Minister Li Shangfu, during an address at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, condemned what he called Washington’s “Cold War mentality”, and said Beijing would not be intimidated and would “resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity, regardless of any cost”.
Analysts say tensions will only heighten further as competition between China and the US – a contest about who gets to set the rules on the global stage – intensifies. While the superpower rivalry could bring benefits to countries in the Asia Pacific in the short term – particularly in the form of infrastructure loans and foreign direct investments – these nations could, in the future, find having to navigate between China and the US more challenging.
“This is a competition over what the rules-based order looks like, at least in Asia,” Poling told Al Jazeera. “It’s about whether or not the existing global rules continue to apply to Asia or whether China gets to carve out a huge area of exemption in which its preferred rules predominate.
“Clearly, the next couple of decades at least are going to be characterised by this growing competition. Unless China changes its strategy on this … then we’re going to see competition continue to heighten and tensions continue to heighten not just between the US and China, but also between China and most of its neighbours.”
China’s rise
Japan’s defeat in World War II ushered in an age of US dominance in Asia. But in recent decades, China’s growing military and economic might has brought an end to that uncontested primacy.
Under Xi, who took office in 2012 championing what he calls the “Chinese dream of national rejuvenation”, a vision to restore China’s great-power status, Beijing has invested heavily in modernising its military. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank, China has more than doubled its military spending over the past decade, with expenditure reaching $219bn in 2022 although this is still less than a third of US spending during the same year.
China has also embarked on a naval shipbuilding programme that has put more vessels to sea between 2014 and 2018 than the total number of ships in the German, Indian, Spanish and British navies combined. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has since also commissioned guided missile cruisers as well as nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. In June 2022, it launched its third aircraft carrier, the Fujian. The PLA’s rocket force has also modernised its capabilities, including with the development of hypersonic missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles. According to the US military, the PLA also plans to accelerate the expansion of its nuclear arsenal to as many as 700 nuclear warheads by 2027 and at least 1,000 by 2030.

Along with the military build-up, China has also become increasingly assertive in enforcing its territorial claims in crucial waterways off its coast.
In the East China Sea, Beijing lays claim to a group of Japanese-administered islands known as Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan and has increased naval and aerial patrols in the area, drawing protest from Tokyo.
China also lays claim to the entire South China Sea, via its nine-dash line, much to the ire of neighbouring Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia. To shore up those claims, China has built artificial islands in disputed waters, including in the Spratly Islands which it seized from the Philippines in 1996, and expanded its presence in the Paracel Islands which it seized from Vietnam in 1976. China now operates four large outposts with 10,000-foot runways on Woody Island, Fiery Cross Reef, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef. It has also deployed substantial military assets to the islands, including anti-ship missiles, and hangars capable of housing military transport, patrol and combat aircraft.
At the same time, China has faced off with India over their disputed border in the Himalayas. Tensions in the region boiled over in June 2020, when Chinese and Indian troops fought each other with sticks and clubs. At least 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers died.
Xi has also stepped up rhetoric around Taiwan.
During the Chinese Communist Party’s Congress in September, Xi called unification with the democratically-governed island a “historic mission” and an “unshakable commitment”. The PLA has meanwhile normalised incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defence Identification Zone, the airspace in which Taiwan attempts to identify and control all aircraft.
On the economic front, too, China has grown increasingly powerful.
It is the most important trading partner for more than 120 countries in the world and has sought to expand its economic influence through the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Under the project, sometimes known as the New Silk Road, China has financed physical infrastructure, such as ports, bridges and railways across Asia, Africa and Europe and funded hundreds of special economic zones, or industrial areas designed to create jobs. To date, some 147 countries have signed on to BRI projects or indicated an interest in doing so. In total, China has already disbursed an estimated $1 trillion on such efforts and may spend as much as $8 trillion over the life of the project.
Arc of alliances
The US has sounded the alarm over China’s growing clout.
Biden has called Xi a ‘dictator’, while his administration has accused Beijing of leveraging its commercial, military and technological might to “pursue a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific” and “become the world’s most influential power”.
Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken, unveiling the US’s China strategy last year, described the Asian power as “the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do it”.
A key pillar in the US’s campaign to counter China has been its efforts to deepen and expand its military and diplomatic ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific. The campaign – which includes boosting relations with allies such as Australia, Japan and South Korea, and non-allies such as India and Vietnam – has arguably resulted in the most robust US diplomatic and military posture in the Asia Pacific in recent decades.
