Features

JR: The Curse and the Cause

Published

3 days ago

2026/04/5

J. R. Jayewardene

Once more, a public gathering to discuss J. R. Jayewardene was held last week. A country that has written so extensively on this phenomenal figure should, prima facie, have at least one person who understands him properly. Echoing Pete Seeger, “Where have all the flowers gone?” It is necessary to understand these social phenomena as we were subjected to their decisions, with the question: why were they not able to achieve what other countries were able to do? What lagged them behind? The renewal of political discourse has become an onrush of both arguments for and against JR, almost as if the very individual were a living force to contend with, for he was both the instrument of the fundamental reforms that shaped modern Sri Lanka and the curse that contributed to its numerous ills. There is no golden hue to this narrative.

However, some authors—whose own families endured bitter experiences due to JR’s rare but resolute decisions against systematic manipulation, corruption, and fraud—are seeking to frame personal, pseudo-picturesque, or pseudo-business considerations as part of a shared history. This is where much of our history has been systematically distorted. These public forums, on the other hand, are seldom more than partial renderings of the whole personality and politics of JR. They offer pronouncements rather than bold critiques. And although JR was himself a reader and writer, and possessed an intellect far surpassing anyone in Sri Lanka’s current political domain, today’s politicians and reformers are often superficial: all style and rhetorical flourish, catering for the applause rather than introspection. Indeed, the problem is not so much one of absence as one of morality; it is a problem of intellectual vacuum in the political community, and a lack of civic consciousness.

This problem cannot be isolated from the centralization of power under JR. His constitutional reforms were in many ways aimed at a French-style model where authority rests in the executive. As he himself said, “The nation cannot afford to be ruled by indecision; decisive authority is the life of governance.” However, in Sri Lankan terms, decisive authority simply meant immunity. We can think back to Kautilya, who, in his treatise on political science, the Arthashastra, wrote, “For in one’s hand alone the sceptre gathers both fear and contempt, and the soil of loyalty dries to dust.” The decisions made by JR, who was as much the modernist as he was the centralizer of power, with institutional footprints still strongly felt, clearly followed this principle; had they led to the strengthening of the institutions rather than subordinating them to executive power, Sri Lanka might have become a nation where enduring regulatory bodies or strong, ethical oversight would have tempered the crises in governance. However, this would be a reflection in hindsight, and hindsight will not appreciate the various pressures JR had to deal with: the Cold War climate, political rivals, and an ever-demanding populace.

What was missed was the chance to create an enduring framework that would stand the test of the cyclical instability Sri Lanka has so consistently experienced. In establishing a strong executive presidency and not reinforcing the independence of the regulatory bodies and the judiciary, JR strengthened the authority of an individual and not the institutions themselves. Even within his own party, the constitution was shaped in a manner that was deferential to the person and not the institution. While his was a brilliant mind capable of shaping durable autonomous governance structures, he instead created a centre of power whose influence is now, regrettably, evident in many political and bureaucratic dynamics of today. He said in 1982, in Parliament: “The strength of a nation lies not in its leaders alone, but in the clarity of vision with which they guide the people.” However, his vision was one where clarity was subject to strategy. His legacy includes a centralization of power, the shadows of which are strongly felt today and influence many political developments.

JR also made several moral compromises in the course of leadership. His memoirs and speeches show how he vacillated between openness and calculated opacity. He understood the symbolic weight of his presidency. It was written in one speech that, ‘A President must embody the conscience of the people even if that conscience is uncomfortable.’ In truth, conscience has often been subservient to pragmatism. A CIA report in 1986 on instability in Third World countries states leadership in countries like Sri Lanka may be relatively infrequent, but concentrated power tends to leave institutions weak and vulnerable to a range of destabilizing factors. JR’s leadership demonstrates that this is only too true: the more power was centralized, the weaker the structures became. We got the substance of power as well as the temptations that came with it, but without the ethical and regulatory safeguards.

