Features
Contesting concepts – Epistemic disobedience at BCIS
The Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS) was 50 last year. It was a cause for celebration and spawned, among other things, the Festival of Ideas where BCIS created an open space for engagement with a wide range of new stakeholders. It was also the year that we applied for and successfully secured institutional accreditation with the Ministry of Higher Education and acquired degree awarding status. In 2025, one year into the next half century of our existence, we are working on creating opportunities for our students, our lecturers, our staff, our governing body members and our public constituencies, to become familiar with new, challenging trends in the global conversations around international relations. We are aiming to strengthen our capacity to re-examine some of the well-worn concepts of international relations theory, engage with global south perspectives and alternatives, decolonise our epistemological leanings, vary our pedagogical practice and create a dynamic, critical international relations community.
The importance of this endeavour cannot be underestimated. We are at a point globally where the conventional Realist concepts of International Relations predominantly defined through the vantage point of the state—state-centrism, anarchy, national interest, security, and power politics—are playing out in ways that increasingly disregard established international norms, and are losing their resonance in a context where technology, the climate crisis and other predicted and unpredicted anthropogenic factors, are influencing diplomacy, state relations, and peoples’ lives and livelihoods.
The 2025 International Conference on International Relations INCOIRe2025, organised by the Department of International Relations of the University of Colombo had, as its theme: the Global South in International relations: imperatives and impediments. Keynote speaker Dr Shweta Singh1 from the South Asian University argued very eloquently, as others have also done elsewhere, that we are currently in a situation where the old social, political and maybe even economic orders are on the decline, and new orders are yet to emerge. In what is essentially a period illustrative of Gramsci’s interregnum where ” The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear’ Singh called for “epistemic disobedience” or a challenging of the theories of international relations that emanated from and for the ‘great powers’ of the global north/the West/ the developed world.
A similar call for thinking and theorising in ways that challenged the hegemony of western frameworks formed the substance of a conference that IDEAs (the International Development Economics Associates) held in collaboration with the BCIS and Yukthi a few months ago. The Conference entitled 70 years after Bandung: Challenges and Struggles on the Road to Self-Determination and South – South Solidarity evoked that defining historical moment of the colonised world coming together in 1955. In Colombo in July 2025, speakers from Asia, Africa and South America questioned the validity of a rules based international order that is disregarded with impunity by those very states that were instrumental in its creation; critiqued an unequal global financial architecture that fosters wealth creation in some countries at the expense of debt and impoverishment in others; and evoked the alternative thinking of eminent scholars of the global south such as Samir Amin whose work on “delinking” provides an attractive alternative strategy to counter the inequality inherent in the global economic, political and social system.
At the time of writing (September 2025) the Third Nyéléni Forum is taking place in Kandy. It is a global gathering of peasants/ family farmers, artisanal fisher-folk, indigenous peoples, landless peoples, rural workers, migrants, pastoralists, forest communities, women, youth, consumers, environmental and urban movements, convened by the international peasant movement La Via Campesina and focused on food sovereignty. ‘Sovereignty’ is a core concept in the international relations lexicon, focusing on a state’s independent authority over its internal affairs and its external independence from other states. By appropriating the word, La Via Campesina uses food sovereignty to emphasise the right of people producing food, communities and nations to define their own agricultural and food policies without being dictated to by the global market, WTO rules, IMF/World Bank policies; and their right to own their own means to produce food free from global agribusiness, and global finance dominance. It resists the unequal structural elements of the international system that benefit the global north through export-oriented agriculture, land grabs, and control over seeds. It goes beyond the technical and developmental issue of food security and expands the concept of the Right to Food by incorporating not just the right to have sufficient food to eat, but also the right to decide how food is produced and distributed.
I have heard that as a species human beings prefer to stick to well-grooved ways of understanding the world even when faced with clear evidence that the world is a very different place. It is important that as an international relations teaching and research community we transcend that human characteristic. The evidence for needing a different way of looking at international relations scholarship is irrefutable and in our face. Two issues are particularly egregious: the first is the undeniable scientific knowledge that we are going to stream past the 1.5 degree Paris Agreement target for rising temperatures, not least because governments and cooperations have no ‘political will’ nor any incentive for making disruptive changes to consumption patterns, emissions or the use of fossil fuels. The second is humankind’s genocidal holocaust happening in Gaza.
Science tells us that temperatures at 1.5degrees will lead to severe heat waves once every five years for about 14% of the world’s population, and at 2 degrees the number can jump to almost 40%. At 2 degrees one third of the world’s population will experience chronic water scarcity, alongside the destructive impacts of more and more violent extreme weather events on homes and basic infrastructure, food security and livelihoods2. Some unpredictable tipping points, such as changes in large ocean currents to transformation of the Amazon forest to the melting of massive ice sheets could exacerbate the situation.
Climate change will impact on the way we conceptualise international relations praxis. It will be reflected for instance on how we address the issue of migration. The International Organisation on Migration (IOM) predicts that the number of people forcibly displaced will rise to one billion or more people by 2050, due to the interconnected impacts of climate change, nature’s collapse, and associated political, social, and economic instability3. The current humanitarian approach of keeping refugees ‘safe’’ pending repatriation or safe passage to a third country has already been brought to its knees if we consider that UNHCR statistics show that 66% of the refugees have been in exile in a host country for five or more years with no chance of repatriation or safe passage elsewhere4. Sea level rises and the potential disappearance of the physical territory of some Pacific Island states will pose a challenge to the Westphalian concept of state sovereignty which is conventionally characterised by territorial integrity and defined geographical borders. Crop productivity will be affected by global warming’s impact on soil quality, water availability and weather volatility leading to lower yields and lower nutrition. Food sovereignty imperatives are likely to erode the perceived value of global food trade. China is already pivoting towards domestically grown food and self-sufficiency.5
Suppose climate change forces us to rethink fundamental ideas and principles relating to migration, state sovereignty and food trade. Then the monstrous Gaza genocide must completely dismantle our understanding of a rules-based international order. We have heard the argument that the so-called rules-based international order is a completely Western tradition based on Western law, the European Enlightenment, and liberal democracy and that this order is predominantly US-centric – an order that was built, supported, and protected by the military, economic, and political power of the United States. The more generous expected that it would, as intended, even during the era of US unipolarity that followed the Cold War, prevent conflict and ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust in Europe or anything like it would never happen again. It is evident to everyone except the wilfully blind, that the genocide in Palestine is exposing the hypocrisy of the Global North and the invalidity of its blueprint for a peaceful world.
These and other contextual changes (such as the marginalisation of women’s voices, the disregard of queer rights, disability rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, the growth of social movements) demand that we rethink the future of the discipline of International Relations. The BCIS 2025 Emerging Scholars Symposium had this imperative as its theme: Rethinking the Future of International Relations. The 60 papers that were presented by the young authors at the Symposium discussed mainly how the thinking of international relations can (and must) be adapted to the technological advancements, changing power dynamics and state alignments in regional spaces, and how global institutions and processes can (and should) navigate the emerging context. We need to examine in detail how the fundamentals of international relations theory and practice can support the survival of both people and the planet.
I suspect this will require considerable “epistemic disobedience” and the courage to radically deconstruct and dismantle the received wisdom and then reassemble a freshly imagined understanding of international relations. It would require a discussion on the contestation between hegemonic state-centric ideas, institutions, finance, and MNCs on one hand, and peasant farmers, women, fishers, pastoralists, indigenous people, students, working people, victims of genocides, immigrants, refugees, and citizens of small states on the other. We need to ask ourselves the question, are we about continuing to defend ideas and frameworks for the sake of a discipline or are we going to embark on a creative process that reimagines international relations scholarship in ways that are relevant to the majority of the citizens of the Global South.
The newly designed modules in the BCIS’ certificate, diploma and higher diploma courses and a cutting-edge Master’s in International Relations that will be launched in 2026, will lead us on this critical journey. Meanwhile, the BCIS will offer several short courses that will encourage deeper exploration of the issues we need to challenge, starting with Professor Kiran K Grewal six-part course on Decolonial Concepts and Theory, Decolonial Practice and Decolonising Institutions, this October through to November, and a series of public lectures on Democracy and Democratisation: conceptual trends and imaginations by Professor Shalini in November.
Watch this space – let’s do this together!
by Priyanthi Fernando
Executive Director, Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies
Features
When Batting Was Poetry: Remembering David Gower
For many Sri Lankans growing up in the late nineteen fifties and early sixties, our cricketing heroes were Englishmen. I am not entirely sure why that was. Perhaps it was a colonial hangover, or perhaps it reflected the way cricket was taught locally, with an emphasis on technical correctness, a high left elbow, and the bat close to the pad. English cricket, with its traditions and orthodoxy, became the benchmark.
I, on the other hand, could not see beyond Sir Garfield Sobers and the West Indian team. Sir Garfield remains my all-time hero, although only by a whisker ahead of Muttiah Muralitharan. For me, Caribbean flair and attacking cricket were infinitely superior to the Englishmen’s conservatism and defensive approach.
That said, England has produced many outstanding cricketers, with David Gower and Ian Botham being my favourites. Players such as Colin Cowdrey, Tom Graveney, Mike Denness, Tony Lewis, Mike Brealey, Alan Knott, Derek Underwood, Tony Greig, and David Gower were great ambassadors for England, particularly when touring the South Asian subcontinent, which posed certain challenges for touring sides until about three decades ago. Their calm and dignified conduct when touring is a contrast to the behaviour of the current lot.
I am no longer an avid cricket viewer, largely because my blood pressure tends to rise when I watch our Sri Lankan players. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised recently when I was flipping through the TV channels to hear David Gower’s familiar voice commentating. It brought back fond memories of watching him bat during my time in the UK. I used to look forward to the summer for two reasons. To feel the sun on my back and watch David Gower bat!
A debut that announced a star
One of my most vivid cricketing memories is watching, in 1978, a young English batsman pull the very first ball he faced in Test cricket to the boundary. Most debutants play cautiously, trying to avoid the dreaded zero, but Gower nonchalantly swivelled and pulled a short ball from Pakistan’s Liaquat Ali for four. It was immediately apparent that a special talent had arrived.
To place that moment in perspective, Marvan Atapattu—an excellent Sri Lankan batsman—took three Tests and four innings to score his first run, yet later compiled 16 Test centuries.
Gower went on to score 56 in his first innings and captivated spectators with his full repertoire of strokes, particularly his exquisite cover drive. It is often said that a left-hander’s cover drive is one of the most pleasurable sights in cricket, and watching Sobers, Gower, or Brian Lara execute the cover drive made the entrance ticket worthwhile.
A young talent in a time of change
Gower made his Test debut at just 21, rare for an English player of that era. World cricket was in turmoil due to the Kerry Packer revolution, and England had lost senior players such as Tony Greig, Alan Knott, and Derek Underwood. Selectors were searching for young talent, and Gower’s inclusion injected fresh impetus.
Gower scored his first Test century in only his fourth match, just a month after his debut, against New Zealand, and a few months later scored his maiden Ashes century at Perth.
He finished with 18 Test centuries from 117 matches. His finest test innings, in my view, was the magnificent 154 not out at Kingston in 1981 against Holding, Marshall, Croft, and Garner. Batting for nearly eight hours and facing 403 balls, he set aside flair for determination to save the Test.
He and Ian Botham also benefited from playing their initial years under Mike Brealey, an average batsman but an outstanding leader. Rodney Hogg, the Australian fast bowler, famously said Brealey had a ‘degree in people’, and both young stars flourished under his guidance.
Captaincy and criticism and overall record
Few English batsmen delighted and frustrated spectators and analysts as much as Gower. The languid cover drive, so elegant and so pleasurable to the spectators, also resulted in a fair number of dismissals that, at times, gave the impression of carelessness to both spectators and journalists.
Despite his approach, which at times appeared casual, he was appointed as captain of the English team in 1983 and served for three years before being removed in 1986. He was again appointed captain in 1989 for the Ashes series. He led England in 1985 to a famous Ashes series win as well as a series win in India in1984-85.
In the eyes of some, the captaincy might not have been the best suited to his style of play. However, he scored 732 runs whilst captaining the team during the 1985 Ashes series, proving that he was able handle the pressure.
Under Gower, England lost two consecutive series to the great West Indian teams 5-0, which led to the coining of the phrase “Blackwashed”! He was somewhat unlucky that he captained the English team when the West Indies were at the peak, possessing a fearsome array of fast bowlers.
David Gower scored 3,269 test runs against Australia in 42 test matches. He scored nine centuries and 12 fifties, averaging nearly 45 runs per inning. His record against Australia as an English batsman is only second to Sir Jack Hobbs. Scoring runs against Australia has been a yardstick in determining how good a batsman is. Therefore, his record against Australia can easily rebut the critics who said that he was too casual. He scored 8,231 runs in 117 test matches and 3,170 runs in 114 One Day Internationals.
A gentleman of the game free of controversies
Unlike the other great English cricketer at the time, Ian Botham, David was not involved in any controversies during his illustrious career. The only incident that generated negative press was a low-level flight he undertook in a vintage Tiger Moth biplane in Queensland during the 1990-91 Ashes tour of Australia. The team management and the English press, as usual, made a mountain out of a molehill. David retired from international cricket in 1992.
In 1984, during the tour of India, due to the uncertain security situation after the assassination of the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the English team travelled to Sri Lanka for a couple of matches. I was fortunate enough to get David to sign his book “With Time to Spare”. This was soon after he returned to the pavilion after being dismissed. There was no refusal or rudeness when I requested his signature.
He was polite and obliged despite still being in pads. Although I did not know David Gower, his willingness that day to oblige a spectator exemplified the man’s true character. A gentleman who played the game as it should be, and a great ambassador of England and world cricket. He was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame in 2009 and appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1992 for his services to sport.
By Sanjeewa Jayaweera
Features
Sri Lanka Through Loving Eyes:A Call to Fix What Truly Matters
Love of country, pride, and the responsibility to be honest
I am a Sri Lankan who has lived in Australia for the past 38 years. Australia has been very good to my family and me, yet Sri Lanka has never stopped being home. That connection endures, which is why we return every second year—sometimes even annually—not out of nostalgia, but out of love and pride in our country.
My recent visit reaffirmed much of what makes Sri Lanka exceptional: its people, culture, landscapes, and hospitality remain truly world-class. Yet loving one’s country also demands honesty, particularly when shortcomings risk undermining our future as a serious global tourism destination.
When Sacred and Iconic Sites Fall Short
One of the most confronting experiences occurred during our visit to Sri Pada (Adam’s Peak). This sacred site, revered across multiple faiths, attracts pilgrims and tourists from around the world. Sadly, the severe lack of basic amenities—especially clean, accessible toilets—was deeply disappointing. At moments of real need, facilities were either unavailable or unhygienic.
This is not a luxury issue. It is a matter of dignity.
For a site of such immense religious and cultural significance, the absence of adequate sanitation is unacceptable. If Sri Lanka is to meet its ambitious tourism targets, essential infrastructure, such as public toilets, must be prioritized immediately at Sri Pada and at all major tourist and pilgrimage sites.
Infrastructure strain is also evident in Ella, particularly around the iconic Nine Arches Bridge. While the attraction itself is breathtaking, access to the site is poorly suited to the sheer volume of visitors. We were required to walk up a steep, uneven slope to reach the railway lines—manageable for some, but certainly not ideal or safe for elderly visitors, families, or those with mobility challenges. With tourist numbers continuing to surge, access paths, safety measures, and crowd management urgently needs to be upgraded.
Missed opportunities and first impressions
Our visit to Yala National Park, particularly Block 5, was another missed opportunity. While the natural environment remains extraordinary, the overall experience did not meet expectations. Notably, our guide—experienced and deeply knowledgeable—offered several practical suggestions for improving visitor experience and conservation outcomes. Unfortunately, he also noted that such feedback often “falls on deaf ears.” Ignoring insights from those on the ground is a loss Sri Lanka can ill afford.
First impressions also matter, and this is where Bandaranaike International Airport still falls short. While recent renovations have improved the physical space, customs and immigration processes lack coherence during peak hours. Poorly formed queues, inconsistent enforcement, and inefficient passenger flow create unnecessary delays and frustration—often the very first experience visitors have of Sri Lanka.
Excellence exists—and the fundamentals must follow
That said, there is much to celebrate.
Our stays at several hotels, especially The Kingsbury, were outstanding. The service, hospitality, and quality of food were exceptional—on par with the best anywhere in the world. These experiences demonstrate that Sri Lanka already possesses the talent and capability to deliver excellence when systems and leadership align.
This contrast is precisely why the existing gaps are so frustrating: they are solvable.
Sri Lankans living overseas will always defend our country against unfair criticism and negative global narratives. But defending Sri Lanka does not mean remaining silent when basic standards are not met. True patriotism lies in constructive honesty.
If Sri Lanka is serious about welcoming the world, it must urgently address fundamentals: sanitation at sacred sites, safe access to major attractions, well-managed national parks, and efficient airport processes. These are not optional extras—they are the foundation of sustainable tourism.
This is not written in criticism, but in love. Sri Lanka deserves better, and so do the millions of visitors who come each year, eager to experience the beauty, spirituality, and warmth that our country offers so effortlessly.
The writer can be reached at Jerome.adparagraphams@gmail.com
By Jerome Adams
Features
Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms
Global temperatures in January have been polar opposite – plus 50 Celsius down under in Australia, and minus 45 Celsius up here in North America (I live in Canada). Between extremes of many kinds, not just thermal, the world order stands ruptured. That was the succinct message in what was perhaps the most widely circulated and listened to speeches of this century, delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos, in January. But all is not lost. Who seems to be getting lost in the mayhem of his own making is Donald Trump himself, the President of the United States and the world’s disruptor in chief.
After a year of issuing executive orders of all kinds, President Trump is being forced to retreat in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by the public reaction to the knee-jerk shooting and killing of two protesters in three weeks by federal immigration control and border patrol agents. The latter have been sent by the Administration to implement Trump’s orders for the arbitrary apprehension of anyone looking like an immigrant to be followed by equally arbitrary deportation.
The Proper Way
Many Americans are not opposed to deporting illegal and criminal immigrants, but all Americans like their government to do things the proper way. It is not the proper way in the US to send federal border and immigration agents to swarm urban neighbourhood streets and arrest neighbours among neighbours, children among other school children, and the employed among other employees – merely because they look different, they speak with an accent, or they are not carrying their papers on their person.
Americans generally swear by the Second Amendment and its questionably interpretive right allowing them to carry guns. But they have no tolerance when they see government forces turn their guns on fellow citizens. Trump and his administration cronies went too far and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Barely a month has passed in 2026, but Trump’s second term has already run into multiple storms.
There’s more to come between now and midterm elections in November. In the highly entrenched American system of checks and balances it is virtually impossible to throw a government out of office – lock, stock and barrel. Trump will complete his term, but more likely as a lame duck than an ordering executive. At the same time, the wounds that he has created will linger long even after he is gone.
Equally on the external front, it may not be possible to immediately reverse the disruptions caused by Trump after his term is over, but other countries and leaders are beginning to get tired of him and are looking for alternatives bypassing Trump, and by the same token bypassing the US. His attempt to do a Venezuela over Greenland has been spectacularly pushed back by a belatedly awakening Europe and America’s other western allies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The wags have been quick to remind us that he is mostly a TACO (Trump always chickens out) Trump.
Grandiose Scheme or Failure
His grandiose scheme to establish a global Board of Peace with himself as lifetime Chair is all but becoming a starter. No country or leader of significant consequence has accepted the invitation. The motley collection of acceptors includes five East European countries, three Central Asian countries, eight Middle Eastern countries, two from South America, and four from Asia – Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pakistan. The latter’s rush to join the club will foreclose any chance of India joining the Board. Countries are allowed a term of three years, but if you cough up $1 billion, could be member for life. Trump has declared himself to be lifetime chair of the Board, but he is not likely to contribute a dime. He might claim expenses, though. The Board of Peace was meant to be set up for the restoration of Gaza, but Trump has turned it into a retirement project for himself.
There is also the ridiculous absurdity of Trump continuing as chair even after his term ends and there is a different president in Washington. How will that arrangement work? If the next president turns out to be a Democrat, Trump may deny the US a seat on the board, cash or no cash. That may prove to be good for the UN and its long overdue restructuring. Although Trump’s Board has raised alarms about the threat it poses to the UN, the UN may end up being the inadvertent beneficiary of Trump’s mercurial madness.
The world is also beginning to push back on Trump’s tariffs. Rather, Trump’s tariffs are spurring other countries to forge new trade alliances and strike new trade deals. On Tuesday, India and EU struck the ‘mother of all’ trade deals between them, leaving America the poorer for it. Almost the next day , British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced in Beijing that they had struck a string of deals on travel, trade and investments. “Not a Big Bang Free Trade Deal” yet, but that seems to be the goal. The Canadian Prime Minister has been globe-trotting to strike trade deals and create investment opportunities. He struck a good reciprocal deal with China, is looking to India, and has turned to South Korea and a consortium from Germany and Norway to submit bids for a massive submarine supply contract supplemented by investments in manufacturing and mineral industries. The informal first-right-of-refusal privilege that US had in Canada for defense contracts is now gone, thanks to Trump.
The disruptions that Trump has created in the world order may not be permanent or wholly irreversible, as Prime Minister Carney warned at Davos. But even the short term effects of Trump’s disruptions will be significant to all of US trading partners, especially smaller countries like Sri Lanka. Regardless of what they think of Trump, leaders of governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from the negative effects of Trump’s tariffs. That will be in addition to everything else that governments have to do even if they do not have Trump’s disruptions to deal with.
Bland or Boisterous
Against the backdrop of Trump-induced global convulsions, politics in Sri Lanka is in a very stable mode. This is not to diminish the difficulties and challenges that the vast majority of Sri Lankans are facing – in meeting their daily needs, educating their children, finding employment for the youth, accessing timely health care and securing affordable care for the elderly. The challenges are especially severe for those devastated by cyclone Ditwah.
Politically, however, the government is not being tested by the opposition. And the once boisterous JVP/NPP has suddenly become ‘bland’ in government. “Bland works,” is a Canadian political quote coined by Bill Davis a nationally prominent premier of the Province of Ontario. Davis was responding to reporters looking for dramatic politics instead of boring blandness. He was Premier of Ontario for 14 years (1971-1985) and won four consecutive elections before retiring.
No one knows for how long the NPP government will be in power in Sri Lanka or how many more elections it is going to win, but there is no question that the government is singularly focused on winning the next parliamentary election, or both the presidential and parliamentary elections – depending on what happens to the system of directly electing the executive president.
The government is trying to grow comfortable in being on cruise control to see through the next parliamentary election. Its critics on the other hand, are picking on anything that happens on any day to blame or lampoon the government. The government for all its tight control of its members and messaging is not being able to put out quickly the fires that have been erupting. There are the now recurrent matters of the two AGs (non-appointment of the Auditor General and alleged attacks on the Attorney General) and the two ERs (Educational Reform and Electricity Reform), the timing of the PC elections, and the status of constitutional changes to end the system of directly electing the president.
There are also criticisms of high profile resignations due to government interference and questionable interdictions. Two recent resignations have drawn public attention and criticism, viz., the resignation of former Air Chief Marshal Harsha Abeywickrama from his position as the Chairman of Airport & Aviation Services, and the earlier resignation of Attorney-at-Law Ramani Jayasundara from her position as Chair of the National Women’s Commission. Both have been attributed to political interferences. In addition, the interdiction of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament has also raised eyebrows and criticisms. The interdiction in parliament could not have come at a worse time for the government – just before the passing away of Nihal Seniviratne, who had served Sri Lanka’s parliament for 33 years and the last 13 of them as its distinguished Secretary General.
In a more political sense, echoes of the old JVP boisterousness periodically emanate in the statements of the JVP veteran and current Cabinet Minister K.D. Lal Kantha. Newspaper columnists love to pounce on his provocative pronouncements and make all manner of prognostications. Mr. Lal Kantha’s latest reported musing was that: “It is true our government is in power, but we still don’t have state power. We will bring about a revolution soon and seize state power as well.”
This was after he had reportedly taken exception to filmmaker Asoka Handagama’s one liner: “governing isn’t as easy as it looks when you are in the opposition,” and allegedly threatened to answer such jibes no matter who stood in the way and what they were wearing “black robes, national suits or the saffron.” Ironically, it was the ‘saffron part’ that allegedly led to the resignation of Harsha Abeywickrama from the Airport & Aviation Services. And President AKD himself has come under fire for his Thaipongal Day statement in Jaffna about Sinhala Buddhist pilgrims travelling all the way from the south to observe sil at the Tiisa Vihare in Thayiddy, Jaffna.
The Vihare has been the subject of controversy as it was allegedly built under military auspices on the property of local people who evacuated during the war. Being a master of the spoken word, the President could have pleaded with the pilgrims to show some sensitivity and empathy to the displaced Tamil people rather than blaming them (pilgrims) of ‘hatred.’ The real villains are those who sequestered property and constructed the building, and the government should direct its ire on them and not the pilgrims.
In the scheme of global things, Sri Lanka’s political skirmishes are still teacup storms. Yet it is never nice to spill your tea in public. Public embarrassments can be politically hurtful. As for Minister Lal Kantha’s distinction between governmental mandate and state power – this is a false dichotomy in a fundamentally practical sense. He may or may not be aware of it, but this distinction quite pre-occupied the ideologues of the 1970-75 United Front government. Their answer of appointing Permanent Secretaries from outside the civil service was hardly an answer, and in some instances the cure turned out to be worse than the disease.
As well, what used to be a leftist pre-occupation is now a right wing insistence especially in America with Trump’s identification of the so called ‘deep state’ as the enemy of the people. I don’t think the NPP government wants to go there. Rather, it should show creative originality in making the state, whether deep or shallow, to be of service to the people. There is a general recognition that the government has been doing just that in providing redress to the people impacted by the cyclone. A sign of that recognition is the number of people contributing to the disaster relief fund and in substantial amounts. The government should not betray this trust but build on it for the benefit of all. And better do it blandly than boisterously.
by Rajan Philips
-
Business6 days agoComBank, UnionPay launch SplendorPlus Card for travelers to China
-
Business3 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Opinion2 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business1 day agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Opinion6 days agoLuck knocks at your door every day
-
Business1 day agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business1 day agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Editorial1 day agoGovt. provoking TUs