In Australia, the US, along with the United Kingdom, has announced a historic security partnership to equip Canberra with up to five nuclear-powered attack submarines by the early 2030s. These vessels, which are equipped with long-range missiles, are much harder to detect and can stay underwater far longer than conventional submarines, “making them one of the most effective ways to complicate Chinese military planning and give Beijing a reason to take pause before using force”, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Australia and the US have also announced plans to increase the rotational presence of US air, land and sea forces on the island continent, and build airfields to operate nuclear-capable B52 bombers from northern Australia.
In Japan, the US has announced plans to overhaul its troop presence on the Okinawa Islands, including equipping its maritime units there with long-range fire abilities that can hit ships – something that would be key in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
In South Korea, which has grown increasingly anxious about neighbouring North Korea’s accelerating nuclear and missile programme, the US has announced new security assurances including the deployment of a nuclear-armed submarine to the Korean peninsula for the first time in four decades. More significantly, the US has announced a new trilateral security partnership with Seoul and Tokyo, a historic achievement given the long history of mutual acrimony between the two countries. At a summit in Camp David in the US in August, the three nations condemned China’s “dangerous and aggressive behaviours” in the South China Sea and pledged to deepen military and economic cooperation to tackle regional challenges.
In the Philippines, another US ally, the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr – incensed by Chinese harassment of its vessels in the South China Sea – has granted the Pentagon access to four more sites in the country. This brings to nine the number of locations that US forces have access to in the country – albeit on a rotational basis. Three of the four new sites are in the provinces of Cagayan and Isabela in northern Philippines, facing Taiwan, and the other in eastern Palawan, near the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. The Philippines and the US have also stepped up the scope and scale of their military exercises, and Washington has reinforced its commitment to defend Manila from an attack at sea. The navies of the two countries are eyeing joint naval patrols in the South China Sea, while the US has also increased freedom of navigation exercises in the waterway.
Vietnam, too, has upgraded its ties with the US. Alarmed by China’s actions in the South China Sea, Hanoi in September elevated the US’s diplomatic status to that of a comprehensive strategic partner – on par with that of China and Russia. The move came during a historic visit to the Vietnamese capital by Biden, and experts say it is indicative of the depth of its concern over its territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea.
On Taiwan, Biden has said on several occasions that the US would come to the island’s aid if there was a Chinese attack. While the White House has since walked back those statements, the Biden administration has continued arms sales to Taiwan, approving more than $3bn in weapons transfers and also allowing US officials to meet more freely with Taiwanese counterparts.
In the Pacific Islands, too, the US has expanded its military and diplomatic footprint.
In May, it signed a security deal with Papua New Guinea that gives it “unimpeded access” to several key airports and seaports in the Pacific nation and re-opened an embassy in the Solomon Islands after a 30-year absence. It has also opened an embassy in Tonga and is in talks with Kiribati and Vanuatu to establish a diplomatic presence there. Biden has also hosted historic summits for Pacific Island leaders in Washington, DC, pledging $810m in new aid for the Pacific Islands over the next decade, including to tackle the existential threat of climate change.
Non-aligned India, too, has stepped up cooperation with the US.
The two countries, along with Australia and Japan have revived an informal alliance known as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, in a bid to counter China and deliver public goods to countries in the Global South. Quad pledges include a key initiative to help countries protect maritime resources from predatory illegal fishing and promises to invest more than $50bn in developing infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific.
‘Desperation’
Analysts say the US campaign has stirred anger and concern in Beijing.
“This latest phase really just shows an increase in desperation on the part of the US because taking military measures usually is a last resort. Because it’s risky and it’s expensive. It’s also very dangerous. A country that has to resort to these measures, I think, clearly feels it is running out of options and is increasingly desperate to protect its rapidly eroding position in the world,” said Andy Mok, senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing.
“We only need to look at a map of US military assets to see who’s the aggressor. It’s not that China has numerous military bases surrounding the United States. It’s exactly the opposite. So I think any reasonable observer would question this assertion whether China is really engaging in any sort of military provocations here.”
Mok said China is responding to the US’s efforts by continuing its military modernisation as well as strengthening its own ties.
The military modernisation efforts “include everything from the development of hypersonic missiles to a much stronger navy that is effective not just close to China’s shores, which would include Taiwan, of course, but much broader,” he said. “It includes cyber, includes space from the military perspective. So, becoming a much more comprehensive military force able to respond to threats a number of different ways.”

On the diplomatic front, Mok said China will look to strengthen multilateral initiatives such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world’s largest free trade agreement that brings together 15 countries, the BRICs group that includes Brazil, Russia and India, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a nine-member Eurasian group that counts Pakistan and Iran among its members.
“These are all attempts to create a more humane and just global order, where these types of issues are, again, not decided by one country and not decided through coercion, whether that’s primarily military coercion or other forms of coercion, including economic sanctions,” he added.
Heightened tensions
For countries in the Asia Pacific, especially in Southeast Asia, the increased US-China competition has brought some economic benefits. To compete with China’s BRI, the US has pledged to step up investment in infrastructure, though much of this investment has yet to bear fruit, while the trade war between the superpowers has resulted in some Southeast Asian countries marketing themselves as alternative production destinations.
“In Southeast Asia, I think the emphasis is on autonomy. And to the extent that they can invite more actors in to have a stake – whether this is the United States, whether this is Korea, Japan, the EU or Australia – that is somewhat more preferred because it dilutes the presence of any single actor,” said Ja-Ian Chong, associate professor at the National University of Singapore.
“With the diversification of investment from the United States, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, some Southeast Asian states will be big beneficiaries. So Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and to some degree, the Philippines and Malaysia have seen investment that might otherwise go to China go to them.”
China, Chong said, sees the robustness of US presence in the region as a bit of a challenge.
“The question is, how they will respond? It is possible that they may respond with more caution, which could be stabilising, but there’s also a possibility that they could react even more strongly. But that’s not easy to predict at this point in time.”
So far, it appears that Beijing is seeking to contest the US’s presence.
That is evident not just in the confrontations between US and Chinese vessels and aircraft over the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, but also in Beijing’s standoffs with Philippine military boats in the South China Sea. These include incidents in August and earlier this month when the Chinese Coast Guard used water cannon to prevent the Philippine military from resupplying its troops living on a grounded warship on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal.
On Taiwan, too, China’s navy this year launched its largest-ever exercises in the Pacific Ocean, deploying an aircraft carrier and dozens of naval ships and warplanes, in a move analysts said was probably practice for enforcing a blockade around the island. Beijing said the purpose of the drills was to “resolutely combat the arrogance of Taiwan independence separatist forces and their actions to seek independence”.
Chong said the tensions were likely to pose new challenges to countries in the region.
“I expect the contestation to become more intense. Meaning to say that trying to navigate between the two major powers will become more challenging, not impossible, but certainly more challenging. To expect that you can act in ways that get benefits from both sides may become more difficult. It may be the case that working with one more will invite pressure from the other,” said Chong. “That is likely to be a challenge facing Southeast Asia unless they are more able to set up their own direction.”
(Aljazeera)
Features
Aligning graduate output with labour market needs:Why national policy intervention essential
The lack of a committed and competent workforce is no longer a routine managerial complaint in Sri Lanka; it has become a defining national problem. Recent widely reported malpractices, in leading public institutions, have exposed the depth of this challenge. From a macro-economic perspective, large and persistent gaps exist between the competencies required to perform jobs effectively and the competency profiles of the existing workforce. The consequences are visible across the economy; we witness the key economic drivers, such as agriculture, energy, tourism, finance, and education, continue to underperform. This chronic condition is not a result of insufficient and incapable human capital, but of its persistent misalignment and misutilisation.
Economic development in any country is ultimately driven by the quality and relevance of human capital deployed within its key industries. In Sri Lanka, however, the education sector, particularly higher education, has been repeatedly criticised for its limited role in producing graduates, aligned with economic needs. This misalignment is often justified by higher education institutions on the grounds that their role is not to train graduates for specific jobs, but to produce broadly capable individuals who can perform in any work context. This position appears defensible in principle. Nevertheless, it remains problematic in practice, when economic sectors continue to underperform, and graduates struggle to find productive and relevant employment.
We were surprised to see a large number of university graduates appear at a recruitment interview for post of office labourer. Their intention was to secure a public sector job as a career path, nothing else. Alas, in another job placement interview, to select office clerks, several candidates presented degree qualifications, in statistics, and degree programmes, like archeology and geography, although a degree was not an entry requirement. When questioned, the common response was the difficulty of finding jobs, relevant to their degrees. Does this mean university degrees are worthless? Certainly not, if strategically channelled into relevant economic drivers, they could have contribute meaningfully to national development. For instance, an archeology degrees can be directed to tourism, heritage management, city planning, or spatial development. The tragedy is neither the policymakers, nor the university authorities bother about the time and money spent on graduates, which go in vein in an inappropriate job. No one bothers to assess the value of having such graduates directly channelled to relevant economic sectors. The graduates also may not be bothered to question the value they dilute in generic jobs.
Periodically, state university graduates, particularly those qualified through external degree programmes, flock to the streets, demanding government employment. In response, successive governments absorbed large numbers of graduates as school teachers and development officers. Whether such recruitment exercises were grounded in a systematic analysis of labour market demand, and sector-specific competency requirements, is dubious. The persistent deterioration in productivity and service quality, across key economic sectors, therefore, raises a fundamental question: Does strategic alignment between graduate output and labour market demand exist?
Systemic Weaknesses across Economic Sectors
We see deep structural weaknesses in nearly all segments of the Sri Lankan economy. Persistent deficiencies in public sector management; outdated agriculture management systems, relying on raw exports, weak preservation and production practices; structurally underdeveloped, unattractive tourism sector slow to adopt modern global approaches; an education system, from early childhood to higher education, showing more decline than progress; and digitalisation and e-governance initiatives repeatedly undermined by implementation failures, are some lapses to mention here.
However, during the colonial period, Sri Lanka was a prosperous country in terms of agro-economy and infrastructure development. During this period, conscious alignment between education and economic priorities was clearly visible. Schools taught subjects relevant to employment and livelihood opportunities, within the prevailing economic structure. Universities were primarily producing personnel to meet the clerical needs of the administration. University enrolment remained limited and targeted, ensuring graduate output remained broadly commensurate with labour market demand. The clarity of policies and orderly execution resulted in comparatively high employee–job fit, highly competent workforce, and better service and minimal graduate unemployment. Nevertheless, during the 76 years of post-independence, Sri Lanka has fallen from its economic stability and administrative orderliness, with rising problems in every sphere of economic, cultural, social, political and environmental segments.
Decoupling of Higher Education and Economic Needs
As we see with the expansion of higher education, graduate–job fit has gradually weakened. Both public and private higher education providers continue to offer academic programmes that are decoupled from economic development priorities. If I may bring an example, one of the most critical constraints to development in Sri Lanka is the persistent absence of timely and accurate data. Decisions, policies, and reforms frequently encounter implementation difficulties due to judgments based on outdated or inaccurate data. Organisations continue to operate in the absence of reliable information systems, admitting failures and presenting excuses. Notwithstanding the need, limited attention has been given to producing competent graduates, specialised in statistics, data analytics, and information management. National-level interventions to address this gap remain minimal, despite the urgent need for such expertise, within key government institutions, and the overall industry. A large number of agriculture degree holders pass out every year from state universities, but insufficient progress has been made in modernising agricultural products and value chains, although the agricultural sector is a key economic driver in the country. We often meet agricultural graduates holding general administrative positions, which are supposed to be handled by the management graduates. Agricultural specialised knowledge is underutilised, despite the potential to deploy this expertise in promoting agricultural development. It is noteworthy to consider that when graduates, trained in specific disciplines, enter irrelevant job markets, their competencies gradually erode, organisational performance declines, and additional costs are imposed on both organisations and the wider economy.
Misalignment of human capital constitutes a significant negative externality to national development. The government invests substantial public funds, generated through taxation, to provide free education with the expectation that graduates will contribute meaningfully to economic and social development. When graduates are misaligned in the job market, the resulting costs are borne by the economy and society at large. Consequently, the economy suffers from an absence of appropriate competencies, skills, and work attitudes. Poor judgments arising from capacity deficiencies, performance inefficiencies, and a lack of specialised human capital, generate externalities.
Why Strategic Alignment Matters
A clear and coherent national human capital development policy is required, to ensure strategic alignment with national economic drivers. Such a policy should be formulated by the government, through structured consultation with government institutions, public and private higher education providers, industry representatives across key economic sectors, as well as stakeholders from social groups, and environmental authorities. Universities should ensure that degree programmes are explicitly linked to sector-specific labour market demand, based on objective and systematic analysis rather than ad hoc decision-making. National competency frameworks, for major job categories, should be developed to guide curriculum design and enrolment planning. Of course, there are competency frameworks developed as initiatives of the governments time to time, but the issue is although policies were made, they were displaced, and still to search for.
Countries that have achieved rapid economic development consistently demonstrate strong strategic alignment between human capital development and policy initiatives, underscoring the importance of coordinated planning between education systems and national economic objectives. Singapore, for example, closely aligns higher education planning with labour market demand through initiatives, such as graduate employment surveys and industry-focused programmes. Universities, like the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, play a vital role in such initiatives.
It is important for us to explore the strategies of the other countries and benchmark best practices, adopting to the local context. If we, at least, take this need seriously, and plan, in the long term, strategic alignment between graduate output and labour market demand could fundamentally change Sri Lanka’s development outcomes. Where alignment exists, productivity improves, service delivery strengthens, and institutional accountability becomes unavoidable. Effective utilisation of discipline-specific graduates would curb skill erosion and reduce the recurring fiscal cost of graduate underemployment, misallocation and ad hoc public sector recruitment.
