Features
IPKF’S Withdrawal: Correspondence between Premadasa and Rajiv Gandhi – Part II
ANNEXURE “H”
New Delhi
July 11, 1989
Dear Mr. President,
I have your letters of 30th June and 5th July.
I do not wish to enter into a debate on various interpretations of mutual obligations assumed by our two sovereign nations. These are quite clear. I also do not wish to go into the validity of assertions like the LTTE having resumed violence on 2nd August, 1987 whereas the arms surrender started and the amnesty letter was handed over by the Sri Lankan Government to the LTTE three days later. We should let facts speak for themselves.
There is an Agreement between our two countries. This Agreement is meant to preserve the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka and to ensure the safety, security and legitimate interests of the Tamils. Nearly a thousand Indian soldiers have made the supreme sacrifice in fulfilment of India’s obligations as a guarantor of this Agreement. Since the signing of the Agreement, not only have the Provincial Council elections been held, but also the Parliamentary and Presidential elections. The situation in the North-Eastern Province is far more settled and peaceful than elsewhere in Sri Lanka. Despite all this, the devolution package promised to the Tamils has not been implemented. These are incontrovertible facts.
Both of us agree that the IPKF should be withdrawn. Both of us agree that we had commenced the withdrawal even before you asked for it. A broad time frame for IPKF’s withdrawal had in fact been discussed. Discussions on finalising the details were proposed by your Foreign Minister at Harare only a few days prior to your unilateral announcement of 1st June.
I have repeatedly said that the IPKF’s withdrawal schedule should be worked out through joint consultations along with a simultaneous schedule for the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. We are willing to resume discussions on, this subject at any time and place of your convenience. Your colleague, the Honourable Mr. Thondaman, who met me here, would have conveyed to you our desire for friendly relations and our willingness to resolve any misunderstandings through mutual consultations. If, however, discussions for this purpose are not acceptable to you, we will have to decide the details of IPKF’s withdrawal unilaterally consistent with our responsibilities and obligations under the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement.
While I reiterate Government of India’s willingness to cooperate with your Government to resolve pending issues, I must emphasise to Your Excellency that India has traditionally been mindful of the sanctity of the Agreements it signs with other countries and of commitments solemnly undertaken under such Agreements. India will under no circumstances deviate from this policy affecting our concerns.
It has been our practice to maintain the confidentiality of official correspondence, particularly ‘between Heads of State or Government, unless otherwise agreed upon. However, the gist of your messages to me was more often than not made available to the media before they reached me. Now I find that all our recent correspondence has been officially made public by the Sri Lanka Government. I may thus be constrained to depart from tradition by authorising this communication being made public, after you receive it.
His Excellency
Mr. Ranasinghe Premadasa
President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Colombo
ANNEXURE “I” 12th July 1989
Dear Prime Minister
I am in receipt of your letter of 11th July 1989 which was handed-to me by your Special-Envoy.I thank you for the courtesy of sending him to Sri Lanka in an attempt to resolve the issues regarding the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces.
I explained to your Special Envoy and his delegation my position with-regard to the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces from Sri Lanka. I informed them that the discussions can continue based on the four premises set out below.
Firstly, the Indian Armed Forces arrived in Sri Lanka as a peace keeping force to assist in restoring peace. They came at the request of the President of Sri Lanka and were under his command as the Commander in Chief of the Forces of Armed Forces. Their invitation was in terms of Item 6 of the Annexure to the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement which says “that an Indian Peace Keeping Contingent may be invited by the President of Sri Lanka to guarantee and enforce the cessation of hostilities if so required.” The fact that the president of Sri Lanka is the Commander in Chief of all Armed Forces in Sri Lanka has been recognised by the Government of India.
Secondly, the Agreement was between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India. There were no other parties to the Agreement. In fact the LTTE protested that they were left out of the Agreement and in fact their leaders had been confined for a duration of time leading up to the signing of the Agreement.
Thirdly, the presence of the Indian Armed Forces and the devolution of powers to the Provincial Councils are totally unconnected. I have explained this to you at great length in my earlier communications. I have told your delegation that the devolution of power by the Sri Lanka Parliament is entirely an internal matter. No foreign agency can oversee the implementation of legislation enacted by or compel the Parliament of a sovereign State to enact any particular provision of law. In any case, as stated in my earlier letter of 30th June 1989 you would appreciate that devolution is essentially a long term process. There is neither any legal nor any other rational basis for the presence of any military force to ensure that the process of devolution is complete. It would therefore be incorrect and unrealistic to contend that the Indian Armed Forces were expected to remain in Sri Lanka till the process of devolution is completed.
Fourthly, the Government of India undertook not to permit Indian territory to be used for activities prejudicial to the unity, integrity and security of Sri Lanka. I was constrained to point out to your delegation that Mr Padmanabha and others who are campaigning to keep the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka have not only been permitted to publicly express their intention of making a unilateral declaration of Eelam whilst being on Indian soil but also to publicise such declaration on Indian national television.
I explained further to them that the invitation extended to the Indian Armed Forces was based on assurances contained in the Agreement that the time frame required for cessation of hostilities was 48 hours from the signing of the Agreement and for the surrender of arms was 72 hours from the cessation of hostilities. You would also appreciate that the decision to invite an Indian peace Keeping Contingent was in the context of resolve that a solution to the ethnic problem should be through negotiation and not by the use of military force. As such, the invitation could not have been interpreted as being one for the Indian Peace Keeping Contingent to engage itself in the prolonged use of force.
The reassurance with which I noted the withdrawal of Indian force when I assumed office turned to disappointment when I observed that the withdrawal was not being effected as expeditiously as possible. After careful consideration I decided that the 31st July 1989 was the suitable deadline for the withdrawal of the Indian armed forces from Sri Lanka.
The President of Sri Lanka could under Article 2.16(c) of the Agreement obtain Indian military -assistance when he thinks such assistance is necessary. In my Election Manifesto I promised to solve the problem, not by the use of force but by a process of consultation, compromise and consensus. The people of this country endorsed this manifesto. The dialogue initiated under this mandate has already borne fruit. The LTTE once the most intractable of the militant groups has ceased hostilities not only against the Government, but against all the people of the North and the East and indeed against all the people of Sri Lanka. They have agreed to join the democratic process and are now committed to settling problems by negotiation. In this context continued military action by the Indian armed forces is not only unnecessary but also prejudicial to a settlement by discussion and negotiation.
Action by the Indian armed forces is also gravely prejudicial to a political settlement with the LTTE who assert their need to carry arms as long as they are being attacked by the Indian forces and other militant groups who reportedly, enjoy the support of the Indian forces. Further the very presence of the Indian armed forces in Sri Lanka has made it difficult for me to enter into any dialogue with other political groups. In the meantime, certain groups in other parts of the country are resorting to violent activity on account of what they claim to be the inability of the Government to ensure the withdrawal of the Indian armed forces. The continued presence of the Indian armed forces is driving these groups to escalating their violence to crisis proportions.
My officials will be holding discussions based on these basic premises. I shall be replying the other issues including the statement attributed to my Foreign Minister raised in your letter of 11th July 1989 at the conclusion of the discussions between your delegation and my officials.
Yours sincerely
PRESIDENT
ANNEXURE “J”
19 July 1989
Dear Prime Minister
Further to my letter of 12th July, 1989 I wish to clarify certain matters referred to in your letter of 11th July, 1989.I agree that we should not enter into a debate. The terms of the Agreement are clear. The events leading up to that Agreement and the subsequent developments are fresh in our minds.
In regard to the cessation of hostilities by the LTTE, it is a fact that the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka had not been able, even after two years, to ensure such cessation and complete disarming the militants. At the time of the signing of the Agreement it was envisaged that this process would not take more than five days.
I also agree with your assertion that the Agreement involves the acceptance of mutual obligations by two sovereign and friendly nations. The objective of this Agreement was to resolve the ethnic problem and to end the violence that was a threat to the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The Agreement also sought to ensure the physical security and safety not only of the Tamil ethnic community but of all communities inhabiting the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
I must thank you once again for the assistance provided by the Indian Forces in response to Sri Lanka’s request for military assistance to guarantee and enforce the cessation of hostilities. We are sad that over a thousand Indian lives have been lost.
Sri Lanka for her part has discharged all her obligations under the Agreement and in particular taken all effective and meaningful steps towards the devolution of power.Sri Lanka has amongst other things, amended the Constitution, enacted legislation necessary to establish Provincial Councils, temporarily merged the Northern and Eastern Provinces, implemented the Official Languages policy, held the Provincial Council Elections, set up the infrastructure and provided the personnel and finances necessary for effective functioning.
I wish to reiterate that I have at all times held the view that the problems of the Tamil linguistic groups in Sri Lanka should be resolved, not by the use of force but by the process of consultation, compromise and consensus.Firm in this belief, I, as the Presidential Candidate, incorporated in my manifesto a pledge to secure the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces as a necessary prelude to political negotiations and a durable settlement. I did so in October/November 1988. The people of Sri Lanka, by an overwhelming majority endorsed this principle, both at the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections.
The events of the past months have proved the wisdom of my approach. The LTTE once the most intractable of groups have now agreed to eschew violence and join the mainstream of political democracy.You state that “the situation in the North-Eastern Provinces is far more settled and peaceful than elsewhere in Sri Lanka.” If this be so, there would be a lesser need for offensive action by the armed forces in these areas.
Furthermore, the substantial grievance over which the other Provinces began fomenting unrest, is the continued presence of the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka. As you are aware, the agitation commenced with the signing of the Agreement and continued to escalate due to the presence of the Indian Armed Forces. So that, which ever way it is looked at, the continued presence of the Indian Armed Forces is an obstacle to the restoration of peace and normalcy in Sri Lanka.
Whilst we are both agreed that the Indian Armed Forces in Sri Lanka should be withdrawn, I cannot, for the reasons more fully set out in the annex hereto, agree that the terms of the Agreement do, or can in law be interpreted to mean, that the withdrawal of the Indian Armed Forces is in any way linked with or preconditioned upon the implementation of the process of devolution, or for that matter, the performance of any other obligation cast upon Sri Lanka by the Agreement.
The continued presence of the Indian Armed Forces or the conduct of any operations by such forces within Sri Lankan territory, is conditional only upon the concurrence of the Sri Lanka Government. It would therefore be unlawful for the Government of India to continue to maintain her Armed Forces within Sri Lankan territory in the absence of such concurrence.
It would be incompatible with the sovereignty of a State to concede a right for any alien armed force to operate within its territory contrary to the wishes of the Head of State who is also the Commander-in-Chief of its forces – from whom such alien armed force is not taking orders.
You would also appreciate that any continued offensive action against a section of my people who have publicly announced a cessation of hostilities against the Government and all the people of Sri Lanka would amount to the unlawful taking of civilian lives.
As already intimated to you, with the recommencement of the withdrawal process it will be possible to set in motion consultations to accommodate any logistical constraints which may arise.You have stated that my Foreign Minister has discussed a broad time frame for the withdrawal of the IPKF. According to him the former Indian High Commissioner in Colombo had intimated that some of the IPKF would be withdrawn by 30th of June and the rest by 31st of December. It appears that this had been a tentative proposal made by your former High Commissioner and I must emphasise that we have not at any time agreed to such a time frame.
I continue to receive reports of the forcible conscription of young people in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and their training at the hands of the Indian Forces. Since I wrote to you on this matter on 30th June, the situation has been aggravated. There is now an exodus of young people from the Northern and the Eastern Provinces fleeing from this conscription. A sizeable number is being accommodated in camps in Colombo.
I am thankful for the assurance in your letter that India has traditionally been mindful of the sanctity of the principle of observing the obligations of Agreements entered into by India. I wholly endorse the principle that Agreements should be observed. In this regard I invite your attention to the express provision in the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement that the provision of military assistance by the Government of India is “as and when requested” by the Government of Sri Lanka.
It should also be noted that the Agreement contemplates that the Indian Armed Forces will assist the Government of Sri Lanka and. not be operating on their own initiative.
However, if it is your view that the Agreement should be construed as creating an obligation for the Indian Armed Forces to remain in Sri Lankan territory without the concurrence and against the express wishes of the Sri Lanka Government, I as the President of an independent, sovereign Republic, would have no option but to treat the Agreement as being inimical to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and national interests.
PRESIDENT
His Excellency Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Prime Minister of India Prime Minister’s Office New Delhi
India.
ANNEX
The entry into and the continued presence of Indian Armed Forces on Sri Lankan territory can be lawful only upon the express concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka.
It is a peremptory norm of international law, that the presence of, or the conduct of operations by, any foreign armed force within the territory of a sovereign state, otherwise than with the express concurrence of the Government of that state amounts to an act of aggression. Such acts of aggression have not only been recognized as unlawful, but unequivocally condemned by the community of civilized nations. This principle has also been reiterated in several United Nations instruments.
In the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement several acts of co-operation are obligated upon the Government of India. The provision of military assistance is one such act of co-operation.An examination of the structure of the Agreement makes it clear, that the Agreement contemplated implementation without the use of force, that the Government of India, agreed to underwrite and guarantee the acceptance of the Agreement by the militant groups, who would then cease hostilities and surrender their arms.
The Government of Sri Lanka undertook to confine its ‘Armed Forces to barracks and to grant an Amnesty to the militants who were in custody.The rendering of military assistance is governed by Article 2.16 (c) which clearly stipulates that the affording of military assistance is “as and when” requested by the Government of Sri Lanka.
This Article makes it clear beyond argument, that the basic provision of international law regarding the necessity of the concurrence of the government of the domestic state in the entry of foreign armed forces into its territory, has been recognized and observed.
With the release of the militants from custody and the confining of the Armed Forces to barracks by Sri Lanka, and the failure to disarm the militants or to ensure cessation of hostilities, there was resumption of the violence which necessitated the request t for Indian military Assistance. Accordingly the invitation to the Indian Armed Forces was, as unequivocally stated in clause 6 of the Annexure, “to guarantee and enforce the cessation of hostilities”.
Any attempt to” construe this invitation as providing a mandatory’ right for the Armed Forces so invited to “protect” minorities or to oversee the devolution of power would be an untenable construction of the Agreement.Such a construction would neither accord with the clear understanding stated in the Agree-sent nor with the peremptory norms of international law.
Features
The middle-class money trap: Why looking rich keeps Sri Lankans poor
Every January, we make grand resolutions about our finances. We promise ourselves we’ll save more, spend less, and finally get serious about investments. By March, most of these promises were abandoned, alongside our unused gym memberships.
The problem isn’t our intentions, it’s our approach. We treat financial management as a personality flaw that needs fixing, rather than a skill that needs the right strategy. This year let’s try something different. Let’s put actual behavioural science behind how we handle our rupees.
Based on the article ‘Seven proven, realistic ways to improve your finances in 2026’ published on 1news.co.nz, I aim to adapt these recommended financial strategies to the Sri Lankan context.” Here are seven money habits that work because they’re grounded in how humans actually behave, not how we wish we would.
While these strategies offer useful direction for strengthening personal financial management, it is important to acknowledge that they may not be suitable for everyone. Many households face severe financial pressure and cannot realistically follow traditional income allocation frameworks, such as the well-known but outdated Singalovada Sutta guidelines, when even meeting daily food expenses has become a struggle. For individuals and families who are burdened by escalating costs of essentials, including electricity, water, mobile connectivity, transport, and other non-negotiable commitments, strict adherence to prescriptive models is neither practical nor fair to expect. Therefore, readers should remain mindful of their own financial realities and adapt these strategies in ways that align with their income levels, essential obligations, and broader personal circumstances.
1. Your Money Problems Aren’t Moral Failures, They’re Data Points
When every rupee misspent becomes evidence of personal failure, we stop looking for solutions. Shame is a terrible problem-solver. It makes us hide from our bank statements, avoid difficult conversations, and repeat the same mistakes because we’re too embarrassed to examine them.
Instead, try replacing judgment with curiosity. Transform “I’m terrible with money” into “That’s interesting, why did I make that choice?” Suddenly, mistakes become information rather than indictments. You might notice you overspend at Odel or high-end restaurant when stressed about work. Or that you commit to expensive plans when feeling socially pressured. Perhaps your online shopping peaks during power cuts when you’re bored and frustrated.
2. Forget the Year-Long Marathon, Focus on 90-Day Sprints
A Sri Lankan year is densely packed with financial obligations: Sinhala/Tamil Avurudu, Christmas, Vesak, and Poson celebrations; recurring school fees; seasonal festival shopping; wedding and almsgiving periods; yearend festivities; and an evergrowing list of marketing-driven occasions such as Valentine’s Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, and many others. Each of these events carries its own financial weight, often placing additional pressure on already-stretched household budgets.
Research consistently shows that shorter time frames work better. Ninety days is long enough to create a meaningful change, but short enough to maintain focus and momentum. So instead of one overwhelming annual goal, give yourself four quarterly upgrades.
In the first quarter, the focus may be on organising your contributions toward key duties and responsibilities, while also ensuring that you are maximising the available benefits for your designated beneficiaries. Quarter two could be about building a small emergency fund, even Rs. 10,000 provides breathing room. Quarter three might involve auditing your bills and subscriptions to eliminate unnecessary expenses. Quarter four could be when you finally start that investment you’ve been postponing. You don’t need superhuman discipline or complicated spreadsheets, just focused attention, one quarter at a time.
3. Make One Decision That Eliminates Weekly Worry
The best money decisions are the ones you make once but benefit from repeatedly. These are decisions that permanently reduce what behavioural economists call “decision fatigue”, the mental exhaustion that comes from constantly managing money in your head. What’s one choice you could make today that would remove a recurring financial worry?
It might be setting up an automatic standing order to transfer Rs. 10,000 to savings the day your salary arrives, before you can spend it. Maybe it’s consolidating your scattered savings accounts into one that actually pays decent return.
These aren’t dramatic moves that require personality transplants. They’re structural decisions that work with your human tendency toward inertia rather than against it. Most banks now offer seamless digital automation. You can set it up once and benefit from that decision every single month without additional effort or willpower. You make the decision once. You benefit all year. That’s leveraging your energy intelligently.
4. Stop Spending on Who You Think You Should Be
Sri Lankan society comes with heavy expectations. The car you drive, the school your children attend, the hotels you patronise, the brands you wear, all communicate your worth, or so we’re told. Much of our spending isn’t about actual enjoyment. It’s about meeting unspoken expectations, keeping up appearances, or aspiring to a version of us that doesn’t actually exist.
We buy expensive saris we’ll wear once because everyone does. We maintain memberships to clubs we rarely visit because it looks good. We say yes to weekend plans at overpriced restaurants because declining feels like admitting we can’t afford it. We upgrade phones not because ours stopped working, but because others have.
Before your next purchase, ask yourself: do I actually want this, or do I want to want it? If it’s the second one, walk away. You won’t miss it. This isn’t about deprivation, it’s about precision. When you stop spending to perform and start spending to support the life you genuinely enjoy, money pressure eases dramatically. Your resources align with your actual values rather than imagined expectations.
Maybe you don’t care about fancy restaurants, but you love long drives along the southern coast. Maybe branded clothing leaves you cold, but you’d spend any amount on art supplies or books. That’s fine. Spend accordingly.
5. Break One Habit, See If You Actually Miss It
We’re creatures of routine, which serves us well until those routines outlive their usefulness. Sometimes we spend money on habits that started for good reasons but no longer serve us. Alpechchathava, in Buddha’s teaching, means living contentedly with few desires. It guides a person to manage money wisely by avoiding excess spending, unnecessary debt, and craving, and by focusing on essential needs and wholesome priorities. In this way, wealth supports mental cultivation, generosity, and spiritual progress.
The daily kottu roti that once felt like a convenient solution after working late may now have turned into an unnecessary routine. Similarly, frequent P&S or Caravan snack runs, and the habit of picking up sugary treats like cakes and sweets, are not only costly but also wellknown to be unhealthy, as nutritionists consistently point out. Beyond food, other expenses such as magazine subscriptions, the monthly coffee meetup, or weekend mall browsing often continue on autopilot without us realising how much they add up. These seemingly small, habitual expenses can quietly drain your budget while offering very little longterm value.
Try this experiment: keep a money diary for one week. Note every expense, no matter how small. Then identify one regular spend and eliminate it for the following week. If you don’t miss it? Excellent, keep it gone. If you genuinely miss it? Add it back without guilt. This isn’t about permanent sacrifice.
It’s about snapping yourself out of autopilot and checking whether your spending still reflects your current reality, priorities and purchasing power. You might discover you’re spending Rs. 15,000 monthly on things you barely notice.
6. Create Your Crisis Playbook on a Good Day
Many financial disasters don’t happen because we’re careless, they happen because we’re panicked. When crisis strikes, job loss, medical emergency, unexpected business downturn, fear hijacks our decision-making. Our rational brain exists while panic makes expensive choices: high-interest personal loans, selling investments at losses, making commitments we can’t sustain.
The solution? Make your crisis plan before the crisis arrives. On a calm day, sit down and document: If I lost my income tomorrow, what would I do first? Which expenses are truly essential? What’s the absolute minimum I need to function? Who could I call for advice? Which savings are untouchable, which could be accessed if necessary? What government support or loan restructuring options exist (Not in Sri Lanka)? This is a sort of preparation for sudden shocks.
7. Question the Money Stories You Inherited
Sometimes our biggest financial obstacles aren’t failed attempts, they’re the attempts we never make because we’ve internalised limiting stories. “Our family was never good with money.” “Investing is for rich people.” “I’m just not the type who earns more.” “Women don’t understand finance.” These narratives, absorbed from family, culture, or past experiences, become invisible fences.
Question them. Where did this belief originate? Is it actually true, or is it a story you’ve been telling yourself for so long, it feels like fact? What would happen if you tested it? Often, these stories protect us from the discomfort of trying and potentially failing. But they also protect us from the possibility of succeeding. And that’s a far costlier protection than most of us realise.
The Bottom Line
Improving your finances in 2026 doesn’t require becoming a different person. It requires understanding the person you already are, your patterns, triggers, and tendencies, and working with them rather than against them.
These aren’t magic solutions. They’re evidence-based approaches that acknowledge a simple truth: you’re not broken, and your money management doesn’t need fixing through willpower alone. It needs better systems, clearer thinking, and a lot less shame.
Features
Public scepticism regarding paediatric preventive interventions
A significant portion of the history of paediatrics is a triumph of prevention. From the simple act of washing hands to the miracle of vaccines, preventive strategies have been the unsung heroes, drastically lowering child mortality rates and setting the stage for healthier, longer lives across the globe. Simple measures like promoting personal hygiene, ensuring the proper use of toilets, and providing Vitamin K immediately after birth to prevent dangerous bleeding, have profound impacts. Advanced interventions like inhalers for asthma, robust trauma care systems, and even cutting-edge genetic manipulations are testament to the relentless and wonderful progress of paediatric science.
A shining beacon that has signified increased survival and marked reductions in mortality across the board in all paediatric age groups has been the development of various preventive strategies in the science of children’s health, from newborns to adolescents. The institution of such proven measures across the globe, has resulted in gains that are almost too good to be true. From a Sri Lankan perspective, these measures have contributed towards the unbelievable reduction of the under-5-year mortality rate from over 100 per 1000 live births in the 1960s to the seminal single-digit figure of 07 per 1000 live births in the 2020s.
Yet for all this, despite the overwhelming evidence of success, a most worrying trend is emerging. That is public scepticism and pessimism regarding these vital interventions. This doubt is not a benign phenomenon; it poses a real danger to the health of our children. At the heart of this challenge lies the potent, often insidious, spread of misinformation and disinformation.
The success of any preventive health strategy in paediatrics rests not just on its scientific efficacy, but on parental cooperation and commitment. When parents hesitate or refuse to follow recommended guidelines, the shield of prevention is compromised. Today, the most potent threat to this partnership is the flood of false information.
Misinformation is false information spread unintentionally. A well-meaning friend sharing a rumour about a vaccine side-effect they heard online is spreading misinformation.
Disinformation is false information deliberately created and disseminated to cause harm or sow doubt. This often comes from organised groups or individuals with vested interests; sometimes financial, sometimes ideological, who seek to undermine public trust in medical institutions and scientific consensus.
The digital age, particularly social media, has become the prime breeding ground for these falsehoods. Complex scientific data is reduced to emotionally charged, simplistic, and often sensationalist soundbites that travel faster and farther than the truth.
The most visible battleground is childhood vaccination. Decades of robust, high-quality research have confirmed vaccines as one of the most cost-effective and successful public health interventions ever conceived. Global vaccination efforts have saved an estimated 150 million lives in the past 50 years, eradicating or drastically controlling diseases like polio, measles, diphtheria, and tetanus.
However, a single, long-retracted, and scientifically debunked paper claiming a link between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism continues to be weaponised by disinformation campaigns. This persistent myth, despite being soundly disproven, taps into deep-seated fears about children’s development. Other common vaccine myths target ingredients such as trace amounts of aluminium or mercury, which are harmless in the quantities used and often less than what is naturally found in food or the idea that “natural immunity” from infection is superior, totally ignoring the fact that natural infection carries the devastating risk of severe complications, long-term disability, and even death. The tangible consequence of this doubt is the dropping of childhood vaccination rates in various communities, leading to the wholly unnecessary re-emergence of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles.
Scepticism is not limited to vaccines. It can touch any area of paediatric preventive care where an intervention might seem unnecessary, invasive, or have perceived risks. Routine screenings for speech disorders, motor skills, or mental health issues can sometimes be perceived as medicalising normal childhood variations or putting a “label” on a child. Parents may resist or delay screening, missing the critical window for early intervention of proven measures that are likely to help. Advice on managing childhood obesity, reducing screen time, or adopting a balanced diet can be viewed by some parents as intrusive or judgmental, leading to poor adherence to essential health-promoting behaviours.
The regular use of inhalers for asthma or other chronic conditions might be looked down upon due to the fear of “dependency”, “addiction”, or long-term side effects, despite medical consensus that these preventive measures keep conditions controlled and prevent life-threatening exacerbations.
The common thread is a lack of understanding of the risk-benefit ratio. Parents, bombarded by fear-mongering narratives, often overestimate the rare, mild risks of an intervention while catastrophically underestimating the severe and permanent risks of the disease or condition itself.
The power of paediatric preventive medicine is not in a single shot or pill, but in the consistent, committed partnership between healthcare providers and parents. Paediatric science, driven by rigorous evidence-based medicine, do continue to refine guidelines, conduct transparent research, and communicate its findings clearly. When guidelines are confusing or lack robust evidence, it naturally creates openings for doubt. The scientific community’s commitment to continuous quality improvement and accessibility is paramount.
Ultimately, the success of prevention rests with the parents. Parenting, as a vital form of preventive care, includes all activities that raise happy, healthy, and capable children. The simple, non-medical steps mentioned in the introduction, proper handwashing, good sanitation, and encouraging exercise, are all forms of parental preventive intervention.
For more complex interventions, parental commitment requires several actions. They need to seek and trust the guidance provided by qualified healthcare professionals over anonymous, unsubstantiated online claims. They need to engage in an open dialogue by asking relevant questions and expressing concerns to doctors in an open, non-confrontational manner. A good healthcare provider will use this as an opportunity to educate and build trust, and not a portal to simply dismiss concerns. Then, of course, there is the spectre of adherence to various protocols and actions by the parents. These include consistently following recommended schedules, whether for well-child checkups, vaccinations, or daily medication protocols.
Addressing public scepticism requires a multi-pronged, collaborative strategy. It is not just about correcting false facts (debunking), but about building resilience against future falsehoods (prebunking). The single most influential voice in a parent’s decision-making process is their paediatrician or primary care provider. Clinicians must move beyond simply reciting facts. They need to use empathetic communication techniques, like Motivational Interviewing (MI), which focuses on active listening, validating parental concerns, and then collaboratively guiding them toward evidence-based decisions. For example, responding with, “I hear you’re worried about the side-effects you read about. Can I share what we know from decades of safety monitoring?” Being open about common, minor side effects such as a short-lasting fever after a vaccine pre-empts the shock and distrust that occurs when an expected, yet unmentioned, reaction happens.
Public health campaigns must go on the offensive, not just a defensive fact-checking spree. Teaching the general public how disinformation works, the use of “fake experts”, selective cherry-picked data, and conspiracy theories all add up to a most powerful form of inoculation (prebunking) against future exposure. Health institutions must simplify their communications and make verified, high-quality information easily accessible on platforms where parents are already looking.
Parents often trust their peers as much as their doctors. Engaging local community leaders, faith leaders, and even trusted social media influencers to share accurate, positive messages about paediatric health can shift the public narrative at a grassroots level. While protecting privacy, sharing aggregate data and stories about the dramatic decline in childhood diseases thanks to prevention can re-emphasise the collective good.
The battle against child mortality and morbidity has been one of the great human achievements, a testament to scientific ingenuity and collective effort. Today, the greatest threat to maintaining these gains is not a new virus, but a breakdown of trust fuelled by unchecked falsehoods.
Paediatric preventive interventions, from a cake of soap and a proper toilet to the most sophisticated genetic therapies, are the foundation of a healthy future for every child. To secure this future, the scientific community must remain transparent, the healthcare system must lead with empathy, and the public must commit to informed, critical thinking. By rejecting the noise of disinformation and embracing the clear, evidence-based consensus of science, we can ensure that every child continues to benefit from the life-saving progress that defines modern paediatrics. The well-being of the next generation demands nothing less than this renewed commitment.
Little children are not in a position to make abiding decisions regarding their health, especially regarding preventive strategies in health. It is ultimately the crucial decisions made by responsible parents regarding the health of their children that really matter. As doctors, our commitment is never to leave any child behind.
by Dr B. J. C. Perera ✍️
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow, Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Joint Editor, Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health
Section Editor, Ceylon Medical Journal
Features
Attacks on PM vulgar, misogynistic; education reforms welcome
We express our profound concern and deep outrage at the vulgar, misogynistic, and defamatory attacks being directed at the Prime Minister and Minister of Education, Dr. Harini Amarasuriya.
Dr. Harini Amarasuriya is not merely a political leader; she is a scholar, public intellectual, and lifelong advocate of social justice, equality, and education. Attempts to discredit her through personal abuse rather than reasoned policy debate are not only an insult to her, but an assault on democratic values, women’s leadership, and intellectual integrity in public life.
Such attacks are unjust and unethical, and they corrode democratic discourse. We are deeply disappointed that certain political actors and their supporters continue to rely on misinformation, prejudice, and emotional manipulation, instead of engaging in rational, evidence-based, and constructive debate.
Sri Lanka has already paid a heavy price for decades of politics rooted in fear, communal division, and sentiment-driven populism. The country’s economic collapse and social breakdown are the direct consequences of these failed approaches. The people decisively rejected this style of politics through the Aragalaya, signaling a clear demand for change. Sri Lanka now stands at a historic turning point. After decades of corruption, ethnic manipulation, and policy paralysis, the people have given a clear mandate for systemic reform.
At this critical moment, Sri Lanka urgently needs structural reforms, particularly in education, which is the foundation of long-term national development, social mobility, and global competitiveness. Yet we observe that the very forces responsible for the country’s decline are once again attempting to block or derail reforms by exploiting religious, cultural, and emotional narratives.
We strongly affirm that no nation can be rebuilt through hatred, fear, or division. Education reform is not a political threat; it is a national necessity. Efforts to undermine reform through personal attacks and manufactured controversies serve only those who seek to return to power by keeping the country weak, divided, and intellectually impoverished.
Those who now attack Dr. Harini Amarasuriya are not defending culture or morality. They are defending privilege and political survival. Having failed the country for over seventy-five years through communalism, patronage, and anti-intellectualism, they now fear that an educated, critical, and empowered generation will render their outdated politics irrelevant.
This is why they target:
=a woman,
=an academic,
=and a reformer.
We therefore state clearly that we:
1. Condemn all forms of character assassination, gender-based attacks, and hate propaganda against the Prime Minister and Minister of Education.
2. Affirm our full support for Dr. Harini Amarasuriya’s leadership in advancing Sri Lanka’s education reforms.
3. Urge the government to proceed firmly and without retreat in implementing the proposed education reforms, in line with national policy and the public mandate.
4. Call upon academics, professionals, teachers, parents, and citizens to stand together against reactionary forces that seek to sabotage reform through fear mongering and disinformation.
A country cannot be rebuilt by those who destroyed it. A future cannot be created by those who fear education reforms.
Sri Lanka’s future must not be sacrificed for the ambitions of a few.Sri Lanka must move forward — with knowledge, dignity, and courage.
Signatories:
1. Markandu Thiruvathavooran, Attorney at law
2. S. Arivalzahan, University of Jaffna
3. Dr S.Ramesh, University of Jaffna
4. Dr. Mariadas Alfred, Former Dean, University of Peradeniya
5. Prof B.Nimalathasan, Senior Professor, University of Jaffna
6. S. Srivakeesan, Station Master, SriLankan Railways
7. A. T. Aravinthan, Branch Manager, Commercial Bank
8. Dr. S. Niththiyaruban, Paediatrician, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna
9. Dr. S. Selvaganesh, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna
10. Dr. S. Mathievaanan, Consultant Surgeon, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna
11. Prof. P. Iyngaran, University of Jaffna
12. Eng. M. Sooriasegaram, President, Education Development Consortium
13. Dr. S. Raviraj, Senior Consultant Surgeon, Former Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University, Jaffna.
14. Mr. Saminadan Wimal, University of Jaffna
15. Dr. A. Antonyrajan, University of Jaffna
16. P. Regno, Attorney at Law
17. Prof. J. Prince Jeyadevan, University of Jaffna
18. Prof. S. Muhunthan, University of Jaffna
19. Prof. R. Kapilan, University of Jaffna
20. Dr. S. Jeevasuthan, University of Jaffna
21. J.S. Thevaruban, University of Jaffna
22. S. Balaputhiran, University of Jaffna
23. Dr. N. Sivapalan, Retired Senior lecturer, University of Jaffna
24. I. P. Dhanushiyan, University of Jaffna
25. Dr. K. Thabotharan, University of Jaffna
26. Dr. Bahirathy J. Rasanen, University of Jaffna
27. Perinpanayagam Ronibus, Vice Secretary, Change Charitable Trust, Jaffna
28. Dr. S. Maheswaran, University of Peradeniya
29. Mr. S. Laleesan, Principal, Kopay Teachers’ College
30. Victor Antany, Teacher, Kilinochchi
31. K. Shanthakumar, Principal, Technical College, Vavuniya
32. S. Thirikaran, Principal, J/ Puttur Srisomaskanda College
33. Dr. T. Vannarajan, Advanced Technical Institute, Jaffna.
34. X. Don Bosco, Resource person, Piliyandala Educational Zone
35. K. Ravikumar, Regional Manager, Powerhands Pvt Ltd
36. Sathiyapriya Jeyaseelan, DO, Economist
37. A. Kalaichelvan, Chief Accountant, Animal Productive & Health
38. C. Vathanakumar, Retired Project Director
39. P. Kirupakaran, Department of Buildings (NP)
40. A. Antony Pilinton, David Peris Company, Jaffna
41. A. Muralietharan, Social Activist
42. Sinthuja Sritharan, Independent Researcher
43. T. Sritharan, Social Activist
44. Ms. Gnasakthi Sritharan, Social Activist
45. P. Thevatharsan, Management Service Officer
46. . S. Mohan, Social Activist
47. K. Jeyakumaran, Social Activist
48. Dr. N. Nithianandan, Chairman, Ratnam Foundation
49. George Antony Cristy, Social Activist
50. S. Thangarasa, Social Activist
51. N. Bhavan, Retd. Deputy Principal, Mahajana College
52. P. Muthulingam, Executive Director, Institute of Social Development, Kandy
53. M.K. Sivarajah, Social Activist
54. Mr. V. Sivalingam, Human Rights Activist
55. S. Jeyaganeshan, Samuthi Development Officer
-
Editorial4 days agoIllusory rule of law
-
News5 days agoUNDP’s assessment confirms widespread economic fallout from Cyclone Ditwah
-
Business7 days agoKoaloo.Fi and Stredge forge strategic partnership to offer businesses sustainable supply chain solutions
-
Editorial5 days agoCrime and cops
-
Features4 days agoDaydreams on a winter’s day
-
Editorial6 days agoThe Chakka Clash
-
Features4 days agoSurprise move of both the Minister and myself from Agriculture to Education
-
Features3 days agoExtended mind thesis:A Buddhist perspective