His reforms essentially embodied the contradiction where the legality was there, the institution on paper survived, but the moral compass of the administration was blurred. Both the cause and the curse are inherent; it is not possible to separate his constructive measures to bring about order in Sri Lanka after 1977 from the negative consequences that followed, such as civil conflict, political centralisation, and a politicisation of the bureaucracy. This country continues to grapple with decisions taken decades ago, as if tormented by the hopes and failures of an individual.

Perhaps the argument could be made that JR had no other option, given the circumstances under which he governed Sri Lanka in the early 1980s. These were the Cold War years, and the political landscape was particularly complex. However, centralization has its costs, and its absence of institutional accountability or autonomy can only be attributed to the explicit design. He clearly recognized that concentration of power did not immunize him from moral criticism, and the shadows of his mistakes, however much they tried to be contained, did stretch far beyond his presidential tenure.

However, the age itself, spurred by urgency and political ambition, prioritized the charisma of the individual over the enduring resilience of the institutions. That was the gamble we were forced to take, and we were all made to pay the price: the civil conflict, the void that resulted, and the moral compromises made to survive.

JR’s writings and speeches clearly document this duality. He told a group of diplomats in 1981: ‘History judges not the man who acted alone, but the institutions he leaves behind.’ But the institution was created for the man. It was the opportunity and the limitation, the vision and the compromise that became synonymous with the presidency, creating a paradox: an inherently rich nation hobbled by the constraints of personality. It is a convergence of moral responsibility of the leader, temptation for immunity, and the pressures of global powers that has resulted in the current leadership style, which is both haunting and informative. The classical Chinese philosopher Han Fei stated that, ‘The ruler who relies solely on law and punishes without wisdom invites disorder; the ruler who relies on virtue without law invites betrayal.’ He tried to govern by the former, with a veneer of charisma added for smoothing out the contradictions.

The country still suffers the long shadow of these events; the ghost of centralized power, corrupted institutions, and moral greyness continue to plague both governance and policy, as if history is unwilling to let go. JR Jayewardene is an example of how one man’s blueprint can shape the trajectory of an entire nation for decades, if not longer. The conflicts, the voids, and the moral compromising we still witness today are all reflections of the model of governance he adopted. In that sense, he is more than just a figure of the past; he is a persistent and uncomfortable question that continues to stir the consciences of Sri Lankans.

The challenge is not to relive his life or to resurrect his shadows but to learn from his example, recognize his mistakes, and refine his lessons in an effort to address the systemic weaknesses of the state and the morass that the people are wallowing in. Public discourse should focus not only on remembering his legacy or whitewashing history, but on exposing the dangers and enduring temptations of centralized authority, weakened institutions, and powerful individuals who are not held accountable and therefore perpetuate the cycles of mismanagement. The moral and structural ramifications, the consequences of giving too much power to one man, are profound, and its repercussions echo across the generations.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

All News Advertisement

Features

The Easter investigation must not become ethno-religious politics

Published

19 hours ago

2026/04/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

Zahran and other bombers

Representatives of almost all the main opposition parties were in attendance at the recent book launch by Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila. The book written by the PHU leader was his analysis of the Easter bombing of April 2019 that led to the mass killing of 279 persons, caused injuries to more than 500 others and caused panic and shock in the entire country. The Easter bombing was inexplicable for a number of reasons. First, it was perpetrated by suicide bombers who were Sri Lankan Muslims, a community not known for this practice. They targeted Christian churches in particular, which led to the largest number of casualties. The bombing of Sri Lankan Christian churches by Sri Lankan Muslims was also inexplicable in a country that had no history of any serious violence between the two religions.

There were two further inexplicable features of the bombing. The six suicide bombings took place almost simultaneously in different parts of the country. The logistical complexity of this operation exceeded any previously seen in Sri Lanka. Even during the three decade long civil war that pitted the Sri Lankan military against the LTTE, which had earned international notoriety for suicide attacks, Sri Lanka had rarely witnessed such a synchronised operation. The country’s former Attorney General, Dappula de Livera, who investigated the bombing at the time it took place, later stated, upon retirement, that there was a “grand conspiracy” behind the bombings. That phrase has remained central to public debate because it suggested that the visible perpetrators may not have been the only planners behind the attack.