The Role of the Government and Policymakers
Policymakers must treat human capital development as a strategic mechanism, maintaining explicit alignment between higher education planning, economic development priorities, and labour market absorption capacity. Fragmented policy stewardship across ministries and agencies should be reduced through coordinated human capital governance mechanisms. Public administration, including sector-level managers, must actively articulate medium and long-term competency requirements of key economic drivers, and feed these requirements into higher education policy processes. Governments should shift from ad hoc graduate absorption practices towards planned workforce deployment strategies, ensuring that graduate output is absorbed into sectors where national productivity, innovation, and service delivery gains are most needed. In this effort, continuous policy dialogue, between education authorities, economic planners, and industry stakeholders, is essential to prevent symbolic alignment of graduate outputs while functional mismatches persist, if we aim for a prosperous nation.
Dr. Chani Imbulgoda (PhD) is a Senior Education Administrator, author, researcher, and lecturer with extensive experience in higher education governance and quality
assurance. She can be reached at cv5imbulgoda@gmail.com.
By Dr. Chani Imbulgoda
Features
The hidden world of wild elephants
… Young photographer captures rare moments of love, survival and intelligence in Udawalawe National Park’s Wilderness
In the silent heart of the Udawalawe National Park’s wilderness, where dust rises gently beneath giant footsteps, and the afternoon sun burns across dry landscapes, young wildlife photographer Hashan Navodya waits patiently behind his camera lens.
For the 25-year-old final-year undergraduate student at the University of Jaffna, wildlife photography is not merely a hobby. It is a lifelong passion, a spiritual connection with nature, and a journey into the hidden emotional world of wild animals — especially elephants.
Originally from Gampaha District, Hashan’s fascination with wildlife began during childhood. While many children admired animals from afar, he spent countless hours observing them closely, studying their movements, behaviour and relationships.
“From a young age, I loved watching animals and understanding how they behave,” Hashan said. “At first, I visited zoos because that was the only way I could see wildlife. But later I realised that animals are most beautiful when they are free in their natural habitats.”
That realisation transformed his life.
- A joyful young elephant bathing beside its family in the muddy waters of the wild
- A playful young elephant resting in the cool water on a hot afternoon
His photography journey officially began in 2019, while studying at Bandaranayake College Gampaha, where he served as a photographer for the school media unit. Initially, he covered school functions and events before gradually moving into engagement shoots and event photography to improve his technical skills and earn money.
“Wildlife photography equipment is extremely expensive,” he explained. “I worked hard to save money for camera bodies and lenses because I knew this was what I truly wanted to do.”
Armed with determination and patience, Hashan eventually turned fully toward wildlife and nature photography.
His journey has since taken him deep into some of Sri Lanka’s most celebrated natural sanctuaries, including Yala National Park, Wilpattu National Park, Bundala National Park, Udawalawe National Park and Horton Plains National Park.
Among the countless wildlife encounters he has documented, elephants remain closest to his heart.
One of the most remarkable moments he captured unfolded during a harsh dry spell inside the wilderness.
A mother elephant, sensing water hidden beneath the cracked earth, carefully dug into the ground using her powerful trunk. Slowly, fresh underground water, rich in minerals and nutrients, emerged from beneath the dry soil.
Nearby stood her calf, patiently waiting.
“As the water appeared, the baby elephant quietly moved closer and drank beside its mother,” Hashan recalled.
“It was such a powerful moment. It showed survival, intelligence, trust and the deep bond between them.”
The scene revealed more than instinct. It reflected generations of inherited knowledge passed from mother to calf — wisdom essential for survival in difficult conditions.
“These mineral-rich water sources are very important for young elephants, especially during dry periods,” he said. “Watching the mother carefully search and dig for water showed how intelligent elephants truly are.”
Another unforgettable moment, captured through his lens, revealed the softer, deeply emotional side of elephant life.
In a quiet corner of the forest, a baby elephant stood beneath its mother, gently drinking milk, while remaining sheltered under her protective body. The tenderness of the scene reflected unconditional care and the inseparable bond between mother and child.
“You can truly feel the love and protection in moments like that,” Hashan said. “In the wild, survival depends on the herd and, especially, on the mother’s care.”
His photographs also highlight the playful and emotional behaviour of elephants, particularly around water.
Inside the cooling waters of the Udawalawe National Park, Hashan observed a herd gathering together beneath the tropical heat. Young elephants splashed water joyfully over their bodies, using their trunks, while others sprayed water behind their ears to cool themselves.
“One young elephant was playing happily in the water while another carefully sprayed water around its ears as if enjoying a relaxing bath,” he said with a smile. “You can clearly see that elephants experience joy, comfort and emotion.”
The scenes reflected the social nature of elephants and their strong family bonds. Water is not simply essential for survival; it also becomes a place for interaction, play, relaxation and emotional connection within the herd.
- A baby elephant feeds safely beside its mother
- A playful elephant splashing water and enjoying a peaceful bath with its family
For Hashan, wildlife photography offers far more than beautiful images.
