Connect with us

Features

In London — As Secretary-General, IPPF

Published

on

Bradman

Voluntary Exile (1984-1989)

Continued from last week

The abortion issue hit the world’s headlines and IPPF with a hard jolt. It came with the declaration by the United States delegation to the World Population Conference at Mexico City in August 1984, that the US would no longer fund international family planning programmes that included abortion-related activities in their programmes. The ‘Mexico City policy’ as it came to be called had very serious consequences for IPPF. We did not promote abortion in our programmes and it was part of our stated policy that “abortion is not a method of family planning”.

But there was a chink in our argument, that we were totally clean, as far as the US new funding conditionality was concerned. This was that the Indian family planning association, one of our leading members, had taken on board, and offered as one of its clinical services, the medical termination of pregnancy. There were some others too who offered MR – menstrual regulation – a neat euphemism for perhaps a case of early pregnancy. As far as IPPF was concerned that caused no problem internally within the federation as each member association could conduct its activities in accordance with the laws of the country. If it was legal in India, it was okay for the FPA to do it.

The IPPF had much to lose by not accepting the US conditionality, actually, around 20 percent of our annual grant income. We fought the issue at Mexico City where I was part of the strong IPPF delegation to the global conference. We took it to Washington” – to USAID – who would have to implement the policy. But we could not turn it around. The Mexico City policy on abortion was coming right from the top; from the White House itself, and was part of President Reagan’s appeasement of the conservative far right of American society. The highly influential `right to life’ lobby had won the day for the time being.

We had a great deal of redesigning and restructuring to do back home in London. We needed to cut back on overheads –number of staff, facilities at headquarters – and most critically reduce expenditure of vital programmes in the field. While that reduced expenditure appreciably we had to devise imaginative ways of fundraising to replace the US$ 20 million or so cut through the withdrawal of the US grant. This was quite an agenda for the first year of a ‘new boy’ in the hot seat of the organisation. It was totally unexpected but it gave a sharper edge to my work which was highly stimulating.

I think we did not come out too badly after all. The shock of lower levels of funding from the centre galvanised the member associations into becoming more active in terms of self-financing projects. Fees for services replaced the older free give-aways. In London, in addition to the token cutting of extras — like the venerable, mobile coffee-lady service – there was extensive retrenchment. It was heart-breaking to lose, to early retirement, some wonderfully dedicated 16 men and women who had been with the organisation almost from its beginning. The fund-raising or resource mobilisation as we called it, gave us tolerable returns. A host of large private charitable foundations in the US, like Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie came forward with generous support.

17 It was as if their sponsors wished to apologise for the miserly behaviour of the US administration. The spread of support was infectious. The Hewlett Foundation” from California chipped in with US$ 200,000 for a wide-ranging management review and restructuring exercise. (We hired Coopers Lybrand management consultants and they worked with us for a year to help in creating an effective headquarters structure.) In November 1985 the United Nations recognised us by awarding IPPF the UN Award for its services to alleviating the population problems of the world.

The second of the major issues which engaged the entirety of the federation was the transition of our mandate from Family Planning (FP) to Reproductive Health (RH). The conceptual difference in the two terms was clear. For one thing FP was conceived in relation to the family – the couple, and to many, the married couple – that which God had put together, etc. RH was much broader, it was for all individuals; so it could include teenagers and their sexuality, the unmarried, who may have partners – not wives, even, same-sex relationships and who knows, the sexual needs of the elderly. RH reflected the growing need for services relevant to and in line with the trends and current lifestyles, especially in the Anglo-European world. It became clear to me that it would not be easy to move the entire federation, which encompassed many diverse views, to accept the change of emphasis to RH as a matter of common policy. And it certainly was not and took a great deal of effort, particularly by the staff to bring it finally on board.

I was fascinated, at the Cairo ‘Population and Development’ Conference in 1994 – the next in the decennial population conferences after Mexico City, to hear the old arguments re-emerge in the furious debates within and outside the Hall. The US and the Vatican were out in front as usual resisting change. I led the Sri Lanka delegation to the meeting and could afford to sit back and watch the fun.

The International NGO Work Environment

The informal, but effective work environment at IPPF was again something I had to get used to quickly. While an ‘office’ in Sri Lanka as in other Asia countries is a formal place — with regard to both ‘dress’ and ‘behaviour’, the in the West was for these to become increasingly more informal. Coming from an Asian background where the head of an institution is treated with some special respect, and usually addressed as ‘Sir’, it needed some getting used to, to be looked at more as an equal in office. All staff from. my deputy to the young receptionist would refer to me as Brad. Mostly everybody in the office was on first-name basis. you took your place in the queue. In the cafeteria you sat where you pleased. I would often find myself sitting at the same table with the head of a division, a personal secretary, and the guy who registered the mail.

It was all very egalitarian, very health-conscious and smoking was absolutely a taboo inside the building, and very flexible. At meetings, although as S G you sat at the head of the table (and in many cases the tables were round so the problem did not arise), colleagues around you would be always intervening, some with more courtesy than others. There were unspoken rules for intervention unlike in Sri Lanka where a discussion is replete with interruption. One finger raised was to ask the chair permission for a two-minute intervention. A whole hand raised meant permission for five.

In the new office milieu that I had entered I had considerable support both formally and informally, from three other, long-serving Sri Lankan staff members. They were Vernon Aluvihare, Assistant Secretary-General, whom I had known from university days in Colombo; Dr Pramila Senanayake, director of the medical department and Francis Petersz, a civil service colleague, who was now regional director of the South-Asian region, based at London. The Sri Lankans had been making a large contribution to IPPF and after I too came in we needed to be careful in not having too much open association with each other lest we be termed, as occasionally we were, the Sri Lankan Mafia.

The London staff of around 200 were very varied in nationality. It was usual to find at the same meeting South Americans, Africans, Chinese, North Americans, Arabs and Europeans. One of the things I picked up and found very useful today, since all would speak in English, would be the differing intonations and accents. I learnt to recognise signals through body language. I guess the others too had a similar learning experience with my accent and body behaviour.

One of the early management tasks was to find a new location for headquarters. The organisation had been enjoying a long-term lease from the Crown since its inception in 1952, in Lower Regent Street, a few yards from Piccadilly Circus. It was at the very hub of the city and very convenient for everybody. Particularly so for the staff, as the Ceylon Tea Centre was located next door. However, the Crown agents who owned the property were demanding it back, for renovation and reletting at a much higher rental. So, I soon had to look for another suitable location.

We found the ideal place in the middle of Regents Park. It was a somewhat run-down set of buildings which had housed, up to a few years earlier, the female students of London University. It had been taken over on lease by an American university to be used as the European extension of their campus. I managed to get a sub-lease of a part of the premises and moved in early 1985 on a twenty-year lease at very favourable terms.

My personal room overlooked the Queen Mary’s rose garden and afforded a joyful view in summer when the roses were in full bloom. Damayanthi found for us a very smartly furnished apartment in St Johns Wood within walking distance of the office and right in front of the Lords cricket grounds. Esala had got into the London School of Economics as planned, and was studying for a MSc in ‘Social Planning for Developing Countries’. Life could not have been more fulfilling.

Friends in High Places

As executive head of IPPF I had to interact with the leaders of countries in which we did programmes. One of the rather unusual interactions was with the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, right here in London. It was not common knowledge that the prince had a deep interest in population issues and especially the interrelation between population and the environment.

One day in November 1987, Angela Davies” my superbly efficient secretary brought in this letter.

Buckingham Palace

20th November, 1987

The Duke of Edinburgh is very pleased to invite you to a dinner party here at Buckingham Palace on Monday, 7th December.

The subject is to be ‘Natural Economics’ and you are asked to come to the Grand Entrance of Buckingham Palace at 1930 hrs. Dress will be black tie and the evening should end about 2215 hrs.

I look forward to seeing you then, and enclosed herewith is a list of the guests for your information.

One of those on the guest list was Bob Geldof, the popular singer, who had become an ardent advocate of more family planning work in Sub-Saharan Africa, having seen the effects of the terrible drought and famine in the Sahel that year.

The invitation from Prince Philip was unexpected. We felt that it would be a plus point if we could get royalty in Britain behind our movement. So I accepted. The evening turned out to be quite eventful. It started off by missing my own driver and using a London cab to take me to the Palace. When I told the driver my destination he looked as if he did not believe me. Yet he drove me in through the gates of the Palace.

The Prince was a marvellous host. It was a small dinner with about 12 invitees. Geldof was not there. Prince Philip had done his homework and introduced me to the others, explaining how I had come by my unusual name and as the Sri Lankan who had served several prime ministers. The dinner proceeded in a carefully structured manner. There were some Palace rules which were seriously observed. ‘Natural economics’, the topic of the day, would be taken up only after coffee. Over dinner, until the fish course was done, you would talk to the guest on your left. With the meat, you turned to the guest on your right. It was a practical way of making certain that all were kept involved. Conversation after coffee and the wine was expansive with lots of questions addressed to me. I enjoyed the evening and decided to keep in touch. As the following

letter shows:

Balmoral Castle

17 August 1988

Thank you very much for sending me the copy of the IPPF Annual Report. I am delighted that the theme is ‘population and the environment’. It seems to me that the environmental consequences of a growing population reinforces the argument for population control. I take every opportunity that comes my way to emphasise that the conservation of nature cannot succeed if the human population continues to grow.

I am sure you realise that your address at St George’s 20 made a deep impression and I hope the word will now spread more widely in the churches.

Keep up the good work, and I hope the visiting cricket team from Sri Lanka will do well.

Philip

(To be continued)

Excerpted from Rendering unto Caesar, autobiography of Bradman Weerakoon)  ✍️



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Science and diplomacy in a changing world

Published

on

Two editors: Dr. Palitha Kohona (L) and Prof. Ranjith Senaratne

Today marks a truly historic and momentous occasion in the realm of transdisciplinary diplomacy in our country. We gather here with a twofold purpose of profound national and global significance: the establishment of the Science Diplomacy Forum, and the launch of the volume Science Diplomacy: National, Regional and Global Approaches in a Changing World.

This volume brings together valuable and timely contributions from internationally renowned experts representing all key regions of the world — North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, West Asia, South Asia, and Oceania. It reflects a rich diversity of perspectives, experiences, and insights that speak to the increasingly interconnected nature of science, policy, and diplomacy in our rapidly transforming world.

I am deeply heartened — and indeed humbled — by the presence of such a distinguished constellation of leaders, professionals, intellectuals, scholars, and luminaries from diverse domains, including international relations, science and technology, higher education, and governance. It is rare to witness such an extraordinary and diverse assembly of intellectual, professional, and academic excellence under one roof. Your presence affirms the importance of the cause we serve and the promise of the path we are charting together. Your support, encouragement, and engagement give life, purpose, and direction to this vital endeavour.

As Chief Editor of this volume, it is both a great honour and a profound responsibility to extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to all our distinguished guests and invitees. I am conscious that this august gathering is not assembled to listen to a lengthy welcome address, but rather to engage with the substantive proceedings of this event, enriched by five eminent personalities, four distinguished speakers, and an able and competent moderator — all of whom possess exceptional mastery of the subject. I shall therefore be brief.

Among us today are former and current Ministers and people’s representatives, members of the diplomatic corps, Secretaries to Ministries, distinguished panelists, valued contributors to the volume, Vice-Chancellors, Members of the Board of Management and Academic Affairs Board of the BCIS, Heads of institutions, professors, senior government officials, professionals, journalists, and many others — too numerous to acknowledge individually, yet each of you is most warmly welcomed. I receive you all, whether present in person or online, with the utmost warmth, respect, and appreciation.

The panel discussion constitutes the pièce de résistance of this event. We are deeply honoured to be joined by four eminent personalities:

Her Excellency Siri Walt, Ambassador of Switzerland to Sri Lanka;

Professor Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, former Chair of the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance; and former Ambassadors Mr. Bernard Goonatilleke and Dr. Palitha Kohona — all of whom bring exceptional depth of experience and insight to this important subject.

Their discussion will be guided by our distinguished moderator, Mr. Naushard Cader, a truly cosmopolitan personality, widely respected for his breadth of knowledge and his keen understanding of global affairs and science diplomacy. I extend to all our speakers and our moderator a very warm welcome and my sincere appreciation for their willingness to share their wisdom with us this evening.

Allow me, however, to place this event in perspective.

We gather this evening not merely to introduce a book, nor solely to inaugurate a forum, but to reflect together on an idea whose time has unquestionably arrived.

We meet at a moment of profound global transition and conflict. The international landscape is marked by turbulence, uncertainty, and rapid transformation. The world is shifting from a relatively stable post–Cold War configuration toward an increasingly multipolar order. While multipolarity carries the promise of greater balance and strategic autonomy, it also brings intensified competition among major powers, fluid alliances, and growing unpredictability.

At the same time, the rules-based international order — which for decades provided smaller nations with a measure of predictability and protection — is under visible strain and threat. Institutions are contested. Norms are challenged. Economic interdependence deepens even as geopolitical fragmentation intensifies. Supply and value chains now account for nearly seventy percent of global trade, binding nations in complex webs of mutual dependence. Yet such interdependence has not prevented trade wars, sanctions regimes, technological decoupling, and regional conflicts.

For small and economically vulnerable states, this evolving environment is especially daunting. When global rules weaken, asymmetries of power become more pronounced. Bilateral negotiations between unequal partners can leave smaller nations disadvantaged. Without adequate legal, geological, scientific, technological, and diplomatic expertise, such states may struggle to safeguard their long-term national interests and sovereignty. Vulnerability, in the absence of knowledge and capacity, risks translating into marginalisation.

Overlaying this geopolitical transformation is a constellation of interconnected global challenges. Climate change is no longer a distant projection; it is a lived reality. Sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events are intensifying. Food, water, and energy security remain fragile. Pandemics have exposed vulnerabilities in global health systems. Cyber threats transcend borders. Environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and marine pollution threaten livelihoods and ecosystems alike.

These challenges are systemic and transboundary. Almost every major issue — whether global, regional, or national in scale — involves science and technology, either in understanding root causes or in devising effective solutions.

Traditional diplomacy, while indispensable, is no longer sufficient on its own. The defining issues of our time are not purely political or military; they are scientific, technological, environmental, and societal. They demand evidence-based policymaking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and sustained transnational cooperation.

It is within this context that science diplomacy emerges — not as an academic abstraction, but as a strategic necessity.

Nowhere are these realities more visible than in the Indian Ocean.

Unlike the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, which possess longstanding institutional architectures and extensive scientific mapping, the Indian Ocean remains comparatively underexplored and under-institutionalised. Covering roughly one-fifth of the world’s oceanic expanse, it carries a substantial share of global energy shipments and maritime trade. Its seabed resources — including critical and rare-earth minerals — remain only partially surveyed. Many of its coastal and island nations are developing economies with limited scientific and technological capacity to explore, monitor, and sustainably manage these resources.

The Indian Ocean is unique. It is bordered predominantly by developing and emerging states. It hosts remarkable cultural, religious, and political diversity. It is home to some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable communities. Increasingly, it has become a central theatre of global strategic competition, viewed by some nations through distinct geostrategic lenses.

This maritime space is simultaneously a lifeline and a fault line. It sustains global commerce and local livelihoods. Yet it is also a theatre where geopolitical interests intersect — sometimes converge, sometimes collide.

At the heart of this ocean lies Sri Lanka.

Geographically, our island sits astride one of the busiest East–West shipping routes in the world. Historically, Sri Lanka has been a hub of commercial, cultural, and intellectual exchange. Today, that strategic location presents both opportunity and responsibility.

Sri Lanka’s history, enriched by iconic figures such as Dr. Gamini Corea, Hon.

Lakshman Kadirgamar, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Dr. Neville Kanakaratne and Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala, stands as a powerful testament to our long-standing contributions to global diplomacy and international governance. Our nation provided leadership within the Non-Aligned Movement, positioning itself as a bridge between civilizations at a time of deep ideological division. We also made history by producing the world’s first woman Prime Minister, affirming our commitment to political progress and inclusive governance.

Today, we are called upon once again to build upon this distinguished legacy — by championing regional unity, promoting sustainable development, and addressing critical contemporary challenges such as climate change, maritime security, and environmental sustainability.

We must navigate complex geopolitical currents while safeguarding sovereignty and strengthening economic resilience. We face vulnerabilities common to island and littoral states: climate change, coastal erosion, marine pollution, and supply chain disruptions. Our development aspirations must be balanced with environmental stewardship and maritime security considerations.

Yet within these challenges lies profound opportunity.

Sri Lanka can position itself as a regional convener — a hub for ocean science, climate research, marine biodiversity studies, disaster risk reduction, and blue economy innovation. Through platforms such as BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, and SAARC, we can advance cooperative marine research, harmonise environmental standards, strengthen early warning systems, and promote sustainable maritime governance grounded in international law.

But to do so effectively, we must invest in knowledge — and in the diplomacy of knowledge.

Science diplomacy operates along three mutually reinforcing dimensions:

First, science in diplomacy — where scientific evidence informs foreign policy decisions.

Second, diplomacy for science — where diplomatic engagement enables international research collaboration and shared infrastructure.

Third, science for diplomacy — where scientific cooperation itself becomes a bridge for confidence-building, even when political relations are strained.

Importantly, science diplomacy extends beyond the natural sciences. The humanities and social sciences are equally vital. Technology must be guided by ethics. Data must be interpreted within cultural contexts. Policy must consider equity and justice. Diplomats of the future must be fluent not only in international law and negotiation, but also in scientific literacy and interdisciplinary thinking.

In a fragmented world, science offers a neutral vocabulary. It encourages transparency, peer review, and open data. It shifts discourse from rhetoric to evidence. It fosters long-term thinking in political environments often dominated by short-term calculations.

For small and vulnerable nations, science diplomacy is empowerment. It strengthens capacity. It enhances credibility. It enables engagement with larger powers on firmer ground — armed not merely with moral argument, but with data, research, and technical expertise.

The book we launch today reflects a diversity of experience and insight. It is intentionally transdisciplinary because the problems we face are transdisciplinary. It is intentionally global because no region can address these challenges in isolation.

In Sri Lanka, science diplomacy remains at a formative stage. The establishment of the Science Diplomacy Forum signals our determination to move beyond dialogue toward sustained institutional engagement. It envisions training programmes for diplomats and scientists, embedding scientific advisory mechanisms within governance structures, and building networks among universities, research institutes, industry, and policymakers. It seeks to cultivate a new generation equipped to navigate the interface between knowledge and negotiation.

We aspire for the Science Diplomacy Forum to be transformative — a true game changer.

Excellences, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We live in an era of mounting uncertainty — but also of extraordinary human ingenuity. The same interconnectedness that transmits crises also enables collaboration. The same technologies that disrupt can also heal and transform.

Change is inevitable. The deeper question is whether we will shape that change cooperatively, constructively, and inclusively.

For Sri Lanka, for the Indian Ocean region, and for the broader global community, science diplomacy offers a pathway beyond zero-sum thinking. It channels competition into collaboration around shared public goods. It aligns national interest with regional stability. It transforms vulnerability into resilience through knowledge.

Let this book be not merely a publication, but a platform for sustained reflection and action.

Let the Science Diplomacy Forum be not merely an institution, but a living bridge between evidence and policy, between research and responsibility, between nations and neighbours.

Let Sri Lanka reaffirm its role as a bridge — not a battleground — in the Indian Ocean.

In a world where rules may falter, let evidence guide us.

In a world where tensions may rise, let dialogue endure.

In a world of turbulence, let science diplomacy be our compass — guiding us toward peace, stability, dignity, and shared prosperity.

Welcome Address and Opening Remarks made by Emeritus Prof. Ranjith Senaratne
Former General President,
Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science recently on the occasion of the Founding of the Science Diplomacy Forum and the Launch of the Book Science Diplomacy:
National, Regional and Global Approaches in a Changing World

Continue Reading

Features

Be a woman who re-designs life!

Published

on

From one day of celebration to 364 days of transformation

The international women’s day was just celebrated all over the world. I saw many organiations share their slogans, and organize panel discussions, presentations, and exhibitions to support women empowerment. Slogans, themes, colors play vivid and vociferous role across the world, commemorating the international women’s day.

Alas, the colors are faded, slogans are weaned, themes are forgotten, over the next 364 days, pushing UN Chapter on Women’s Rights come up with more illustrious themes and slogans.

From Bread and Peace to Rights and Action

According to the recorded history, the Women’s day first introduced on 28th February 1909 in America, raising a voice of women against poor working conditions and poor pay in garment factories. This took a more revolutionary form in 1917 in Russia against World War I, where a mass of women protested under the theme of “Bread and Peace”.

Starting from basic needs such as bread and peace, the International Women’s Day theme has evolved towards freedom and independence, justice and inclusion.

Over the years, the rise of feminism brought cultural refinements and highlighted women’s rights. Looking back the historical evolution of women’s role, we see that matrimony has faded and patriarchy evolved with religious and geopolitical forces intertwined with the social expectation. The importance and respect for women, given in the ancient civilisations, diminished with medieval civilization, and subsequent colonisation. The rise of patriarchy domesticated women as homemakers, at the same time prompting their voices to rise for dignity and equitable treatment.

Rise of Feminism

In a typical Western-household of 20th century, husband was the bread winner of the family and the wife managed household affairs. In this era, women’s affairs were restricted to daily chores, creating a boundary wall restricting their access to corporate jobs, free voices. Betty Friedman was a remarkable lady who observed the domestic suffering of women and challenged ‘feminine mystique’ through her 1963 book. She disclosed the feminine mystique, which celebrated women as good housewives, and the belief that women could find satisfaction from domestic chores, home making, marriage, raising children, cooking, washing and taking care of husband’s needs. Betty disclosed that the unhappiness and boredom experienced by the domesticized women, and their inability to live up to the feminist mystique defined by the male dominant society had no name and difficult to express in words. Betty’s claim was supported by the theories of Abraham Maslow, who introduced motivation to grow along the hierarchy of needs. Betty, declared that feminine mystique denies basic growth needs of women, where their desires limited to shelter, food, safety and love only.

In this era women’s jobs were confined preeminently to teaching, and caregiving. STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and medicine were dominated by males, leaving less space for women. As you may have heard in the medieval era women who practiced medicine were branded as ‘witches’ and many were burned alive rooting out the knowledge and courage of women. Women who practiced and taught science and astronomy, were also branded for witch craft and condemned to death. The social pressure suppressed women confining them to domestic chores. In the industrial era women were hired for factory work under low wages and less facilities. In this period Women’s organisations were gathered demanding freedom and justice for women, calling for equal opportunities and rights enjoy their male counterparts. The evolution of women’s movements culminated in 1975, where the first International Women’s Day was commemorated on 8th March 1975.

Celebration and Contradiction

Since 1975, women were celebrated for a day in every year across the globe, with various themes and color codes to showcase the world that all women have rights and demanding fair treatment. The theme colors of International Women’s day are Purple, Green and White.

Purple stands for justice, dignity, and loyalty to the cause.

Green for hope and growth.

White for purity and unity.

In 1996, the International Women’s Day declared a theme to embrace, which is; “Celebrating the Past, Planning for the Future.” In the year 2023, the theme was ‘Embrace Equity’, which evolved to ‘Inspire inclusion’ in 2024, and the year 2025 theme was ‘Accelerate Action’. In 2026, there are three themes; 1. Give to Gain, 2. Balance the Scales, 3. Rights. Justice. Action.

Fragmented Focus Diminishes Values

Multiple themes and competing messages can unintentionally dilute momentum. Unity is not uniformity, but coherence matters; shared direction makes shared progress possible. Emerging three themes to celebrate international women’s day in 2026, implicate lack of solidarity, and unity among women’s organizations to share a common theme. Inclusion, equity and accelerated action have not yet achieved by the women globally, neither locally, nor in small communities. We are bound to question whether the women stay true to the meanings of theme colors that represent womanhood.

Thus, isn’t it vital to explore what goes wrong with our themes and slogans on this Women’s day, before setting foot without solid foundation for what we claim for? Or is it only a day that dawn women’s organisations to gather women in elite society, or identified group of women to enjoy a cup of tea over futuristic speeches of identical society, which treat women with high respect and equity?

One thing we must understand is the world is evolving, so does the roles, rights, and actions of women. Although, women shouted and pleaded for opportunities to enter male dominate world of work, today in many countries including Sri Lanka, women occupies majority of administrative positions and clerical level jobs. Even, the labour positions, dominated by males, are now occupied by the females in many sectors. However, women still bear the traditional homemaker role as well, while juggling with work, and studies to sustain jobs and promotions. This modern day scenario has made women more prone to chronic stress related deceases. The break of rest, too rigid demands coming from work and family, their own desires to move up the corporate ladder, outsmart neighbourers, and craving to make their children better than the others have made women’s lives miserable and breaching the themes and slogans that cater to the women’s prosperity.

Today’s environment has resulted many women to abandon dignity, purity, and hope, overlook unity and justice. If you see social media contents shared by women, you may not be surprised by my statements. The dignity, purity and hope for betterment of women is vanishing on screen. Young girls’ addiction to drugs, liquor and tobacco, sexual misbehaviour, and rising school-aged pregnancies are critical concerns that women’s movements must pay attention today.

What We Must Demand Now: Right Education and Just Acts

Women’s day slogans need a shift. Rather than demanding equal rights as men, we must demand right education for women and girls. We shall not stop at demanding justice as given to the men, but shout and make women and girls aware of ‘Just Acts’, and encourage them to act justly, for themselves, without exposing them to be victims of social media, and ill temptations.

Digital lives of women and girls can amplify comparison, quick outrage, and performative ideals. For girls and women, this can mean unrealistic bodies, curated success, and unsafe online spaces. What we need isn’t more judgment; it’s digital literacy, psychological safety, reproductive health awareness, and robust support systems, so women can flourish on and off‑line. We must educate women and nourish and foster the moral values among women and girls to stay pure in thoughts and actions, we must empower women and girls to keep hope and grow continuously. We must share a culture of inclusion among women to enhance solidarity and stay true to unified action for the betterment of women, and the society.

Women as Creators and Modifiers of the World

The history of International Women’s Day is a call for rights and justice. Today, the next horizon is to build cultures at home, at work, and society. Women are the creators and modifiers of the world. They are to add color to lives of those around them. In fact, WOMEN, do not need to call for justice, rights and action. WOMEN, need to call the hidden power, strength and courage within them and create a world that assures every being in it receives justice, and enjoys rights.

Thus, whether themes multiply or fade, the test is not in the rally or the ribbon, it is in the 364 days after. The colours may be vivid on stage, yet the colors are faded in practice if we do not live them. Let us re‑design life with dignity, unity, courage, and continuous growth. Let us educate, include, and act justly. Let us awaken strength within, so that every woman, every girl, and every community can thrive by being a Woman Who Re‑designs Life!

(The author is a senior education administrator, researcher,

management consultant and a lecturer.)

By Dr. Chani Imbulgoda
cv5imbulgoda@gmail.com)

Continue Reading

Features

Illegal solar push ravages Hambantota elephant habitat: Environmentalist warns of deepening crisis

Published

on

Land earmarked for the project

A large-scale move to establish solar power plants in Hambantota has triggered a major environmental and social crisis, with more than 1,000 acres of forest—identified as critical elephant habitat—cleared in violation of the law, environmental activist Sajeewa Chamikara said.

Chamikara, speaking on behalf of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform, said that 17 companies have already begun clearing forest land along the boundaries of the Hambantota Elephant Management Reserve. The affected areas include Sanakku Gala, Orukemgala and Kapapu Wewa, which are known to be key elephant habitats and long-used movement corridors.

He said that what is taking place cannot be described as development, but rather as a large-scale destruction of natural ecosystems carried out under the cover of renewable energy expansion.

According to Chamikara, the clearing of forests has been carried out using heavy machinery, while large sections have also been deliberately set on fire to prepare the land for solar installations. He said that electric fences have been erected across wide stretches of land, effectively blocking elephant movement and fragmenting their natural habitat.

“These forests are not empty lands. They are part of a living system that supports wildlife and nearby communities. Once destroyed, they cannot be easily restored,” he said.

The projects in question include a 50 megawatt solar development undertaken by five companies and a larger 150 megawatt project implemented by 12 companies. The larger project is reported to be valued at around 150 million US dollars.

Chamikara stressed that these projects are being carried out in a coordinated manner and involve extensive land clearing on a scale that raises serious environmental concerns.

He further alleged that certain companies had paid about Rs. 14 million to secure support and move ahead with the projects. He said this points to a troubling failure of oversight by state institutions that are expected to protect forests and wildlife habitats.

“This is not only an environmental issue. It is also a serious governance issue. The institutions responsible for protecting these lands have failed in their duty,” he said.

Chamikara pointed out that under the National Environmental Act, any project of this scale must receive prior approval through a proper Environmental Impact Assessment process.

He said that clearing forest land before obtaining such approval is a direct violation of the law.

He added that legal requirements relating to archaeological assessments had also been ignored. Under existing regulations, large-scale land clearing requires prior evaluation to ensure that sites of historical or cultural value are not damaged.

“The law is very clear. You cannot go ahead with projects of this nature without proper approval. What we are seeing is a complete disregard for legal procedure,” Chamikara said.

The environmental impact of these activities is already becoming visible. With their natural habitats destroyed, elephants are increasingly moving into nearby villages in search of food and shelter. This has led to a sharp rise in human-elephant conflict in several areas.

Areas such as Mayurapura, Gonnooruwa, Meegahajandura and Thanamalvila have reported increasing encounters between humans and elephants. According to Chamikara, more than 5,000 farming families in these areas are now facing growing threats to their safety and livelihoods.

 

He warned that farmers are being forced to abandon their lands due to repeated elephant intrusions, while incidents involving damage to crops and property are rising. There have also been increasing reports of injuries and deaths among both humans and elephants.

“This is turning into a serious social and economic problem. When farmers cannot cultivate their lands, it affects food production, income and rural stability,” he said.

Chamikara also raised concerns about the broader environmental consequences of clearing forests for solar power projects. While renewable energy is promoted as a solution to reduce carbon emissions, he said that destroying forests undermines that goal.

“Forests play a key role in absorbing carbon dioxide. When you clear and burn them, you are increasing emissions, not reducing them. That defeats the purpose of promoting solar energy,” he explained.

He added that large-scale deforestation in dry zone areas such as Hambantota could also affect local weather patterns and reduce rainfall, which would have further negative impacts on agriculture and water resources.

Chamikara called for a shift in policy, urging authorities to focus on more sustainable approaches to solar power development. He said that rooftop solar systems on homes, public buildings and commercial establishments should be given priority, as they do not require clearing large areas of land.

He also recommended that solar projects be located on degraded or abandoned lands, such as areas affected by past mining or other low-value lands, rather than forests or productive agricultural areas.

“Renewable energy development must be done in a way that does not destroy the environment. There are better options available if there is proper planning,” he said.

Chamikara urged the Central Environmental Authority and the Department of Wildlife Conservation to take immediate action to stop ongoing land clearing and investigate the projects. He stressed that all activities carried out without proper approval should be halted until legal requirements are met.

He warned that failure to act now would lead to long-term environmental damage that could not be reversed.

“If this continues, we will lose not only forests and wildlife, but also the balance between people and nature that supports rural life. The consequences will be felt for generations,” he said.

The situation in Hambantota is fast emerging as a critical test of whether development goals can be balanced with environmental protection. As pressure grows, the response of authorities in the coming weeks is likely to determine whether the damage can still be contained or whether it will continue to spread unchecked.

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending