Features
Revisiting Newton Gunasinghe
By Uditha Devapriya
udakdev1@gmail.com
Newton Gunasinghe, easily one of the most brilliant minds of 20th century Sri Lanka, was the country’s first Marxist anthropologist. Gunasinghe’s contributions to the fields of social science and anthropology have not gone unacknowledged. Yet it took some time for his essays and scholarly works to be published: his doctoral thesis on Kandyan social relations came out in 1990, two years after his death, while a collection of his articles followed six years later. The Social Scientists’ Association, of which he had been a leading light and face, undertook the publication of both works. Together with Kumari Jayawardena and a handful of other scholars, he remains an authoritative name for social science students.
In his obituary for Gunasinghe, Jayadeva Uyangoda attempted to sum up his contributions to these fields. Uyangoda essentially argues that serious scholarship did not become a high point of local Marxist scholars until Gunasinghe’s time. Anthropology, considered for long a child of colonialism, had imbibed what he characterises as a “liberal” tradition.
In other words, the likes of Ralph Pieris and Gananath Obeyesekere could not be considered as part of a Marxist lineage. Accordingly, it was Gunasinghe who brought about a revolution, or shift, in the social sciences in Sri Lanka, overseeing a transformation that would define the course of the discipline throughout the years, and decades.
The length and breadth of Gunasinghe’s scholarship cannot be denied, or underrated. What he did was to bring about a synthesis of theory and research when studying the role of class and social relations in rural society. In his doctoral thesis, he attempted to chart no less than the evolution of those relations before, under, and after colonialism. This was perhaps the most groundbreaking piece of social science scholarship since Kumari Jayawardena’s studies of the labour movement. Not surprisingly, Gunasinghe shifted focus from urban elements to rural Sri Lanka, an area which, if we are to believe Uyangoda, had long remained the domain of “liberal” scholars, like Pieris, Obeyesekere, and Edmund Leach.
Obviously, one cannot assess such scholarly endeavours in isolation from the scholar’s own intellectual evolution. Before assessing and appraising that evolution, however, it would be apt to situate him within a specific historical context.
Gunasinghe’s development, as a leading anthropologist in the 1960s, mirrored a paradigm shift in the social sciences. Centring on and revolving around Peradeniya University, this shift followed a turnaround in historical scholarship from its empiricist roots in favour of more Marxist conception of the subject. Even though Marxist historiography never became a dominant strain at Peradeniya, or any other university in the country, it nevertheless spelt out important consequences for other disciplines, the social sciences in particular. That, in turn, mirrored a bigger shift in such domains across Western Europe.
Gunasinghe responded to these transformations as they unfolded. In the first phase of his career, he adopted a Marxist political-economic approach to the study of rural structures. Yet as much as the debates of the 1960s gave pride of place to Marxist scholarship, they also led to transformations, affecting the very basis of that scholarship. As Gunasinghe was to realise later on, he could not remain immune to them.
It was against that backdrop that he read and studied Gramsci and Althusser, from whom he came to appreciate the role of ideology in the formation of social structures. This would have a profound impact on him after he entered the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex, where he had moved to, after a stint at Manchester University. His conversion from political economy to Gramsci and Althusser mirrored this physical shift: from the hub of the industrial revolution, Manchester, which had provided Engels with material for his studies of the English working class, he had moved to development studies, far away from doctrinaire Marxism. That, at least, is what Uyangoda seems to imply in his tribute.
Uyangoda contends that three ideological strands influenced Gunasinghe, during the 1970s: Althusser’s notion of epistemological rupture and overdetermination, and Gramsci’s idea of hegemony. This was not unique to Gunasinghe, nor to Third World scholars: the 1970s, more or less, witnessed the globalisation of Gramscian and Althusserian theory. Indeed, one of the more seminal contributions to Gramscian theory came in the late 1970s, with Stuart Hall’s essays on Thatcherism. Though the likes of Hall and Perry Anderson were criticised and even ostracised for foregoing on classical Marxist theory and trying to apply a theory grounded in the historical experience of early 20th century Italy, the spread of Gramsci’s ideas could not be held back. Althusser’s run-ins with the French Communist Party, accordingly, symbolised a need to move away from the tenets of classical Marxism.
Gunasinghe’s shift from the Marxist political-economic approach he had opted for and the Gramscian-Althusserian approach he was now opting for worked out at the level of theory and practice. At the level of theory, he applied Althusser’s notion of overdetermination to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka: in effect, he contended, the class dimensions of the war had been or was being replaced by its ethnic character. What this necessitated, for him, was a strategy to prevent the conflict from losing its class character: for that, he argued in a piece in the May 1, 1984 edition of the Lanka Guardian, the Opposition had to combat all racialist-communalist elements within its ranks before fighting the government. Otherwise, the class struggle faced the dismal prospect of being subsumed by the ethnic conflict.
At the level of practice, Gunasinghe played a more prominent part in organisations and institutions set up to combat racialism and communalism, particularly the Movement for Inter-Racial Justice and Equality or MIRJE. His earlier preoccupations had been in working class and peasant movements. To note his shift is not to suggest that by moving from the one to the other, he forwent on his concerns for workers and peasants. But from the one to the other, there certainly came about an intellectual turnaround: from material issues, he was now involving himself heavily in identity politics and ethnic concerns. Fittingly enough, he wrote several essays on these matters to various newspapers and journals.
Yet it is a testament to Gunasinghe’s abiding concern for the country’s politics and people that even this phase did not last for long. Towards the end of his career and life, Uyangoda argues in his tribute, Gunasinghe seems to have been dissatisfied with the approach he had taken to, inter alia, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. In Uyangoda’s own words, “he came to the theoretical conclusion that it is the social structures that determine, in the final analysis, ideological formations and transformations.” Representing a turnaround from his earlier position, it epitomised his return to Marxist political economy. Uyangoda takes great pains to show that this was “not a mere moving back to the old master, Marx”, yet he argues that he considered whether ideology responds to “changes in the social structure”, which is an eminently classical Marxist approach in my book. In any case, Uyangoda himself admits that Gunasinghe “returned to Marx via Max Gluckman and Louis Dumont.”
To me, this is the most crucial volte-face that Gunasinghe underwent in his career. But it is that phase which writers do not touch upon in their appraisals of the man: perhaps because he did not really go through such a phase, given his passing away in 1988. Yet to me it shows clearly that he had grown a little disillusioned with his shifts to Gramsci and Althusser, and that he had perhaps come to realise that mere application of their theory would fail to draw up a comprehensive picture of the country’s political situation.
That is why I disagree with Uyangoda’s assertion or rather assumption that Marxist scholars from before his time did not engage properly with field research. True, our Marxist thinkers and theoreticians were attached to political organisations, and they were hardly mobilising rural and working class elements for Masters or PhD dissertations. Yet one has only to read the likes of Hector Abhayavardhana and P. Kandiah to realise that their contributions were insightful and nuanced. These doubtless provided Gunasinghe the theoretical grounding for his own work, a point Uyangoda does not, for some reason, explore or probe.
Indeed, the point can well be raised that for Marxist political activists, working and living among the peasantry and working class became their fieldwork. Their engagements with these social groups, during the Suriya Mal campaign, in the Sabaragamuwa Province, helped them understand agrarian issues from a grassroots and Marxist perspective. Their research and volunteer work, during the anti-Malaria campaigns of the 1930s, moreover, helped urban Marxist intellectuals grasp the dynamics of rural social stratifications, especially with regard to caste: hands-down the least understood social phenomenon in Sri Lanka.
For me, the insinuation that local Marxist scholars were not scholarly enough in their work underlies a condescending attitude to the pioneers of Marxist scholarship in the country. It implies that those pioneers were not rooted in the society they lived in, and that they rigidly applied classical Marxist theory to their surroundings. What is ironic about such arguments is that they are no different to the arguments Jathika Chintana ideologues propound with relentless passion: that Marxists in Sri Lanka worked within a Western framework.
For Sinhala nationalists, Marxism failed to bond with the cultural roots of their country; for ex-Marxist academics, Marxism needs to move away from its engagement with material issues. That Newton Gunasinghe’s career shows the pitfalls of going down the latter path is something social scientists may not admit to. For me, though, the evidence is clear: having retreated a little from issues of relative advantage, none less than Sri Lanka’s finest Marxist anthropologist returned to them in his last few years. It is my belief that if social science in Sri Lanka is to return to its roots, it should follow a similar trajectory. This is a never ending debate, but one that is yet to actually begin over here.
Features
Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future
Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.
Strengthening economic growth and diversification
Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.
Job creation and social stability
The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.
Competitiveness and export expansion
Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.
Attracting domestic and foreign investment
Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.
Promoting innovation and technological upgrading
Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.
Strengthening supply chains and local linkages
Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.
Environmental sustainability and resilience
Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.
Institutional capacity and governance
Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.
Responding to global technological and trade shifts
The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.
Conclusion
Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.
(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)
BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti
Features
How to insult friends and intimidate people!
US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!
From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.
Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.
Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!
However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!
The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!
Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?
With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.
Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.
Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.
by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence
One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:
Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.
Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations. The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.
Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).
First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the economic decline, characterised by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.
If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.
Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.
Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).
It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.
Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.
Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025).
Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.
Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.
by N. A. de S. Amaratunga
-
Business4 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Opinion3 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business2 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business2 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business2 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business1 day agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business1 day agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition
-
Editorial2 days agoGovt. provoking TUs
