Features
How to remember and not to remember July 1983
By Uditha Devapriya
There is a quote attributed to Morgan Freeman which basically states that the only way to stop racism is to stop talking about it. I am not sure where, when, or why Freeman said it: this is the same actor, after all, who objected to the term “Black history” and argued that it was part of American history, objecting further to limiting its commemoration to a month. On the other hand, the quote makes no sense at all: isn’t not talking about something like pretending it never happened or existed at all? To me it’s no different to saying we should stop talking about the Holocaust in relation to anti-Semitism, which of course is the same as denying it happened in the first place. It just doesn’t work.
Fortunately, there is no one in Sri Lanka who wants to stop talking about July 1983. Both sides have opened up. Sinhala Buddhist nationalists want us to remember the Sinhalese and Buddhists who helped their Tamil friends from being massacred, while Tamils want us to remember the thousands of civilians who were not fortunate to be in the company of such people, who had no choice but to face slaughter. To open old wounds is to reflect on who inflicted them, which is why remembrance is so important. In that sense Sri Lanka has been better than other countries: every year it remembers July 1983, the horrors it unleashed, the trauma that “cries out to the very heavens”, the wounds that need healing.
For July 1983 was transformative in the same way 1956 was. The only difference was that 1956 happened without a drop of blood, while more than mere drops of blood spilt on the streets of Borella, Maradana, Colombo, and elsewhere in 1983. In all other respects, it was epochal, in the sense that things have never been the same since. This is not to say that a line must be drawn from 1956 to 1983. That would be indulging in revisionism of the worst, most vulgar sort. But the moment the progressive potential of 1956 became thwarted by the forces which had given birth to it, and its emancipatory possibilities became stunted beyond repair, a 1983 became inevitable. It had to happen, sooner or later.
In Long War, Cold Peace, Dayan Jayatilleka reflects on an observation made by Newton Gunasinghe, that our culture never contained a code of violence. This is somewhat in contradiction to Bruce Kapferer’s claims, of course, but Jayatilleka turns the observation on its head when he contends that “some subterranean socio-cultural trait causes violence to swiftly assume the character of barbarism.” In other words, we remain pacific, indolent, and complacent; once hysteria seeps in, however, we become barbaric. By “we”, incidentally, I am referring to Sri Lankans in general, not one community or another. But the point is clear enough. Unless held in check, our baser instincts tend to dominate, to unleash themselves in rivers of blood. It is the State that should moderate these instincts. Once the State abdicates such a role, one can only expect a protest, a pogrom, or an uprising.
Sri Lanka’s most violent decade post-independence, the 1980s, witnessed all three: the July 1980 strike, the July 1983 pogrom, and the second JVP insurrection. The State did not so much break down as take the massive mandate that it received in 1977 for granted, to the extent of holding a questionable referendum and, on the basis of that referendum, delaying elections and extending the life of the parliament. July 1983 is located at a pivotal point, a crucial crossroads, in the calamities that unfolded during this period. It led to two outcomes: an upsurge in the LTTE’s popularity, feeding into fratricidal wars within the Tamil liberation struggle, and the proscription of the Left, which forced the JVP to take up arms and behave the way it did in later years. In other words, 1983 provoked a conflagration in the north and the south, a conflagration from which we have never properly recovered.
What 1983 requires, in that sense, is an objective, honest account. There have been several studies done in relation to July 1983, of course: Kapferer’s Legends of People, Myths of State, Tambiah’s Buddhism Betrayed, and Newton Gunasinghe’s “Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Perceptions and Solutions.” Rajan Hoole’s reminiscences of the pogrom are perhaps the most detailed, comprehensive, and damning. Yet what we require is a contemporary take on the pogrom, its causes and consequences, what it means for the present generation. We require more than a vigil, more than a protest, though vigils and protests are necessary. But remembrance will have to be followed by reflection: mistakes must be admitted, and some reconciliation must be brought about. Television infomercials and documentaries which end with that typical liberal slogan, “Never Again!”, simply won’t cut it.
Regarding our penchant for violence, I defer more to Newton Gunasinghe’s argument than Bruce Kapferer’s, though I find some of the latter’s claims interesting, intriguing, and even accurate. Jayatilleka’s take on Gunasinghe’s observation is also correct, but in this day and age it requires an addendum. Our culture does not contain a code of violence, and some trait causes violence to take on barbaric proportions when it erupts, but many of us tend to seek absolution once the moment of barbarity passes.
That even Sinhala nationalists, who would otherwise have been expected to deny July 1983 ever happened, accepts it for what it was, though stopping short of asking for forgiveness, shows that there is a consensus about what 1983 meant and what we are to make of it. This is to be welcomed. But at a time when Sri Lanka is miring itself up in other divisions, political and ethnic, it behoves us to think back on July 1983 and think of how we are to progress from that moment.
The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Features
Complexities in global politics deepen as economic pressures intensify
The present offer by the UK to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities in the missile technology field in particular comes as ‘a stitch in time’ and the initiative is also likely to be appreciated considerably by democratic opinion world wide for the possible morale-boosting effect it would have on Ukraine. Besides continuous arms support, the conviction that the world’s frontline democracies are behind it would prove a huge plus in Ukraine’s eyes in its grinding fightback against the Russian invasion.
While continued US support for Ukraine could not be considered ‘a given’ any more, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s words during a recent visit to Kyiv that the UK would stand by Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ is the kind of assurance that Ukraine needs at present. For, the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a war of liberation conducted by the latter against an invader and deeply at issue here is the upholding of International Law and its foundational concepts, such as national sovereignty and a nation’s right to political self-determination. The world of democracy is of the firm view that the latter ideals cannot be compromised, come what may.
The UK has its work cut out in this connection. It would find it difficult to convince the Trump administration that it should staunchly stand by Ukraine but it could campaign vigorously with the rest of the West and the EU fold in particular to unflaggingly support the embattled and over-run country.
Ukraine has shown an impressive adeptness in using drone technology in particular against her enemy and has even manufactured her own hardware in this respect but using the relevant blueprints handed over by the UK for the manufacture of more sophisticated cruise missiles, for instance, may prove financially difficult, going forward. It is left to be seen whether the UK and the rest of the West who are with Ukraine will continue to be with her, considering their own rising financial constraints.
The latter impediments could only multiply in the future. Oil, gas and energy prices are on the rise and the latter costs are glaringly reflected in kitchens and meal tables the world over. As we go along consumer discontent would steadily intensify and governments, East and West, would need to figure out with considerable rigour and foresight how such disaffection could be ably managed. Failing which, in most democratic societies, the chances are that publics would be out on the streets demanding that their grievances be redressed forthwith.
These rising concerns are reflected in a recent move by some EU governments to consider imposing what is described as ‘a windfall tax’ on the profits specified major oil companies operating within their shores have made in the wake of the US-Israel war on Iran. The rationale apparently is to use such tax earnings to cushion the rising cost of living of their publics and bolster the respective countries’ social expenditure.
In a recent letter to the president of the EU Council the EU governments referred to said, among other things, while drawing attention to the ‘discontent that is growing over the rising cost of living’: ‘A common approach’ is needed that ‘ensures those who profit from the crisis contribute their share to reducing the burden on the general population.’ Meanwhile, Oxfam with reference to the above development is on record as calling for a ‘permanent windfall tax of at least 50% on profits exceeding a 10% return on investment.’
Such are the rising economic pressures on the majority of Western governments. The question to be posed is how consistent they would be in their assistance to Ukraine if they decide consensually to stand by her. The soaring cost of living in the West compels the conclusion that there could be no guarantee that Western assistance to Ukraine, particularly in the defense and security fields, would be of a longstanding kind.
Of particular concern would be the fact that the weapons systems on offer from the UK to Ukraine could be increasingly costly to manufacture going forward. Besides they would need to be manufactured and put into action without delay.
However, these considerations should in no way deflect Ukraine’s supporters from the principled policy stance of defending her to the extent possible. Because at issue is the defense of International Law and the democratic system of government from their enemies; fascism and authoritarian rule.
While during World Wars 1 and 2 the US was with the major democracies of the West, this time around with regard to Ukraine, the US has chosen to be at cross-purposes with them. For instance, in relation to tariff matters and defense expenditure, in the NATO context, the US is pursuing a hard line which puts it at polar opposites with the West. Thus it is no longer possible to talk unreservedly of a ‘Western democratic alliance’. Put plainly, the cause of democratic development has been weakened.
A measure of relief for the supporters of Ukraine in the West could come by way of the upcoming mid-term polls in the US. If the Democratic Party fares well in them the pressure would be on the Trump administration to defer to opposition opinion at home, accommodate the best interests of Ukraine in its West European policy and perhaps even work towards a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis in cooperation with Russia. Accordingly, the Democratic Party would need to put the Trump administration on the defensive, so to speak.
Until such time Ukraine’s Western supporters have no choice but to remain committed to it, ensure its steadfast defense against the invasion and work judiciously towards keeping the economic pressures at home in check.
Interestingly, at the present juncture in international politics the US could be said to be more weak than strong. For example, it has to some extent been militarily humbled by Iran; so much so it is resorting to economic means to keep Iran in check.
In keeping with this strategy, the US has launched ‘a new big wave of anti-Iran economic sanctions’ at the time of writing, aimed at cutting Iran away from all its major income sources. Some of these relate to digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping. The hoped for result is the complete severance of Iran from the US dollar system.
However, while the UK and EU have no choice but to adhere to their policy of backing Ukraine, going forward they would need to dialogue more closely with the US and ensure that it cooperates with them on outstanding questions, such as Ukraine and the strengthening of democracy. The well being of the world is served when the latter aim is pursued.
Features
“Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery”
OPA 39th Annual Conference calls for Sri Lanka to move Beyond Recovery towards Sustainable Transformation
The Orgnisation of Professional Associations (OPA) successfully concluded its 39th Annual Conference, held recently at the Cinnamon Grand Colombo, under the theme “Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery”.
Held under the patronage of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA, with the leadership and guidance of Tisara De Silva, President-Elect and Chairman of the 39th Annual Conference, the Conference brought together leading professionals, academics, business leaders and representatives of the public and private sectors to deliberate on Sri Lanka’s next phase of national development.
The Inaugural Session, on August 2026, was graced by Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, as the Chief Guest; Andrew Patrick, British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, as the Guest of Honour; and Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of the Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka, as the Keynote Speaker.
In her address, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya emphasised that overcoming the economic crisis alone should not be Sri Lanka’s ultimate objective, stressing that recovery must serve as the foundation for a broader economic and institutional transformation necessary for sustainable national progress. Reflecting on the difficult period experienced by the country, the Prime Minister noted that Sri Lanka had faced significant economic, social and institutional challenges, which had weakened public confidence and created uncertainty about the country’s future.
She stressed that “recovery only provides the foundation” and that Sri Lanka can move forward sustainably only by using that foundation to bring about meaningful transformation.
The Prime Minister observed that the theme of the OPA’s 39th Annual Conference, “Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery,” aptly encapsulated these national aspirations. She emphasised that Sri Lanka’s objective should not merely be to return to the conditions that existed before the crisis, but to forge a stronger national foundation characterised by robust institutions, a resilient economy, high-quality public services and an enabling environment in which every citizen has the opportunity to thrive.
She further underscored that Sri Lanka’s future development cannot be secured through economic growth and physical development alone. She emphasised that the effective mobilisation of the country’s knowledge, skills and professional expertise, is equally essential to achieving sustainable and inclusive national progress
The Technical Sessions held on 12 August 2026 brought together 19 distinguished experts and professionals representing academia, industry, banking and finance, public health, technology, management and business leadership. Their diverse expertise provided a multidisciplinary platform to examine the critical challenges, emerging opportunities and strategic choices that will shape Sri Lanka’s next phase of development, with particular emphasis on economic transformation, institutional strengthening, digitalisation, private-sector growth, human capital and sustainable development.
The deliberations were structured around four principal sub-themes: “Resilient Recovery and Sustainable Economic Development”; “Future Readiness: Innovation & Transformation”; “Policy for Impact: Advancing Equity, Sustainable Living, and National Well-Being”; and “Leadership, Governance and National Responsibility.”
Across these thematic areas, the sessions explored the structural reforms, institutional requirements and policy choices necessary to move Sri Lanka beyond economic stabilisation towards a more productive, competitive, resilient and inclusive economy. The discussions brought together diverse professional perspectives, enabling participants to examine national priorities through economic, technological, industrial, financial, social and governance lenses.
Particular emphasis was placed on the need to move beyond the diagnosis of problems towards pragmatic, evidence-based and implementable solutions. The deliberations recognised that sustainable national progress requires not only sound policies, but also effective institutions, professional competence, innovation, responsible leadership and the capacity to translate policy into tangible outcomes.
The sessions further underscored the importance of collaboration across sectors, recognising that Sri Lanka’s complex development challenges cannot be addressed in isolation. Stronger engagement among Government, private sector, professional associations, academia and civil society was identified as essential to fostering a coherent national response and ensuring that professional knowledge and expertise are effectively translated into policy and action.
Collectively, the Technical Sessions provided a substantive platform for knowledge exchange, critical reflection and forward-looking dialogue, reinforcing the OPA’s commitment to bringing the country’s professional expertise to bear on the task of building a resilient, innovative, equitable and prosperous Sri Lanka.
The OPA expressed its sincere appreciation to Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, the Chief Guest; Andrew Patrick, British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Guest of Honour; and Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of the Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka and Keynote Speaker, for their distinguished contributions to the Conference.
Much of what the 39th Annual Conference achieved would not have been possible without the leadership, commitment and generous contributions of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA; Tisara De Silva, President-Elect and Chairman of the 39th Annual Conference; Eng. Ravi Rupasinghe, General Secretary; Dharshana Wijemanne, Treasurer; Bhanu Wijayaratne, Convener & the Chairman of the Session Planning Committee of the 39th Annual Conference Committee, Past Presidents and Office Bearers; Presidents and representatives of Member Associations; members of the Executive Councils and General Forum; and the distinguished Session Chairmen, Resource Persons and professionals who shared their time, expertise and insights in pursuit of the Conference’s shared vision. The OPA remains immensely grateful to all those whose collective contributions enriched the 39th Annual Conference and strengthened its role as a meaningful platform for professional exchange, informed dialogue and national reflection.
Features
Nostalgia for Lankans in Toronto …
For Sri Lankans living 14,000 kilometres from home, the sound of home has never felt closer — and that’s thanks to one man and his band.
Since stepping into the spotlight, Gamini Hemalal and the Ceymphony Band have turned into the heartbeat of the Sri Lankan community in Toronto.
Their mission is simple: bring the music, bring the memories, bring the people together. And it’s working.
What turned out to be the talk-of-the-town was their intimate musical evening with Sri Lanka’s legendary crooner Sohan Weerasinghe.

Sohan Weerasinghe: Had
everyone on their feet at the
Angus Glen Golf Club, in
Toronto, Canada
It was a ‘full house’ long before the big date. Tickets vanished within days — demand was that overwhelming.
According to those who were there, it was a truly amazing evening. The hall was packed, the energy electric. Sohan didn’t just sing — he owned the stage.
With his velvet vocals, his charm, and that signature style, he had everyone on their feet. The ladies, especially, couldn’t get enough. No wonder they call him “The Ladies’ Man!”
One attendee summed it up perfectly:
“We had so much fun. It is truly a blessing to have our kids around us, enjoying these beautiful moments together. Thank you, Gamini Hemalal, for such a wonderful evening, with an amazing crowd and an incredible atmosphere. Your hard work and dedication truly made it a special night.
“We also need to say a big thank you to the Ceymphony Band for delivering such an outstanding performance. You all were absolutely amazing! Our entire family had a fantastic time, and we truly enjoyed every moment.

Ceymphony Band: Extremely popular in the scene in Toronto
“Wishing you all continued success. Keep up the amazing work, we can’t wait for the next.”
And the next is already on the cards: ‘Halloween Pissu Baila Party 2026,’ on Friday, 30th October, at the famous Angus Glen Golf Club.
Gamini promises a crazy night of baila, music, dancing and Halloween vibes with the Ceymphony Band. Action runs from 8:00 PM to 12:00 midnight, with plenty of prizes to be won.

Gamini Hemalal: Amazing work for the Sri Lankan community,
in Toronto, Canada
Gamini is also putting together a special event, connected with the 2027 Avurudu celebrations — ‘Avurudu Musical Show 2027,’ a uniquely styled musical Avurudu celebration … Ceymphony Band style.
It’s scheduled to be held on Saturday, 10th April, 2027, also at the Angus Glen Golf Club.
Through music, Gamini Hemalal and Ceymphony are doing what diaspora bands do best — they’re shrinking the distance between two worlds.
One baila beat at a time, one full house at a time, they’re making sure that even in Canada, Sri Lankans feel like home.
Yes, there is plenty of action, indeed, for the Sri Lankan community in Toronto, Canada.
-
News7 days agoCountry’s first woman Surveyor General appointed
-
Business6 days agoSriLankan Airlines makes ShakthiSAT Mission possible for talented Sri Lankan student
-
Features7 days agoMedical education in Sri Lanka: Then and now
-
Latest News6 days agoImran Khan moved to private hospital amid deteriorating health
-
Latest News7 days agoGovernment has declared 21, 22 and 23 August 2026 as national days of mourning
-
Features5 days agoMy secondary schooling after Royal Primary
-
Latest News6 days agoTharanga edges out Chopra in 88m javelin battle
-
News7 days ago22A: Opp. demands all available SC judges hear petitions

