Connect with us

Features

Karu made to switch from Colombo to Gampaha district at his first parliamentary election

Published

on

Ranil Wickremesinghe and Karu Jayasuriya

A blessing in disguise

The disharmony that exists between the ruling party and the opposition within Sri Lanka’s parliament, provincial councils and local government authorities at any given time is evident to those familiar with Sri Lankan politics. The cause for this animosity is perhaps the competition and the deep-rooted distrust between the two groups. This often results in the opposition working actively to disrupt all projects and programs proposed by the government, while in turn more often than not promptly dismisses almost all positive proposals brought forward by the opposition.

During his 18-month tenure as Mayor of Colombo, Karu Jayasuriya adopted a vastly different attitude to the opposition. He not only paid attention to the proposals made by members of the opposition, but he also took great effort to implement all the positive ideas put forward by the opposition. Due to this attitude, clashes between him and his opponents at the Colombo Municipal Council were few and far between.

Following the Western Provincial Council election of 1999, Ranil Wickremesinghe also appointed Jayasuriya as a deputy leader of the UNP. Karu says as the opposition leader of the Western Provincial Council he decided to adopt a similarly positive attitude (as he did as Mayor) towards the ruling party. There existed a mutual cooperation between him, and the ruling party led by the Western Province Chief Minister. Karu says he always extended his fullest support to certain beneficial projects proposed, setting aside all differences and political party affiliations.

“I proposed that each member of the provincial council be given Rs 2.5 million for public work. This proposal was readily accepted by Chief Minister Susil Premajayantha and was implemented thereafter…” Karu says. Utilizing these funds, members were able to fulfil the various needs of the public in their respective electorates.

Sri Lanka’s next presidential election was to follow the provincial council elections and was scheduled to be held in the year 2000. But in October 1999, when Chandrika Kumaratunga was in the fifth year of her first six-year term, she called for an early presidential poll. It was believed Kumaratunga was propelled by the belief that the United National Party (UNP) had weakened after several of its MPs including Sarath Amunugama, Nanda Mathew, Wijayapala Mendis, Ronnie de Mel, Susil Moonesinghe, Harindra Corea and Sarath Kongahage had defected to the government.

Karu recalls how the UNP defectors had appeared on various media outlets slamming both their previous political party and its leader.

“Perhaps certain opinions expressed by them had some validity. But they should have given it more thought before so publicly criticizing the political party they were once part of…” Karu says, failing to hide his displeasure at their actions. He believed the government hoped to gain political advantage at the 1999 Presidential election when they welcomed the UNP defectors rather than theircreased numbers in parliament.

Despite the various opinions expressed by these MPs, the UNP had no doubts about who it would field as its Presidential candidate in the upcoming election. Therefore the name of UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was put forward to the party’s working committee as its presidential candidate by Karu himself. This proposal was unanimously approved by the party. Meanwhile, Karu was named as the party’s prime ministerial candidate.

“During the 1999 elections, I travelled across the country and took part in every major political rally. Even though I was not a talented orator, my speeches were received favourably by the people…” Karu says. He also notes that state media organizations acted in an extremely biased manner in favour of the government during the election period.

“On certain days while the state-owned Dinamina newspaper featured five government rallies, it only featured one UNP rally or not at all in comparison. Later we complained to the Election Commissioner regarding this unacceptable behaviour. But as expected it was to no avail…” he says laughingly.

During the pre-election period, parties linked to the government launched a derogatory poster campaign across the island against Wickremesinghe. The posters even poked fun at the election promises given by the UNP leader to the country’s youth. “They portrayed these promises as infantile and claimed they would not solve the burning issues faced by the people…” Karu recalls.

“Politicians aligned with the People’s Alliance (PA) also ridiculed him at election rallies. They said he dressed like Bill Clinton. The PA used a breakaway group from the UNP to carry out such verbal attacks and take cheap shots at the party and Wickremesinghe…” Karu says.

“It was the politicians of the PA who spread the notion that the country’s youth would receive bracelets and chewing gum if Wickremesinghe emerged victorious at the election…” Karu says while recalling the mudslinging campaign the government had launched against the UNP ahead of the 1999 election.

