Features
Kashmir Bloodshed Targets Modi’s Global Gains
JD Vance, the Vice President of the United States, arrived in India on 19 April, following a solemn stop at the Vatican, where he became the final high-ranking official to meet the late Pope Francis—an emblematic rebel of the modern Church whose death this week marked the end of a transformative papacy.
Vance’s arrival was framed as an endorsement of India’s ascendant geopolitical status, punctuated by public tributes to Prime Minister Modi and the deepening of the Indo-American strategic alliance. This diplomatic spectacle was further amplified by the 9 April extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani-origin Canadian linked to the 2008 Mumbai attacks, representing a rare convergence of legal triumphs between the two nations in their fight against terrorism. Yet, this orchestration of diplomatic victories quickly unraveled, as within days of these high-profile engagements, Kashmir—a region central to India’s evolving image—was once again thrust into global headlines, not by progress, but by tragedy. On 22 April, a massacre in the idyllic meadows of Baisaran near Pahalgam, once heralded as the face of Kashmir’s resurgence, accentuated a brutal paradox: the strategic narrative of peace and prosperity was violently interrupted by terror, forcing the world to confront the enduring volatility of the region at a moment when India appeared poised for diplomatic consolidation.
On 22 April 2025, a massacre unfolded in the meadows of Baisaran near Pahalgam, often romanticized as “India’s Switzerland.” What had become a symbol of India’s Kashmir renaissance—a picturesque site of family vacations, film shoots, and summer retreats—was reduced to a field of carnage as unidentified gunmen opened fire on a group of tourists. At least 28 civilians, mostly men, were methodically executed, while women and children were reportedly spared. The attack was not merely an act of terror, but a deeply choreographed intervention in India’s domestic and international narrative regarding Kashmir. It sought not just to kill, but to provoke, destabilize, and symbolically mutilate the emerging image of a peaceful, integrated, and economically flourishing region.
The timing of the attack is far too conspicuous to be dismissed as arbitrary. Beyond coinciding with the visit of the American Vice President and coming a few days after the extradition of a high-profile terror suspect, the attack occurred against the backdrop of growing international recognition of India’s Kashmir policy post the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. Since that constitutional transformation, Jammu and Kashmir have experienced what some argue is the beginning of a socio-economic metamorphosis. The region recorded a significant uptick in tourist arrivals—over 3.5 million in 2024 alone—and notable improvements in infrastructure, per capita income, and public order, especially relative to other northern Indian states. Critics of New Delhi’s policy feared a resurgence of insurgency post-2019, but such forecasts had not materialized at the scale predicted. Instead, the Indian government appeared to have successfully restrained militant mobilization through a combination of strategic military presence, economic incentives, and political integration.
In this context, the Pahalgam attack functions as a violent punctuation—an abrupt and bloody interruption in a gradually stabilizing narrative. Its deliberate orchestration, selective targeting of non-Muslim male tourists, and execution-style killings point to a calculated act of psychological and political warfare. Intelligence sources have attributed the operation to The Resistance Front (TRF), a group often described as a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based organization responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Although the Pakistani state has officially denied any involvement, the attack bears the hallmarks of asymmetric warfare, characteristic of entities which, though ostensibly autonomous, often operate under the shadow and sanction of foreign state apparatuses.
This week, newly declassified US intelligence documents, released by the National Security Archive, highlight a chilling historical continuity with the current crisis. A 1981 memorandum warned of catastrophic consequences from an Indian strike on Pakistan’s Karachi Nuclear Power Plant, with up to 20,000 latent cancer cases in Karachi due to Iodine-131 exposure. The document reflected Washington’s concerns about how quickly a conventional South Asian conflict could escalate to nuclear war. This was echoed in a 1989 report by the US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which deemed a full-scale war between India and Pakistan “improbable,” yet stressed the high risk of escalation through miscalculation, especially in the event of strikes on Pakistan’s nuclear sites. By 1993, a National Intelligence Estimate suggested a one in five chance of war, noting that nuclear rivalry, cross-border militancy, and rising extremism could turn even minor skirmishes into a regional disaster.
What emerges from these archival assessments is a grim continuity: terror in Kashmir has consistently been a strategic tool wielded not merely to express ideological dissent but to force geopolitical re-calibration. This is not a theatre of mindless extremism; it is a crucible of meticulously calibrated violence. From the Chattisinghpora massacre in March 2000, where 36 Sikh villagers were executed during President Clinton’s visit, to the 2001 Jammu and Kashmir Assembly bombing, the 2003 Nandimarg massacre of Kashmiri Pandits, the 2017 Amarnath Yatra ambush, and now the 2025 Pahalgam killings, the pattern is unmistakable. Civilian targeting escalates in moments of diplomatic progress, suggesting an ideological commitment by militant actors to challenge not only the Indian state but also its evolving position within the global order.
The present attack comes at a moment when India is enjoying heightened diplomatic engagement with the Arab Countries and the West. Saudi Arabia, traditionally a close ally of Pakistan, has in recent years pivoted towards India as a key economic and strategic partner. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and even Iran have signaled similar re calibrations. This realignment was most visible during the 2019 India-Pakistan standoff, when the Gulf states played a critical role in deescalation, and again when they muted their responses to India’s abrogation of Kashmir’s autonomy. The Kashmir issue, once a central rallying cry in Islamic internationalism, has lost its salience in the Gulf’s strategic calculus. For militant organizations and their state backers, this diminishing global sympathy poses an existential challenge. Reinvigorating the Kashmir discourse through acts of horror appears to be the chosen mode of revival.
It would be naïve to view the Pahalgam massacre in isolation. The possibility of future attacks targeting soft civilian clusters—tourists, religious pilgrims, migrant workers—across other regions in South Asia cannot be discounted. Nepal’s porous borders, Sri Lanka’s post-conflict fragilities, and India’s Northeast remain potential theatres for replication.
In the wake of this attack, Prime Minister Modi faces a dilemma reminiscent of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conundrum following the Hamas assault in October 2023. A tempered response could be construed as weakness, emboldening adversaries and fueling domestic political critiques of failed security assurances. Conversely, a muscular retaliation—especially if aimed at Pakistan or its proxies—risks internationalizing the Kashmir dispute once again, undoing years of diplomatic effort to position it as an internal Indian matter. Moreover, in the context of escalating global multi-polarity and emergent regional axes, a misstep could precipitate a broader crisis, pulling in actors far beyond South Asia.
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Features
Fractious West facing a more solidified Eastern opposition
Going forward, it is hoped that a reported ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran would provide a basis for a degree of stability in the Middle East and pave the way for substantive peace talks between the powers concerned. The world is compelled to fall back on hope because there is never knowing when President Donald Trump would change his mind and plans on matters of the first importance. So erratic has he been.
Yet, confusion abounds on who has agreed to what. The US President is on record that a number of conditions put forward by him to Iran to deescalate tensions have been accepted by the latter, whereas Iran is yet to state unambiguously that this is so. For instance, the US side claims that Iran has come clear on the point that it would not work towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but there is no official confirmation by Iran that this is so. The same goes for the rest of the conditions.
Accordingly, the peace process between the US and Iran, if such a thing solidly exists, could be said to be mired in uncertainty. Nevertheless, the wider publics of the world are bound to welcome the prospects of some sort of ceasing of hostilities because it would have the effect of improving their economic and material well being which is today under a cloud.
However, questions of the first magnitude would continue to bedevil international politics and provide the breeding ground for continued tensions between East and West. Iran-US hostilities helped highlight some of these divisive issues and a deescalation of these tensions would not inevitably translate into even a temporary resolution of these questions. The world community would have no choice but to take them up and work towards comprehending them better and managing them more effectively.
For example, there are thorny questions arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Essentially, this treaty bans the processing and use of nuclear weapons by states but some of the foremost powers are not signatories to it.
Moreover, the NPT does not provide for the destroying of nuclear arsenals by those signatory states which are already in possession of these WMDs. Consequently, there would be a glaring power imbalance between the latter nuclear-armed states and others which possess only conventional weapons.
Such a situation has grave implications for Iran’s security, for instance. The latter could argue, in view of the NPT restrictions, that the US poses a security threat to it but that it is debarred by the Treaty from developing a nuclear arms capability of its own to enable it to match the nuclear capability of the US. Moreover, its regional rival Israel is believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, a case could be made that the NPT is inherently unfair. The US would need to help resolve this vexatious matter going forward. But if it remains, US-Iran tensions would not prove easy to resolve. The same goes for Iran-Israeli tensions. Consequently, the Middle East would remain the proverbial ‘powder keg’.
Besides the above issues, the world has ample evidence that it could no longer speak in terms of a united NATO or West. Apparently, there could be no guarantee that US-NATO relations would remain untroubled in future, even if the current Iran-US standoff is peacefully resolved. US-NATO ties almost reached breaking point in the current crisis when the US President called on its NATO partners, particularly Britain, to help keep open the Hormuz Straits for easy navigation by commercial vessels, militarily, on seeing that such help was not forthcoming. Such questions are bound to remain sore points in intra-Western ties.
In other words, it would be imperative for the US’ NATO partners to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’ going ahead. The question is, would NATO be willing to thus toe the US line even at the cost of its best interests.
For the West, these fractious issues are coming to the fore at a most unpropitious moment. The reality that could faze the West at present is the strong opposition shown to its efforts to bolster its power and influence by China and Russia. Right through the present crisis, the latter have stood by Iran, materially and morally. For instance, the most recent Security Council resolution spearheaded by the US which was strongly critical of Iran, was vetoed by China and Russia.
Accordingly, we have in the latter developments some marked polarities in international politics that could stand in the way of the West advancing its interests unchallenged. They point to progressively intensifying East-West tensions in international relations in the absence of consensuality.
It is only to be expected that given the substance of international politics that the West would be opposed by the East, read China and Russia, in any of the former’s efforts to advance its self interests unilaterally in ways that could be seen as illegitimate, but what is sorely needed at present is consensuality among the foremost powers if the world is to be ‘a less dangerous place to live in.’ Minus a focus on the latter, it would be a ‘no-win’ situation for all concerned.
It would be central to world stability for International Law to be upheld by all states and international actors. Military intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries remains a principal cause of international mayhem. Both East and West are obliged to abide scrupulously with this principle.
From the latter viewpoint, not only did the West err in recent times, but the East did so as well. Iran, for instance, acted in gross violation of International Law when it attacked neighbouring Gulf states which are seen as US allies. Neither Iran nor the US-Israel combine have helped in advancing international law and order by thus taking the law into their own hands.
Unfortunately, the UN has been a passive spectator to these disruptive developments. It needs to play a more robust role in promoting world peace and in furthering consensual understanding among the principal powers in particular. The need is also urgent to advance UN reform and render the UN a vital instrument in furthering world peace. The East and West need to think alike and quickly on this urgent undertaking.
Features
Science-driven health policies key to tackling emerging challenges — UNFPA
Marking World Health Day on April 7, health experts have called for a stronger commitment to science-based decision-making to address increasingly complex and evolving health challenges in Sri Lanka and beyond.
Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga, Assistant Representative of the United Nations Population Fund, stressed that health is no longer confined to hospitals or traditional medical systems, but is shaped by a broad spectrum of social, environmental, and technological factors.
“This year’s theme, ‘Together for Health. Stand with Science,’ reminds us that science is not only for laboratories or policymakers. It is a way of thinking and a tool that shapes everyday decisions,” he said.
Dr. Ranatunga noted that modern health challenges are increasingly interconnected, ranging from infectious diseases such as COVID-19 to climate-related risks, demographic shifts, and emerging forms of online violence.
He warned that maternal and newborn health continues to demand urgent attention despite progress. Globally, an estimated 260,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in 2023 alone—many of them preventable through timely, science-based interventions.
“In countries like Sri Lanka, where fertility rates are declining and survival rates improving, every pregnancy carries greater significance—not just for families, but for the future of communities and economies,” he said.
The UNFPA official also highlighted the growing threat of Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), including cyber harassment and online abuse, noting that these forms of violence can have deep psychological consequences despite lacking visible physical harm.
He emphasised the need for multidisciplinary, science-informed approaches that integrate mental health, digital safety, and survivor-centered care.
Turning to demographic trends, Dr. Ranatunga pointed out that increasing life expectancy is bringing new challenges, particularly the rise of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, and cancers.
In Sri Lanka, nearly 13.9% of mothers develop diabetes during pregnancy, a trend attributed to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, underscoring the urgent need for preventive healthcare strategies.
“Are we investing enough in prevention?” he asked, noting that early intervention and healthier lifestyles could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs, especially in a country with a free public healthcare system.
He underscored the importance of data-driven policymaking, stating that scientific research and analytics enable governments to identify gaps, anticipate future needs, and allocate resources more effectively.
The UNFPA, he said, is already leveraging tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve access to maternal healthcare, including mapping travel times for pregnant women to reach health facilities.
Digital innovation is also transforming healthcare delivery, from telemedicine to real-time data systems, improving efficiency and ensuring continuity of care even during emergencies.
In Sri Lanka, partnerships between the government and development agencies are helping to modernise training institutions, including facilities in Batticaloa, equipping healthcare workers with both clinical and digital skills.
However, Dr. Ranatunga cautioned that technology alone is not a solution.
“It must be guided by evidence and grounded in equity,” he said, pointing out that women’s health remains significantly underfunded, with only about 7% of global healthcare research focusing on conditions specific to women.
He also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, food insecurity, and displacement, describing it as an emerging public health crisis.
“Health does not begin in hospitals. It is shaped by the environments we live in, the choices we make, and the systems we build,” he said.
Calling for renewed commitment, Dr. Ranatunga urged stakeholders to invest in prevention, embrace innovation, and ensure that science remains central to policy and practice.
“Science is not just about knowledge—it is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live healthy, dignified lives, and that no one is left behind,” he added.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Sharing the festive joy with ‘Awurudu Kaale’
Melantha Perera is well known as a very versatile musician.
He was involved with the band Mirage, as their keyboardist/vocalist, and was also seen in action with other outfits, as well, before embarking on a trip to Australia, as a solo artiste.
I now hear that he has plans to operate as a trio.
However, what has got many talking about Melantha, these days, is his awesome work with the visually impaired Bright Light Band.
They have worked out a special song for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, aptly titled ‘Awurudu Kaale.’
Says Melantha: “This song has been created to celebrate the spirit of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year and to share the joy of the Awurudu season with all Sri Lankans”.
Yes, of course, Melantha composed the song, with the lyrics written collaboratively by Melantha, Badra, and the parents of the talented performers, whose creative input brought the song to life during moments of inspiration.

Melantha Perera: Awesome work with Bright Light Band
This meaningful collaboration reflects the strong community behind the Bright Light Band.
According to Melantha, accompaning the song is a vibrant video production that also features the involvement of the parents, highlighting unity, joy, and togetherness.
Beyond showcasing their musical talents, the visually impaired members of Bright Light Band deliver a powerful message, through this project, that their abilities extend beyond singing, as they also express themselves through movement and dance.
Melantha expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the project and looks forward to sharing it with audiences across the country during this festive season.
He went on to say that Bright Light Band extends its sincere gratitude to Bcert Australia for their generous Mian sponsorship, the CEO of the company, Samath Fernando, for his continuous support in making such initiatives possible, and Rukshan Perera for his personal support and encouragement in bringing this project to completion.
The band also acknowledges Udara Fernando for his invaluable contribution, generously providing studio space and accommodating extended recording sessions to suit the children’s availability.
Appreciation is warmly extended to the parents, whose unwavering commitment from ensuring attendance at rehearsals to supporting the video production has been instrumental in the success of this project.
Through ‘Awurudu Kaale’, Bright Light Band hopes to spread festive cheer and inspire audiences, proving that passion and talent know no boundaries.
-
Features4 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News4 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News2 days agoLankan-origin actress Subashini found dead in India
-
Opinion6 days agoHidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
-
Features4 days agoBeyond the Blue Skies: A Tribute to Captain Elmo Jayawardena
-
Features4 days agoAspects of Ceylon/Sri Lanka Foreign Relations – 1948 to 1976
-
Features6 days agoThe Ramadan War
-
Editorial5 days agoBrouhaha over a book