The other inexplicable factor was that intelligence services based in India repeatedly warned their Sri Lankan counterparts that the bombings would take place and even gave specific targets. Later investigations confirmed that warnings were transmitted days before the attacks and repeated again shortly before the explosions, yet they were not acted upon. It was these several inexplicable factors that gave rise to the surmise of a mastermind behind the students and religious fanatics led by the extremist preacher Zahran Hashim from the east of the country, who also blew himself up in the attacks. Even at the time of the bombing there was doubt that such a complex and synchronised operation could have been planned and executed by the motley band who comprised the suicide bombers.

Determined Attempt

The book by PHU leader Gammanpila is a determined attempt to make explicable the inexplicable by marshalling logic and evidence that this complex and synchronised operation was planned and executed by Zahran himself. This is a possible line of argumentation in a democratic society. Competing interpretations of public tragedies are part of political discourse. However, the timing of the intervention makes it politically more significant. The launch of the PHU leader’s book comes at a critical time when the protracted investigation into the Easter bombing appears to be moving forward under the present government.

The performance of the three previous governments at investigating the bombing was desultory at best. The Supreme Court held former President Maithripala Sirisena and several senior officials responsible for failing to act on prior intelligence and ordered compensation to victims. This judicial finding gave legal recognition to what victims had long maintained, that there was a grave dereliction of duty at the highest levels of the state. In recent weeks the investigation has taken a dramatic turn with the arrest and court production of former State Intelligence Service chief Suresh Sallay on allegations linked directly to the attacks. Whether these allegations are ultimately proven or disproven, they indicate that the present phase of the investigation is moving beyond negligence into possible complicity.

This is why the present moment requires political sobriety. There is a danger that the line of political division regarding the investigation into the Easter bombing can take on an ethnic complexion. The insistence that the suicide bombers alone were the planners and executors of the dastardly crime makes the focus invariably one of Muslim extremism, as the suicide bombers were all Muslims. This may unintentionally narrow public attention away from the unanswered questions regarding intelligence failures, possible political manipulation, and the allegations of a broader conspiracy that remain under active investigation. The minority political parties representing ethnic and religious minorities appear to have realised this danger. Their absence from the book launch was politically significant. It suggests an unwillingness to be drawn into a narrative that could once again stigmatise an entire community for the crimes of a handful of extremists and their possible handlers.

Another Tragedy

It would be another tragedy comparable in political consequence to the havoc wreaked by the Easter bombing if moderate mainstream political parties, such as the SJB to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, were to subscribe to positions merely to score political points against the present government. They need to guard against the promotion of anti-minority sentiment and the fuelling of majority prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities. Indeed, opposition leader Sajith Premadasa in his Easter message said that justice for the victims of the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter Sunday attacks remains a fundamental responsibility of the state and noted that seven years on, both past and present governments have failed to deliver accountability. He added that building a society grounded in trust and peace, uniting all ethnicities, religions and communities, is vital to ensure such tragedies do not occur again.

Sri Lanka’s post war history offers too many examples of how unresolved security crises become vehicles for majoritarian mobilisation. The Easter tragedy itself was followed by waves of anti-Muslim suspicion and violence in some parts of the country. Responsible political leadership should seek to prevent any return to that atmosphere. There are many other legitimate issues on which the moderate and mainstream opposition parties can take the government to task. These include the lack of decisive action against government members accused of corruption, the passing of the entire burden of rising fuel prices on consumers instead of the government sharing the burden, and the failure to hold provincial council elections within the promised timeframe. These are issues that touch the daily lives of citizens and the health of democratic governance. They offer the opposition ample ground on which to build credibility as a government in waiting.