The grassroots level cadres of the UNP felt the party’s presidential election operations committee at Sirikotha was failing to address this islandwide propaganda campaign launched by the PA’s media unit. But according to Karu, this was not a result of the UNP committee’s incompetence. “They were unable to counter this anti-Wickremesinghe campaign due to the actions of biased state and private media organizations that were favourable to the government…” he opined.

Although the state media outlets were completely under the control of the government, and some private media organizations were extremely biased, the majority of the populace who were disillusioned with the government were gradually turning to the UNP. Accordingly, some impartial election monitoring agencies believed that the will of the people was constantly oscillating and therefore the outcome of the presidential election could not be predicted.

Meanwhile, both leading presidential candidates were under constant threat from the Tamil Tigers. As a result of this Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe were provided with special security teams from the Police Special Task Force (STF) and the Sri Lanka Army’s Commando regiment. But no such protection was accorded to Karu, who travelled extensively with Wickremesinghe on the campaign trail. Karu’s only protection was the two police personnel from the Ministers’ Security Division provided to all provincial council members.

“Fortunately no serious incident was reported until the final day of campaigning…” Karu says. But this was to change following a devastating suicide bomb attack on the night of December 18, 1999. The final election rally of the PA attended by President Chandrika Kumaratunga and party stalwarts was held in Town Hall, Colombo on the day.

Kumaratunga was about to get into her car after addressing the meeting when a rocking blast ripped through the venue. While Kumaratunga miraculously survived the assassination attempt she lost vision in her right eye. Twenty-six persons lost their lives including Colombo’s Deputy Inspector General of Police T.N. de Silva while scores of rally goers including three senior cabinet ministers also suffered serious injuries.

Minutes later, another bomb exploded at a UNP election rally held in Wattala. Ten people including Karu’s schoolmate. Major General Lucky Algama, were killed in this explosion. Algama had become a UNP activist following his retirement from the Sri Lanka Army. Karu had also been in attendance at the UNP rally on that fateful day.

“Anura Bandaranaike addressed the meeting and left. Next, it was my turn. After addressing the crowd I decided to head to the UNP’s final rally being held in Maradana. It was on the way that I got the devastating news…” Karu recalls. Karu had escaped the terror attack by just nine minutes. Had he remained at the venue for longer, Karu says it is likely he too would have lost his life at the hands of the LTTE that day.

Karu believes that Wickremesinghe was leading the race right up till the terrorist attack on President Kumaratunga. “This completely changed following the Town Hall bombing…” he says. An emotional but formidable Kumaratunga, with a plaster covering her injured eye, appeared on national television and addressed the nation following the attack.

“There was a wave of sympathy towards the president after this. Even the wives of staunch UNP activists were moved to tears and cast their vote for her at the elections….” he recalls. According to him, even though any form of election campaigning is not allowed during the election silence period, Bandaranaike’s supporters held Bodhi Pooja and Seth Kavi – poems of good wishes chanting programs at Temples across the country.

“Party supporters in villages went from house to house distributing election propaganda leaflets…” he says, adding that however, the laws barred UNP supporters from engaging in similar acts. “This is how the public was influenced to vote for Kumaratunga instead of Wickremesinghe at the eleventh hour…” he claims.

The result of this was that People Alliance candidate Chandrika Kumaratunga emerged victorious at the presidential election held on December 1999, by securing 4,312,157 votes. In comparison, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe received 3,602,748. Kumaratunga had received 51.12 per cent of all the votes cast. “Had it not been for an edge of just 1.12 per cent to take her over the 50 per cent mark, the preferential votes would have had to be counted and could have possibly challenged the result…” Karu opined. But Kumaratunga was fortunate and her reelection as Sri Lankan’s fifth President went unchallenged.

Following the election, Kumaratunga held a swearing-in ceremony to mark the commencement of her second term. The President had done so on legal advice received even though she still had a year left to complete her first six-year term. Right after the ceremony, Kumaratunga left for London to receive treatment for the injuries sustained in the attack, and returned to Sri Lanka several weeks later.

All opposition parties including the UNP had anticipated Kumaratunga would call for a general election hot on the trails of the 1999 presidential election in a bid to capitalize on her win. Karu says at the time he too predicted a parliamentary election would be imminent. Despite Wickremesinghe’s loss in the recent presidential election, Karu also estimated the UNP led by Wickremesinghe could easily secure a win at a general election.

The UNP’s working committee and the executive committee had also taken note of this possibility. Therefore the party decided it should begin its preparations to face a possible parliamentary election in the near future. At the time Karu had been appointed as the party’s chief organizer for Colombo East and Colombo West by the party leadership in addition to his position as the UNP’s deputy leader. This entailed Karu would contest as a candidate from the Colombo district at any upcoming election.

Karu had already estimated he would be able to secure close to 265,000 votes as he had received a similar number of votes at the recently held Western Provincial Council elections. But this was not to be. The UNP’s working committee had decided it would be unfavourable for both the party’s leader and deputy leader to contest from the same district. It was UNP stalwart John Amaratunga who had suggested that Karu contest from the neighbouring Gampaha district instead.

“It would be a great strength to the party…’ Amaratunga had said. Karu was forced to leave Colombo East and Colombo West behind to contest from Gampaha instead. The next matter in question was appointing Karu as the UNP organizer for the Gampaha district.

A number of UNP stalwarts including Joseph Michael Perera, John Amaratunga, Anura Bandaranaike and Dr Jayalath Jayawardena were already serving as UNP organizers for the Gampaha district. “The party asked me to pick an electoral seat of my preference The choices given were Attanagalla, Gampaha, Divulapitiya and Minuwangoda…” Karu says.

But he was now faced with a serious problem. “No matter which seat I opted for, it would have given rise to a conflict. It was clear no organizer would like to give up their electoral seat to another,” Karu says. Declining a party organizer post, Karu informed the party he would however accept the party’s request and contest from the Gampaha district.

Despite Karu’s refusal to accept an organizer post the party still decided to appoint him as an organizer for the Gampaha electorate. Renting out a house on Church road in Gampaha, Karu commenced his election campaign in the district. Karu says surprisingly, UNP activists and youth in the area extended their fullest support to him. I received the support of my relatives living in the area as as my hometown of Mirigama which is also located in Gampaha district.”

In October 2000, for the first time in his politics. career, Karu Jayasuriya was elected to Parliament from Gampaha District. He had received a remarkable 237,387 preferential votes at the election.

(Excerpted from the biography of Karu Jayasuriya by Nihal Jagathchandra)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Science and diplomacy in a changing world

Published

on

Two editors: Dr. Palitha Kohona (L) and Prof. Ranjith Senaratne

Today marks a truly historic and momentous occasion in the realm of transdisciplinary diplomacy in our country. We gather here with a twofold purpose of profound national and global significance: the establishment of the Science Diplomacy Forum, and the launch of the volume Science Diplomacy: National, Regional and Global Approaches in a Changing World.

This volume brings together valuable and timely contributions from internationally renowned experts representing all key regions of the world — North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, West Asia, South Asia, and Oceania. It reflects a rich diversity of perspectives, experiences, and insights that speak to the increasingly interconnected nature of science, policy, and diplomacy in our rapidly transforming world.

I am deeply heartened — and indeed humbled — by the presence of such a distinguished constellation of leaders, professionals, intellectuals, scholars, and luminaries from diverse domains, including international relations, science and technology, higher education, and governance. It is rare to witness such an extraordinary and diverse assembly of intellectual, professional, and academic excellence under one roof. Your presence affirms the importance of the cause we serve and the promise of the path we are charting together. Your support, encouragement, and engagement give life, purpose, and direction to this vital endeavour.

As Chief Editor of this volume, it is both a great honour and a profound responsibility to extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to all our distinguished guests and invitees. I am conscious that this august gathering is not assembled to listen to a lengthy welcome address, but rather to engage with the substantive proceedings of this event, enriched by five eminent personalities, four distinguished speakers, and an able and competent moderator — all of whom possess exceptional mastery of the subject. I shall therefore be brief.

Among us today are former and current Ministers and people’s representatives, members of the diplomatic corps, Secretaries to Ministries, distinguished panelists, valued contributors to the volume, Vice-Chancellors, Members of the Board of Management and Academic Affairs Board of the BCIS, Heads of institutions, professors, senior government officials, professionals, journalists, and many others — too numerous to acknowledge individually, yet each of you is most warmly welcomed. I receive you all, whether present in person or online, with the utmost warmth, respect, and appreciation.

The panel discussion constitutes the pièce de résistance of this event. We are deeply honoured to be joined by four eminent personalities:

Her Excellency Siri Walt, Ambassador of Switzerland to Sri Lanka;

Professor Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, former Chair of the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance; and former Ambassadors Mr. Bernard Goonatilleke and Dr. Palitha Kohona — all of whom bring exceptional depth of experience and insight to this important subject.

Their discussion will be guided by our distinguished moderator, Mr. Naushard Cader, a truly cosmopolitan personality, widely respected for his breadth of knowledge and his keen understanding of global affairs and science diplomacy. I extend to all our speakers and our moderator a very warm welcome and my sincere appreciation for their willingness to share their wisdom with us this evening.

Allow me, however, to place this event in perspective.

We gather this evening not merely to introduce a book, nor solely to inaugurate a forum, but to reflect together on an idea whose time has unquestionably arrived.

We meet at a moment of profound global transition and conflict. The international landscape is marked by turbulence, uncertainty, and rapid transformation. The world is shifting from a relatively stable post–Cold War configuration toward an increasingly multipolar order. While multipolarity carries the promise of greater balance and strategic autonomy, it also brings intensified competition among major powers, fluid alliances, and growing unpredictability.

At the same time, the rules-based international order — which for decades provided smaller nations with a measure of predictability and protection — is under visible strain and threat. Institutions are contested. Norms are challenged. Economic interdependence deepens even as geopolitical fragmentation intensifies. Supply and value chains now account for nearly seventy percent of global trade, binding nations in complex webs of mutual dependence. Yet such interdependence has not prevented trade wars, sanctions regimes, technological decoupling, and regional conflicts.

For small and economically vulnerable states, this evolving environment is especially daunting. When global rules weaken, asymmetries of power become more pronounced. Bilateral negotiations between unequal partners can leave smaller nations disadvantaged. Without adequate legal, geological, scientific, technological, and diplomatic expertise, such states may struggle to safeguard their long-term national interests and sovereignty. Vulnerability, in the absence of knowledge and capacity, risks translating into marginalisation.

Overlaying this geopolitical transformation is a constellation of interconnected global challenges. Climate change is no longer a distant projection; it is a lived reality. Sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events are intensifying. Food, water, and energy security remain fragile. Pandemics have exposed vulnerabilities in global health systems. Cyber threats transcend borders. Environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and marine pollution threaten livelihoods and ecosystems alike.

These challenges are systemic and transboundary. Almost every major issue — whether global, regional, or national in scale — involves science and technology, either in understanding root causes or in devising effective solutions.

Traditional diplomacy, while indispensable, is no longer sufficient on its own. The defining issues of our time are not purely political or military; they are scientific, technological, environmental, and societal. They demand evidence-based policymaking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and sustained transnational cooperation.

It is within this context that science diplomacy emerges — not as an academic abstraction, but as a strategic necessity.

Nowhere are these realities more visible than in the Indian Ocean.

Unlike the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, which possess longstanding institutional architectures and extensive scientific mapping, the Indian Ocean remains comparatively underexplored and under-institutionalised. Covering roughly one-fifth of the world’s oceanic expanse, it carries a substantial share of global energy shipments and maritime trade. Its seabed resources — including critical and rare-earth minerals — remain only partially surveyed. Many of its coastal and island nations are developing economies with limited scientific and technological capacity to explore, monitor, and sustainably manage these resources.

The Indian Ocean is unique. It is bordered predominantly by developing and emerging states. It hosts remarkable cultural, religious, and political diversity. It is home to some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable communities. Increasingly, it has become a central theatre of global strategic competition, viewed by some nations through distinct geostrategic lenses.

This maritime space is simultaneously a lifeline and a fault line. It sustains global commerce and local livelihoods. Yet it is also a theatre where geopolitical interests intersect — sometimes converge, sometimes collide.

At the heart of this ocean lies Sri Lanka.

Geographically, our island sits astride one of the busiest East–West shipping routes in the world. Historically, Sri Lanka has been a hub of commercial, cultural, and intellectual exchange. Today, that strategic location presents both opportunity and responsibility.

Sri Lanka’s history, enriched by iconic figures such as Dr. Gamini Corea, Hon.

Lakshman Kadirgamar, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Dr. Neville Kanakaratne and Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala, stands as a powerful testament to our long-standing contributions to global diplomacy and international governance. Our nation provided leadership within the Non-Aligned Movement, positioning itself as a bridge between civilizations at a time of deep ideological division. We also made history by producing the world’s first woman Prime Minister, affirming our commitment to political progress and inclusive governance.

Today, we are called upon once again to build upon this distinguished legacy — by championing regional unity, promoting sustainable development, and addressing critical contemporary challenges such as climate change, maritime security, and environmental sustainability.

We must navigate complex geopolitical currents while safeguarding sovereignty and strengthening economic resilience. We face vulnerabilities common to island and littoral states: climate change, coastal erosion, marine pollution, and supply chain disruptions. Our development aspirations must be balanced with environmental stewardship and maritime security considerations.

Yet within these challenges lies profound opportunity.

Sri Lanka can position itself as a regional convener — a hub for ocean science, climate research, marine biodiversity studies, disaster risk reduction, and blue economy innovation. Through platforms such as BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, and SAARC, we can advance cooperative marine research, harmonise environmental standards, strengthen early warning systems, and promote sustainable maritime governance grounded in international law.

But to do so effectively, we must invest in knowledge — and in the diplomacy of knowledge.

Science diplomacy operates along three mutually reinforcing dimensions:

First, science in diplomacy — where scientific evidence informs foreign policy decisions.

Second, diplomacy for science — where diplomatic engagement enables international research collaboration and shared infrastructure.

Third, science for diplomacy — where scientific cooperation itself becomes a bridge for confidence-building, even when political relations are strained.

Importantly, science diplomacy extends beyond the natural sciences. The humanities and social sciences are equally vital. Technology must be guided by ethics. Data must be interpreted within cultural contexts. Policy must consider equity and justice. Diplomats of the future must be fluent not only in international law and negotiation, but also in scientific literacy and interdisciplinary thinking.

In a fragmented world, science offers a neutral vocabulary. It encourages transparency, peer review, and open data. It shifts discourse from rhetoric to evidence. It fosters long-term thinking in political environments often dominated by short-term calculations.

For small and vulnerable nations, science diplomacy is empowerment. It strengthens capacity. It enhances credibility. It enables engagement with larger powers on firmer ground — armed not merely with moral argument, but with data, research, and technical expertise.

The book we launch today reflects a diversity of experience and insight. It is intentionally transdisciplinary because the problems we face are transdisciplinary. It is intentionally global because no region can address these challenges in isolation.

In Sri Lanka, science diplomacy remains at a formative stage. The establishment of the Science Diplomacy Forum signals our determination to move beyond dialogue toward sustained institutional engagement. It envisions training programmes for diplomats and scientists, embedding scientific advisory mechanisms within governance structures, and building networks among universities, research institutes, industry, and policymakers. It seeks to cultivate a new generation equipped to navigate the interface between knowledge and negotiation.

We aspire for the Science Diplomacy Forum to be transformative — a true game changer.

Excellences, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We live in an era of mounting uncertainty — but also of extraordinary human ingenuity. The same interconnectedness that transmits crises also enables collaboration. The same technologies that disrupt can also heal and transform.

Change is inevitable. The deeper question is whether we will shape that change cooperatively, constructively, and inclusively.

For Sri Lanka, for the Indian Ocean region, and for the broader global community, science diplomacy offers a pathway beyond zero-sum thinking. It channels competition into collaboration around shared public goods. It aligns national interest with regional stability. It transforms vulnerability into resilience through knowledge.

Let this book be not merely a publication, but a platform for sustained reflection and action.

Let the Science Diplomacy Forum be not merely an institution, but a living bridge between evidence and policy, between research and responsibility, between nations and neighbours.

Let Sri Lanka reaffirm its role as a bridge — not a battleground — in the Indian Ocean.

In a world where rules may falter, let evidence guide us.

In a world where tensions may rise, let dialogue endure.