“Wildlife gives me peace and happiness,” he said. “It reminds me that humans are also part of nature. Animals deserve freedom, respect and protection.”
His love for animals has even shaped his lifestyle choices.
“Because of my respect for wildlife, I avoid eating meat and fish,” he explained. “I want to live in a way that causes less harm to animals.”
Through every photograph, Hashan hopes to inspire others to appreciate Sri Lanka’s rich biodiversity and understand the importance of conservation.
“Wildlife is one of nature’s greatest treasures,” he said.
“Every animal plays an important role in maintaining the balance of nature. We must protect them and their habitats for future generations.”
His words carry the quiet conviction of someone who has spent long hours observing the rhythms of the wild — moments of struggle, affection, intelligence and harmony often unseen by the outside world.
As the golden light fades across Sri Lanka’s forests and grasslands, Hashan continues his search for nature’s untold stories, waiting patiently for another fleeting moment that reveals the extraordinary lives hidden within the wild.
“Nature still holds many beautiful stories waiting to be discovered,” he reflected. “Stories of survival, love, strength and harmony. Through my photographs, I hope people will understand why wildlife conservation matters so much.”
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Citizenship, Devolution, Land and Language: The Vicarious Legacies of SJV Chelvanayakam
SJV Chelvanayakam, the founder leader of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, aka Ceylon Tamil Federal Party, passed away 49 years ago on 26 April 1977. There were events in Sri Lanka and other parts of the world where Tamils live, to commemorate his memory and his contributions to Tamil society and politics. His legacy is most remembered for his espousal of the cause of federalism and his commitment to pursuing it solely through non-violent politics. Chelvanayakam’s political life spanned a full 30 years from his first election as MP for Kankesanthurai in 1947 until his death in 1977.
Under the rubric of federalism, Chelvanayakam formulated what he called the four basic demands of the Tamil speaking people, a political appellation he coined to encompass – the Sri Lankan Tamils, Sri Lankan Muslims and the hill country Tamils (Malaiyaka Tamils). The four demands included the restoration of the citizenship rights of the hill country Tamils; cessation of state sponsored land colonisation in the North and East; parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil languages; and a system of regional autonomy to devolve power to the northern and eastern provinces.
High-minded Politics
Although the four basic demands that Chelvanayakam articulated were not directly delivered upon during his lifetime, they became part of the country’s political discourse and dynamic to such an extent that they had to be dealt with, one way or another, even after his death. So, we can call these posthumous developments as Chelvanayakam’s vicarious legacies. There is more to his legacy. He belonged to a category of Sri Lankans, Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, who took to politics, public life, public service, and even private business with a measure of high-mindedness that was almost temperamental and not at all contrived. Chelvanayakam personified high-minded politics. But he was not the only one. There were quite a few others in the 20th century. There have not been many since.
Born on 31 March 1898, Chelvanayakam was 49 years old when he entered parliament. He was not an upstart school dropout dashing into politics or coming straight out of the university, or even a hereditary claimant, but a self-made man, an accomplished lawyer, a King’s Counsel, later Queen’s Counsel, and was widely regarded as one of the finest civil lawyers of his generation. He was a serious man who took to politics seriously. Howard Wriggins, in his classic 1960 book, “Ceylon: Dilemmas of a New Nation”, called Chelvanayakam “the earnest Christian lawyer.”
Chelvanayakam’s professional standing, calm demeanour, his personal qualities of sincerity and honesty, and his friendships with men of the calibre of Sir Edward Jayatilleke KC (Chief Justice, 1950-52), H.V. Perera QC, P. Navaratnarajah, QC, and K.C. Thangarajah, were integral to his politics. The four of them were also mutual friends of Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike and they played a part in the celebrated consociational achievement in 1957, called the B-C Pact.
Chelvanayakam effortlessly combined elite consociationalism with grass roots politics and mass movements. He led the Federal Party both as a democratic organization and an open movement. Chelvanayakam and the Federal Party used parliament as their forum to present their case, the courts to fight for their rights, and took to organizing non-violent protests, political pilgrimages and satyagraha campaigns. He was imprisoned in Batticaloa, detained in Panagoda, and was placed under house arrest several times. His Alfred House Gardens neighbours in Colombo used to wonder why the government and the police were after him, of all people, and why wouldn’t they do something about his four boisterous, but studious, sons!
He was a rare politician who filed his own election petition when he was defeated in the 1952 election, his first as the leader of the Federal Party, and was rewarded with punitive damages by an exacting judge. He had to borrow money from Sir Edward Jayatilleke to pay damages. The common practice for losing candidates was to file vexatious petitions in the name of one of their supporters with no asset to pay legal costs. Chelvanayakam was too much of a principled man for that. As a matter of a different principle, the two old Left parties never challenged election losses in court, but Dr. Colvin R de Silva singled out Chelvanayakam’s uniqueness for praise in parliament, in the course of a debate on amendments to the country’s election laws in 1968.
Disenfranchisement & Disintegration
Although he became an MP in 1947, Chelvanayakam had been associated with GG Ponnambalam and the Tamil Congress Party for a number of years. GG was the flamboyant frontliner, SJV the quiet mainstay behind. Tamil politics at that time was all about representation. In fact, all politics in Sri Lanka has been all about representation all the time. It started when British colonial rulers began nominating local (Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim) representatives to quasi legislative bodies, and it became a contentious political matter after the introduction of universal franchise in 1931.
Communal representation was conveniently made to look ugly by those who themselves were politically communal. Indeed, under colonial rule, if not later too, Sri Lankans were a schizophrenic society where most Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims were socially friendly, but politically communal. The underlying premise to the fight over representation was that British colonialists were not leaving in a hurry and they were there to stay and rule for a long time. Hence the jostling for positions under a foreign master. It was in this context that Ponnambalam made his celebrated 50-50 pitch for balanced representation between the Sinhalese, on the one hand, and all the others – Tamils, Muslims, Indian Tamils – combined on the other. It was a perfectly rational proposition, but it was also perfectly poor politics.
But independence came far sooner than expected. The Soulbury Constitution was set up not for a continuing colonial state, but as the constitution for an independent new Ceylon. So, the argument for balanced representation became irrelevant in the new circumstances. The new Soulbury Constitution was enacted in 1945, general elections were held in 1947, a new parliament was elected, and Ceylon became independent in 1948. SJV Chelvanayakam was among the seven Tamil Congress MPs elected to the first parliament led by GG Ponnambalam.
The Tamil Congress campaigned in the 1947 election against accepting the Soulbury Constitution and for a vaguely formulated mandate “to cooperate with any progressive Sinhalese party which would grant the Tamil their due rights.” But what these rights are was not specified. In a Feb. 5, 1946 speech in Jaffna, Ponnambalam specifically proposed “responsive cooperation between the communities” – not parties – and advocated “a social welfare policy” to benefit not only the poor masses of Tamils but also the large masses of the Sinhalese.
So, when Ponnambalam and four of the seven Tamil Congress MPs decided to join the government of DS Senanayake with Ponnambalam accepting the portfolio of the Minister of Industries, Industrial Research and Fisheries, they were opposed by Chelvanayakam and two other Tamil Congress MPs. The immediate context for this split was the Citizenship question that arose soon after independence when DS Senanayake’s UNP government introduced the Ceylon Citizenship Bill in parliament. The purpose and effect of the bill was to deprive the estate Tamils of Indian origin (then numbering about 780,000) of their citizenship. Previously the government had got parliament to enact the Elections Act to stipulate that only citizens can vote in national elections. In one stroke, the whole working population of the plantations was disenfranchised.
GG Ponnambalam and all seven Tamil Congress MPs voted against the two bills. Joining them in opposition were the six MPs from the Ceylon Indian Congress representing the Malaiyaka Tamils and 18 Sinhalese MPs from the Left Parties. The Citizenship Bill was passed in Parliament on 20 August 1948. Ponnambalam called it a dark day for Ceylon and accused Senanayake of racism. But less than a month later, on September 3, 1948, he joined the Senanayake cabinet as a prominent minister and the government’s principal defender in parliamentary debates. Dr. NM Perera once called Ponnambalam “the devil’s advocate from Jaffna.”
Chelvanayakam remained in the opposition with two of his Congress colleagues. A little over an year later, on December 18, 1949, Chelvanayakam founded the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, Federal Party in English. Not long after, joining Chelvanayakam in the opposition was SWRD Bandaranaike, who broke away from the UNP government over succession differences and went on to form another new political party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. As was his wont as a Marxist to see trends and patterns in politics, Hector Abhayavardhana saw the breakaways of Chelvanayakam and Bandaranaike, as well as the emergence of Thondaman as the leader of the disenfranchised hill country Tamils, as symptoms of a disintegrating society as it was transitioning from colonial rule to independence.
Abhayavardhana saw the Citizenship Act as the political trigger of this disintegration in the course of which “what was set up for the purpose of a future nation ended in caricature as a Sinhalese state.” Chelvanayakam may have agreed with this assessment even though he was located at the right end of the ideological continuum. “Ideologically, SJV is to the right of JR,” was part of political gossip in the old days. He saw “seeds of communism” in Philip Gunawardena’s Paddy Lands Act. For all their differences, Chelvanayakam and Ponnambalam were united in one respect – as unrepentant opponents of Marxism.
The Four Demands
Chelvanayakam had his work cut out as the leader of a new political party and pitting himself against a formidable political foe like Ponnambalam with all the ministerial resources at his disposal. Chelvanayakam may not have quite seen it that way. Rather, he saw his role as a matter of moral duty to fill the vacuum created by what he believed to be Ponnambalam’s betrayal, and to provide new leadership to a people who were at the crossroads of uncertainty after the unexpectedly early arrival of independence.
He set about his work by expanding his political constituency to include not only the island’s indigenous Tamils, but also the Muslims and the Tamil plantation workers from South India – as the island’s Tamil speaking people. It was he who vigorously introduced the disenfranchised Indian Tamils as hill country Tamils. In the aftermath of the Citizenship Act and disenfranchisement, restoring their citizenship rights became an obvious first demand for the new Party.
Having learnt the lesson from Ponnambalam’s failed 50-50 demand, Chelvanayakam territorialized the representation question by identifying the northern and eastern provinces as “traditional Tamil homelands,” and adding a measure regional autonomy to make up for the shortfall in representation at the national level in Colombo. To territorialization and autonomy, he added the cessation of state sponsored land colonization especially in the eastern province. Chelvanayakam and the Federal Party painstakingly explained that they were by no means opposed to Sinhalese voluntarily living in Tamil areas, either as a matter of choice, pursuing business or as government and private sector employees, but the nuancing was quite easily lost in the political shouting match.
The fourth demand, after citizenship, regional autonomy, and land, was about language. Language was not an issue when Chelvanayakam started the Federal Party. But he pessimistically predicted that sooner or later the then prevailing consensus, based on a State Council resolution, over equality between the two languages would be broken. He was proved right, sooner than later, and language became the explosive question in the 1956 election. As it turned out, the UNP government was thrown out, SWRD Bandaranaike led a coalition of parties to victory and government in the south, while SJV Chelvanayakam won a majority of the seats in the North and East, including two Muslims from Kalmunai and Pottuvil.
After the passage of the Sinhala Only Act on June 5, 1956, the Federal Party launched a political pilgrimage and mobilized a convention that was held in Trincomalee in the month of August. The four basic demands were concretized at the convention, viz., citizenship restoration for the hill country Tamils, parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil languages, the cessation of state sponsored land colonization, and a system of regional autonomy in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
The four demands became the basis for the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam agreement – the B-C Pact of 1957, and again the agreement between SJV Chelvanayakam and Dudley Senanayake in 1965. The former was abrogated by Prime Minister Bandaranaike under political duress but was not abandoned by him. The latter has been implemented in fits and starts.
The two agreements which should have been constitutionally enshrined, were severely ignored in the making of the 1972 Constitution and the 1978 Constitution – with the latter learning nothing and forgetting everything that its predecessor had inadvertently precipitated. The political precipitation was the rise of Tamil separatism and its companion, Tamil political violence. Ironically, Tamil separatism and violence created the incentive to resolve what Chelvanayakam had formulated and non-violently pursued as the four basic demands of the Tamils.
After his death in 1977, the citizenship question has finally been resolved. The 13th Amendment to the 1978 Constitution that was enacted in 1987 resolved the language question both in law and to an appreciable measure in practice. The same amendment also brought about the system of provincial councils, substantially fulfilling the regional autonomy demand of SJV Chelvanayakam. The land question, however, has taken a different turn with state sponsored land colonisation in the east giving way to government security forces sequestering private residential properties of Tamil families in the north, especially in the Jaffna Peninsula.
Further, the future of the Provincial Council system has become uncertain with the extended postponement of provincial elections by four Presidents and their governments, including the current incumbents. The provinces are now being administered by the President through handpicked governors without the elected provincial councils as mandated by the constitution. Imagine a Sri Lanka where there is only an Executive President and no parliament – not even a nameboard one. “What horror!”, you would say. But that is the microcosmic reality today in the country’s nine provinces.
by Rajan Philips
-
News5 days agoMIT expert warns of catastrophic consequences of USD 2.5 mn Treasury heist
-
News7 days agoCJ urged to inquire into AKD’s remarks on May 25 court verdict
-
News2 days agoLanka Port City officials to meet investors in Dubai
-
Editorial5 days agoClean Sri Lanka and dirty politics
-
Opinion7 days agoSecurity, perception, and trust: Sri Lanka’s delicate balancing act
-
Editorial4 days agoThe Vijay factor
-
News3 days agoSLPP expresses concern over death of former SriLankan CEO
-
News6 days agoDevelopment Officer bids Rs. 48 mn for CPC’s V8 at auction





