Connect with us

Features

MINISTRY of JUSTICE LEGAL REFORMS: Treatments aggravating disease instead of curing

Published

on

By Kalyananda Tiranagama

Executive Director

Lawyers for Human Rights and Development

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021 and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2021 were passed by Parliament on July 6, 2021 under the Law Reforms Project of the Ministry of Justice for the purpose of making the country torture free by strengthening the law against torture.

This Criminal Procedure Amendment requires every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once in every month and examine the persons detained therein. Torture Convention Amendment Act has increased the fines that can be imposed on persons found guilty of torture.

Commencing the Second Reading Debate on these two Acts, the Minister of Justice had said in Parliament that Articles 11 and 13 (5) of the Constitution have guaranteed freedom from torture and presumption of innocence of every person, until proved guilty by law. The Release of Remand Prisoners Act of 1991 enabled the Magistrates to visit prisons, but the proposed Amendments have gone further to guarantee freedom from torture. The Government has identified the importance of treating suspects humanely and this proposal is just one of the measures that the Government takes to guarantee these rights of the people.

However, how lofty the Minister’s objective may be, it can be categorically stated that the Government would never be able to achieve its declared objective of eradication of torture in custody with these amendments. Both these are impracticable and unnecessary Amendments brought in, without a proper understanding of the ground realities and the actual operation of the existing law. The concerned authorities have found the Torture Act of 1994 impracticable due to an inherent weakness in a provision in the Act. Without identifying and removing that obstacle that retards its effective implementation, torture cannot be eliminated by increasing the fines.

Torture Act Amendment

By this Amendment Act, S. 2 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994 has been amended in subsection (4) of that section by substituting for the words ‘a fine not less than 10,000 rupees and not exceeding 50.000 rupees‘ of the words ‘a fine not less than 50,000 rupees and not exceeding 200,000 rupees.‘

Over the years, in a large number of fundamental rights applications the Supreme Court has found law enforcement officers responsible for torture and ordered them personally to pay compensation to the victims of torture. Human Rights Commission also has found in its inquiries a large number of officers responsible for torture and ordered them to pay compensation to the victims. Yet since the enactment of the Torture Act in 1994, only a very small number of officers have been prosecuted under the Torture Act.

The Torture Act of 1994 contains an inherent flow which prevents its provisions from being effectively implemented. Under S. 2 of the Act torture, or the attempt to commit, or aiding and abetting in committing or conspiring to commit torture is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years and not exceeding 10 years and a fine not less than 10,000 and not exceeding 50,000 rupees. Not only torture but even attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit torture is punishable with the same penalty, a mandatory minimum jail sentence of seven years and a minimum fine of 10,000 rupees. A police officer who slaps a man on his face causing a minor scratch, if indicted under the Torture Act, will invariably get a jail sentence of seven years.

Under the normal criminal law of the country, the maximum penalty that can be imposed for causing simple hurt, even with a sharp cutting weapon, causing the victim to receive treatment in a hospital for several days, is six months jail sentence. It is a compoundable offence. A court has no jurisdiction to entertain a case for causing simple hurt under S. 314 of the Penal Code without a certificate from a Mediation Board certifying that the dispute cannot be settled. In torture cases, under the Act, the Court has no discretion, but to impose the mandatory minimum jail sentence laid down in the Act. It is common knowledge that our Courts give suspended sentences to accused even in murder cases when they plead guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under certain circumstances.

The maximum penalty that can be imposed even on the worst torturer who subjects the victim to the most cruel, degrading and inhuman acts of torture is 10 years imprisonment. There is no much of a difference between the minimum sentence and the maximum sentence despite the varying degrees of acts of torture. Courts have no discretion on the matter of sentence. This imbalance in sentences which does not take into consideration the different grades of culpability has prevented the law enforcement agencies from giving effect to this provision of the Torture Act. So long as the minimum and maximum penalties for torture remains in this state, the Police, the Attorney General’s Department and the Courts will find it difficult to act on this law.

Sri Lanka acceded to the UN Convention against Torture in January 1994. In its first four-yearly periodical country report presented to the UN Committee against Torture in May 1998 outlining the steps taken to eliminate torture and punish perpetrators of torture, Sri Lankan Authorities had made a clever attempt to cover up its failure to prosecute torturers under Torture Act. The Report stated that action against torture had a place in Sri Lanka’s law since 1883 and that any person who tortures another would be guilty of an offence punishable under the criminal law of the country. It referred to Ss. 310 – 329 of the Penal Code dealing with voluntarily causing hurt.

Considering Sri Lanka’s Periodical Country Reports, the UN Committee has expressed its concerns repeatedly on the failure of Sri Lankan Authorities to deal with torturers under the provisions of the Torture Act.

In S. C. Reference No. 03/08, the Supreme Court, citing several previous Supreme Court decisions, discussed at length the constitutionality and the impact of mandatory sentences on the exercise of judicial discretion and held that the minimum mandatory sentence in S. 364(2)(e) of the Penal Code is in conflict with Articles 4(c), 11 and 12(1) of the Constitution and that the High Court is not inhibited from imposing a sentence that it deems appropriate in the exercise of its judicial discretion notwithstanding the minimum mandatory sentence laid down in the law.

A few years back, some Police Officers were indicted under the Torture Act in a High Court case and, on conviction, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. They appealed against the sentence and the Court of Appeal, following the Supreme Court Judgement in S. C. Reference No. 03/08, varied the sentence of seven to two years imprisonment.

As early as 1999, in its comments on the first periodical report of the Government of Sri Lanka to the UN Committee in 1998, the Lawyers for Human Rights and Development (LHRD) pointed out this weakness in the Torture Act and the urgent need of amending the provision relating to minimum mandatory sentences of imprisonment allowing judicial discretion on the matter of sentence.

So long as the Torture Act remains in this state, the Authorities will find it difficult and be hesitant to prosecute their colleagues involved in torture under the provisions of the Torture Act. This amendment brought to the Torture Act for increasing fines that can be imposed for the offences under the Act is an utterly meaningless exercise. Torture cannot be eliminated by increasing fines. What is important is not the heavier penalties, but prosecuting all offenders under the provisions of the Torture Act. Only then it will have a deterrent effect. If the government is serious about giving effect to the law, it should amend the Torture Act laying down more realistic penalties compatible with the ordinary criminal law of the country and take necessary steps to enforce the law directing the IGP and the AG to prosecute all offenders.

Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021

The enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021 is also another meaningless exercise. There was no need at all to bring this amendment and it will not serve any purpose. Existing legal provisions and judicial practices are quite adequate to address the problems if properly enforced with necessary guidelines and supervision. This Amendment will only add an additional, unnecessary burden on Magistrates. It is another instance of these legal advisers of the Ministry groping in the darkness without any understanding of the ground realities.

This Amendment has added a new Section – S. 43B to the Criminal Procedure Code:

S. 43B (1) It shall be the duty of every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once in every month to ensure that the suspects under the police custody at such police station are protected to the extent provided for in the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the Magistrate who visits the police station shall (a) personally see the suspect, and look into his well-being, welfare and conditions under which he is kept at such police station: and (b) record his observations and any complaint the suspect may make.

(3) Where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the suspect may have been subjected to torture, the Magistrate may direct that the suspect be produced before a JMO or a govt. medical officer for medical examination, and a report be submitted by such medical officer to the Magistrate.

(4) Where the report of such medical officer reveals that the suspect has been subjected to torture, the Magistrate shall make an appropriate order, including directions to provide necessary medical treatment to the suspect and to change the place of custody of such suspect.

(5) The Magistrate shall also direct the IGP to commence an investigation into the alleged torture in order to enable the AG to institute criminal proceedings against the person who is alleged to have committed the torture.

This is impracticable and meaningless for the following reasons:

This amendment requires every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once a month. It is a matter of common knowledge that almost all the Magistrate’s Courts are overburdened with work, having a large number of cases to handle every day. In the Judicial Division of every Magistrate’s Court there are 3 – 4 police stations. Despite their heavy schedules, every month a Magistrate will be compelled to devote at least two days to discharge this additional burden placed on them.

Under the normal law of the country, a person arrested cannot be detained in Police custody for more than 24 hours, they have to be produced before the lapse of 24 hours before a Magistrate. Such detention in Police custody over 24 hours is a violation of fundamental rights. Suspects arrested on the previous day are produced before the Magistrate on the following day before the lapse of 24 hours. Suspects are not arrested and not kept in Police custody every day. Quite often the Magistrates will find in their visits that there are no suspects held in Police custody for them to examine.

Persons arrested can be kept in custody for more than 24 hours only when arrests are made under laws with special provisions for detention of suspects such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Emergency Regulations or the Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Persons arrested and detained under these laws are not kept at Police Stations, but in special Police Units such as the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Terrorist Investigation Division (TID), Crime Detection Bureau (CDB) or the Narcotics Bureau of the Police.

Instead of making provisions for visiting these special units of investigations and examining detainees held therein, there is no point in requiring all Magistrates to visit all the Police Stations in the country situated within their jurisdictions.

Moreover, there are other institutions already functioning with adequate powers, facilities and resources to make regular visits to police stations like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of Sri Lanka. HRC has a 24-hour functioning hotline to receive complaints of torture and illegal detention of suspects in excess of 24 hours. The moment HRC receives a complaint of torture or arrests and detention of persons, HRC officials immediately contact the relevant Police Station and conduct inquiries, visiting the place if necessary. We know of a large number of instances where the HRC has intervened over the years in this manner.

As the Minister himself has mentioned in his speech in Parliament, there is an Act enacted in 1991 requiring all Magistrates to visit Prisons situated within their judicial divisions once a month.

S. 5 of the Release of Remand Prisoners Act No. 8 of 1991 requires every Magistrate to visit every prison situated within the judicial division in respect of which he is so appointed, at least once a month.

However, only a handful of Magistrates in the country have complied with this legal requirement. If the Ministry of Justice could ensure that this legal requirement is strictly complied with by all Magistrates that would certainly result in addressing many of the grievances of suspects in custody and reduction of the heavy congestion in our prisons.

As held by the Supreme Court in fundamental rights applications, when a suspect is produced in Court from Police custody it is the duty of the Magistrate to question and probe the suspect so produced and record his observations. To do that the Magistrate need not visit Police stations.

In this connection it is relevant to quote from the Supreme Court Judgement of Justice L. H. G. Wijesekera in the case of Pradeep Kumar Dharmaratne vs. Inspector of Police Dharmaratne and others, S. C. Appn. No. 163/98, SCM 17. 12. 1998: “In my opinion it is indeed a matter of concern and trepidation that Magistrates in spite of repeated reminders by this Court do not exercise what is their duty, namely to question and probe from a person produced before them from Police custody and to so record his observations. It has been my experience that Magistrates did act so and it was a deterrent to breaches of fundamental rights even when they were not enshrined by a constitution. It is a further tragedy that some members of the legal profession do not act with courage and fearlessness in what is their duty. I say so with responsibility inasmuch as an allegation of assault and of torture has been made to the Superintendent of Police on the 17th of February 1998 after this release of the petitioner by the Magistrate in consequence of which the petitioner was produced before the JMO, but the Attorneys-at-Law did not bring this to the notice of the Magistrate.’’

If the Ministry of Justice is serious about guaranteeing freedom from torture what the Ministry should do is not enacting this type meaningless and impracticable amendments but issuing a Circular to all Magistrates with the approval of the Judicial Service Commission stressing the need of strict compliance with the provisions in the existing law and the Supreme Court decisions and call for regular reports on the compliance with directions in the Circulars.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

The US-China rivalry and challenges facing the South

Published

on

Prof. Neil DeVotta making his presentation at the RCSS.

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.

Continue Reading

Features

Sri Lanka and Global Climate Emergency: Lessons of Cyclone Ditwah

Published

on

Floods caused by Cyclone Ditwah. (Image courtesy Vanni Hope)

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.

Continue Reading

Features

Cliff and Hank recreate golden era of ‘The Young Ones’

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending