Opinion

Need for an epistemological break

Published

2 years ago

2024/08/1

Sahan Weerasooriya

A file photo of a People’s Struggle Alliance press conference

A critical note on People’s Struggle Alliance press briefing in Jaffna

By Ragavan

The People’s Struggle Alliance, a coalition including the Front-Line Socialist Party, the New Democratic Marxist-Leninist Party, various student activists, and individuals, held a press conference in Jaffna on July 23, 2024. This date holds symbolic significance due to the state-sponsored violence against Tamils in July 1983.

I watched the conference online and wish to critically engage with the issues addressed by the speakers. I concur with their views on the economic challenges faced by Sri Lankans and their opposition to the IMF deal for managing the debt crisis. The argument that an unmandated government entered into an agreement with the IMF, thereby burdening ordinary citizens with debt repayment while those responsible for accruing the debt face no consequences, is accurate. The Alliance strongly opposed the IMF agreement and the involvement of multinational corporations and foreign governments.

The Alliance’s stance on the majoritarian Sinhala-Buddhist state structure, violence against Tamils and other minorities, the brutal conflict waged against Tamils by the armed forces, military occupation in the north and east, land grabbing under the guise of archaeological excavations using distorted history, and the lack of justice for the disappeared are all positive indicators.

Contradictory statements

However, I am deeply concerned about the contradictory statements from three Tamil speakers from the Alliance regarding the ‘national question.’ There appears to be no consistent approach to this issue. The speakers asserted that, unlike other parties, the Alliance’s political programme is genuine and people-centered, and they called on Tamils to join their struggle. However, they did not clearly define the solution to the ‘national question.’ The speakers introduced themselves as members of the Alliance and stated that the press conference aimed to briefly outline the party’s position on socio-economic issues and the ‘national question.’

One speaker, Swasthika Arulingam, mentioned that the 13th Amendment is part of the constitution and that political parties are claiming they will fully implement it. She stated that such declarations would not solve the ‘national question,’ and instead, the Alliance proposed suyadchi units (self-rule units). However, she did not explain why the 13th amendment has not been fully implemented. The Alliance also failed to clarify what these self-rule units entail. Will they retain the province as the self-rule unit as outlined in the 13th Amendment, or are they proposing a different model? Any move to relegate the unit of devolution without substantial power-sharing will likely be viewed with suspicion by Tamils in the North and East, and Muslims in these provinces may also be wary. Therefore, it is crucial for the Alliance to clarify its position on the unit of devolution, the powers to be devolved, and mechanisms to prevent the central government or the Executive President from unilaterally retracting devolved powers without the province’s consent.

My understanding is that the lack of political will in the south, coupled with the immense power vested in the executive presidential system, is a major impediment to the full implementation of the 13th amendment. Provincial Governors, appointed by the President, have the authority to dissolve Provincial Governments. The unitary government has been reluctant to grant police and land powers to Provincial Governments due to its majoritarian nature and fear of backlash from Sinhala Buddhist elements. Furthermore, if the southern polity is unwilling to fully implement the 13th Amendment, which is already part of the constitution, how does the Alliance plan to convince them that self-rule is the solution to the national question? The key political task is to campaign for the abolition of the executive presidency, advocate for devolution of powers, and disseminate a counter-hegemonic discourse to challenge the majoritarian mindset. Without creating such a discourse, these proposals have no meaning.

Meaning of Suyadchi

Let me elaborate on the meaning of Suyadchi in the Sri Lankan Tamil political parlance. The Federal Party in Sri Lanka campaigned for a federal state structure where Tamils in the north and east could form a federal government within a united Sri Lanka. However, in 1968, V. Navaratnam, a Federal Party parliamentarian, left the party and founded Tamil Suyadchi Kazhagam (Tamil Self Rule Party), advocating for an independent Tamil homeland. The LTTE leader Prabakaran was inspired by the Suyadchi Kazhagam’s campaign and formed the LTTE in the 1970s. Thus, Suyadchi implies the right to secession and the formation of an independent, sovereign state. Therefore, when a political party invokes Suyadchi, it suggests the right to self-determination and secession. A more appropriate political term might be regional autonomy (Manila Suyadchi), meaning granting more political powers to regions within a united state. However, regional autonomy should not be defined along ethnic lines, as this could create divisions among Tamils, Muslims, and Sinhalese within those territories.

Swasthika Arulingam did not say that suyadchi (self-rule) was based on the right of self -determination concept. She said that it was only a proposal.

In contrast, another speaker, Senthivel, stated that the ‘national question’ has long remained unresolved by the state or political parties in Sri Lanka, and the Alliance’s solution is to acknowledge the right to self-determination for Tamils and establish ‘suyadchi’ (self-rule). He also mentioned that there are four nationalities and several ethnic groups in Sri Lanka.

Unitary state structure

Another speaker, Rajeevkanth, expressed the Alliance’s position as fully opposing the unitary state structure and advocating for Suyadchi (self-rule) for Tamils. He said that Tamils have waited for a long time for Suyadchi and that the Alliance has proposed a solution for Tamils to govern themselves under Suyadchi. He emphasised that while the Alliance does not oppose the 13th Amendment, it acknowledges that the amendment does not resolve the ‘national question.’ He further stated that, unlike other southern parties, which often say one thing in Tamil regions to gain favour and propagate racism in the south, the Alliance has a written policy statement clearly defining Suyadchi as the solution for the Tamil people.

This position seems similar to Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam’s party’s ‘one country, two nations’ policy.

Furthermore, Rajeevkanth mentioned that in 1983, thousands of Tamils were killed and there has been no accountability until now. This statement is factually incorrect. When the People’s Alliance government came to power in 1994, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga made a public apology. In 2001, she appointed a truth commission, and 1, 278 people submitted claims for compensation. The commission submitted a report on the violence, accepted 949 cases, and a total of 72 million rupees was paid to the victims. In 2004, at a meeting to mark the 21st anniversary of the pogrom, she made a second public apology, declaring that every citizen in the country should collectively accept the blame and apologise to the tens of thousands who suffered. While these measures may not be sufficient and exception, at least the head of state made a public apology and accepted accountability. Tamil nationalists, however, seem to have a selective memory on this issue.

‘National question’

I do not understand Sinhala and am not fully aware of what the Sinhala speakers said about the solution to the ‘national question.’ Unfortunately, their speeches were not translated into Tamil or English (except Pathirana, who spoke in English, and Uduwaragedara, who briefly spoke in Tamil). Uduwaragedara also mentioned that the Alliance’s proposal is Suyadchi. My understanding is that the Alliance’s official position is to devolve power to regions, not based on ethnicity or identity, with regional governments established as self-governing bodies without central government interference, operating under a bicameral legislative system.

Instead of clearly presenting the Alliance’s proposals, Rajeevkanth invoked Tamil nationalist sentiments in a populist manner. Senthivel also stated that the solution was based on the right to self-determination and ‘suyadchi.’

In the Sri Lankan context, especially in the north, not only social class but also caste plays a crucial role in social stratification. The conspicuous absence of addressing caste discrimination at the press conference is notable. If the Alliance has a social justice agenda, it is questionable why caste and gender issues were not highlighted. While it is true that Tamils, Muslims, hill country Tamils, and other minorities lack political power, full democratic rights, and social justice in Sri Lanka, experience has shown that competing nationalist ideologies are often exclusive, intolerant, and undemocratic, as ethnic identities are constructed in terms of superiority and cultural uniqueness rather than equality, fraternity, and liberty. Historically, divisions between ethnic groups have deepened due to competing Sinhala and Tamil nationalisms and the war.

Lessons from the past

Lessons from the past suggest that territorialising ethnic identities has an exclusivist agenda, as evidenced by the eviction of the Muslims from the north during the LTTE rule. Therefore, while combating Sinhalisation and Buddhisisation is crucial, and any move re-draw the provincial boundaries of the Northern and Eastern provinces in a manner favouring Sinhala majoritarianism should be resisted, the demand for autonomy from the North and East should be rearticulated in regional terms as opposed to ethnic terms in order to ensure power-sharing is not exclusive to one ethnic group. There is a need to shift the discourse of resistance in the North-East of the country from one predicated on exclusivist narratives like Tamil homelands to inclusive ones that embrace all the people who currently inhabit these two provinces regardless of their ethnicity, religion, culture and language. It is through such an epistemological shift accompanied by inclusive policies and programmes that a new, robust idea of regional autonomy that can challenge the ongoing Sinhalisation and Buddhisisation of the region can be created.

Devolution of power to regions is essential for a democratic society. However, as Rosa Luxemburg warned, national self-determination can be a dangerous distraction from the imperative to collaborate with labour movements. Sri Lanka faces a severe economic crisis, debt burden, and exploitation of labour and natural resources by multinational corporations and governments. The marginalised, such as workers, peasants, plantation workers, women, LGBT+ individuals, and oppressed castes, are the most affected. The Alliance, as a progressive movement, ought to address fundamental issues such as devolution of powers and class, caste, and gender divisions, as well as exploitation and dispossession, to unite the people.

Furthermore, the most affected community in Sri Lanka is the Malayaga Tamils, especially plantation workers, who have been disenfranchised, ostracized, exploited, and marginalised. Malayaga Tamils are often overlooked in the national consciousness and treated as outsiders. The speakers were silent on Malayaga Tamils when discussing suyadchi, as if it applies only to Tamils in the north.

Therefore, the Alliance should clarify what they mean by self-governing units and their solution to the ‘national question’ (I prefer the term “question of minorities”). I also want to point out that the interpretations by Senthivel and Rajeevkanth are misleading and may reinforce the conventional belief among Tamils that the Alliance proposes self-rule for Tamils in the north and east or regional autonomy based on ethnic/linguistic lines. Additionally, any mechanism created for the implementation of regional autonomy should address caste, gender, and class-based discrimination in the north, east, and other provinces.

Marx once said, “The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a mountain on the brains of the living’. He said that it is like a beginner learning a new language tends to translate back into their mother tongue. They only truly assimilate the new language and express themselves freely when they stop recalling their native language and fully immerse themselves in the new one.

In a country like Sri Lanka, where ethno-nationalist politics has polarized the communities and made them see each other as enemies, we need a new language to talk about our political future under a framework of devolution which emphasizes inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness.

During the Aragalaya protests, a democratic atmosphere emerged organically, leading to critical reflections and engagement within Left and progressive groups regarding past injustices committed in the name of nationhood, the failures of nation-state building in the post-colonial context, and the exclusion of ethnic minorities. These issues have been extensively discussed and debated. Within the communities, there is a growing consensus that political leaders have distorted the facts to wield power, using divisive politics as their tool to deceive the people.

Although there was a crack in the Sinhala Buddhist majoritarian ideology during Aragalaya, a century old political and social discourse cannot be expected to be transformed within a short period of time.

In those protests, a fresh outlook and new modes of thought emerged, highlighting the need for progressive forces to advance the incipient ideas introduced by the youth. However, reactionary and divisive political forces are still present and may attempt to regain their influence. This is only the beginning, and building an inclusive democratic society is challenging but essential. The progressive forces within the Sinhala community have a duty to address state injustices and violence against ethnic minorities, often justified in the name of nation, patriotism, and sovereignty.

Historically, to oppose the majoritarian nationalist ideology, the Tamil political leadership in the north and east constructed a defensive Tamil nationalist ideology, which mirrors Sinhala nationalism in its discursive relationship to the minorities within the region. Tamils from these regions are depicted as a unique people with an inalienable right to a separate state. These ideologies operate within the socio-political landscape and continue to play a divisive role, framing political, social, and economic crises in reductive ways solely in ethnic terms.

It seems that the Alliance has not properly engaged with these burning issues. Instead, it is attempting to appease Tamil nationalist elements, which is counterproductive. The paramount task is to ideologically challenge the undemocratic, ethnocratic, neoliberal state structure, which is the root cause of the political and economic crisis that Sri Lanka is faced with today. Changing/ challenging the character of the state in the ideological terrain and disseminating a counter-hegemonic ideology—a new language that partially emerged during the Aragalaya — is the foremost task. Without such an epistemological shift, proposals and statements are meaningless.

Ragavan is a Tamil activist based in London who participated in Aragalaya protests in London. He is also a member of the Movement for People’s Struggle – UK, a solidary group supporting Aragalaya.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

U.S. foreign policy double standards and Iran’s Iron theocracy

Published

20 hours ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

The world’s most theatrical stage

Welcome to the Grand Circus

If global geopolitics were a TV show, it would be cancelled after the first season for being too unbelievable. Consider the plot: the world’s largest arms exporter lectures others about peace; a government that executed over 500 people in a single year tells its citizens it governs by divine law; and international bodies created to enforce rules seem to apply those rules with remarkable … flexibility. Welcome to the real world of international relations, where the rules are made up and the principles don’t matter.

This analysis examines two of the most consequential actors shaping global instability today: the United States of America, a democracy that can’t quite decide whether it believes in democracy, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocracy that has perfected the art of punishing its own people for simply existing.

Episode I: The United States, ‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’

The Democracy Export Business

The United States has, for decades, positioned itself as the global guardian of democracy, freedom, and human rights. It is a noble brand. The marketing budget alone, in the form of military expenditure at $886 billion in 2023, is staggering. And yet, the product being sold and the product being delivered have often been … different things.

The CIA-backed coup of 1953, codenamed Operation Ajax, removed Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and reinstated the autocratic Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, primarily to protect Anglo-American oil interests.

Nuclear Exceptionalism: The World’s Worst-Kept Secret

The United States currently holds approximately 5,044–5,177 nuclear warheads (depending on the source and year), while Russia being the largest with a stockpile estimated at approximately 5,580 warheads. yet it leads international campaigns demanding that other nations not develop nuclear weapons. This is a bit like the world’s most heavily armed person standing at the door of a gun shop, telling customers they cannot purchase firearms.

Furthermore, Israel is widely believed to possess 80–90 nuclear warheads. The United States has never imposed sanctions on Israel for this. India and Pakistan, both outside the NPT, were rewarded with nuclear cooperation deals after the tested nuclear weapons.

The Saudi Arabia Paradox

Perhaps, no relationship illustrates U.S. foreign policy hypocrisy more vividly than Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is an absolute monarchy with no elections, no free press, where women were legally barred from driving until 2018, and where the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, carried out, according to U.S. intelligence, on orders from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, resulted in … arms sales continuing and diplomatic ties intact.

The United States sold Saudi Arabia over $37 billion in arms between 2015 and 2020, weapons used in a Yemen war that the United Nations described as one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes. Yet the U.S. simultaneously held press conferences about human rights. The cognitive dissonance is not a bug. It is the feature.

Iraq: The Weapons of Mass Distraction

In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on the basis of alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that did not exist. The invasion resulted in an estimated 150,000–1,000,000 Iraqi civilian deaths depending on methodology, the displacement of millions, the destabilization of an entire region, and the rise of the Islamic State, none of which appeared in the original brochure. The officials responsible for this foreign policy catastrophe faced no international tribunal. No sanctions were imposed on the United States. Several architects of the war are today respected media commentators.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC), an institution the United States has never ratified, is expected to hold others to account for far lesser offenses. As of 2024, the U.S. has actively sanctioned ICC officials who attempted to investigate American personnel for potential war crimes in Afghanistan.

Episode II: Iran, The People’s Nightmare

Iran’s political system is built on the concept of Velayat-e Faqih, the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, a political-theological doctrine holding that a senior Islamic cleric should govern society. In practice, this means that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, unelected by the general public, holds veto power over all branches of government, controls the military, the judiciary, state media, and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The elected president, whether ‘moderate’ or ‘hardliner’, operates within a system where real power resides with the Supreme Leader and an unelected Guardian Council that vets all candidates and can disqualify anyone it deems insufficiently Islamic. In the 2021 presidential election, the Guardian Council disqualified over 590 candidates out of 592 who applied. The word ‘election’ is being used loosely here.

Women’s Rights: A Systematic Dismantling

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iranian women have endured one of the most comprehensive rollbacks of rights in modern history. Within weeks of the revolution, mandatory hijab laws were imposed, women were barred from serving as judges, and the minimum marriage age for girls was reduced to 9 years (later revised to 13 in 1982). This was not incidental policy; it was ideological architecture.

Today, Iranian women face legal discrimination across virtually every domain. Under the Iranian Civil Code, a woman’s testimony in court counts as half that of a man’s. Women cannot travel abroad without the written permission of their husband or male guardian. Married women cannot work without spousal consent in many circumstances. The diyeh (blood money) for a woman’s life is legally valued at half that of a man.

In September 2022, 22-year-old Mahsa (Zhina) Amini died in the custody of Iran’s Morality Police, after being arrested for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly. Her death triggered the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, one of the largest protest movements in Iranian history. The government’s response was to kill over 500 protesters, arrest more than 19,000, and execute at least four people in connection with the protests by early 2023.

The IRGC and State-Sponsored Repression

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a military-economic-political entity unlike any other in the region. It controls an estimated 20–40% of Iran’s economy through businesses, construction contracts, and import monopolies. It commands proxy militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. And it suppresses domestic dissent with a ruthlessness that has drawn consistent condemnation from United Nations human rights bodies.

Amnesty International’s 2022-2023 annual report documented the IRGC and security forces using live ammunition, birdshot, and metal pellets against protesters, deliberately targeting eyes, resulting in hundreds being blinded. The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran documented ‘serious, widespread and systematic human rights violations’ constituting potential crimes against humanity.

Episode III: Where the Two Hypocrisies Meet

The relationship between the United States and Iran is, in many ways, a story of two entities who deserve each other in the sense that the behavUior of each government has fed the domestic narrative of the other for decades.

Washington uses Iran as justification for its military presence in the Gulf, its arms sales to autocratic Gulf states, and its general posture as indispensable regional hegemon. Tehran uses American hostility and sanctions as justification for economic failure, political repression, and nuclear advancement. Both governments’ hard-liners need each other to remain in power.

The Iranian people, 85 million of them, majority under 35, highly educated, and overwhelmingly wanting engagement with the world, are trapped between a government that treats them as subjects and an international sanctions regime that punishes them for their government’s choices. The American people, meanwhile, continue paying for a foreign policy architecture that serves arms manufacturers, defense contractors, and geopolitical abstractions more than it serves democratic values or human security.

Some Uncomfortable Truths

The United States is not the villain of every story, nor is Iran irredeemably authoritarian in the hearts of its people. What is consistent, and what this analysis has documented, is that both governments operate by standards they refuse to apply to themselves.

Tehran’s theocratic governance has failed its population economically, politically, and most visibly in its treatment of women and dissidents. The Woman, Life, Freedom movement showed the world what Iranian society wants. The government’s violent response showed the world what the Islamic Republic fears.

The lesson, uncomfortable as it is, is that powerful states, whether wielding aircraft carriers or theology, tend to exempt themselves from the rules they want others to follow. The only antidote is an informed public that refuses to accept these double standards as the natural order of things. Read critically. Follow the money. And remember: when a government tells you it acts in the name of God or democracy.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

Opinion

SLC Grants to clubs and associations under scrutiny

Published

20 hours ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

The scale and manner of grant distributions underscore the urgent need to rectify the weaknesses identified by the Auditor General. Remarkably, the accounts for the years 2024 and 2025 are still not published and only the 2023 accounts are available for public scrutiny.

Grants to clubs and associations increased from LKR 1.30 billion in the prior year to LKR 2.46 billion in 2023, representing an escalation of over LKR 1.15 billion year-on-year. These grants were distributed among 36 recipient clubs and associations, with individual allocations ranging from approximately LKR 1.5 million to almost LKR 300 million. Such wide variation and substantial growth warrant clear public disclosure of the allocation framework, the approval processes, and the beneficiary criteria.

While it is understandable that higher profitability enables greater financial support to clubs, the absence of a transparent, rule-based grant policy gives rise to governance concerns, and unless properly explained, leaves room for malicious or unfounded allegations that grant allocations may be used to influence voting behaviour or entrench existing officials. Robust disclosure and effective oversight are therefore essential to safeguard institutional credibility. The precise immediate need for high funding and their monitoring processes need to be divulged.

A case in point is Colombo Cricket Club (CCC), which received LKR 279,531,827 in 2023, making it the highest individual club recipient. As disclosed under the related-party notes to the financial statements, the President of Sri Lanka Cricket is also the President of Colombo Cricket Club, resulting in this transaction being classified as a related-party transaction.

In contrast to several grant recipient entities reporting profits, Sri Lanka Cricket recorded a deficit of approximately Rs. 2 billion in its Statement of Financial Performance for 2023.

It is also noteworthy from the cash flow statement that cash and fund balances declined sharply, from approximately LKR 10.8 billion in the previous year to around LKR 5.6 billion in 2023, representing a significant depletion of liquid resources within a single financial year.

A more meaningful and complete evaluation of these developments—particularly the position of funds available as at 31 December 2024 and 31 December 2025—will only be possible once the financial statements for 2024 and 2025 are released and subjected to public scrutiny.

A cricket enthusiast – Moratuwa

Opinion

Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Act 2026 fails all affacted communities

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

A protest against exploitation by microfinance companies

The Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Bill was passed into law by the Parliament of Sri Lanka on 4 March. According to Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning Dr. Anil Jayantha, the main object of the Act is to establish an Authority to “license and supervise the under-regulated microfinance and moneylending sector, aiming to protect borrowers from exploitation and ensure financial stability”.

However, the Yukthi Collective is saddened and disappointed that a government which pledged to take “measures to alleviate the burden of predatory microfinance loans with high interest rates on women” (NPP Manifesto, 2024: Page no. 44), will now add to their unbearable weight.

The new Act, as virtually all legislation enacted by Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government, is a legacy of the anti-working class Ranil Wickremesinghe regime. It evades the root causes of the microfinance trap, and ignores debt justice for women borrowers.

It fails in understanding the connections between household debt and public debt. The vicious cycle of national debt is sustained by lack of growth in economic activity because of poor access to affordable credit.

It fails to make equal representation of women mandatory in the new Authority. If representatives of women borrowers and their self-run organisations are not present in the regulatory body, how will its members know of their lived experiences and make decisions that value women’s unpaid and paid contributions to sustaining life?

System Change

Millions of indebted households voted for the NPP with hope and expectation of ‘system change’. But instead of honouring its manifesto promise to them, the government has let them down in the law-making process; as well as the focus and substance of the new Act.

It is appalling that NPP parliamentarians, including some of its women members, appear not to have read and understood the bill they enacted into law, nor spoke to the rural credit community providers in their electorates for their views.

Predatory lending exists in the formal and informal sectors. Within this ecosystem, the Act fails to understand, identify, and prohibit predatory lending and recovery practices. It is a cover for the Central Bank’s failure to properly regulate ‘Licensed Finance Companies’ in the interests of citizens.

The biggest offenders are the big finance companies, in which some parliamentarians are deposit-holders. Therefore, some lawmakers benefit from excess profitmaking through exploitative practices, at the expense of poor mostly rural women.

Where law reform should discipline the bullies and thugs in credit delivery, it will instead wipe out, through over-regulation, community-based and managed lenders such as death donation societies, farmer associations, and urban and rural women’s collectives, which have been a lifeline for vulnerable working-class women and a defence from harmful recovery practices.

Structural Adjustment Programmes

The motivation for this new law are the market- and capital- friendly structural reforms insisted by International Financial Institutions; not the concerns and needs of those at the mercy of predatory lenders.

From the Microfinance Act 2016, to the 2023 version of the Ranil Wickremesinghe regime, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) through its loans has been a promoter of these regressive reforms.

The 2026 Act, with some changes suggested by the Supreme Court in 2024 and hardly any of the changes demanded by affected communities, has been moved forward by the NPP government in line with ADB loan conditionalities.

The path of de-regulation for banking, finance, trade, and investment; and over-regulation of poor people’s savings and credit institutions, smacks of the bias to big capital, which the NPP in opposition once criticised.

Reforms needed

The financial and banking reforms we want to see are to make credit from state banks and public funds accessible and affordable to women producers in agriculture and micro and small business operators; with decent wages and social protection for workers; that improve household opportunity for a dignified livelihood and decent lives.

Yukthi is a forum supporting working people’s movements and people’s struggles for democracy and justice in Sri Lanka.

by Yukthi Collective