In a world of turbulence, let science diplomacy be our compass — guiding us toward peace, stability, dignity, and shared prosperity.

Welcome Address and Opening Remarks made by Emeritus Prof. Ranjith Senaratne
Former General President,
Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science recently on the occasion of the Founding of the Science Diplomacy Forum and the Launch of the Book Science Diplomacy:
National, Regional and Global Approaches in a Changing World

Continue Reading

Features

Be a woman who re-designs life!

Published

on

From one day of celebration to 364 days of transformation

The international women’s day was just celebrated all over the world. I saw many organiations share their slogans, and organize panel discussions, presentations, and exhibitions to support women empowerment. Slogans, themes, colors play vivid and vociferous role across the world, commemorating the international women’s day.

Alas, the colors are faded, slogans are weaned, themes are forgotten, over the next 364 days, pushing UN Chapter on Women’s Rights come up with more illustrious themes and slogans.

From Bread and Peace to Rights and Action

According to the recorded history, the Women’s day first introduced on 28th February 1909 in America, raising a voice of women against poor working conditions and poor pay in garment factories. This took a more revolutionary form in 1917 in Russia against World War I, where a mass of women protested under the theme of “Bread and Peace”.

Starting from basic needs such as bread and peace, the International Women’s Day theme has evolved towards freedom and independence, justice and inclusion.

Over the years, the rise of feminism brought cultural refinements and highlighted women’s rights. Looking back the historical evolution of women’s role, we see that matrimony has faded and patriarchy evolved with religious and geopolitical forces intertwined with the social expectation. The importance and respect for women, given in the ancient civilisations, diminished with medieval civilization, and subsequent colonisation. The rise of patriarchy domesticated women as homemakers, at the same time prompting their voices to rise for dignity and equitable treatment.

Rise of Feminism

In a typical Western-household of 20th century, husband was the bread winner of the family and the wife managed household affairs. In this era, women’s affairs were restricted to daily chores, creating a boundary wall restricting their access to corporate jobs, free voices. Betty Friedman was a remarkable lady who observed the domestic suffering of women and challenged ‘feminine mystique’ through her 1963 book. She disclosed the feminine mystique, which celebrated women as good housewives, and the belief that women could find satisfaction from domestic chores, home making, marriage, raising children, cooking, washing and taking care of husband’s needs. Betty disclosed that the unhappiness and boredom experienced by the domesticized women, and their inability to live up to the feminist mystique defined by the male dominant society had no name and difficult to express in words. Betty’s claim was supported by the theories of Abraham Maslow, who introduced motivation to grow along the hierarchy of needs. Betty, declared that feminine mystique denies basic growth needs of women, where their desires limited to shelter, food, safety and love only.

In this era women’s jobs were confined preeminently to teaching, and caregiving. STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and medicine were dominated by males, leaving less space for women. As you may have heard in the medieval era women who practiced medicine were branded as ‘witches’ and many were burned alive rooting out the knowledge and courage of women. Women who practiced and taught science and astronomy, were also branded for witch craft and condemned to death. The social pressure suppressed women confining them to domestic chores. In the industrial era women were hired for factory work under low wages and less facilities. In this period Women’s organisations were gathered demanding freedom and justice for women, calling for equal opportunities and rights enjoy their male counterparts. The evolution of women’s movements culminated in 1975, where the first International Women’s Day was commemorated on 8th March 1975.

Celebration and Contradiction

Since 1975, women were celebrated for a day in every year across the globe, with various themes and color codes to showcase the world that all women have rights and demanding fair treatment. The theme colors of International Women’s day are Purple, Green and White.

Purple stands for justice, dignity, and loyalty to the cause.

Green for hope and growth.

White for purity and unity.

In 1996, the International Women’s Day declared a theme to embrace, which is; “Celebrating the Past, Planning for the Future.” In the year 2023, the theme was ‘Embrace Equity’, which evolved to ‘Inspire inclusion’ in 2024, and the year 2025 theme was ‘Accelerate Action’. In 2026, there are three themes; 1. Give to Gain, 2. Balance the Scales, 3. Rights. Justice. Action.

Fragmented Focus Diminishes Values

Multiple themes and competing messages can unintentionally dilute momentum. Unity is not uniformity, but coherence matters; shared direction makes shared progress possible. Emerging three themes to celebrate international women’s day in 2026, implicate lack of solidarity, and unity among women’s organizations to share a common theme. Inclusion, equity and accelerated action have not yet achieved by the women globally, neither locally, nor in small communities. We are bound to question whether the women stay true to the meanings of theme colors that represent womanhood.

Thus, isn’t it vital to explore what goes wrong with our themes and slogans on this Women’s day, before setting foot without solid foundation for what we claim for? Or is it only a day that dawn women’s organisations to gather women in elite society, or identified group of women to enjoy a cup of tea over futuristic speeches of identical society, which treat women with high respect and equity?

One thing we must understand is the world is evolving, so does the roles, rights, and actions of women. Although, women shouted and pleaded for opportunities to enter male dominate world of work, today in many countries including Sri Lanka, women occupies majority of administrative positions and clerical level jobs. Even, the labour positions, dominated by males, are now occupied by the females in many sectors. However, women still bear the traditional homemaker role as well, while juggling with work, and studies to sustain jobs and promotions. This modern day scenario has made women more prone to chronic stress related deceases. The break of rest, too rigid demands coming from work and family, their own desires to move up the corporate ladder, outsmart neighbourers, and craving to make their children better than the others have made women’s lives miserable and breaching the themes and slogans that cater to the women’s prosperity.

Today’s environment has resulted many women to abandon dignity, purity, and hope, overlook unity and justice. If you see social media contents shared by women, you may not be surprised by my statements. The dignity, purity and hope for betterment of women is vanishing on screen. Young girls’ addiction to drugs, liquor and tobacco, sexual misbehaviour, and rising school-aged pregnancies are critical concerns that women’s movements must pay attention today.

What We Must Demand Now: Right Education and Just Acts

Women’s day slogans need a shift. Rather than demanding equal rights as men, we must demand right education for women and girls. We shall not stop at demanding justice as given to the men, but shout and make women and girls aware of ‘Just Acts’, and encourage them to act justly, for themselves, without exposing them to be victims of social media, and ill temptations.

Digital lives of women and girls can amplify comparison, quick outrage, and performative ideals. For girls and women, this can mean unrealistic bodies, curated success, and unsafe online spaces. What we need isn’t more judgment; it’s digital literacy, psychological safety, reproductive health awareness, and robust support systems, so women can flourish on and off‑line. We must educate women and nourish and foster the moral values among women and girls to stay pure in thoughts and actions, we must empower women and girls to keep hope and grow continuously. We must share a culture of inclusion among women to enhance solidarity and stay true to unified action for the betterment of women, and the society.

Women as Creators and Modifiers of the World

The history of International Women’s Day is a call for rights and justice. Today, the next horizon is to build cultures at home, at work, and society. Women are the creators and modifiers of the world. They are to add color to lives of those around them. In fact, WOMEN, do not need to call for justice, rights and action. WOMEN, need to call the hidden power, strength and courage within them and create a world that assures every being in it receives justice, and enjoys rights.

Thus, whether themes multiply or fade, the test is not in the rally or the ribbon, it is in the 364 days after. The colours may be vivid on stage, yet the colors are faded in practice if we do not live them. Let us re‑design life with dignity, unity, courage, and continuous growth. Let us educate, include, and act justly. Let us awaken strength within, so that every woman, every girl, and every community can thrive by being a Woman Who Re‑designs Life!

(The author is a senior education administrator, researcher,

management consultant and a lecturer.)

By Dr. Chani Imbulgoda
cv5imbulgoda@gmail.com)

Continue Reading

Features

Illegal solar push ravages Hambantota elephant habitat: Environmentalist warns of deepening crisis

Published

on

Land earmarked for the project

A large-scale move to establish solar power plants in Hambantota has triggered a major environmental and social crisis, with more than 1,000 acres of forest—identified as critical elephant habitat—cleared in violation of the law, environmental activist Sajeewa Chamikara said.

Chamikara, speaking on behalf of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform, said that 17 companies have already begun clearing forest land along the boundaries of the Hambantota Elephant Management Reserve. The affected areas include Sanakku Gala, Orukemgala and Kapapu Wewa, which are known to be key elephant habitats and long-used movement corridors.

He said that what is taking place cannot be described as development, but rather as a large-scale destruction of natural ecosystems carried out under the cover of renewable energy expansion.

According to Chamikara, the clearing of forests has been carried out using heavy machinery, while large sections have also been deliberately set on fire to prepare the land for solar installations. He said that electric fences have been erected across wide stretches of land, effectively blocking elephant movement and fragmenting their natural habitat.

“These forests are not empty lands. They are part of a living system that supports wildlife and nearby communities. Once destroyed, they cannot be easily restored,” he said.

The projects in question include a 50 megawatt solar development undertaken by five companies and a larger 150 megawatt project implemented by 12 companies. The larger project is reported to be valued at around 150 million US dollars.

Chamikara stressed that these projects are being carried out in a coordinated manner and involve extensive land clearing on a scale that raises serious environmental concerns.

He further alleged that certain companies had paid about Rs. 14 million to secure support and move ahead with the projects. He said this points to a troubling failure of oversight by state institutions that are expected to protect forests and wildlife habitats.

“This is not only an environmental issue. It is also a serious governance issue. The institutions responsible for protecting these lands have failed in their duty,” he said.

Chamikara pointed out that under the National Environmental Act, any project of this scale must receive prior approval through a proper Environmental Impact Assessment process.

He said that clearing forest land before obtaining such approval is a direct violation of the law.

He added that legal requirements relating to archaeological assessments had also been ignored. Under existing regulations, large-scale land clearing requires prior evaluation to ensure that sites of historical or cultural value are not damaged.

“The law is very clear. You cannot go ahead with projects of this nature without proper approval. What we are seeing is a complete disregard for legal procedure,” Chamikara said.

The environmental impact of these activities is already becoming visible. With their natural habitats destroyed, elephants are increasingly moving into nearby villages in search of food and shelter. This has led to a sharp rise in human-elephant conflict in several areas.

Areas such as Mayurapura, Gonnooruwa, Meegahajandura and Thanamalvila have reported increasing encounters between humans and elephants. According to Chamikara, more than 5,000 farming families in these areas are now facing growing threats to their safety and livelihoods.

 

He warned that farmers are being forced to abandon their lands due to repeated elephant intrusions, while incidents involving damage to crops and property are rising. There have also been increasing reports of injuries and deaths among both humans and elephants.

“This is turning into a serious social and economic problem. When farmers cannot cultivate their lands, it affects food production, income and rural stability,” he said.

Chamikara also raised concerns about the broader environmental consequences of clearing forests for solar power projects. While renewable energy is promoted as a solution to reduce carbon emissions, he said that destroying forests undermines that goal.

“Forests play a key role in absorbing carbon dioxide. When you clear and burn them, you are increasing emissions, not reducing them. That defeats the purpose of promoting solar energy,” he explained.

He added that large-scale deforestation in dry zone areas such as Hambantota could also affect local weather patterns and reduce rainfall, which would have further negative impacts on agriculture and water resources.

Chamikara called for a shift in policy, urging authorities to focus on more sustainable approaches to solar power development. He said that rooftop solar systems on homes, public buildings and commercial establishments should be given priority, as they do not require clearing large areas of land.

He also recommended that solar projects be located on degraded or abandoned lands, such as areas affected by past mining or other low-value lands, rather than forests or productive agricultural areas.

“Renewable energy development must be done in a way that does not destroy the environment. There are better options available if there is proper planning,” he said.

Chamikara urged the Central Environmental Authority and the Department of Wildlife Conservation to take immediate action to stop ongoing land clearing and investigate the projects. He stressed that all activities carried out without proper approval should be halted until legal requirements are met.

He warned that failure to act now would lead to long-term environmental damage that could not be reversed.

“If this continues, we will lose not only forests and wildlife, but also the balance between people and nature that supports rural life. The consequences will be felt for generations,” he said.

The situation in Hambantota is fast emerging as a critical test of whether development goals can be balanced with environmental protection. As pressure grows, the response of authorities in the coming weeks is likely to determine whether the damage can still be contained or whether it will continue to spread unchecked.

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending