Features
The United States mourns the death of former President Jimmy Carter
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
An already dreadful year for the United States of America ended with more tragedy, with the death of one of the finest human beings ever to have adorned the White House. The 39th President James Earl (Jimmy) Carter Jr passed away peacefully at his home in Plains, Georgia on Sunday, December 29, surrounded by his family. He was 100-years old, the longest-lived president in US history.
Born and raised in the predominantly Republican state of Georgia, Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1946, and joined the Navy’s submarine service. At the end of his military service, he retuned to his home in Plains, Georgia, and revived his family’s peanut farm. He married Rosalynn Smith in 1946, with whom he enjoyed a blessed, loving union until her death, at age 96, last year.
A pious man and a lifelong Baptist, whose actions were invariably rooted in his religious faith, Carter left a legacy of fidelity, compassion and justice. Like all politicians, he did, on at least one occasion, betray his principles in the name of political expediency, though, in Carter’s case, this probably was the exception that proved the rule.
Carter was a true Democrat in a traditionally deep red, white supremacist state. Having grown up in the era of Jim Crow segregation laws, he abhorred all types of racism and was an ardent supporter of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He became a community leader, serving in various county boards of education and the hospital authority. He won election to the Georgia Senate in 1962, and entered the national political arena in 1966, when he ran for and lost the Georgia gubernatorial election in 1966. He ran again and won in 1970, when he was elected the 76th Governor of Georgia.
Despite his early stance on civil rights, Carter seemingly betrayed his principles by appealing to the racist majority in the electorate. He even criticized his Democratic Primary opponent, former Governor Carl Sanders, for supporting civil rights icon, Martin Luther King Jr. He understood, and took advantage of, the stark political fact that he had little chance of winning the election in Georgia without a seemingly conservative, even subtly racist stance. Perhaps the end justified the means.
And win he did. But a racist he wasn’t. He changed his tune immediately after he was sworn in as the Governor of Georgia in January 1971. In his inaugural speech, he declared that “the time for racial discrimination is over”. Carter’s liberal, anti-discriminatory policies and emphasis on a pollution-free environment formed the bases of his gubernatorial term. He also enacted legislation to remove racial barriers and established several key projects to develop the state’s economy.
In 1974, when the nation was recovering from the Watergate scandal and was ruled by the makeshift presidency of Gerald Ford, the only unelected president in the nation’s history, Carter declared his bid for the presidency. He was little known nationally; even the Atlanta newspapers carried the headline “Jimmy Who?” immediately after his announcement.
Carter won the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1976; the Democratic ticket of Carter/Mondale defeated Gerald Ford with a 51% majority in the popular vote and an Electoral College majority of 297 to 240. Carter was sworn in as the 39th President of the United States in January, 1977.
Jimmy Carter was a fine president, but a terrible politician. He was a champion of human rights; bolstered Social Security, added nearly eight million jobs and sought to improve the environment.
He negotiated a meeting with Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, ending with the Camp David Accords which led to peace between Israel and Egypt the following year.
Carter attended a summit meeting with Soviet Prime Minister, Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna in 1979, which led to the signing of the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) II. The Treaty basically established nuclear equality between the two nations; limiting the total of both nations’ nuclear forces to 2,250 delivery vehicles each, and placing a variety of other restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces.
He also established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.
Carter was unsuccessful in a bid for a second term in 1980, when he was defeated by the political machinations of the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. Carter’s campaign was initially hurt when Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge Carter in the Democratic Primaries. Kennedy, an avowed liberal and a scion of the most famous political dynasty of the nation, was not happy with the right-wing trend of the incumbent, and ran a campaign to humiliate his opponent. Kennedy knew full well that his presidential aspirations were severely compromised after the tragedy at Chappaquiddick, when the then Massachusetts Senator drove his car, allegedly under the influence of liquor, off a narrow bridge, resulting in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a secretary and campaign worker in the ill-fated presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. Carter finally clinched the nomination but emerged from the Primaries with a fractured Democratic base.
But the one issue that contributed to Carter’s defeat was the Iran hostage crisis. In November 1979, revolutionaries against the regime of the US-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi stormed the American Embassy in Teheran and took hostage 52 diplomats and civilian staff. The takeover happened months after the fall of the government of the Shah, who was living in exile in the US at the time.
The year-long crisis undermined Carter’s reputation, both at home and abroad. His popularity eroded further after a failed attempt to take back the embassy and rescue the hostages. Eight service members died in an accident during the attempt. Carter accepted the fact that his failure to rescue the hostages was the primary cause for his electoral defeat in 1980.
However, his defeat may have been caused by the traditional sinister political artifices of the Republican Party. A rumor, which has since been confirmed, emerged that Republican political operatives, led by William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager, later appointed by Reagan as the head of the CIA (Central Information Agency, the nation’s leading espionage organization), played a major role in the delay of the release of the hostages. The New York Times reported in 2023 that Casey and Republican campaign officials traveled “to one Middle Eastern Capital after another that Summer (of 1980), meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal”.
The hostages were formally released into American custody just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.
And so began the Reagan regime, which initiated the process of dismantling a thriving middle class by cutting taxes to benefit the super-wealthy and the corporations, the infamous and debunked “Trickle Down Theory”, which Trump will fine-tune to perfection by the end of his second term, to an oligarchic kleptocracy.
According to the Logan Act, it is illegal for private citizens to negotiate with a foreign power to “defeat the measures of the United States”. A law that has been broken with impunity by the Trump Organization with their collusion with the Russian government in the US elections and other matters of national security before and during Trump’s first term. Who can forget Trump’s announcement at a pre-2016 election rally, when he shouted “RUSSIA, ARE YOU LISTENING?”, publicly seeking assistance from Russian intelligence in finding non-existent illegalities in Hillary Clinton’s emails in her private server. And even in his capacity of President, when he took Russian President Putin’s version of Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election, against all 17 US Intelligence Agencies. On the world stage at the Summit in Helsinki in 2018, an act of complicity bordering on treason.
But it really matters no longer. The majority of American voters have made their incredibly deplorable, dangerous choice in electing a caricature of a dictator. They have proven themselves immune to non-compliance of international and national laws, even war crimes. The next four years will be fraught with peril.
Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 “for his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social welfare”. Twenty-five years too late.
Since 1984, Carter and his wife of nearly eight decades, Rosalynn, have been personally involved in building and renovating homes for the poor with Habitat for Humanity. He was actively engaged in the project till almost the day he died.
Jimmy Carter got the totally unjustified reputation of being an anti-Semite, when he wrote a bestselling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in 2006. He likened the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to Apartheid, the disgraced South African racial segregation laws, which were almost a carbon copy of the Jim Crow racial segregation laws which ruled the United States of America from 1877 to the mid-1960s, laws under which Carter was born and raised.
Political leaders in the USA lined up to denounce former President Carter, because of his seeming pro-Palestine cause. He was vilified as a “bigot”, who had a “Jewish problem.” He was accused of “facilitating those who pursue Israel’s annihilation” and “blinded by an anti-Israel animus”. Even Democratic leaders like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw Carter under the bus, stating that “Carter does not speak for the Democratic party on Israel”.
Nearly two decades later, these same critics are beginning to appreciate the prescience of Carter’s views, as they are now accusing Israel of imposing a form of Apartheid on the Palestinians in breach of international laws. Carter was not only way ahead of his time, he was also showing that brand of moral rectitude and courage, without fear of consequences, which has been the distinction of his entire public and private life.
Kai Bird, the author of a recent biography of Carter’s presidency, wrote in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, in 2021:
“The former president’s decision to use the word ‘Apartheid’ no longer seems a stretch; indeed, today it seems to describe the reality on the ground in the occupied West Bank. I don’t think Carter has a Jewish problem. It’s just the reverse. The American Jewish establishment has a Jimmy Carter problem”.
Public observances honoring President Carter’s legacy will start in Georgia. His body will lie in repose at the Carter Center in Atlanta, where the public can pay their respects till January 7. He will then lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC, which will be open to the public till the funeral at the Washington National Cathedral at 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 9.
Carter had requested President Biden, a close friend, to deliver the eulogy at the funeral, which Biden considered an honor and a privilege. Former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are expected to be in attendance, along with their spouses.
Following the state funeral, the late president will be taken back to Georgia, to be buried at the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, where he had taught Sunday School for decades, at the same location his wife, Rosalynn was buried following her death last year.
President Jimmy Carter was without doubt the greatest ex-President in the history of the USA.
I wish everyone a very happy and healthy 2025. Notwithstanding Trump.
Features
Partnering India without dependence
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi once again signaled the priority India places on Sri Lanka by swiftly dispatching a shipload of petrol following a telephone conversation with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The Indian Prime Minister’s gesture came at a cost to India, where there have been periodic supply constraints and regional imbalances in fuel distribution, even if not a countrywide shortage. Under Prime Minister Modi, India has demonstrated to Sri Lanka an abundance of goodwill, whether it be the USD 4 billion it extended in assistance to Sri Lanka when it faced international bankruptcy in 2022 or its support in the aftermath of the Ditwah cyclone disaster that affected large parts of the country four months ago. India’s assistance in 2022 was widely acknowledged as critical in stabilising Sri Lanka at a moment of acute crisis.
This record of assistance suggests that India sees Sri Lanka not merely as a neighbour but as a partner whose stability is in its own interest. In contrast to Sri Lanka’s roughly USD 90 billion economy, India’s USD 4,500 billion economy, growing at over 6 percent, underlines the vast asymmetry in economic scale and the importance of Sri Lanka engaging India. A study by the Germany-based Kiel Institute for the World Economy identifies Sri Lanka as the second most vulnerable country in the world to severe food price surges due to its heavy reliance on imported energy and fertilisers. Income per capita remains around the 2018 level after the economic collapse of 2022. The poverty level has risen sharply and includes a quarter of the population. These indicators underline the urgency of sustained economic recovery and the importance of external partnerships, including with India.
It is, however, important for Sri Lanka not to abdicate its own responsibilities for improving the lives of its people or become dependent and take this Indian assistance for granted. A long unresolved issue that Sri Lanka has been content to leave the burden to India concerns the approximately 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees who continue to live in India, many of them for over three decades. Only recently has a government leader, Minister Bimal Rathnayake, publicly acknowledged their existence and called on them to return. This is a reminder that even as Sri Lanka receives support, it must also take ownership of its own unfinished responsibilities.
Missing Investment
A missing factor in Sri Lanka’s economic development has long been the paucity of foreign investment. In the past this was due to political instability caused by internal conflict, weaknesses in the rule of law, and high levels of corruption. There are now significant improvements in this regard. There is now a window to attract investment from development partners, including India. In his discussions with President Dissanayake, Prime Minister Modi is reported to have referred to the British era oil storage tanks in Trincomalee. These were originally constructed to service the British naval fleet in the Indian Ocean. In 1987, under the Indo Lanka Peace Accord, Sri Lanka agreed to develop these tanks in partnership with India. A further agreement was signed in 2022 involving the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and the Lanka Indian Oil Corporation to jointly develop the facility.
However, progress has been slow and the project remains only partially implemented. The value of these oil storage tanks has become clearer in the context of global energy uncertainty and tensions in the Middle East. Energy analysts have pointed out that strategic storage facilities can provide countries with greater resilience in times of supply disruption. The Trincomalee tanks could become a significant strategic asset not only for Sri Lanka but also for regional energy security. However, historical baggage continues to stand in the way of Sri Lanka’s deeper economic linkage with India. Both ancient and modern history shape perceptions on both sides.
The asymmetry in size and power between the two countries is a persistent concern within Sri Lanka. India is a regional power, while Sri Lanka is a small country. This imbalance creates both opportunities for partnership and anxieties about overdependence. The present government too has entered into economic and infrastructure agreements with India, but many of these have yet to move beyond initial stages. This has caused frustration to the Indian government, which sees its efforts to support Sri Lanka’s development as not being sufficiently appreciated or effectively utilised. From India’s perspective, delays and hesitation can appear as a lack of commitment. From Sri Lanka’s perspective, caution is often driven by domestic political sensitivities and concerns about sovereignty.
Power Imbalance
At the same time, global developments offer a cautionary lesson. The behaviour of major powers in the contemporary international system shows that states often act in their own interests, sometimes at the expense of smaller partners. What is being seen in the world today is that past friendships and commitments can be abandoned if a bigger and more powerful country can see an opportunity for itself. The plight of Denmark (Greenland) and Canada (51st state) give disturbing messages. Analysts in the field of International Relations frequently point out that power asymmetries shape outcomes in bilateral relations. As one widely cited observation by Lord Parlmeston, a 19th century prime minister of Great Britain is that “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” While this may be an overly stark formulation, it captures an underlying reality that small states must navigate carefully.
For Sri Lanka, this means maintaining a balance. It needs to clearly acknowledge the partnership that India is offering in the area of economic development, as well as in education, connectivity, and technological advancement. India has extended scholarships, supported digital infrastructure, and promoted cross border links that can contribute to Sri Lanka’s long term growth. These are tangible benefits that should not be undervalued. At the same time, Sri Lanka needs to ensure that it does not become overly dependent on Indian largesse or drift into a position where it functions as an appendage of its much larger neighbour. Economic dependence can translate into political vulnerability if not carefully managed. The appropriate response is not to distance itself from India, but to broaden its partnerships. Engaging with a diverse range of countries and institutions can provide Sri Lanka with greater autonomy and resilience.
A hard headed assessment would recognise that India’s support is both genuine and interest driven. India has a clear stake in ensuring that Sri Lanka remains stable, prosperous, and aligned with its broader regional outlook. Sri Lanka needs to move forward with agreed projects such as the Trincomalee oil tanks, improve implementation capacity, and demonstrate reliability as a partner. This does not preclude it from actively seeking investment and cooperation from other partners in Asia and beyond. The path ahead is therefore one of balanced engagement. Sri Lanka can and should welcome India’s partnership while strengthening its own institutions, fulfilling its domestic responsibilities, and diversifying its external relations. This approach can transform a relationship shaped by asymmetry into one defined by mutual benefit and confidence.
by Jehan Perera
Features
The university student
This Article is formed from listening to university students from across the country for two research initiatives, one on academic freedom and another on higher education policy. In speaking with students, the fears they carry could not be ignored. Students navigate university education, with anxieties about their future and fears that they and their university education are inadequate, all while managing their families’ daily struggles. I explore students’ anxieties and the extent to which we, the public, and higher education policies must take responsibility for their experiences.
The Neoliberal University
For decades, universities have been transforming. Neoliberal policies, promoted by the World Bank, have reduced public education expenditure and weakened the State’s commitment to public institutions. These policies frame individuals as responsible for their success and failure, minimising structural realities, such as poverty and precarity. They instrumentalise education, treat students as “products” for a “competitive’ job market, while education markets feed on students’ insecurities. Students are made to feel lacking in “soft skills”, or skills seemingly necessary to navigate classed-corporate structures, and lacking in technical skills, or those needed to operate technologies used within the private sector.
Student activists and, sometimes teachers, have challenged this worldview, demanding State commitment to free education. Governments sometimes yield but also fear the consequences of student politics and have long waged campaigns to discredit student activism. It is within this context that students pursue education.
Portrayal of students
A Peradeniya student told me student-organised events must meet “high standards”, because of the negative public perceptions of university students. I understood what she meant; I had heard of our ‘ungrateful’, ‘wasteful’, ‘unemployable’, and ‘entitled’ students. The media and decades of government propaganda have reinforced these depictions.
About 10 years ago, when government moves to privatise higher education were strong, a corporate executive, complaining about traffic caused by “yet another useless protest”, was unable to explain why they protested. News coverage, I realised, framed these protests as public inconveniences, rarely addressing students’ demands. A prominent advocate, of neoliberal educational policy, reinforced this narrative, saying “state university students make up just 10 percent of their cohorts”, gesturing dismissively as if to say their concerns were insignificant. Such language belittles student activists and youth, renders them voiceless and allows their concerns, such as classed worldviews, and access barriers to and privatisation of education, to be easily dismissed.
It is in this environment that the conception of the useless university student, fighting for no reason, has developed. Students must carry this misrepresentation, irrespective of their own involvement in activism.
Not being good enough
Attacks on free higher education and the absence of meaningful reforms designed to address students’ problems, now weigh on students’ minds. Students question whether their education is relevant and current, pointing to outdated equipment, software, and curricula. University administrators acknowledge these constraints, which reflect Sri Lanka’s ranking as one of the lowest in the world for the public funding of education and higher education.
Rarely has the World Bank, so influential in driving educational policy, highlighted the public funding crisis and, instead, emphasises technological deficiencies, the public sector’s “monopoly” of higher education and limited private sector involvement. It downplays the reality that few families can privately afford such funding arrangements.
Students are also bombarded with fee-levying programmes, promising skills and access to jobs, preying on students’ insecurities. Many, while struggling to make ends meet, enrol in off-campus pricy professional courses, such as in accountancy, marketing, or English.
The arts student
Some students worry their education is too theoretical and “Arts-focused.” A student from the University of Colombo described having to justify her decision to pursue an arts degree. The public, she said, saw this as a waste of her time and the country’s resources. She courageously wore this identity, yet questioned if she was, in fact, unemployable as she was being led to believe.
She does not, however, draw on the fact that arts education has long been the “cheap” option that governments have offered when pressured to expand higher education. While arts education may need fewer laboratories and equipment, they require adequate investments on teachers, strong on content and pedagogy, to closely engage with individual students; aspects of arts education which have systematically been disregarded.
As access broadens, particularly in the arts, more students from marginalised backgrounds have entered universities; students who may feel alien in systems aligned with corporate interests. Thus, students quite different from the classed conception of the “employable graduate,” whose education has systematically been under-funded, graduate from arts programmes frustrated, diffident, and ill-suited for jobs to which they are expected to aspire.
The dysfunctional university
Students voice criticisms of their teachers, as myopic, unworldly, and unfair. Their perspective reflects the universities’ culture of hierarchy and its intolerance of difference, on the one hand, and the weak institutional structures on the other. They are symptoms of years of neglect and attempts by governments to delegitimise universities, to shed themselves of the burden of funding higher education through anti-public sector rhetoric.
Some students, marginalised for being anti-rag, women, or ethnic minorities, feel an added layer of burdens. Anti-rag students, or more often, students who do not submit to university hierarchies, whether enforced by students or staff, are ostracised, demeaned and sometimes subjected to violence. Students unable to speak the institution’s dominant language face inadequate institutional support. Women describe being ignored and silenced in student union activities and left out of student leadership positions.
Furthermore, quality assurance processes rarely prioritise academic freedom or students’ right to exist as they wish, except when they complement the process of creating a desirable graduate for the job market. These processes focus on moulding professionals and technicians, as one would form clay, disregarding students’ anxieties from being alienated from themselves by such efforts.
Problems at home
Beyond the campus, parents face debt, illness, and precarious work. Students are acutely aware of these struggles. Some describe parents collapsing from the strain and sometimes leaving them to carry the family’s difficulties. A student described feeling guilty for being at the University while his family struggled to survive. To ease the burden on their families, students earn incomes by providing tuition, delivering food, and carrying out microbusinesses.
Tied to their concerns over having to depend on their families, is their fear of being “unemployable”, a term that places the blame of unemployment on students’ skill deficiencies. Little in this discourse connects the lack of decent work and jobs for them and their parents to the weak economy and job markets into which successive batches of graduates must transition. Much of the available jobs in the country are those that require little in the form of education, and those, too do little to provide a living wage. Students must, therefore, compete for a limited number and breadth of frankly not very desirable work. Yet, it is they who must feel the weight of unemployability.
Committing to students
Universities frequently fail to recognise students’ worries. Instead, we, coopt neoliberal discourses, telling students to become more marketable and competitive, do and learn more, be confident, improve English, learn to inhabit those classed spaces with ease; often without the support that should accompany these messages.
We expect these students, insecure and anxious, to think critically, and demonstrate curiosity and higher-order analyses. When they collapse under the pressure, universities respond by providing mental health services. While such services are needed, they risk individualising and pathologising systemic problems. They represent yet again the inherent flaws with solutions that emerge from neoliberal ideological positions that treat individuals as the source of all success and failure. Such perspectives are likely to reinforce students’ anxieties, rather than address them.
As Sri Lanka revisits education policy reforms, there is an opportunity to change our framings of education and to recognise these concerns of students as central to any policy. The state must renew its commitment to free education and move from the neoliberal logic that has guided successive reform efforts; we, as the public, must restore our hope and expectations from free education. Education across disciplines, the arts, as well as STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), must be strengthened. Students’ freedom to inhabit university spaces as they wish, must be respected and protected by institutions. Education policies must be tied to broader economic and labour reforms that ensure families can safely earn a living wage and graduates can access a rich range of decent meaningful work.
(Shamala Kumar teaches at the University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
by Shamala Kumar
Features
On the right track … as a solo artiste
Mihiri Chethana Gunawardena is certainly on the right track, in the music scene.
The plus factor, where Mihiri is concerned, is that she has music deeply rooted in her upbringing, and is now doing her thing in the Maldives.
Her father, Clifton Gunawardena, was a student of the legendary Premasiri Kemadasa and former rhythm guitarist of the Super 7 band.
Mihiri took to music, after her higher studies, and her first performance was with her father, while employed.

Mihiri Chethana Gunawardena
After eight years of balancing both worlds – working and music – she chose to follow her true calling and embraced music as her full-time profession.
Over the years, Mihiri has worked with some of the top bands in the local scene, including D Major, C Plus from Negombo, Heat with Aubrey, Mirage, D Zone Warehouse Project and Freeze.
In fact, she even put together her own band, Faith, in 2017, performing at numerous events, and weddings, before the Covid pandemic paused their journey.
What’s more, her singing career has taken her across borders –performing twice in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with the late Anil Bharathi and the late Roney Leitch, and multiple times in the Maldives, including a special New Year’s Eve performance with D Major.

In the Maldives, on a one-month contract
Last year, Mihiri was in Dubai, along with the group Knights, for the Ananda UAE 2025 dance.
She continues to grow as a solo artiste, now working closely with the renowned Wildfire guitarist Derek Wikramanayake, and performing, as a freelance musician, travelling around the world.
Right now, she is in the Maldives, on a one-month contract, marking a new chapter in her evolution as a solo vocalist.
On her return, she says, she hopes to create fresh cover songs and original music for her fans.
Mihiri believes in spreading joy and positivity through her singing, and peace and happiness for everyone around her, and for the world, through music.
-
News7 days agoSenior citizens above 70 years to receive March allowances on Thursday (26)
-
Features4 days agoA World Order in Crisis: War, Power, and Resistance
-
News5 days agoEnergy Minister indicted on corruption charges ahead of no-faith motion against him
-
News6 days agoUS dodges question on AKD’s claim SL denied permission for military aircraft to land
-
Business6 days agoDialog Unveils Dialog Play Mini with Netflix and Apple TV
-
News7 days agoCEB Engineers warn public to be prepared for power cuts after New Year
-
Sports5 days agoSLC to hold EGM in April
-
Latest News5 days agoA strong Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) system equips individuals with practical, relevant, and future-oriented skills helping to innovate responsibly towards a greener and sustainable future – PM
