Features

A Humane Scholar at Oxford

Published

1 year ago

2024/10/27

Thilina Walpola

Oxford University

by Jayantha Perera

I met Barbara Harrel-Bond, an anthropologist, by accident in April 1989. At that time, I was with the USAID-funded Mahaweli Agriculture and Rural Development Project (MARD). One day at lunchtime, an old jeep arrived at the project office. A white woman in her sixties emerged from the jeep. She was in a kurta and was carrying several notebooks in her hands. She smiled and asked me whether I could find someone who knew how Sinhala villagers interacted with Tamil villagers in the war-front area. I told her our professional staff had gone out for lunch, so she should wait until they returned.

With a cigarette on her lips, she introduced herself as Barbara. She was the Director of the Refugee Studies Programme (RSP) and a professor at Oxford University. She was an anthropologist with extensive field experience in Africa. Her book Imposing Aid: Emergency Assistance to Refugees was on international development aid. She was an authority in refugee studies and international refugee law. I told her I am a development anthropologist working on irrigation water management in the Mahaweli. Her eyes beamed with hope, and she shouted, “You are the man I wanted to meet!”

I invited her for lunch at my residence. I offered her a cold beer, which she gulped down in five seconds. She inquired whether it was okay to smoke inside the house. I said yes. I switched on the air conditioner in the sitting room, as it was hot and muggy. She was amused to feel the cold air and said, “It is nice to see an anthropologist who lives in an air-conditioned house in the field.” She thanked me for rescuing her from the scorching sun.

Barbara was interested in the history of rivalries between Tamils and Sinhalese. She asked me about their living conditions, income disparities, gender issues, and political orientation. I told Barbara we could discuss these issues at length if she could stay a few days at Aralaganwila. Barbara said she had planned several meetings and wanted to return to Colombo. She invited me for lunch during the weekend if I were in Colombo.

Our weekend meeting in Colombo was intellectually stimulating. Each time we discussed a new topic, she ordered more tea or beer while typing her notes into her laptop. It was a primitive machine with two cassette spools. One had the WordStar programme, and the other had her notes.

Barbara invited me to the RSP to deliver a few lectures on Sri Lanka, specifically its political structure and ethnic tensions. She told me that I could stay at her place in Oxford. After about two months, I received an invitation letter and a return air ticket from the RSP. When I reached Oxford, she told me she had sent a taxi to Heathrow Airport to bring me to Oxford. But she forgot to tell me where to meet the taxi driver.

Staying at her place in Oxford was an experience. She lived in an old house on St. Giles. I found a sleeping corner on a cosy sofa in her large living room when I arrived. She introduced me to two Ugandan refugees and an undergrad from a European University. The two Ugandans prepared the dinner. They cooked lamb in peanut gravy, and we all had that with rice and a salad.

After dinner, we all met in Barbara’s large bedroom to watch TV and discuss the day’s work and tomorrow’s programme. She lay down on her bed and listened to our discussions. She occasionally asked a question or two. That day, the TV did not work. She asked us whether one of us could check the TV. Only the young European women volunteered to check it. She said the electric plug was not correctly installed, but she quickly fixed it. Barbara laughed and teased others, saying, “I did not expect anthropologists to know how to turn on a TV.”

When I woke up the following day, Barbara had already brewed coffee. We took our cups to her library and settled into two comfortable chairs. Until 8 a.m., we discussed Sri Lanka’s socio-political conditions and the outlines of my upcoming two lectures. Barbara mentioned inviting several professors and lecturers from the law and development faculties to the lectures. She also hinted that I might join her as a research fellow shortly.

Before I left for Colombo, Barbara told me she would raise funds to recruit an anthropologist from the third world as a fellow. She explained the fellowship as teaching a two-term course at the postgraduate level on field methods in social sciences and qualitative data analysis. The fellow would also conduct an annual summer school on refugee studies. Later, she wrote, “We need someone like you who combines research and practical experience and can write well in English.”

Two months later, Barbara informed me that the RSP had raised funds for a Ford fellowship. She asked whether I would be interested in being the first Ford Fellow at the RSP. I did not answer her for two weeks as I was in a dilemma. I was happy at MARD. The Chief-of-Party was also an anthropologist with whom I shared my views on development. He was an amiable fellow. He told me I should stay with him on the project for at least five years. I had finished only 30 months of my contract. Life in the Mahaweli was comfortable, although there were two significant risks: the LTTE and wild elephants.

At that time, an official at the Mahaweli Ministry wanted more control over the project consultants. He complained to USAID I had written a paper criticising the Sri Lankan government’s agricultural policies. He tried to twist the paper’s contents to prove that I was against the MARD Project. The USAID held a formal meeting in which the DAI and the Mahaweli Development Ministry participated. The USAID and the DAI did not find any fault with my paper. However, the official was adamant that some action should be taken against me. I submitted my resignation letter to the Chief of Party. He was relieved to receive my resignation as he did not want to disagree with the government. I accepted the Ford fellowship at the RSP in Oxford. This decision filled me with a sense of accomplishment and inspiration for the future.

Barbara Harrel-Bond

Barbara introduced me to her staff on my first day at the RSP. The Administrative Officer, Belinda, brought a cake and coffee to celebrate my arrival. Soon after coffee, Barbara took about 10 portrait photographs of me at the entrance to the RSP. When I asked her why she took so many photos, she smiled and said that a good photographer should take a dozen photographs before selecting the best one. Barbara had written an editorial about me for the RSP Newsletter and included my photograph. Barbara took me to the Bodleian Library and introduced me to the librarian by saying: “This is Dr Perera, an anthropologist from Sri Lanka, our Ford Fellow for the next 18 months. Unfortunately, he got his doctorate from the radical Sussex University. But I assure you he would behave well and surely not set fire to the library.”

Among the few library rules was the hilarious one that says ‘not setting fire to the library’ in the application form. Barbara got my library membership and showed me its various sections. She then took me to Oxfam Bookshop, where one could buy second-hand books for a fraction of their original prices. Barbara bought most of her books from the Oxfam Bookshop. She said I could borrow any book from her personal library at home.

Barbara invited me to her house whenever she had leisure time, especially on weekends. We discussed family histories, reasons for studying anthropology, and my plans. Barbara said that she grew up as the only daughter of a postman in a remote part of South Dakota, USA. As a young woman, she loved horse riding in the Dakota plains. She married an American pastor in 1951 and accompanied him to Oxford in the mid-1960s. Her husband studied for a doctorate and returned to the USA without completing his studies. Barbara refused to return with him to the USA and stayed in Oxford.

She joined the Institute of Social Anthropology, where she earned a doctorate in Social Anthropology. Barbara called herself a legal anthropologist. She divorced her husband and married Samuel Okeke, a Nigerian engineer, in 1974 while doing fieldwork in Sierra Leone in West Africa. Barbara left him and returned to Oxford to devote her time to refugees. In 1982, she established the RSP at Oxford University.

Barbara worked with many people in her smoke-filled room at the RSP. She listened intently to each speaker. If she had any questions, she would probe them. The discussions prolonged until all agreed on a solution or conclusion. She found time between such meetings, sometimes as little as 15 minutes, to open her unfinished memos and articles to work on them. She gave me her draft memos and papers to comment on. Every month, she received several international journal articles for review. She, with a naughty smile on her face, just palmed them off to me to review. She read and edited each of my draft reviews. Barbara then scanned and emailed it to the concerned journal or the publisher. I remember examining about 10 journal articles.

I prepared detailed notes for each lecture on the field methods course. I distributed them in advance among my students from the Oxford Department of International Development and the Royal Forestry Institute. Barbara read them with interest and encouraged me to include my field experience to substantiate and illuminate my arguments. Sometimes, she attended my classes and initiated lively discussions. Barbara told me that it had been the tradition that the teacher who finishes his/her lecture at 5 p.m. or after should take the students for a beer at a nearby pub. Barbara introduced me to the staff of a large pub. At the bar, I asked her, “Is this the pub where anthropologists meet?” She said, “No, this is a pub where some anthropologists meet.”

She explained that anthropologists were a peculiar and dangerous tribe; one could see many feuds and resentment among them. She said a few of them believed anthropologists should live in primitive societies. She added, “But they smoke pipes and drink whiskey whenever an opportunity arises. They are known for carrying pocket whiskey flasks.” She told me that some of them ridiculed and criticised her for doing refugee studies, which they thought was a field of study in political science.

Barbara was a leader of a local group in Oxford that pressed local authorities to approve an “illegal” structure a sculptor had built in 1986 on a rooftop — a 25-foot colourful fibreglass shark that looked as if it had fallen from the sky and penetrated the roof. The fall symbolised the anger, desperation, and impotence of local people in the wake of the bombing of Libya by American warplanes, which regularly flew over Oxford.

The sculptor also wanted to make a statement against nuclear weapons. The falling shark was a metaphor for a falling atomic bomb. She petitioned local authorities, demanding freedom to protest the state’s follies. Barbara wrote to the House of Commons and House of Lords demanding that the state protect its citizens’ freedom of expression. She emphasised that the state should not encourage aggressors and bullies, such as Americans, to use the UK’s airspace to harm others.

Once Barbara returned from London with four young men and a young woman. They were refugees from Africa who just landed in London. The International Red Cross had received them and handed them over to Barbara to educate and find sources of income for them. She introduced them to the RSP staff, saying they were members of the RSP family. Barbara asked me to meet her at her residence at 6 p.m. on the same day. She wanted to discuss how to accommodate five refugees.

Barbara had a few folded bed frames. She opened a small storeroom in the basement and took out bedding and pillows. The four men and the woman helped her to make temporary beds. Barbara invited the woman to sleep in her bedroom. I asked Barbara about their dinner. She told me, “Let us cook rice and a meat curry. I know you are a good cook.” I cooked rice and beef curry with carrots and made a large salad. Barbara joined the group for dinner. She said, “Today is one of my happiest days. I have you five with me. We can do lots of things together. A refugee is not a burden but an asset, and that is what I always tell the world.”

Barbara enrolled the five refugees at the university as part-time students. She found work for them as an unskilled waiters at a restaurant. Three months later, I visited the restaurant with Barbara to see the four men. They served us tea with dignity, style, and happy faces. Barbara had sent the woman of the group to a fashion house to learn how to make fancy clothes. Once, the woman brought a beautiful long dress for Barbara. At the bottom of the dress was a slogan – ‘Do not mess up with Arizona!’ Barbara loved this dress. One day, Barbara showed me one of the men holding hands with a white woman on the road. Barbara was happy to see them and said, “They have gone native!”

Barbara nominated me to represent the RSP at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meetings in New Orleans. At the meetings, I introduced RSP publications and research and action plans. I discussed with agencies the possibility of getting support for refugee studies and summer refugee training programmes. Two months later, Barbara asked me to go to New Delhi, India, to represent the RSP at the international refugee studies conference. My main task at the meeting was identifying potential research and study fellows and encouraging them to visit the RSP. I read a research article at the conference on ‘social structure and political development in Sri Lanka.’ Later, the Journal of Refugee Studies at Oxford published it.

The most challenging task at the RSP was coordinating its summer refugee studies programme. About 20 participants came from several countries, and their demands varied widely. Some reported that English food could have been better in quality and taste. Many were more interested in visiting university colleges and nearby towns than attending the courses. Barbara’s idea was that if at least a few participants learned about refugee issues and were determined to support them, the world would become a better place for all of us.

A friend at the RSP told me that Barbara was absent-minded. A story circulating at the RSP was Barbara had three cats, and one of them had three kittens. The mother cat kept her babies in the washing machine’s drum. One day, without checking, Barbara threw a few pieces of her clothes into the drum, started the machine, and went away. When she returned home, she opened the washing machine to see the tragedy she had caused. Three kittens were beyond recognition, and their fur and flesh clung to her clothes!

By the end of my stay in Oxford, Barbara frantically looked for more funds to keep me at the RSP. Belinda took me to London and Cambridge for interviews with various sponsors. At that time, a development consultancy company called ITAD UK contacted me regarding a senior position in a World Bank-funded project in Sindh, Pakistan. I told Barbara about the new opening. She was happy to hear the news and advised me to take the job. She wanted me to do fieldwork and write about internal displacement in Pakistan. She also sent a recommendation letter to the ITAD saying that whoever gets my services should consider themselves fortunate.

Barbara was bestowed the Order of British Empire (OBE) in 2005 for refugee and forced migration studies and services. She died in 2018 at the age of 85 years. Tributes and obituaries poured in from around the world. In tributes and obituaries, I saw the words ‘campaigner’, ‘activist,’ and ‘champion. ‘An obituary aptly summarised her life – “She grew up riding horses across the plains. Something of the Wild West never left her.”

All News Advertisement

Features

The US-China rivalry and challenges facing the South

Published

24 hours ago

2025/12/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prof. Neil DeVotta making his presentation at the RCSS.

The US-China rivalry could be said to make-up the ‘stuff and substance’ of world politics today but rarely does the international politics watcher and student of the global South in particular get the opportunity of having a balanced and comprehensive evaluation of this crucial relationship. But such a balanced assessment is vitally instrumental in making sense of current world power relations.

Thanks to the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo the above window of opportunity was opened on December 8th for those sections of the public zealously pursuing an understanding of current issues in global politics. The knowledge came via a forum that was conducted at the RCSS titled, ‘The US-China Rivalry and Implications for the Indo-Pacific’, where Professor Neil DeVotta of the Wake Forest University of North Carolina in the US, featured as the speaker.

A widely representative audience was present at the forum, including senior public servants, the diplomatic corps, academics, heads of civil society organizations, senior armed forces personnel and the media. The event was ably managed by the Executive Director of the RCSS, retired ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha. Following the main presentation a lively Q&A session followed, where many a point of interest was aired and discussed.

While there is no doubt that China is fast catching up with the US with regard to particularly military, economic, scientific and technological capability, Prof. DeVotta helped to balance this standard projection of ‘China’s steady rise’ by pointing to some vital facts about China, the omission of which would amount to the observer having a somewhat uninformed perception of global political realities.

The following are some of the facts about contemporary China that were highlighted by Prof. DeVotta:

* Money is steadily moving out of China and the latter’ s economy is slowing down. In fact the country is in a ‘ Middle Income Trap’. That is, it has reached middle income status but has failed to move to upper income status since then.

* People in marked numbers are moving out of China. It is perhaps little known that some Chinese are seeking to enter the US with a view to living there. The fact is that China’s population too is on the decline.

* Although the private sector is operative in China, there has been an increase in Parastatals; that is, commercial organizations run by the state are also very much in the fore. In fact private enterprises have begun to have ruling Communist Party cells in them.

* China is at its ‘peak power’ but this fact may compel it to act ‘aggressively’ in the international sphere. For instance, it may be compelled to invade Taiwan.

* A Hard Authoritarianism could be said to characterize central power in China today, whereas the expectation in some quarters is that it would shift to a Soft Authoritarian system, as is the case in Singapore.

* China’s influence in the West is greater than it has ever been.

The speaker was equally revelatory about the US today. Just a few of these observations are:

* The US is in a ‘Unipolar Moment’. That is, it is the world’s prime power. Such positions are usually not longstanding but in the case of the US this position has been enjoyed by it for quite a while.

* China is seen by the US as a ‘Revisionist Power’ as opposed to being a ‘Status Quo Power.’ That is China is for changing the world system slowly.

* The US in its latest national security strategy is paying little attention to Soft Power as opposed to Hard Power.

* In terms of this strategy the US would not allow any single country to dominate the Asia-Pacific region.

* The overall tone of this strategy is that the US should step back and allow regional powers to play a greater role in international politics.

* The strategy also holds that the US must improve economic ties with India, but there is very little mention of China in the plan.

Given these observations on the current international situation, a matter of the foremost importance for the economically weakest countries of the South is to figure out how best they could survive materially within it. Today there is no cohesive and vibrant collective organization that could work towards the best interests of the developing world and Dr. DeVotta was more or less correct when he said that the Non-alignment Movement (NAM) has declined.

However, this columnist is of the view that rather being a spent force, NAM was allowed to die out by the South. NAM as an idea could never become extinct as long as economic and material inequalities between North and South exist. Needless to say, this situation is remaining unchanged since the eighties when NAM allowed itself to be a non-entity so to speak in world affairs.

The majority of Southern countries did not do themselves any good by uncritically embracing the ‘market economy’ as a panacea for their ills. As has been proved, this growth paradigm only aggravated the South’s development ills, except for a few states within its fold.

Considering that the US would be preferring regional powers to play a more prominent role in the international economy and given the US’ preference to be a close ally of India, the weakest of the South need to look into the possibility of tying up closely with India and giving the latter a substantive role in advocating the South’s best interests in the councils of the world.

To enable this to happen the South needs to ‘get organized’ once again. The main differences between the past and the present with regard to Southern affairs is that in the past the South had outstanding leaders, such as Jawaharlal Nehru of India, who could doughtily stand up for it. As far as this columnist could ascertain, it is the lack of exceptional leaders that in the main led to the decline of NAM and other South-centred organizations.

Accordingly, an urgent task for the South is to enable the coming into being of exceptional leaders who could work untiringly towards the realization of its just needs, such as economic equity. Meanwhile, Southern countries would do well to, indeed, follow the principles of NAM and relate cordially with all the major powers so as to realizing their best interests.

Features

Sri Lanka and Global Climate Emergency: Lessons of Cyclone Ditwah

Published

24 hours ago

2025/12/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Floods caused by Cyclone Ditwah. (Image courtesy Vanni Hope)

Tropical Cyclone Ditwah, which made landfall in Sri Lanka on 28 November 2025, is considered the country’s worst natural disaster since the deadly 2004 tsunami. It intensified the northeast monsoon, bringing torrential rainfall, massive flooding, and 215 severe landslides across seven districts. The cyclone left a trail of destruction, killing nearly 500 people, displacing over a million, destroying homes, roads, and railway lines, and disabling critical infrastructure including 4,000 transmission towers. Total economic losses are estimated at USD 6–7 billion—exceeding the country’s foreign reserves.

The Sri Lankan Armed Forces have led the relief efforts, aided by international partners including India and Pakistan. A Sri Lanka Air Force helicopter crashed in Wennappuwa, killing the pilot and injuring four others, while five Sri Lanka Navy personnel died in Chundikkulam in the north while widening waterways to mitigate flooding. The bravery and sacrifice of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces during this disaster—as in past disasters—continue to be held in high esteem by grateful Sri Lankans.

The Sri Lankan government, however, is facing intense criticism for its handling of Cyclone Ditwah, including failure to heed early warnings available since November 12, a slow and poorly coordinated response, and inadequate communication with the public. Systemic issues—underinvestment in disaster management, failure to activate protocols, bureaucratic neglect, and a lack of coordination among state institutions—are also blamed for avoidable deaths and destruction.

The causes of climate disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah go far beyond disaster preparedness. Faulty policymaking, mismanagement, and decades of unregulated economic development have eroded the island’s natural defenses. As climate scientist Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe notes:

“Sri Lankan wetlands—the nation’s most effective natural flood-control mechanism—have been bulldosed, filled, encroached upon, and sold. Many of these developments were approved despite warnings from environmental scientists, hydrologists, and even state institutions.”

Sri Lanka’s current vulnerabilities also stem from historical deforestation and plantation agriculture associated with colonial-era export development. Forest cover declined from 82% in 1881 to 70% in 1900, and to 54–50% by 1948, when British rule ended. It fell further to 44% in 1954 and to 16.5% by 2019.

Deforestation contributes an estimated 10–12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond removing a vital carbon sink, it damages water resources, increases runoff and erosion, and heightens flood and landslide risk. Soil-depleting monocrop agriculture further undermines traditional multi-crop systems that regenerate soil fertility, organic matter, and biodiversity.

In Sri Lanka’s Central Highlands, which were battered by Cyclone Ditwah, deforestation and unregulated construction had destabilised mountain slopes. Although high-risk zones prone to floods and landslides had long been identified, residents were not relocated, and construction and urbanisation continued unchecked.

Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia to adopt neoliberal economic policies. With the “Open Economy” reforms of 1977, a capitalist ideology equating human well-being with quantitative growth and material consumption became widespread. Development efforts were rushed, poorly supervised, and frequently approved without proper environmental assessment.

Privatisation and corporate deregulation weakened state oversight. The recent economic crisis and shrinking budgets further eroded environmental and social protections, including the maintenance of drainage networks, reservoirs, and early-warning systems. These forces have converged to make Sri Lanka a victim of a dual climate threat: gradual environmental collapse and sudden-onset disasters.

Sri Lanka: A Climate Victim

Sri Lanka’s carbon emissions remain relatively small but are rising. The impact of climate change on the island, however, is immense. Annual mean air temperature has increased significantly in recent decades (by 0.016 °C annually between 1961 and 1990). Sea-level rise has caused severe coastal erosion—0.30–0.35 meters per year—affecting nearly 55% of the shoreline. The 2004 tsunami demonstrated the extreme vulnerability of low-lying coastal plains to rising seas.

The Cyclone Ditwah catastrophe was neither wholly new nor surprising. In 2015, the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) identified Sri Lanka as the South Asian country with the highest relative risk of disaster-related displacement: “For every million inhabitants, 15,000 are at risk of being displaced every year.”

IDMC also noted that in 2017 the country experienced seven disaster events—mainly floods and landslides—resulting in 135,000 new displacements and that Sri Lanka “is also at risk for slow-onset impacts such as soil degradation, saltwater intrusion, water scarcity, and crop failure”.

Sri Lanka ranked sixth among countries most affected by extreme weather events in 2018 (Germanwatch) and second in 2019 (Global Climate Risk Index). Given these warnings, Cyclone Ditwah should not have been a surprise. Scientists have repeatedly cautioned that warmer oceans fuel stronger cyclones and warmer air holds more moisture, leading to extreme rainfall. As the Ceylon Today editorial of December 1, 2025 also observed:

“…our monsoons are no longer predictable. Cyclones form faster, hit harder, and linger longer. Rainfall becomes erratic, intense, and destructive. This is not a coincidence; it is a pattern.”

Without urgent action, even more extreme weather events will threaten Sri Lanka’s habitability and physical survival.

A Global Crisis

Extreme weather events—droughts, wildfires, cyclones, and floods—are becoming the global norm. Up to 1.2 billion people could become “climate refugees” by 2050. Global warming is disrupting weather patterns, destabilising ecosystems, and posing severe risks to life on Earth. Indonesia and Thailand were struck by the rare and devastating Tropical Cyclone Senyar in late November 2025, occurring simultaneously with Cyclone Ditwah’s landfall in Sri Lanka.

More than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions—and nearly 90% of carbon emissions—come from burning coal, oil, and gas, which supply about 80% of the world’s energy. Countries in the Global South, like Sri Lanka, which contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions, are among the most vulnerable to climate devastation. Yet wealthy nations and multilateral institutions, including the World Bank, continue to subsidise fossil fuel exploration and production. Global climate policymaking—including COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, in 2025—has been criticised as ineffectual and dominated by fossil fuel interests.

If the climate is not stabilised, long-term planetary forces beyond human control may be unleashed. Technology and markets are not inherently the problem; rather, the issue lies in the intentions guiding them. The techno-market worldview, which promotes the belief that well-being increases through limitless growth and consumption, has contributed to severe economic inequality and more frequent extreme weather events. The climate crisis, in turn, reflects a profound mismatch between the exponential expansion of a profit-driven global economy and the far slower evolution of human consciousness needed to uphold morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom.

Sri Lanka’s 2025–26 budget, adopted on November 14, 2025—just as Cyclone Ditwah loomed—promised subsidised land and electricity for companies establishing AI data centers in the country.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake told Parliament: “Don’t come questioning us on why we are giving land this cheap; we have to make these sacrifices.”

Yet Sri Lanka is a highly water-stressed nation, and a growing body of international research shows that AI data centers consume massive amounts of water and electricity, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

The failure of the narrow, competitive techno-market approach underscores the need for an ecological and collective framework capable of addressing the deeper roots of this existential crisis—both for Sri Lanka and the world.

A landslide in Sri Lanka (AFP picture)

Ecological and Human Protection

Ecological consciousness demands

recognition that humanity is part of the Earth, not separate from it. Policies to address climate change must be grounded in this understanding, rather than in worldviews that prize infinite growth and technological dominance. Nature has primacy over human-created systems: the natural world does not depend on humanity, while humanity cannot survive without soil, water, air, sunlight, and the Earth’s essential life-support systems.

Although a climate victim today, Sri Lanka is also home to an ancient ecological civilization dating back to the arrival of the Buddhist monk Mahinda Thera in the 3rd century BCE. Upon meeting King Devanampiyatissa, who was out hunting in Mihintale, Mahinda Thera delivered one of the earliest recorded teachings on ecological interdependence and the duty of rulers to protect nature:

“O great King, the birds of the air and the beasts of the forest have as much right to live and move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only its guardian.”

A stone inscription at Mihintale records that the king forbade the killing of animals and the destruction of trees. The Mihintale Wildlife Sanctuary is believed to be the world’s first.

Sri Lanka’s ancient dry-zone irrigation system—maintained over more than a millennium—stands as a marvel of sustainable development. Its network of interconnected reservoirs, canals, and sluices captured monsoon waters, irrigated fields, controlled floods, and even served as a defensive barrier. Floods occurred, but historical records show no disasters comparable in scale, severity, or frequency to those of today. Ancient rulers, including the legendary reservoir-builder King Parākramabāhu, and generations of rice farmers managed their environment with remarkable discipline and ecological wisdom.

The primacy of nature became especially evident when widespread power outages and the collapse of communication networks during Cyclone Ditwah forced people to rely on one another for survival. The disaster ignited spontaneous acts of compassion and solidarity across all communities—men and women, rich and poor, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Local and international efforts mobilized to rescue, shelter, feed, and emotionally support those affected. These actions demonstrated a profound human instinct for care and cooperation, often filling vacuums left by formal emergency systems.

Yet spontaneous solidarity alone is insufficient. Sri Lanka urgently needs policies on sustainable development, environmental protection, and climate resilience. These include strict, science-based regulation of construction; protection of forests and wetlands; proper maintenance of reservoirs; and climate-resilient infrastructure. Schools should teach environmental literacy that builds unity and solidarity, rather than controversial and divisive curriculum changes like the planned removal of history and introduction of contested modules on gender and sexuality.

If the IMF and international creditors—especially BlackRock, Sri Lanka’s largest sovereign bondholder, valued at USD 13 trillion—are genuinely concerned about the country’s suffering, could they not cancel at least some of Sri Lanka’s sovereign debt and support its rebuilding efforts? Addressing the climate emergency and the broader existential crisis facing Sri Lanka and the world ultimately requires an evolution in human consciousness guided by morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom. (Courtesy: IPS NEWS)

Dr Asoka Bandarage is the author of Colonialism in Sri Lanka: The Political Economy of the Kandyan Highlands, 1833-1886 (Mouton) Women, Population and Global Crisis: A Politico-Economic Analysis (Zed Books), The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy, ( Routledge), Sustainability and Well-Being: The Middle Path to Environment, Society and the Economy (Palgrave MacMillan) Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World: Colonial and Neoliberal Origins, Ecological and Collective Alternatives (De Gruyter) and numerous other publications. She serves on the Advisory Boards of the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate and Critical Asian Studies.

Features

Cliff and Hank recreate golden era of ‘The Young Ones’

Published

24 hours ago

2025/12/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Cliff Richard and Hank Marvin’s reunion concert at the Riverside Theatre in Perth, Australia, on 01 November, 2025, was a night to remember.

The duo, who first performed together in the 1950s as part of The Shadows, brought the house down with their classic hits and effortless chemistry.

The concert, part of Cliff’s ‘Can’t Stop Me Now’ tour, featured iconic songs like ‘Summer Holiday’, ‘The Young Ones’, ‘Bachelor Boy’, ‘Living Doll’ and a powerful rendition of ‘Mistletoe and Wine.’

Cliff, 85, and Hank, with his signature red Fender Stratocaster, proved that their music and friendship are timeless.

According to reports, the moment the lights dimmed and the first chords of ‘Move It’ rang out, the crowd knew they were in for something extraordinary.

Backed by a full band, and surrounded by dazzling visuals, Cliff strode onto the stage in immaculate form – energetic and confident – and when Hank Marvin joined him mid-set, guitar in hand, the audience erupted in applause that shook the hall.

Together they launched into ‘The Young Ones’, their timeless 1961 hit which brought the crowd to its feet, with many in attendance moved to tears.

The audience was treated to a journey through time, with vintage film clips and state-of-the-art visuals adding to the nostalgic atmosphere.

Highlights of the evening included Cliff’s powerful vocals, Hank’s distinctive guitar riffs, and their playful banter on stage.

Cliff posing for The Island photographer … February,
2007

Cliff paused between songs to reflect on their shared journey saying:

“It’s been a lifetime of songs, memories, and friendship. Hank and I started this adventure when we were just boys — and look at us now, still up here making noise!”

As the final chords of ‘Congratulations’ filled the theatre, the crowd rose for a thunderous standing ovation that lasted several minutes.

Cliff waved, Hank gave a humble bow, and, together, they left the stage, arm-in-arm, to the refrain of “We’re the young ones — and we always will be.”

Reviews of the show were glowing, with fans and critics alike praising the duo’s energy, camaraderie, and enduring talent.

Overall, the Cliff Richard and Hank Marvin reunion concert was a truly special experience, celebrating the music and friendship that has captivated audiences for decades.

When Cliff Richard visited Sri Lanka, in February, 2007, I was invited to meet him, in his suite, at a hotel, in Colombo, and I presented him with my music page, which carried his story, and he was impressed.

In return, he personally autographed a souvenir for me … that was Cliff Richard, a truly wonderful human being.