Connect with us

Features

Let’s play party-games with Marx

Published

on

by Kumar David

Everybody is fed up with news of impending catastrophe; covid that will not go away even in 2022, climate change that threatens to engulf both nature and Homo sapiens by mid-century, broken supply chains, inexorable price inflation and coups by military gorillas on the left and the right. In Lanka endless bickering, racial hatred and after three failed constitutions the pending fourth will be the nastiest on many counts. So my dear countrymen of all nationalities and faiths gird up your loins the worst is still to come. Our regime, licking its putrefying financial sores and the international lacerations it has suffered, is in no position to do anything for the people. So what the hell, let’s relax and take time off from this dismal reality to have fun. Let’s work through some of things Marx said or didn’t say to see what the old codger really meant. This is a lightweight piece, if you are the ponderous polysyllabic intellectual type, turn the page.

Religion

Most controversial and interesting is religion; Marx is much misunderstood. You do not need to be an atheist to be a Marxist; the old boy was not concerned with the spiritual messages of Gautama, Jesus or the Prophet, nor did he scrutinise the economic system in heaven. The famous “Religion is the opium of the people”, as the extracts below shows, says that religion is a tranquiliser which sedates man to accept this oppressive world instead of rising up against it, by promising carnal joys in paradise or exalted awareness after enlightenment.

Here are extracts from the famous text to emphasise this point – strung together with deletions in between.

“Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against a world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

“The abolition of religion as illusory happiness is the demand for their real happiness. To call on people to give up illusions about this condition is a call to end a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is in embryo criticism of the vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Base and Superstructure

In early Marx (before the Communist Manifesto) there are references to the material groundings of society (geography, resources and the production-economic systems) as the Base, and to culture, institutions and the state as the Superstructure. It was granted that influences could flow in both directions but in this structural metaphor the Base was presented as dominant. How these bidirectional influences flow cannot be theorised in the abstract but only by concrete and specific analysis. E.g. Eric Hobswam’s Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848 and Industry and Empire: From 1750 to the Present Day, or Kumari Jayawardena’s History of the Labour Movement in Ceylon and in many other studies. There you will find concrete explorations of how ‘Base’ and ‘Superstructure’ influence one another.

The Base-Superstructure imagery is oversimplified except in political polemics and Marx never returned to it in his major historical pamphlets of later life. A great weakness of this imagery today is uncertainty about where ethnicity, which by the late Twentieth Century has come to centre stage in many places, stands.

Materialism

Central to Marx’s philosophy are (a) Historical Materialism and (b) like all great post-Enlightenment scientists (Faraday, Darwin, JJ Thompson, Einstein, modern geneticists) Epistemological Materialism. A para on each.

Historical Materialism views the great movements of human history as impelled more by material interests than idealist beliefs. For example colonialism and imperialism transformed the world for raw materials, gold and silver, the slave trade and the export of capital for plantations, railways and mines. The Bible, bringing the heathen to god and spreading European civilisation among the savages followed in the wake of these material benefits. Another example is that big pharmaceutical companies do indeed invent and produce lifesaving drugs, but their raison d’etre is returns to shareholder capital. Unlike a mother’s ideal selfless love for her child, material interests, not idealism, drives class society and history. This I believe is now universally accepted. Historical materialism has come out with a score of 90 out of 100. The ten percent in doubt is because of the enigma of the spread of Islam. One cannot explain it like colonialism, imperialism, the settling of the Americas, South Africa and Australia-NZ, by pointing to material interests as the primary driver. When Islam surged out of Arabia and transformed the Middle East and large chunks of Central Asia the motive seems to have been entirely faith. I don’t know enough, so I keep 10% in reserve.

Epistemological materialism is pretty much the same as science; the solo nigger in the woodpile is an aspect of quantum physics but no more on that. Modern science, broadly speaking, contends that the material world really exists out there independently of our minds and our job is to examine it, experiment with it and find out how it works. The causality of material events is not a thing of our will (Newtonian gravitation, General Relativity, chromosomes, black-holes and mathematics are true or not for all, not just Christians or males). Epistemological materialists though firmly of this view of course grant we don’t

know everything now. But as science moves we will find more and turn up ever more questions – otherwise science and the pursuit of knowledge will halt. The domain of epistemological materialism does not intrude into spiritual territory; that is faith, enlightenment, heaven and hell (except man-made hell on earth). It is not concerned with the questions like “Does God exist?” or “Should you be a believer?” The philosophical domains of science and religion are separate. Richard Dawkins was silly to transgress the line though his critique of intelligent design is justified because the religious lot first transgressed the boundary and intervened in scientific evolution theory.

The Transformation Problem

This is a bit technical but I bet I can make it intelligible to most of you. If you held out this far please don’t switch off now. This is a difficulty in Marxist economics but first contrast modern quantitative economics with Marx. The former is philosophically arid. It’s about things like ‘if China raises tariffs how much will EU’s exports rise or fall’ or ‘if India changes FDC rules this way or that what will be the impact on local industry, exports or farmers”. Mechanics, calculations, that’s all; fine, leave it to PhD students and sham algorithmic Nobel Prize winners, some later convicted as crooks. A PhD now is a reward for moderate intelligence and moderate effort, it’s a training ground in research-methodology, no longer much to do with an original contribution.

The transformation problem belongs to different category from quantitative economics. It is located in the triangulated border between political practice, philosophy and economics. Kapital I is 100% grounded in the labour theory of value whose premise is that only human activity (labour) creates value. Hence the value of a commodity is inputs (raw materials and machinery) plus the average socially necessary labour newly added in its production. Of this added-value a part is used to pay wages (the average socially necessary subsistence and reproduction costs of the worker). The portion left after this Marx called surplus value. The more familiar word in economics is profit, including interest, tax and rent. This surplus appropriated by the capitalist may be ploughed back into reproduction (another production cycle) or used to expand the economy in new directions. This is how capitalism works, morality apart.

Marx recognised that value (the socio-philosophical concept) and price (market price at which commodities trade) are not the same. There is dislocation between value and price and between surplus value and profit. For example a commodity made in a plant employing lots of labour should generate lots of surplus value, but commodities produced in high-tech plants with little labour apparently generate only a small surplus. The former should then be generating high profits, the latter only a small profit! Not only is this counter-intuitive but also screws up reality. Volume III of Kapital, inter alia, is Marx’s struggle to resolve this contradiction.

He recognises that capitalism is a social system hence a plant by plant analysis is bollocks, it can only help introduce concepts. Taking society overall the rate of profit will be uniform (capital will migrate if there is a difference in profitability). But the total surplus-value of the whole production system equals the total profits of the whole economy. Then whether some activities (mines, healthcare) intrinsically needed more labour and others (robot-controlled industry) intrinsically needed less does not matter, the natural rate of profit across the economy will be the same. An average plant in each category would yield the same as the economy wide average rate of profit. So Marx first conceded that value and price need not be the same, second he postulated that the total surplus value created in production equals the total profit in the whole economy, and third he saw a tendency for the rate of profit across the economy to equalise. Nevertheless contradictions, too complex to explain here, remained. In my view this effort was pointless since the labour theory of value and market economics belong to separate though parallel philosophical domains. To attempt to map them point-by-point is as absurd as attempting to map personal psychology point-by-point to aggregated social behaviour.

Marx was a guy-and-a-half; he thundered like the prophets from Isiah to Mohamed; his damnations and exaggerations would make a second-hand car salesman blush. But my god, how many thinkers in the last two centuries produced ideas of comparable depth? Yes, Darwin – of Einstein and Freud I am not so sure. And none revealed such kaleidoscopic range – philosophy/dialectics, history, economics and revolutionary politics.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

on

I. The Constitutional Context

Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.

As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].

II. A Proposal for Reform

This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.

This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.

What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.

III. Governing Considerations of Policy

What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.

Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).

The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.

Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).

IV. Practical Constraints

Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.

A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.

Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.

If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.

This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.

V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?

If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.

VI. Conclusion

In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

Continue Reading

Features

Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience

Published

on

In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.

According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.

In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.

Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.

As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.

(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)

by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera

Continue Reading

Features

Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity

Published

on

Aplocheilus parvus

A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.

Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.

For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.

Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.

“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”

A tale of two fishes

The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.

Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.

Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.

Echoes of ancient land bridges

The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.

Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.

“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”

Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.

A deeper genetic divide

One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.

Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.

Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.

Implications for conservation

The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.

Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.

“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”

Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.

A broader scientific shift

The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.

Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.

“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”

Looking ahead

The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.

For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.

As Ranasinghe puts it:

“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending