Features
Relations with US authorities and with gentleman-Minister Gamani Jayasuriya
Irritable minister was trying to give up smoking
Now I turn briefly to the overall relationship that we had developed with the United States Department of Agriculture and other US governmental and non governmental authorities on the important aspect of ensuring wheat shipments to Sri Lanka, under aid programs. During the course of handling my responsibilities as Secretary Food, I had to travel to Washington many times. During these visits I was able to establish valuable personal contacts, in the relevant US departments and agencies. It helps both sides to know whom they are dealing with. If the relationship develops, it usually evolves towards a considerable degree of friendship, understanding and trust.
The foundation and basis is always mutual respect. When you deal with people at high levels of government in other countries, your own designation however impressive it may be is only of limited value, unless it is backed by uptodate and relevant knowledge on your subject area, experience, communication skills, wide interests and the ability to talk about them, and above all, credibility. It is only on these bases that you could establish relationships with able and sophisticated people.
I have had meetings and discussions with relevant persons in the State Department, Agency for International Development (AID), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and above all, with several officials in the Department of Agriculture (USDA.) There was an occasion where I had to go right up to the White House, about which I will write later. During these meetings, it was possible to establish considerable personal rapport, which in turn led to benefits for the country.
We received enhanced allocations of aid to purchase wheat under PL 480. This took pressure off our foreign exchange resources, and assisted the process of ensuring food security. Some of our Ambassadors in Washington during this time such as Ernest Corea and Susantha de Alwis, who served for a fairly long period were consistently helpful. The fact that they were able people who knew a wide circle of important persons, and enjoyed credibility and respect was immensely helpful.
The fact that during that period our teams to Washington which included officials from the Food Ministry, Food Department and the External Resources Department of the Treasury were all carefully chosen and consisted of able people gave us a great advantage. US officials have told us as well as our Ambassadors and on at least one occasion, I know of, the State Minister for Food that they regarded the way we conducted business as a model which they hoped other countries would emulate. All this led to the creation of a fund of goodwill and considerable respect.
There were many occasions therefore that US officials went out of their way to be helpful. I would like as an example to refer to just one such instance. This also illustrates how developing personal relationships matter. Over a couple of years I had developed a degree of friendship with a high official of the Department of Agriculture. During our meetings, we discovered that we had an intellectual interest in history. We enjoyed spending some time, both officially and socially, when we had dinner together, discussing various eras, aspects and trends in history.
This led to our exchanging books on history. He sent me a book dealing with historical trends and I sent him two paper back books Professor E.H. Carr’s “What is History?” and Professor Herbert Butterfields “The WhigInterpretation of History.” We had also talked about our families, children and so on. On one occasion when I was in Washington and called on him in his office, after the preliminary exchange of pleasantries, he announced that he had something like an extra 12 million dollars left over under the PL 480 program, due mainly to the delay in some countries acting on the allocations given to them. “Everyone is not as efficient as you are,” he said. I thanked him and quickly asked “Don’t you think it would be fair to reward efficiency?”
He said “I take your point. But naturally I can’t give you the entire amount. I will have to deal with some other countries too.” I said “Look, I am very grateful that you told me of this availability. You need not have done so at all. You know all about us. I will therefore leave it entirely to you to give us whatever you could. It will be a great help.” He thought for sometime and said “I will give you the maximum I can – US dollars 5 million.”
I thanked him most sincerely. I was indeed grateful. I kept in touch with him whenever I could even after I left the Ministry. On one occasion, when I was Secretary to the Ministry of Education and Higher Education, I had to travel to another country, and I discovered by accident that my friend was working in the US Embassy there. I telephoned the Embassy to talk to him and also see whether we could get together to have a meal. But unfortunately he was out of the country, and I had to make do with leaving a message.
We had also built excellent relations with the US Wheat Associates, the influential apex body of US wheat farmers. They had been extremely helpful in trying to obtain for us the maximum possible allocation under PL480. Our relations were so good that they invited me to attend one of their special Board meetings in Honolulu, Hawaii and deliver one of the keynote addresses at the convention of National Wheat Growers.
The authorities at the time took an enlightened approach to this kind of invitation, not regarding it as a mere trip abroad, but as an honour which should be accepted. They had the wisdom to see that the relationships built at these high levels would prove to be very useful to the country. I particularly say this because many are the times I have seen Ministers merely engaging in simple arithmetic just counting the number of times a public servant had gone abroad, instead of seriously pondering issues of relevance and value. This is not to say that public servants do not try to go abroad whenever a chance appears. Some of them certainly do. What I am commenting on is trivial bean counting and the absence of mature judgment.
Wider exposure
These visits to the United States also gave me a wider exposure, because our Ambassadors and other senior embassy officials generally, all of whom I knew very well, often discussed many issues with me and sought my views. Sometimes, if I had a free slot which coincided with one of their important meetings with high US officials, they invited me to go along with them. I remember one such occasion where Ambassador Corea took me to a luncheon meeting with some senior State Department officials, which included a previous Ambassador to Sri Lanka. Ambassador Ben Fonseka, our Permanent Representative at the UN, flew in from New York for this meeting.
When we met at the International Club in Washington, I could see that the atmosphere was warm, informal and friendly. During the introductions and the bantering before we sat down, I too entered into the spirit of the occasion and told the Americans, “Gentlemen, the Portuguese delegation has arrived.” There was loud laughter, because the three on our side were Corea, Fonseka and Pieris. Once the bantering was over, we got down to lunch and serious discussions. I saw that this was a professional discussion by experienced professionals. Much ground was covered during a relatively short period of time without visible or felt strain. An underlying thread of good humour permeated the whole proceedings. The place where the lunch was held, the International Club, was a very exclusive place. Membership usually cost around US Dollars 19,000. Fortunately, Ambassadors accredited to Washington were given honorary membership.
On some of these visits to Washington I also had the pleasure of meeting Ambassador Chris Van Hollen and his wife Eliza. I had a standing order from Chris that I was not to come to Washington and go without contacting him. Once I had lunch with them at their home in Virginia. But most times Chris used to take me to the Cosmos Club on Massachusetts Avenue, another one of those exclusive clubs in the area. At the time it was a club exclusively for men, although the process was on to admit women. Membership was strictly confined to professionals of a certain intellectual calibre holding positions in various areas such as administration and management; diplomacy; other professions such as law; medicine; etc., and academia.
I was taken round the club by Chris. The library devoted a special section to books written by members of the club, and a corridor contained the portraits of Nobel Prize winning members of the club. It was that kind of exclusive club. It was elitist. But it was an elitism not based on an aristocracy of birth, but an aristocracy of achievement. The club also ran an excellent restaurant, and at one of these lunches I was introduced by Chris to Jim Spain, Ambassador designate to Sri Lanka, who was awaiting confirmation by the Senate. These extra experiences were very enriching and added both to knowledge and perspective.
Relations with Minister Gamani Jayasuriya
The relationship of senior officials to ministers is a subject much talked of as well as written about. I propose to deal with this important area analytically, amongst other important issues of governance in a concluding chapter. At this point however, I wish to refer to my relationship with Minister Gamani Jayasuriya. He was a man of principle and a gentleman. At the time I worked with him, he held two portfolios, the one of Agricultural Development and Research, and Food and Co-operatives. I was his Secretary in the latter Ministry, whilst Mr. N.V.K.K. Weragoda was Secretary in the former. The Minister worked from both Ministries, although at times, for the sake of convenience, he used to get down relevant officials from one Ministry to the other.
Mr. Jayasuriya was responsible and conscientious in his approach to his duties, and made certain that he understood everything of importance, in the same manner as one of his outstanding predecessors, Mr. M. D. Banda. Like Mr. Banda and Mr. S.B. Herat, he did not interfere in appointments or disciplinary matters. He had confidence in his officials and expected them to do the right thing. Just to cite an example, there was once heavy pressure on him from Members of Parliament of his party to intervene in the appointment of Co-operative Inspectors. They wanted him to interfere in the results of the examination and appoint their favourites, based on the argument that they possessed the basic qualifications.
Mr. Jayasuriya steadfastly refused to interfere. After one meeting with him, angry MPs were seen leaving his room in Parliament severely criticizing him. One of them was overheard to say “How can we work with Bodhisatvas?!” He obviously wanted to safeguard basic principles. I recall walking into his room when he was with his constituents and hearing him say that he was prepared to recommend someone if deserving, but that he was not prepared to go further and exert pressure on the appointing authorities to take the person.
An argument
Temperamentally, Mr. Jayasuriya differed somewhat from my previous Minister, Mr. Herat. Mr. Herat had a very equable temperament, and found it difficult to get angry. Mr. Jayasuriya, on the contrary demonstrated at times, a peculiar mixture of affability and irritability. He was jovial at one moment, and quite testy at another. Unfortunately one day, I ran into him when he was in one of his testier moods. I happened to walk into his room in the Food Ministry one evening at about 5.30 p.m. because I had something important to discuss. As I entered, he half glared at me, and before I could say anything, proceeded to give me an order on some matter, in a peremptory tone.
His tone and manner caught me by surprise and irritated me. But more than that I saw several harmful implications in carrying out his order. Straightaway, I could think of at least two other options that were safer and better. There could have been more, if only there was time for reflection. I started to politely tell him that there were some better options, but he interrupted me halfway and with suppressed anger said “You carry out my order,” and muttered something about “bureaucracy,” under his breath.
Now I am afraid, I lost my temper. I was as an official and a person, diligent, responsible and hardworking. I was a senior Secretary. I believed that whatever appointments I got in government was due to nothing else but my own record of performance. I was beholden to nobody. Mr. Jayasuriya’s tone and manner therefore hurt, upset and angered me. I was quite charged up by now. The last time I lost my temper with a Minister was with Mrs. Bandaranaike, an event which I have recorded in an earlier chapter.
I sat down, facing him. I told him that with every passing day, I saw very little difference between Ministers and bureaucrats, because Ministers were usurping the powers and doing the work of bureaucrats; that I had a duty as his Secretary to advice him; that a duty could be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral , that on this occasion although it was unpleasant, I was still going to discharge it and say that there were much better options, two of which I quickly mentioned. The Minister was red in face gritting his teeth and speechless. I then got up and began walking towards the door saying “Now that I have discharged my duty, I will go and carry out your order.”
As I opened the door, he bellowed “Do any damned thing you want.” This of course meant that the force of what I had said had struck him and that he was prepared to reconsider. But he was very angry. By the time I came to my room, my anger had gone, because I have had my say. But I was feeling deeply upset, and guilty that I had lost my temper, which I had no business to do. There was no question, I had lost control and I was now more upset at this failure on my part, than the Minister’s tone and manner, which had triggered off this unfortunate incident.
There was nothing one could do now. What was past was past. The Commissioner of Co-operative Development, Mr. Austin Fernando was waiting for me in my room to discuss some matters. Shortly after I started talking to him, the Minister’s office-aide came in and said that the Minister had left. This was standard practice. The Secretary is usually informed when the Minister comes in, and goes out. I continued my discussion with the C.C.D, when towards 6.45 p.m. my “Hot line,” or the security telephone hooked up to a special exchange rang. It was the Minister.
“I say, Dharmasiri, I lost my temper. I am sorry,” he said. I said, “Sir, I lost mine too, and I am very sorry.” “You know, I have been trying to give up smoking over the last few days, and it is making me irritable,” Mr. Jayasuriya went on. I promptly replied “Sir, if it would help you to stop smoking, you could blackguard me everyday.”
He laughed, and the day ended on this note of amity, but not before I related the story to a curious Mr. Austin Fernando, who overheard this telephone conversation. This happened to be a Monday, and the next day Tuesday, we as usual had the Secretaries meeting at 8.30 a.m. in the Cabinet office. Dr. Malinga Fernando, who was Secretary to the Ministry of Health, walked up to me and said “So, your Minister apologized to you yesterday.” I was mystified as to how he knew. But it turned out that both of them had been at dinner together that night, where the Minister had related this story. That was the gentleman that Mr. Jayasuriya was.
(Excerpted from In Pursuit of Governance, autobigraphy of MDD Pieris)
Features
The US-China rivalry and challenges facing the South
The US-China rivalry could be said to make-up the ‘stuff and substance’ of world politics today but rarely does the international politics watcher and student of the global South in particular get the opportunity of having a balanced and comprehensive evaluation of this crucial relationship. But such a balanced assessment is vitally instrumental in making sense of current world power relations.
Thanks to the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo the above window of opportunity was opened on December 8th for those sections of the public zealously pursuing an understanding of current issues in global politics. The knowledge came via a forum that was conducted at the RCSS titled, ‘The US-China Rivalry and Implications for the Indo-Pacific’, where Professor Neil DeVotta of the Wake Forest University of North Carolina in the US, featured as the speaker.
A widely representative audience was present at the forum, including senior public servants, the diplomatic corps, academics, heads of civil society organizations, senior armed forces personnel and the media. The event was ably managed by the Executive Director of the RCSS, retired ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha. Following the main presentation a lively Q&A session followed, where many a point of interest was aired and discussed.
While there is no doubt that China is fast catching up with the US with regard to particularly military, economic, scientific and technological capability, Prof. DeVotta helped to balance this standard projection of ‘China’s steady rise’ by pointing to some vital facts about China, the omission of which would amount to the observer having a somewhat uninformed perception of global political realities.
The following are some of the facts about contemporary China that were highlighted by Prof. DeVotta:
* Money is steadily moving out of China and the latter’ s economy is slowing down. In fact the country is in a ‘ Middle Income Trap’. That is, it has reached middle income status but has failed to move to upper income status since then.
* People in marked numbers are moving out of China. It is perhaps little known that some Chinese are seeking to enter the US with a view to living there. The fact is that China’s population too is on the decline.
* Although the private sector is operative in China, there has been an increase in Parastatals; that is, commercial organizations run by the state are also very much in the fore. In fact private enterprises have begun to have ruling Communist Party cells in them.
* China is at its ‘peak power’ but this fact may compel it to act ‘aggressively’ in the international sphere. For instance, it may be compelled to invade Taiwan.
* A Hard Authoritarianism could be said to characterize central power in China today, whereas the expectation in some quarters is that it would shift to a Soft Authoritarian system, as is the case in Singapore.
* China’s influence in the West is greater than it has ever been.
The speaker was equally revelatory about the US today. Just a few of these observations are:
* The US is in a ‘Unipolar Moment’. That is, it is the world’s prime power. Such positions are usually not longstanding but in the case of the US this position has been enjoyed by it for quite a while.
* China is seen by the US as a ‘Revisionist Power’ as opposed to being a ‘Status Quo Power.’ That is China is for changing the world system slowly.
* The US in its latest national security strategy is paying little attention to Soft Power as opposed to Hard Power.
* In terms of this strategy the US would not allow any single country to dominate the Asia-Pacific region.
* The overall tone of this strategy is that the US should step back and allow regional powers to play a greater role in international politics.
* The strategy also holds that the US must improve economic ties with India, but there is very little mention of China in the plan.
Given these observations on the current international situation, a matter of the foremost importance for the economically weakest countries of the South is to figure out how best they could survive materially within it. Today there is no cohesive and vibrant collective organization that could work towards the best interests of the developing world and Dr. DeVotta was more or less correct when he said that the Non-alignment Movement (NAM) has declined.
However, this columnist is of the view that rather being a spent force, NAM was allowed to die out by the South. NAM as an idea could never become extinct as long as economic and material inequalities between North and South exist. Needless to say, this situation is remaining unchanged since the eighties when NAM allowed itself to be a non-entity so to speak in world affairs.
The majority of Southern countries did not do themselves any good by uncritically embracing the ‘market economy’ as a panacea for their ills. As has been proved, this growth paradigm only aggravated the South’s development ills, except for a few states within its fold.
Considering that the US would be preferring regional powers to play a more prominent role in the international economy and given the US’ preference to be a close ally of India, the weakest of the South need to look into the possibility of tying up closely with India and giving the latter a substantive role in advocating the South’s best interests in the councils of the world.
To enable this to happen the South needs to ‘get organized’ once again. The main differences between the past and the present with regard to Southern affairs is that in the past the South had outstanding leaders, such as Jawaharlal Nehru of India, who could doughtily stand up for it. As far as this columnist could ascertain, it is the lack of exceptional leaders that in the main led to the decline of NAM and other South-centred organizations.
Accordingly, an urgent task for the South is to enable the coming into being of exceptional leaders who could work untiringly towards the realization of its just needs, such as economic equity. Meanwhile, Southern countries would do well to, indeed, follow the principles of NAM and relate cordially with all the major powers so as to realizing their best interests.
Features
Sri Lanka and Global Climate Emergency: Lessons of Cyclone Ditwah
Tropical Cyclone Ditwah, which made landfall in Sri Lanka on 28 November 2025, is considered the country’s worst natural disaster since the deadly 2004 tsunami. It intensified the northeast monsoon, bringing torrential rainfall, massive flooding, and 215 severe landslides across seven districts. The cyclone left a trail of destruction, killing nearly 500 people, displacing over a million, destroying homes, roads, and railway lines, and disabling critical infrastructure including 4,000 transmission towers. Total economic losses are estimated at USD 6–7 billion—exceeding the country’s foreign reserves.
The Sri Lankan Armed Forces have led the relief efforts, aided by international partners including India and Pakistan. A Sri Lanka Air Force helicopter crashed in Wennappuwa, killing the pilot and injuring four others, while five Sri Lanka Navy personnel died in Chundikkulam in the north while widening waterways to mitigate flooding. The bravery and sacrifice of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces during this disaster—as in past disasters—continue to be held in high esteem by grateful Sri Lankans.
The Sri Lankan government, however, is facing intense criticism for its handling of Cyclone Ditwah, including failure to heed early warnings available since November 12, a slow and poorly coordinated response, and inadequate communication with the public. Systemic issues—underinvestment in disaster management, failure to activate protocols, bureaucratic neglect, and a lack of coordination among state institutions—are also blamed for avoidable deaths and destruction.
The causes of climate disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah go far beyond disaster preparedness. Faulty policymaking, mismanagement, and decades of unregulated economic development have eroded the island’s natural defenses. As climate scientist Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe notes:
“Sri Lankan wetlands—the nation’s most effective natural flood-control mechanism—have been bulldosed, filled, encroached upon, and sold. Many of these developments were approved despite warnings from environmental scientists, hydrologists, and even state institutions.”
Sri Lanka’s current vulnerabilities also stem from historical deforestation and plantation agriculture associated with colonial-era export development. Forest cover declined from 82% in 1881 to 70% in 1900, and to 54–50% by 1948, when British rule ended. It fell further to 44% in 1954 and to 16.5% by 2019.
Deforestation contributes an estimated 10–12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond removing a vital carbon sink, it damages water resources, increases runoff and erosion, and heightens flood and landslide risk. Soil-depleting monocrop agriculture further undermines traditional multi-crop systems that regenerate soil fertility, organic matter, and biodiversity.
In Sri Lanka’s Central Highlands, which were battered by Cyclone Ditwah, deforestation and unregulated construction had destabilised mountain slopes. Although high-risk zones prone to floods and landslides had long been identified, residents were not relocated, and construction and urbanisation continued unchecked.
Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia to adopt neoliberal economic policies. With the “Open Economy” reforms of 1977, a capitalist ideology equating human well-being with quantitative growth and material consumption became widespread. Development efforts were rushed, poorly supervised, and frequently approved without proper environmental assessment.
Privatisation and corporate deregulation weakened state oversight. The recent economic crisis and shrinking budgets further eroded environmental and social protections, including the maintenance of drainage networks, reservoirs, and early-warning systems. These forces have converged to make Sri Lanka a victim of a dual climate threat: gradual environmental collapse and sudden-onset disasters.
Sri Lanka: A Climate Victim
Sri Lanka’s carbon emissions remain relatively small but are rising. The impact of climate change on the island, however, is immense. Annual mean air temperature has increased significantly in recent decades (by 0.016 °C annually between 1961 and 1990). Sea-level rise has caused severe coastal erosion—0.30–0.35 meters per year—affecting nearly 55% of the shoreline. The 2004 tsunami demonstrated the extreme vulnerability of low-lying coastal plains to rising seas.
The Cyclone Ditwah catastrophe was neither wholly new nor surprising. In 2015, the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) identified Sri Lanka as the South Asian country with the highest relative risk of disaster-related displacement: “For every million inhabitants, 15,000 are at risk of being displaced every year.”
IDMC also noted that in 2017 the country experienced seven disaster events—mainly floods and landslides—resulting in 135,000 new displacements and that Sri Lanka “is also at risk for slow-onset impacts such as soil degradation, saltwater intrusion, water scarcity, and crop failure”.
Sri Lanka ranked sixth among countries most affected by extreme weather events in 2018 (Germanwatch) and second in 2019 (Global Climate Risk Index). Given these warnings, Cyclone Ditwah should not have been a surprise. Scientists have repeatedly cautioned that warmer oceans fuel stronger cyclones and warmer air holds more moisture, leading to extreme rainfall. As the Ceylon Today editorial of December 1, 2025 also observed:
“…our monsoons are no longer predictable. Cyclones form faster, hit harder, and linger longer. Rainfall becomes erratic, intense, and destructive. This is not a coincidence; it is a pattern.”
Without urgent action, even more extreme weather events will threaten Sri Lanka’s habitability and physical survival.
A Global Crisis
Extreme weather events—droughts, wildfires, cyclones, and floods—are becoming the global norm. Up to 1.2 billion people could become “climate refugees” by 2050. Global warming is disrupting weather patterns, destabilising ecosystems, and posing severe risks to life on Earth. Indonesia and Thailand were struck by the rare and devastating Tropical Cyclone Senyar in late November 2025, occurring simultaneously with Cyclone Ditwah’s landfall in Sri Lanka.
More than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions—and nearly 90% of carbon emissions—come from burning coal, oil, and gas, which supply about 80% of the world’s energy. Countries in the Global South, like Sri Lanka, which contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions, are among the most vulnerable to climate devastation. Yet wealthy nations and multilateral institutions, including the World Bank, continue to subsidise fossil fuel exploration and production. Global climate policymaking—including COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, in 2025—has been criticised as ineffectual and dominated by fossil fuel interests.
If the climate is not stabilised, long-term planetary forces beyond human control may be unleashed. Technology and markets are not inherently the problem; rather, the issue lies in the intentions guiding them. The techno-market worldview, which promotes the belief that well-being increases through limitless growth and consumption, has contributed to severe economic inequality and more frequent extreme weather events. The climate crisis, in turn, reflects a profound mismatch between the exponential expansion of a profit-driven global economy and the far slower evolution of human consciousness needed to uphold morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom.
Sri Lanka’s 2025–26 budget, adopted on November 14, 2025—just as Cyclone Ditwah loomed—promised subsidised land and electricity for companies establishing AI data centers in the country.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake told Parliament: “Don’t come questioning us on why we are giving land this cheap; we have to make these sacrifices.”
Yet Sri Lanka is a highly water-stressed nation, and a growing body of international research shows that AI data centers consume massive amounts of water and electricity, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.
The failure of the narrow, competitive techno-market approach underscores the need for an ecological and collective framework capable of addressing the deeper roots of this existential crisis—both for Sri Lanka and the world.

A landslide in Sri Lanka (AFP picture)
Ecological and Human Protection
Ecological consciousness demands
recognition that humanity is part of the Earth, not separate from it. Policies to address climate change must be grounded in this understanding, rather than in worldviews that prize infinite growth and technological dominance. Nature has primacy over human-created systems: the natural world does not depend on humanity, while humanity cannot survive without soil, water, air, sunlight, and the Earth’s essential life-support systems.
Although a climate victim today, Sri Lanka is also home to an ancient ecological civilization dating back to the arrival of the Buddhist monk Mahinda Thera in the 3rd century BCE. Upon meeting King Devanampiyatissa, who was out hunting in Mihintale, Mahinda Thera delivered one of the earliest recorded teachings on ecological interdependence and the duty of rulers to protect nature:
“O great King, the birds of the air and the beasts of the forest have as much right to live and move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only its guardian.”
A stone inscription at Mihintale records that the king forbade the killing of animals and the destruction of trees. The Mihintale Wildlife Sanctuary is believed to be the world’s first.
Sri Lanka’s ancient dry-zone irrigation system—maintained over more than a millennium—stands as a marvel of sustainable development. Its network of interconnected reservoirs, canals, and sluices captured monsoon waters, irrigated fields, controlled floods, and even served as a defensive barrier. Floods occurred, but historical records show no disasters comparable in scale, severity, or frequency to those of today. Ancient rulers, including the legendary reservoir-builder King Parākramabāhu, and generations of rice farmers managed their environment with remarkable discipline and ecological wisdom.
The primacy of nature became especially evident when widespread power outages and the collapse of communication networks during Cyclone Ditwah forced people to rely on one another for survival. The disaster ignited spontaneous acts of compassion and solidarity across all communities—men and women, rich and poor, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Local and international efforts mobilized to rescue, shelter, feed, and emotionally support those affected. These actions demonstrated a profound human instinct for care and cooperation, often filling vacuums left by formal emergency systems.
Yet spontaneous solidarity alone is insufficient. Sri Lanka urgently needs policies on sustainable development, environmental protection, and climate resilience. These include strict, science-based regulation of construction; protection of forests and wetlands; proper maintenance of reservoirs; and climate-resilient infrastructure. Schools should teach environmental literacy that builds unity and solidarity, rather than controversial and divisive curriculum changes like the planned removal of history and introduction of contested modules on gender and sexuality.
If the IMF and international creditors—especially BlackRock, Sri Lanka’s largest sovereign bondholder, valued at USD 13 trillion—are genuinely concerned about the country’s suffering, could they not cancel at least some of Sri Lanka’s sovereign debt and support its rebuilding efforts? Addressing the climate emergency and the broader existential crisis facing Sri Lanka and the world ultimately requires an evolution in human consciousness guided by morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom. (Courtesy: IPS NEWS)
Dr Asoka Bandarage is the author of Colonialism in Sri Lanka: The Political Economy of the Kandyan Highlands, 1833-1886 (Mouton) Women, Population and Global Crisis: A Politico-Economic Analysis (Zed Books), The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy, ( Routledge), Sustainability and Well-Being: The Middle Path to Environment, Society and the Economy (Palgrave MacMillan) Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World: Colonial and Neoliberal Origins, Ecological and Collective Alternatives (De Gruyter) and numerous other publications. She serves on the Advisory Boards of the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate and Critical Asian Studies.
Features
Cliff and Hank recreate golden era of ‘The Young Ones’
Cliff Richard and Hank Marvin’s reunion concert at the Riverside Theatre in Perth, Australia, on 01 November, 2025, was a night to remember.
The duo, who first performed together in the 1950s as part of The Shadows, brought the house down with their classic hits and effortless chemistry.
The concert, part of Cliff’s ‘Can’t Stop Me Now’ tour, featured iconic songs like ‘Summer Holiday’, ‘The Young Ones’, ‘Bachelor Boy’, ‘Living Doll’ and a powerful rendition of ‘Mistletoe and Wine.’
Cliff, 85, and Hank, with his signature red Fender Stratocaster, proved that their music and friendship are timeless.
According to reports, the moment the lights dimmed and the first chords of ‘Move It’ rang out, the crowd knew they were in for something extraordinary.
Backed by a full band, and surrounded by dazzling visuals, Cliff strode onto the stage in immaculate form – energetic and confident – and when Hank Marvin joined him mid-set, guitar in hand, the audience erupted in applause that shook the hall.
Together they launched into ‘The Young Ones’, their timeless 1961 hit which brought the crowd to its feet, with many in attendance moved to tears.
The audience was treated to a journey through time, with vintage film clips and state-of-the-art visuals adding to the nostalgic atmosphere.
Highlights of the evening included Cliff’s powerful vocals, Hank’s distinctive guitar riffs, and their playful banter on stage.

Cliff posing for The Island photographer … February,
2007
Cliff paused between songs to reflect on their shared journey saying:
“It’s been a lifetime of songs, memories, and friendship. Hank and I started this adventure when we were just boys — and look at us now, still up here making noise!”
As the final chords of ‘Congratulations’ filled the theatre, the crowd rose for a thunderous standing ovation that lasted several minutes.
Cliff waved, Hank gave a humble bow, and, together, they left the stage, arm-in-arm, to the refrain of “We’re the young ones — and we always will be.”
Reviews of the show were glowing, with fans and critics alike praising the duo’s energy, camaraderie, and enduring talent.
Overall, the Cliff Richard and Hank Marvin reunion concert was a truly special experience, celebrating the music and friendship that has captivated audiences for decades.
When Cliff Richard visited Sri Lanka, in February, 2007, I was invited to meet him, in his suite, at a hotel, in Colombo, and I presented him with my music page, which carried his story, and he was impressed.
In return, he personally autographed a souvenir for me … that was Cliff Richard, a truly wonderful human being.
-
News4 days agoOver 35,000 drug offenders nabbed in 36 days
-
Features2 days agoFinally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight
-
Business6 days agoLOLC Finance Factoring powers business growth
-
News3 days agoCyclone Ditwah leaves Sri Lanka’s biodiversity in ruins: Top scientist warns of unseen ecological disaster
-
News6 days agoCPC delegation meets JVP for talks on disaster response
-
News6 days agoA 6th Year Accolade: The Eternal Opulence of My Fair Lady
-
News4 days agoRising water level in Malwathu Oya triggers alert in Thanthirimale
-
Features5 days agoThe Catastrophic Impact of Tropical Cyclone Ditwah on Sri Lanka:
