Opinion

Connecting beyond Boundaries and Imaging sans Structures: Reflections of My Fulbright Experiences

Published

3 years ago

2022/11/17

A speech made
by Prof. Gamini Keerawella

I deem it indeed a great honour to be invited me to deliver the keynote address, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the global Fulbright programme. For that, first of all, I do thank the US–Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission and its Executive Director, Ms. Sandharsee Gunawardena for giving me this opportunity.

I thought I should make use of this occasion to reflect on my Fulbright experience, unpacking the true value of the Fulbright programme in the changed context from the perspective of an academic, coming from the global South who benefitted from the Fulbright scholar exchanges.

The Fulbright programme is considered the US flagship international exchange programme, founded in August 1946, just 11 month after the end of Second World War, initiated by Senator William Fulbright, with the support of President Harry Truman and the Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Still, the dust created by WW-II was not settled. At the end of the WWII, the United States emerged as the Superpower with a new global role and reach. It was in this context that Senator William Fulbright presented the Fulbright Bill to amend the Surplus Property act of 1944 to use the revenue from the sales of US war properties in other countries to fund the educational exchanges between the US and participating countries. This birth trait of the Fulbright programme gave rise to its unique feature: the bilateralism. It is reflected in many National Fulbright Commissions such as the US-Sri Lanka Fulbright commission. As a political visionary from the standpoint of US strategic interests, Senator William Fulbright believed that education and diplomacy would be invaluable tools of US foreign policy in the changed international context after the II World War.

Before long, the international politics in the Post-War world was determined by the global-scale, multi-faceted strategic completion between the United States and the Soviet Union, identified as the Cold War. The world politics was polarised into two poles, the Soviet and the Western. The de-colonisation process gave birth to another category in global politics termed as the Global South. The both superpowers were competing in the Global South each other for influence. In this context, the Fulbright programme became a key foreign policy tool of the United States. That is the origin of the Fulbright exchange programme.

During the last 75 years, the Fulbright programme expanded rapidly, changing its purpose and character. It has generated consequences and dividends, unexpected by its founders. The first country to sign Fulbright agreement was China in 1947; it was followed by Burma. Today, each year bout 800 scholars and ,000 US students receive Fulbright awards and go abroad while 4,000 foreign students and 900 scholars receive awards to come to US. In the past 75 years, over 310,000 Fulbright students, scholars and teachers benefitted by the exchange programme.

Before I reflect on my Fulbright experience, please permit me to reveal my background briefly to place it in a proper political and historical context.

I think I belonged to the first post-colonial generation in Sri Lanka, born after independence. I also represent the Post-1956 generation, a commonly used cliché to denote this generation 0The Children of 56. My parents were ardent supporters of the 1956 political change. To cut a long story short, we manifested the strengths and the weaknesses of the so-called Children of 56.

I come from a rural/village background and not really from urban. Educated from, K/Uduwa School, Galagedara up to the 5th grade, where my parents were teachers. From 6th grade, I moved to the Gampola Central College. My entire school education was in Sinhala medium. I gained admission to the University of Peradeniya in 1968.

We witnessed the evolution of post-colonial social and political environment in the country. We saw how the collapse of Bamumu Kulaya (Brown Sahibs) which coincided with the emergence and dominance of a new political class. During our teens, the youth political culture of the country was highly influenced by New Left political ideologies. The Cuban Revolution inspired our generation and Che Guevara was our hero.

Our worldview was shaped by the Anti-Vietnam War Movement and U.S. intervention in South-East Asia. The military coup in Chile against Elected President Salvador Allende and its CIA involvements further reinforced our anti-American sentiment. America is nothing but the US state, its corporate interests and the inner state. We did not see anything beyond ‘Ugly America’.

We were avowedly anti-American and uncritically anti-American. We had only straitjacket, stereotype image on America: The Yankee imperialism: threat to the world. The world was very simple: we were progressive and we wore red hats. The others were reactionary; they wore black hats.

I gained admission to the Peradeniya University in 1968. It was the heyday of the University of Peradeniya. The Sri Lankan universities at the time were centres of radical left politics.

In the academic sphere, we had a well-qualified academic staff. We followed the conventional British academic traditions. Disciplinary boundaries were very high; no inter-disciplinary dialogue at all. Academic hierarchy was also maintained rigidly.

In the sophomore year at the University of Peradeniya, I got involved in the youth front of the JVP. As a result, after the 1971 youth uprising I was arrested and detained in the Bogambara Prison. At the end of 1973, I was released from Bogambara. I resumed my undergraduate studies at the University of Peradeniya in 1974 and sat my final Examination in 1975. As I showed good promise in my BA (Hons.) examination, I was recruited to the academic staff of my alma mater in 1976. It was the turning point in my life.

I proceeded to Canada for my post-graduate studies in 1980. In 1982, I obtained my Maters from the University of Windsor, Canada, by presenting a thesis on the origins of the New Left in Sri Lanka and the 1971 uprising. I compared Sri Lankan New Left with the South American New Left. It helped me to examine critically my new-left influence.

For my doctoral studies, I enrolled myself to the University of British Columbia, Canada. I decided to combine Strategic Studies with History. I worked on the growth of Superpower Naval rivalry in the Indian Ocean and Sri Lankan Response. It was a unique experience and I went through real disciplinary metamorphosis there. I was in the Department of History. My supervisor was from the Department of Asian Studies; I took causes in International Relations from the Department of political science. My external supervisor was Prof Howard Wriggins, Professor of Political Science of University of Columbia, New York, from another country.

During my doctoral studies at UBC, I was introduced to the on-going academic discourse on ‘National Security’. By then, the theoretical parameters marked by the Realist School dominated the field of Security Studies were predominant. It was mainly state–centered and the security of the state in an anarchic international environment was the focal concern of the national security.

In the main stream of thinking, national security was defined as the protection of territorial integrity of the state vis-à-vis the threats originated from the external sources. The internal security of the state was taken for granted and, if there was any concern, it was dealt under the rubric of internal law and order problematic. In this strand of analysis, the national, security was nothing but the politico-military security of the state; the ‘hard’ military strategic security took precedent over the ‘soft’ economic dimension of security. In the Cold War context, the preoccupation of the discipline was mainly to analyse the central military strategic balance of the superpowers and their defense strategies. The concerns relating to the prevention of a nuclear war between the superpowers constituted the core of the international security studies. UBC is a great seat of learning and research. From University of British Columbia, I received the license to the world of academia, Ph.D.

In 1993, I won the Fulbright Post-doctoral Fellowshi to join the University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley is, no doubt, a unique university. It was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement and the Flower Power Movement of the 1960S. The impact of the Free Speech Movement and the Flower Generation was still visible at Berkeley. The research that I conducted during my Fellowship at Berkeley was ‘The Security of Small States in the Indian Ocean in the Post-Cold War context’.

In a vibrant academic environment at Berkeley, I was able to rethink the concept of national security. I myself deconstructed the Concept of National Security. What does ‘national’ in national security mean? What is security? What is national security? Can we equate National Security with State Security? What is really meant by security of the state? The real issue here is how to define the security of the state, going beyond narrow territorial confines. On the one hand, the state is a legal abstraction. On the other, it has a territorial basis and institutional framework of its own. The ideological basis of the state is the most important aspect of the state because it binds the territorial base with the human and institutional base with state. In addition, institutional set up of the state and human base of the state should also be taken into account.

The narrow definition of protection of territorial integrity from external threats is found to be inadequate in the face of new threat scenarios. In many third world states, the territorial integrity is challenged not externally but internally.

The territory is only one element of the state. The other elements of state including people and their security must also be taken into account in the security configuration.

As soon as people are taken as a referent object of national security, the analysis of threat and threat perceptions has to be invariably changed. The security building process involves the ability to meet and dispel threats and the reduction of vulnerabilities.

With the recognition of people as a reference of security, in its own rights, a variety of threats and vulnerabilities enter into the forefront of security analysis with different types of agents and sources of threat.

This line of thinking took me to the dual role of the state. One the one hand, State is the security provider; on the other hand it was a source of threat. Human rights, Rule of law, constitutionality and good governance become national security issues.

Berkeley experience under Fulbright Fellowship helped me to going beyond borders. It is not simply building connectivity crossing territorial boundaries. Indeed, crossing territorial boundaries are important. The territorial boundaries does not mean the physical territories. In our thinking, we are highly circumscribed by a small Island mentality. The besieged mentality in a small island is often presented ad patriotism. It is not patriotism. In order to get out of this besieged mentality you need to cross boundaries.

Crossing the pedagogic boundaries is equally important. Other two types of crossing boundaries are also equally important: First, Building connectivity, crossing theoretical borders within the discipline; Second, Building connectivity crossing disciplinary borders. It convinced me that symbiosis of approaches provides a new Synergy to view things from fresh perspective.

Further more, my Fulbright experience helped me to visualise the United States sans structures. In our undergraduate days we entertained a simple and monolithic view. In the world is of two categories: good and bad – Whit Hats and Black Hats mentality. Our earlier image of US was linked only to the set structure- The US State. It is true that State and society are inseparable entities. But I was convinced by my Fulbright experience to view ‘other America’ too. While admitting domination of corporate sector and the dominance of ‘inner state’, we need to pay attention to other social and political dynamics to understand complexity of US polity. It is not one colour Images. US is a country of many governments, many images, divers colors- just like proverbial bride’s gown; something green, something blue, something yellow and something green.

The most virulent critics of the US system can be found with the US. The vibrancy of US higher education institutions is remarkable. The most innovative

and radical thinking can be found in the US academic institutions. The Chicago school and writings of Jurgen Habermas is not an isolated example. The discourse on Gramsci, Foucault and Subaltern studies inspire Social Sciences in many key US academic institutions.

US system is complex and multifaceted. Internal dynamics of the system and checks and balances constituted an integral element of US system. This contributed to change the my lop-sided earlier view on America

US is not only the US State and its cooperate interests. The other-side of America is different. Fulbright experience helped me to separate US state and US society, to view the US people sans set structures. The US state, its apparatus and the US inner state constitute one dimension of America. There is other side of America, consisting great people US contribution to modern art and culture is great and we need view them delinking them with US state structures.

Contribution of US Musicians such as Garth Brooks, Elvis Presley, Eagles, and Michael Jackson reminds us the existence of other America. The great American poets such T. S. Eliot, Edgar Allan Poe, E.E. Cummings, Robert Frost reminds us the beauty of American culture alone with American Novelists such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway. Mark Twain, Toni Morrison. John Steinbeck. While criticizing US state, its corporate interests and inner state, we enjoy US contribution to the culture of our age. Out attitude towards US state does not prevent us from enjoying US films such as Citizen Kane, The Godfather, A Space Odyssey, Gone with the wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The King and I and The Sound of Music.

In the new millennium, the significance of public diplomacy, such as the Fulbright scholar exchange program, must be viewed from a fresh perspective. The eclipse of utility of hard power and the increasing impotence of gunboat diplomacy highlights the soft power. In this context, not only the developments in the Wall Street but also developments in the main street are also come forward to determine the agenda of global politics. Referring to our backyard, the Indian Ocean, Robert D, Kaplan observed “for the first time since the Portuguese onslaught in the region in the early 16th century, West’s power there is in decline, however subtly and relatively. The Indians and the Chinese will enter into a dynamic great-power rivalry in these waters, with their shared economic interests as major trading partners locking them in an uncomfortable embrace. The United States, meanwhile, will serve as a stabilizing power in this newly complex area. Indispensability, rather than dominance, must be its goal”. Mobilizing US soft power potential is the best way to achieve ‘indispensability’.

The Fulbright exchanges highlighted the power of citizen diplomacy. Further, it gave the wider world an access to the positive contribution of the centers of leaning and knowledge, art and literature of the United States. Above all, it helped imaging US cans structures and building connectivity crossing many forms of boundaries. To conclude, I wish to quote Senator William Fulbright. He said on the occasion of 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in 1986, “Perhaps the greatest power of such intellectual exchanges is to convert nations into peoples and to translate ideologies into human aspirations. To continue to build more weapons, especially mote exotic and unpredictable machines of war, will not build trust and confidence”.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

War with Iran and unravelling of the global order – II

Published

5 hours ago

2026/04/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

A US airstrike on Iran

Broader Strategic Consequences

One of the most significant strategic consequences of the war is the accelerated erosion of U.S. political and moral hegemony. This is not a sudden phenomenon precipitated solely by the present conflict; rather, the war has served to illuminate an already evolving global reality—that the era of uncontested U.S. dominance is in decline. The resurgence of Donald Trump and the reassertion of his “America First” doctrine reflect deep-seated domestic economic and political challenges within the United States. These internal pressures have, in turn, shaped a more unilateral and inward-looking foreign policy posture, further constraining Washington’s capacity to exercise global leadership.

Moreover, the conduct of the war has significantly undermined the political and moral authority of the United States. Perceived violations of international humanitarian law, coupled with the selective application of international norms, have weakened the credibility of U.S. advocacy for a “rules-based international order.” Such inconsistencies have reinforced perceptions of double standards, particularly among states in the Global South. Skepticism toward Western normative leadership is expected to deepen, contributing to the gradual fragmentation of the international system. In this broader context, the ongoing crisis can be seen as symptomatic of a more fundamental transformation: the progressive waning of a global order historically anchored in U.S. hegemony and the emergence of a more contested and pluralistic international landscape.

The regional implications of the crisis are likely to be profound, particularly given the centrality of the Persian Gulf to the global political economy. As a critical hub of energy production and maritime trade, instability in this region carries systemic consequences that extend far beyond its immediate geography. Whatever may be the outcome, whether through the decisive weakening of Iran or the inability of external powers to dismantle its leadership and strategic capabilities, the post-conflict regional order will differ markedly from its pre-war configuration. In this evolving context, traditional power hierarchies, alliance structures, and deterrence dynamics are likely to undergo significant recalibration.

A key lesson underscored by the war is the deep interconnectivity of the contemporary global economic order. In an era of highly integrated production networks and supply chains, disruptions in a single strategic node can generate cascading effects across the global system. As such, regional conflicts increasingly assume global significance. The structural realities of globalisation make it difficult to contain economic and strategic shocks within regional boundaries, as impacts rapidly transmit through trade, energy, and financial networks. In this context, peace and stability are no longer purely regional concerns but global public goods, essential to the functioning and resilience of the international system

The conflict highlights the emergence of a new paradigm of warfare shaped by the integration of artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and unmanned systems. The extensive use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs)—a trend previously demonstrated in the Russia–Ukraine War—has been further validated in this theatre. However, unlike the Ukraine conflict, where Western powers have provided sustained military, technological, and financial backing, the present confrontation reflects a more direct asymmetry between a dominant global hegemon and a Global South state. Iran’s deployment of drone swarms and AI-enabled targeting systems illustrates that key elements of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) warfare are no longer confined to technologically advanced Western states. These capabilities are increasingly accessible to Global South actors, lowering barriers to entry and significantly enhancing their capacity to wage effective asymmetric warfare. In this evolving context, technological diffusion is reshaping the strategic landscape, challenging traditional military hierarchies and altering the balance between conventional superiority and innovative, cost-effective combat strategies.

The war further exposed and deepened the weakening of global governance institutions, particularly the United Nations. Many of these institutions were established in 1945, reflecting the balance of power and geopolitical realities of the immediate post-Second World War era. However, the profound transformations in the international system since then have rendered aspects of this institutional architecture increasingly outdated and less effective.

The war has underscored the urgent need for comprehensive international governance reforms to ensure that international institutions remain credible, representative, and capable of addressing contemporary security challenges. The perceived ineffectiveness of UN human rights mechanisms in responding to violations of international humanitarian law—particularly in contexts such as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and more recently in Iran—has amplified calls for institutional renewal or the development of alternative frameworks for maintaining international peace and security. Moreover, the selective enforcement of international law and the persistent paralysis in conflict resolution mechanisms risk accelerating the fragmentation of global norms. If sustained, this trajectory would signal not merely the weakening but the possible demise of the so-called liberal international order, accelerating the erosion of both the legitimacy and the effective authority of existing multilateral institutions, and deepening the crisis of global governance.

Historically, major wars have often served as harbingers of new eras in international politics, marking painful yet decisive transitions from one order to another. Periods of systemic decline are typically accompanied by instability, uncertainty, and profound disruption; yet, it is through such crises that the contours of an emerging order begin to take shape. The present conflict appears to reflect such a moment of transition, where the strains within the existing global system are becoming increasingly visible.

Notably, key European powers are exhibiting a gradual shift away from exclusive reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, seeking instead a more autonomous and assertive role in global affairs. At the same time, the war is likely to create strategic space for China to expand its influence. As the United States becomes more deeply entangled militarily and politically, China may consolidate its position as a stabilising economic actor and an alternative strategic partner. This could be reflected in intensified energy diplomacy, expanded infrastructure investments, and a more proactive role in regional conflict management, advancing Beijing’s long-term objective of reshaping global governance structures.

However, this transition does not imply a simple replacement of Pax Americana with Pax Sinica. Rather, the emerging global order is likely to be more diffuse, pluralistic, and multilateral in character. In this sense, the ongoing transformation aligns with broader narratives of an “Asian Century,” in which power is redistributed across multiple centers rather than concentrated in a single hegemon. The war, therefore, may ultimately be understood not merely as a geopolitical crisis, but as a defining inflection point in the reconfiguration of the global order.

Conclusion: A New Era on the Horizon

History shows that major wars often signal the birth of new eras—painful, disruptive, yet transformative. The present conflict is no exception. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the existing world order, challenged U.S. dominance, and revealed the limits of established global governance.

European powers are beginning to chart a more independent course, reducing reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, while China is poised to expand its influence as an economic stabiliser and strategic partner. Through energy diplomacy, infrastructure investments, and active engagement in regional conflicts, Beijing is quietly shaping the contours of a more multipolar world. Yet this is not the rise of Pax Sinica replacing Pax Americana. The emerging order is likely to be multilateral, fluid, and competitive—a world in which multiple powers, old and new, share the stage. The war, in all its turbulence, may therefore mark the dawn of a genuinely new global era, one where uncertainty coexists with opportunity, and where the next chapter of international politics is being written before our eyes.

by Gamini Keerawella
(First part of this article appeared yesterday (08 April)

Opinion

University admission crisis: Academics must lead the way

Published

1 day ago

2026/04/8

Sahan Weerasooriya

130,000 students are left out each year—academics hold the key

Each year, Sri Lanka’s G.C.E. Advanced Level examination produces a wave of hope—this year, nearly 175,000 students qualified for university entrance. Yet only 45,000 will be admitted to state universities. That leaves more than 130,000 young people stranded—qualified, ambitious, but excluded. This is not just a statistic; it is a national crisis. And while policymakers debate infrastructure and funding, the country’s academics must step forward as catalysts of change.

Beyond the Numbers: A National Responsibility

Education is the backbone of Sri Lanka’s development. Denying access to tens of thousands of qualified students risks wasting talent, fueling inequality, and undermining national progress. The gap is not simply about seats in lecture halls—it is about the future of a generation. Academics, as custodians of knowledge, cannot remain passive observers. They must reimagine the delivery of higher education to ensure opportunity is not a privilege for the few.

Expanding Pathways, Not Just Campuses

The traditional model of four-year degrees in brick-and-mortar universities cannot absorb the demand. Academics can design short-term diplomas and certificate programmes that provide immediate access to learning. These programmes, focused on employable skills, would allow thousands to continue their education while easing pressure on degree programmes. Equally important is the digital transformation of education. Online and blended learning modules can extend access to rural students, breaking the monopoly of physical campuses. With academic leadership, Sri Lanka can build a reliable system of credit transfers, enabling students to begin their studies at affiliated institutions and later transfer to state universities.

Partnerships That Protect Quality

Private universities and vocational institutes already absorb many students who miss out on state admissions. But concerns about quality and recognition persist. Academics can bridge this divide by providing quality assurance and standardised curricula, supervising joint degree programmes, and expanding the Open University system. These partnerships would ensure that students outside the state system receive affordable, credible, and internationally recognised education.

Research and Advocacy: Shaping Policy

Academics are not only teachers—they are researchers and thought leaders. By conducting labour market studies, they can align higher education expansion with employability. Evidence-based recommendations to the University Grants Commission (UGC) can guide strategic intake increases, regional university expansion, and government investment in digital infrastructure. In this way, academics can ensure reforms are not reactive, but visionary.

Industry Engagement: Learning Beyond the Classroom

Sri Lanka’s universities must become entrepreneurship hubs and innovation labs. Academics can design programmes that connect students directly with industries, offering internship-based learning and applied research opportunities. This approach reduces reliance on classroom capacity while equipping students with practical skills. It also reframes education as a partnership between universities and the economy, rather than a closed system.

Making the Most of What We Have

Even within existing constraints, academics can expand capacity. Training junior lecturers and adjunct faculty, sharing facilities across universities, and building international collaborations for joint programmes and scholarships are practical steps. These measures maximise resources while opening new avenues for students.

A Call to Action

Sri Lanka’s university admission crisis is not just about numbers—it is about fairness, opportunity, and national development. Academics must lead the way in transforming exclusion into empowerment. By expanding pathways, strengthening partnerships, advocating for policy reform, engaging with industry, and optimizing resources, they can ensure that qualified students are not left behind.

“Education for all, not just the fortunate few.”

Dr. Arosh Bandula (Ph.D. Nottingham), Senior Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna

by Dr. Arosh Bandula

Opinion

Post-Easter Sri Lanka: Between memory, narrative, and National security

Published

2 days ago

2026/04/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

As Sri Lanka approaches the seventh commemoration of the Easter Sunday attacks, the national mood is once again marked by grief, reflection, and an enduring sense of incompleteness. Nearly seven years later, the tragedy continues to cast a long shadow not only over the victims and their families, but over the institutions and narratives that have since emerged.

Commemoration, however, must go beyond ritual. It must be anchored in clarity, accountability, and restraint. What is increasingly evident in the post-Easter landscape is not merely a search for truth, but a contest over how that truth is framed, interpreted, and presented to the public.

In recent times, public discourse has been shaped by book launches, panel discussions, and media interventions that claim to offer new insights into the attacks. While such contributions are not inherently problematic, the manner in which certain narratives are advanced raises legitimate concerns. The selective disclosure of information particularly when it touches on intelligence operations demands careful scrutiny.

Sri Lanka’s legal and institutional framework is clear on the sensitivity of such matters. The Official Secrets Act (No. 32 of 1955) places strict obligations on the handling of information related to national security. Similarly, the Police Ordinance and internal administrative regulations governing intelligence units emphasize confidentiality, chain of command, and the responsible use of information. These are not mere formalities; they exist to safeguard both operational integrity and national interest.

When individual particularly those with prior access to intelligence structures enter the public domain with claims that are not subject to verification, it raises critical questions. Are these disclosures contributing to justice and accountability, or are they inadvertently compromising institutional credibility and future operational capacity?

The challenge lies in distinguishing between constructive transparency and selective exposure.

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday Attacks provided one of the most comprehensive official examinations of the attacks. Its findings highlighted a complex web of failures: lapses in intelligence sharing, breakdowns in inter-agency coordination, and serious deficiencies in political oversight. Importantly, it underscored that the attacks were not the result of a single point of failure, but a systemic collapse across multiple levels of governance.

Yet, despite the existence of such detailed institutional findings, public discourse often gravitates toward simplified narratives. There is a tendency to identify singular “masterminds” or to attribute responsibility in ways that align with prevailing political or ideological positions. While such narratives may be compelling, they risk obscuring the deeper structural issues that enabled the attacks to occur.

Equally significant is the broader socio-political context in which these narratives are unfolding. Sri Lanka today remains a society marked by fragile intercommunal relations. The aftermath of the Easter attacks saw heightened suspicion, polarisation, and, in some instances, collective blame directed at entire communities. Although there have been efforts toward reconciliation, these fault lines have not entirely disappeared.

In this environment, the language and tone of public discourse carry immense weight. The framing of terrorism whether as a localized phenomenon or as part of a broader ideological construct must be handled with precision and responsibility. Overgeneralization or the uncritical use of labels can have far-reaching consequences, including the marginalization of communities and the erosion of social cohesion.

At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that the global discourse on terrorism is itself contested. Competing narratives, geopolitical interests, and selective historiography often shape how events are interpreted. For Sri Lanka, the challenge is to avoid becoming a passive recipient of external frameworks that may not fully reflect its own realities.

A professional and unbiased approach requires a commitment to evidence-based analysis. This includes:

· Engaging with primary sources, including official reports and judicial findings
·

· Cross-referencing claims with verifiable data
·

· Recognizing the limits of publicly available information, particularly in intelligence matters

It also requires intellectual discipline the willingness to question assumptions, to resist convenient conclusions, and to remain open to complexity.

The role of former officials and subject-matter experts in this discourse is particularly important. Their experience can provide valuable insights, but it also carries a responsibility. Public interventions must be guided by professional ethics, respect for institutional boundaries, and an awareness of the potential impact on national security.

There is a fine balance to be maintained. On one hand, democratic societies require transparency and accountability. On the other, the premature or uncontextualized release of sensitive information can undermine the very systems that are meant to protect the public.

As Sri Lanka reflects on the events of April 2019, it must resist the temptation to reduce a national tragedy into competing narratives or political instruments. The pursuit of truth must be methodical, inclusive, and grounded in law.

Easter is not only a moment of remembrance. It is a test of institutional maturity and societal resilience.

The real question is not whether new narratives will emerge they inevitably will. The question is whether Sri Lanka has the capacity to engage with them critically, responsibly, and in a manner that strengthens, rather than weakens, the foundations of its national security and social harmony.

In the end, justice is not served by noise or conjecture. It is served by patience, rigor, and an unwavering commitment to truth.

Mahil Dole is a former senior law enforcement officer and national security analyst, with over four decades of experience in policing and intelligence, including serving as Head of Counter-Intelligence at the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka and a graduate of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawai, USA.

by Mahil Dole
Former Senior Law Enforcement Officer National Security Analyst; Former Head of Counter-Intelligence, State Intelligence Service)