The search for truth and justice over the Easter bombing needs to continue until all those responsible are identified, whether they were direct perpetrators, negligent officials, or political actors who may have exploited the tragedy. This is what the victim families want and the country needs. But this search must not be turned into a partisan and religiously divisive matter such as by claiming that there are more potential suicide bombers lurking in the country who had been followers of Zaharan. If it is, Sri Lanka risks replacing one national tragedy with another. coming together to discredit the ongoing investigations into the Easter bombing of 2019 is an unacceptable use of ethno-religious nationalism to politically challenge the government. The opposition needs to find legitimate issues on which to challenge the government if they are to gain the respect and support of the general public and not their opprobrium.

by Jehan Perera

Features

China’s new duty-free regime for Africa: Implications for Global Trade and Sri Lanka

Published

19 hours ago

2026/04/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

Image courtesy The Global Times

* The new duty-free regime for Africa, announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in February, is the most generous unilateral nonreciprocal trade concession offered by any country to developing countries since the beginning of the modern rule based international trading system.

* Yet, it is a clear violation of the cornerstone of the multilateral trade law, the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle.

* Hence, its implications on developing countries, without duty-free access to China, will be extremely negative. Sri Lanka is one of the few developing countries without duty-free access to China.

On 14 February, 2026, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China will grant zero-tariff treatment to 53 African nations, effective 01 May, 2026. Under this new unilateral policy initiative, China would eliminate all import tariffs on all goods imported from all the countries in Africa, except Eswatini. China already enforces a zero-tariff policy for 33 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in Africa. Now this policy would be extended to non LDCs as well. This policy initiative clearly aims at reducing the continuously expanding trade deficit between China and Africa. In 2024, China’s trade surplus against Africa was recorded at US $ 61 billion.

This trade initiative, a precious gift amidst ongoing global trade tensions, is the most generous unilateral nonreciprocal trade concession given by any country to developing countries, since the beginning of the modern rule based international trading system.

Though this landmark announcement has far-reaching implications on global trade, as much as President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, it was almost overlooked by the global media.

Implications for Global Trade

This Chinese policy initiative, though very generous, is a clear violation of the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle and the “Enabling Clause” of the International Trade Law. The MFN principle is the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and is enshrined in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It mandates that any trade advantage, privilege, or immunity granted by a WTO member to any country must be extended immediately and unconditionally to all other WTO members. Though, the GATT “Enabling Clause” allows developed nations to offer non-reciprocal preferential treatment (lower tariffs) to developing countries without extending them to all WTO members, this has to be done in a non-discriminatory manner. By extending tariff concessions only to developing countries in Africa, China has also breached this requirement.

This deliberate violation of the MFN principle by China occurs less than 12 months after the announcement of “Liberation Day” tariffs by President Trump, which breached Article I (MFN) and Article II (bound rates) of the GATT. However, it is important to underline that the objectives of the actions by the two Presidents are poles apart; the US objective was to limit imports from all its trading partners, and China’s objective is to increase imports from African countries.

Though the importance of the MFN principle of the WTO law had eroded over the years due to the proliferation of preferential trade agreements and unilateral preferential arrangements, the WTO members almost always obtained WTO waivers, whenever they breached the MFN principle. Now the leaders of the main trading powers have decided to violate the core principles of the multilateral trading system so brazenly, the impact of their decisions on the international trading system will be irrevocable.

Implications for Sri Lanka

China’s unilateral decision to provide zero-tariff treatment to African countries will have a strong adverse impact on Sri Lanka. Currently, all Asian countries, other than India and Sri Lanka, have duty-free access, for most of their exports, into the Chinese market through bilateral or regional trade agreements, or the LDC preferences. Though Sri Lanka, India and China are members of the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), preferential margins extended by China under APTA to India and Sri Lanka are limited.

The value of China’s imports from Sri Lanka had declined from US$ 650 million in 2021 to US$ 433 million by 2025. However, China’s exports to Sri Lanka increased significantly during the period, from US$ 5,252 million to US$ 5,753 by 2025. This has resulted in a trade deficit of US$ 5,320 million. Sri Lanka’s exports to China may decline further from next month when African nations with duty-free access start to expand their market share.

Let me illustrate the challenges Sri Lanka will face in the Chinese market with one example. Tea (HS0902) is Sri Lanka’s third largest export to China, after garments and gems. Sri Lanka is the largest exporter of tea to China, followed by India, Kenya and Viet Nam. During the last five years the value of China’s imports of tea from Sri Lanka had declined significantly, from US$76 million in 2021 to US$ 57 million by 2025. Meanwhile, imports from our main competitors had increased substantially. Most importantly, imports from Kenya increased from US$ 7.9 million in 2021 to US$ 15 million in 2025. For tea, the existing tariff in China for Sri Lanka is 7.5% and for Kenya is 15%. From next month the tariff for Kenya will be reduced to 0%. What will be its impact on Sri Lanka exports? That was perhaps explained by a former Ambassador to Africa, when he urged Sri Lankan exporters to “leverage duty free access from Kenya” to expand their exports to China!

(The writer is a retired public servant and a former Chairman of WTO Committee on Trade and Development. He can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

by Gomi Senadhira

Features

Daughter in the spotlight …

Published

19 hours ago

2026/04/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya was a famous actress and her name still rings a bell with many. And now in the spotlight is her daughter Senani Wijesena – not as an actress but as a singer – and she has been singing, since the age of five!

The plus factor is that Senani, now based in Australia, is also a songwriter, plays keyboards and piano, dancer, and has filmed and edited some of her own music videos.

Says Senani: “I write the lyrics, melody and music and work with professional musicians who do the needful on my creations.”

Her latest album, ‘Music of the Mirror’, is made up of 16 songs, and her first Sinhala song, called ‘Nidahase’, is scheduled for release this month (April) in Colombo, along with a music video.

‘Nidahase’,

says Senani, is a song about Freedom … of life, movement, love and spirit. Freedom to be your authentic self, express yourself freely and Freedom from any restrictions.

In fact, ‘Nidahase’ is the Sinhala translated version of her English song ‘Free’ which made Senani a celebrity as the song was nominated for a Hollywood Music in Media Award in the RnB /Soul category and reached the Top 20 on the UK Music weekly dance charts, as well as No. 1 on the Yes Home grown Top 15, on Yes FM, for six weeks straight.

Senani went on to say that ‘Nidahase’ has been remixed to include a Sri Lankan touch, using Kandyan drums and the Thammattama drum, with extra music production by local music producer Dilshan L. Silva, and Australia-based Emmy Award winning Producer and Engineer Sean Carey … with Senani also in the scene.

The song was written (lyrics and melody) and produced by Senani and it features Australian musicians, while the music video was produced by Sri Lanka’s Sandesh Bandara and filmed in Sri Lanka.

First Sinhala song scheduled for release this month … in Colombo

Senani’s music is mostly Soul, Funk and RNB – also Fusion, using ethnic sounds such as the tabla, sitar, and sarod – as well as Jazz influenced.

“I also have Alternative Music songs with a rock edge, such as ‘New Day’, and upcoming releases ‘Fly High’ and ‘Whisper’“, says Senani, adding that she has also recorded in other languages, such as Hindi and Spanish.

“As much of my fan base are Sri Lankans, who have asked me to release a song in the Sinhala language, I decided to create and release ‘Nidahase’ and I plan to release other original Sinhala songs in the future.

Senani has a band in Australia and has appeared at festivals in Australia, on radio and TV in Australia, and Sri Lanka.

She trained as a vocalist, through Sydney-based Singing Schools, as well as private tuition, and she has 5th Grade piano music qualifications.

And this makes interesting reading:

“I graduated from the University of Newcastle in Australia with a Bachelor of Medicine and I work part time as a doctor (GP) and an Integrative Medicine practitioner, with a focus on nutrition, and spend the rest of the time dedicated to my music career.”

Senani hails from an illustrious family. In addition to her mum, Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya, who made over 40 films, including starring in the first colour movie ‘Ranmuthu Duwa’, her dad is Dr Lanka Wijesena (retired GP) and she has two sisters – all musical; one is a doctor, while the other is a dietitian/ psychotherapist.