Features
MINISTRY of JUSTICE LEGAL REFORMS: Treatments aggravating disease instead of curing
By Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021 and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Amendment) Act No. 15 of 2021 were passed by Parliament on July 6, 2021 under the Law Reforms Project of the Ministry of Justice for the purpose of making the country torture free by strengthening the law against torture.
This Criminal Procedure Amendment requires every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once in every month and examine the persons detained therein. Torture Convention Amendment Act has increased the fines that can be imposed on persons found guilty of torture.
Commencing the Second Reading Debate on these two Acts, the Minister of Justice had said in Parliament that Articles 11 and 13 (5) of the Constitution have guaranteed freedom from torture and presumption of innocence of every person, until proved guilty by law. The Release of Remand Prisoners Act of 1991 enabled the Magistrates to visit prisons, but the proposed Amendments have gone further to guarantee freedom from torture. The Government has identified the importance of treating suspects humanely and this proposal is just one of the measures that the Government takes to guarantee these rights of the people.
However, how lofty the Minister’s objective may be, it can be categorically stated that the Government would never be able to achieve its declared objective of eradication of torture in custody with these amendments. Both these are impracticable and unnecessary Amendments brought in, without a proper understanding of the ground realities and the actual operation of the existing law. The concerned authorities have found the Torture Act of 1994 impracticable due to an inherent weakness in a provision in the Act. Without identifying and removing that obstacle that retards its effective implementation, torture cannot be eliminated by increasing the fines.
Torture Act Amendment
By this Amendment Act, S. 2 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994 has been amended in subsection (4) of that section by substituting for the words ‘a fine not less than 10,000 rupees and not exceeding 50.000 rupees‘ of the words ‘a fine not less than 50,000 rupees and not exceeding 200,000 rupees.‘
Over the years, in a large number of fundamental rights applications the Supreme Court has found law enforcement officers responsible for torture and ordered them personally to pay compensation to the victims of torture. Human Rights Commission also has found in its inquiries a large number of officers responsible for torture and ordered them to pay compensation to the victims. Yet since the enactment of the Torture Act in 1994, only a very small number of officers have been prosecuted under the Torture Act.
The Torture Act of 1994 contains an inherent flow which prevents its provisions from being effectively implemented. Under S. 2 of the Act torture, or the attempt to commit, or aiding and abetting in committing or conspiring to commit torture is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years and not exceeding 10 years and a fine not less than 10,000 and not exceeding 50,000 rupees. Not only torture but even attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit torture is punishable with the same penalty, a mandatory minimum jail sentence of seven years and a minimum fine of 10,000 rupees. A police officer who slaps a man on his face causing a minor scratch, if indicted under the Torture Act, will invariably get a jail sentence of seven years.
Under the normal criminal law of the country, the maximum penalty that can be imposed for causing simple hurt, even with a sharp cutting weapon, causing the victim to receive treatment in a hospital for several days, is six months jail sentence. It is a compoundable offence. A court has no jurisdiction to entertain a case for causing simple hurt under S. 314 of the Penal Code without a certificate from a Mediation Board certifying that the dispute cannot be settled. In torture cases, under the Act, the Court has no discretion, but to impose the mandatory minimum jail sentence laid down in the Act. It is common knowledge that our Courts give suspended sentences to accused even in murder cases when they plead guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under certain circumstances.
The maximum penalty that can be imposed even on the worst torturer who subjects the victim to the most cruel, degrading and inhuman acts of torture is 10 years imprisonment. There is no much of a difference between the minimum sentence and the maximum sentence despite the varying degrees of acts of torture. Courts have no discretion on the matter of sentence. This imbalance in sentences which does not take into consideration the different grades of culpability has prevented the law enforcement agencies from giving effect to this provision of the Torture Act. So long as the minimum and maximum penalties for torture remains in this state, the Police, the Attorney General’s Department and the Courts will find it difficult to act on this law.
Sri Lanka acceded to the UN Convention against Torture in January 1994. In its first four-yearly periodical country report presented to the UN Committee against Torture in May 1998 outlining the steps taken to eliminate torture and punish perpetrators of torture, Sri Lankan Authorities had made a clever attempt to cover up its failure to prosecute torturers under Torture Act. The Report stated that action against torture had a place in Sri Lanka’s law since 1883 and that any person who tortures another would be guilty of an offence punishable under the criminal law of the country. It referred to Ss. 310 – 329 of the Penal Code dealing with voluntarily causing hurt.
Considering Sri Lanka’s Periodical Country Reports, the UN Committee has expressed its concerns repeatedly on the failure of Sri Lankan Authorities to deal with torturers under the provisions of the Torture Act.
In S. C. Reference No. 03/08, the Supreme Court, citing several previous Supreme Court decisions, discussed at length the constitutionality and the impact of mandatory sentences on the exercise of judicial discretion and held that the minimum mandatory sentence in S. 364(2)(e) of the Penal Code is in conflict with Articles 4(c), 11 and 12(1) of the Constitution and that the High Court is not inhibited from imposing a sentence that it deems appropriate in the exercise of its judicial discretion notwithstanding the minimum mandatory sentence laid down in the law.
A few years back, some Police Officers were indicted under the Torture Act in a High Court case and, on conviction, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. They appealed against the sentence and the Court of Appeal, following the Supreme Court Judgement in S. C. Reference No. 03/08, varied the sentence of seven to two years imprisonment.
As early as 1999, in its comments on the first periodical report of the Government of Sri Lanka to the UN Committee in 1998, the Lawyers for Human Rights and Development (LHRD) pointed out this weakness in the Torture Act and the urgent need of amending the provision relating to minimum mandatory sentences of imprisonment allowing judicial discretion on the matter of sentence.
So long as the Torture Act remains in this state, the Authorities will find it difficult and be hesitant to prosecute their colleagues involved in torture under the provisions of the Torture Act. This amendment brought to the Torture Act for increasing fines that can be imposed for the offences under the Act is an utterly meaningless exercise. Torture cannot be eliminated by increasing fines. What is important is not the heavier penalties, but prosecuting all offenders under the provisions of the Torture Act. Only then it will have a deterrent effect. If the government is serious about giving effect to the law, it should amend the Torture Act laying down more realistic penalties compatible with the ordinary criminal law of the country and take necessary steps to enforce the law directing the IGP and the AG to prosecute all offenders.
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021
The enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 14 of 2021 is also another meaningless exercise. There was no need at all to bring this amendment and it will not serve any purpose. Existing legal provisions and judicial practices are quite adequate to address the problems if properly enforced with necessary guidelines and supervision. This Amendment will only add an additional, unnecessary burden on Magistrates. It is another instance of these legal advisers of the Ministry groping in the darkness without any understanding of the ground realities.
This Amendment has added a new Section – S. 43B to the Criminal Procedure Code:
S. 43B (1) It shall be the duty of every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once in every month to ensure that the suspects under the police custody at such police station are protected to the extent provided for in the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the Magistrate who visits the police station shall (a) personally see the suspect, and look into his well-being, welfare and conditions under which he is kept at such police station: and (b) record his observations and any complaint the suspect may make.
(3) Where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the suspect may have been subjected to torture, the Magistrate may direct that the suspect be produced before a JMO or a govt. medical officer for medical examination, and a report be submitted by such medical officer to the Magistrate.
(4) Where the report of such medical officer reveals that the suspect has been subjected to torture, the Magistrate shall make an appropriate order, including directions to provide necessary medical treatment to the suspect and to change the place of custody of such suspect.
(5) The Magistrate shall also direct the IGP to commence an investigation into the alleged torture in order to enable the AG to institute criminal proceedings against the person who is alleged to have committed the torture.
This is impracticable and meaningless for the following reasons:
This amendment requires every Magistrate to visit every police station situated within his judicial division, at least once a month. It is a matter of common knowledge that almost all the Magistrate’s Courts are overburdened with work, having a large number of cases to handle every day. In the Judicial Division of every Magistrate’s Court there are 3 – 4 police stations. Despite their heavy schedules, every month a Magistrate will be compelled to devote at least two days to discharge this additional burden placed on them.
Under the normal law of the country, a person arrested cannot be detained in Police custody for more than 24 hours, they have to be produced before the lapse of 24 hours before a Magistrate. Such detention in Police custody over 24 hours is a violation of fundamental rights. Suspects arrested on the previous day are produced before the Magistrate on the following day before the lapse of 24 hours. Suspects are not arrested and not kept in Police custody every day. Quite often the Magistrates will find in their visits that there are no suspects held in Police custody for them to examine.
Persons arrested can be kept in custody for more than 24 hours only when arrests are made under laws with special provisions for detention of suspects such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Emergency Regulations or the Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Persons arrested and detained under these laws are not kept at Police Stations, but in special Police Units such as the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Terrorist Investigation Division (TID), Crime Detection Bureau (CDB) or the Narcotics Bureau of the Police.
Instead of making provisions for visiting these special units of investigations and examining detainees held therein, there is no point in requiring all Magistrates to visit all the Police Stations in the country situated within their jurisdictions.
Moreover, there are other institutions already functioning with adequate powers, facilities and resources to make regular visits to police stations like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of Sri Lanka. HRC has a 24-hour functioning hotline to receive complaints of torture and illegal detention of suspects in excess of 24 hours. The moment HRC receives a complaint of torture or arrests and detention of persons, HRC officials immediately contact the relevant Police Station and conduct inquiries, visiting the place if necessary. We know of a large number of instances where the HRC has intervened over the years in this manner.
As the Minister himself has mentioned in his speech in Parliament, there is an Act enacted in 1991 requiring all Magistrates to visit Prisons situated within their judicial divisions once a month.
S. 5 of the Release of Remand Prisoners Act No. 8 of 1991 requires every Magistrate to visit every prison situated within the judicial division in respect of which he is so appointed, at least once a month.
However, only a handful of Magistrates in the country have complied with this legal requirement. If the Ministry of Justice could ensure that this legal requirement is strictly complied with by all Magistrates that would certainly result in addressing many of the grievances of suspects in custody and reduction of the heavy congestion in our prisons.
As held by the Supreme Court in fundamental rights applications, when a suspect is produced in Court from Police custody it is the duty of the Magistrate to question and probe the suspect so produced and record his observations. To do that the Magistrate need not visit Police stations.
In this connection it is relevant to quote from the Supreme Court Judgement of Justice L. H. G. Wijesekera in the case of Pradeep Kumar Dharmaratne vs. Inspector of Police Dharmaratne and others, S. C. Appn. No. 163/98, SCM 17. 12. 1998: “In my opinion it is indeed a matter of concern and trepidation that Magistrates in spite of repeated reminders by this Court do not exercise what is their duty, namely to question and probe from a person produced before them from Police custody and to so record his observations. It has been my experience that Magistrates did act so and it was a deterrent to breaches of fundamental rights even when they were not enshrined by a constitution. It is a further tragedy that some members of the legal profession do not act with courage and fearlessness in what is their duty. I say so with responsibility inasmuch as an allegation of assault and of torture has been made to the Superintendent of Police on the 17th of February 1998 after this release of the petitioner by the Magistrate in consequence of which the petitioner was produced before the JMO, but the Attorneys-at-Law did not bring this to the notice of the Magistrate.’’
If the Ministry of Justice is serious about guaranteeing freedom from torture what the Ministry should do is not enacting this type meaningless and impracticable amendments but issuing a Circular to all Magistrates with the approval of the Judicial Service Commission stressing the need of strict compliance with the provisions in the existing law and the Supreme Court decisions and call for regular reports on the compliance with directions in the Circulars.
Features
Building on Sand: The Indian market trap
(Part III in a series on Sri Lanka’s tourism stagnation.)
Every SLTDA (Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority) press release now leads with the same headline: India is Sri Lanka’s “star market.” The numbers seem to prove it, 531,511 Indian arrivals in 2025, representing 22.5% of all tourists. Officials celebrate the “half-million milestone” and set targets for 600,000, 700,000, more.
But follow the money instead of the headcount, and a different picture emerges. We are building our tourism recovery on a low-spending, short-stay, operationally challenging segment, without any serious strategy to transform it into a high-value market. We have confused market size with market quality, and the confusion is costing us billions.
Per-day spending: While SLTDA does not publish market-specific daily expenditure data, industry operators and informal analyses consistently report Indian tourists in the $100-140 per day range, compared to $180-250 for Western European and North American markets.
The math is brutal and unavoidable: one Western European tourist generates the revenue of 3-4 Indian tourists. Building tourism recovery primarily on the low-yield segment is strategically incoherent, unless the goal is arrivals theater rather than economic contribution.
Comparative Analysis: How Competitors Handle Indian Outbound Tourism
India is not unique to Sri Lanka. Indian outbound tourism reached 30.23 million departures in 2024, an 8.4% year-on-year increase, driven by a growing middle class with disposable income. Every competitor destination is courting this market.
This is not diversification. It is concentration risk dressed up as growth.
How did we end up here? Through a combination of policy laziness, proximity bias, and refusal to confront yield trade-offs.
1. Proximity as Strategy Substitute
India is next door. Flights are short (1.5-3 hours), frequent, and cheap. This makes India the easiest market to attract, low promotional cost, high visibility, strong cultural and linguistic overlap. But easiest is not the same as best.
Tourism strategy should optimize for yield-adjusted effort. Yes, attracting Europeans requires longer promotional cycles, higher marketing spend, and sustained brand-building. But if each European generates 3x the revenue of an Indian tourist, the return on investment is self-evident.
We have chosen ease over effectiveness, proximity over profitability.
2. Visa Policy as Blunt Instrument
3. Failure to Develop High-Value Products for Indian Market

There are segments of Indian outbound tourism that spend heavily:
* Wedding tourism: Indian destination weddings can generate $50,000-200,000+ per event
* Wellness/Ayurveda tourism: High-net-worth Indians seek authentic wellness experiences and will pay premium rates
* MICE tourism: Corporate events, conferences, incentive travel
Sri Lanka has these assets—coastal venues for weddings, Ayurvedic heritage, colonial hotels suitable for corporate events. But we have not systematically developed and marketed these products to high-yield Indian segments.
For the first time in 2025, Sri Lanka conducted multi-city roadshows across India to promote wedding tourism. This is welcome—but it is 25 years late. The Maldives and Mauritius have been curating Indian wedding and MICE tourism for decades, building specialised infrastructure, training staff, and integrating these products into marketing.
We are entering a mature market with no track record, no specialised infrastructure, and no price positioning that signals premium quality.
4. Operational Challenges and Quality Perceptions
Indian tourists, particularly budget segments, present operational challenges:
* Shorter stays mean higher turnover, more check-ins, more logistical overhead per dollar of revenue
* Price sensitivity leads to aggressive bargaining, complaints over perceived overcharging
* Large groups (families, wedding parties) require specialised handling
None of these are insurmountable, but they require investment in training, systems, and service design. Sri Lanka has not made these investments systematically. The result: operators report higher operational costs per Indian guest while generating lower revenue, a toxic margin squeeze.
Additionally, Sri Lanka’s positioning as a “budget-friendly” destination reinforces price expectations. Indians comparing Sri Lanka to Thailand or Malaysia see Sri Lanka as cheaper, not better. We compete on price, not value, a race to the bottom.
The Strategic Error: Mistaking Market Size for Market Fit
India’s outbound tourism market is massive, 30 million+ and growing. But scale is not the same as fit.
Market size ≠ market value: The UAE attracts 7.5 million Indians, but as a high-yield segment (business, luxury shopping, upscale hospitality). Saudi Arabia attracts 3.3 million—but for religious pilgrimage with high per-capita spending and long stays.
Thailand attracts 1.8 million Indians as part of a diversified 35-million-tourist base. Indians represent 5% of Thailand’s mix. Sri Lanka has made Indians 22.5% of our mix, 4.5 times Thailand’s concentration, while generating a fraction of Thailand’s revenue.
This reveals the error. We have prioritised volume from a market segment without ensuring the segment aligns with our value proposition.
These needs are misaligned. Indians seek budget value; Sri Lanka needs yield. Indians want short trips; Sri Lanka needs extended stays. Indians are price-sensitive; Sri Lanka needs premium segments to fund infrastructure.
We have attracted a market that does not match our strategic needs—and then celebrated the mismatch as success.
The Way Forward: From Dependency to Diversification
Fixing the Indian market trap requires three shifts: curation, diversification, and premium positioning.
First
, segment the Indian market and target high-value niches explicitly:
* Wedding tourism: Develop specialised wedding venues, train planners, create integrated packages ($50k+ per event)
* Wellness tourism: Position Sri Lanka as authentic Ayurveda destination for high-net-worth health seekers
* MICE tourism: Target Indian corporate incentive travel and conferences
* Spiritual/religious tourism: Leverage Buddhist and Hindu heritage sites with premium positioning
Market these high-value niches aggressively. Let budget segments self-select out through pricing signals.
Second
, rebalance market mix toward high-yield segments:
* Increase marketing spend on Western Europe, North America, and East Asian premium segments
* Develop products (luxury eco-lodges, boutique heritage hotels, adventure tourism) that appeal to high-yield travelers
* Use visa policy strategically, maintain visa-free for premium markets, consider tiered visa fees or curated visa schemes for volume markets
Third
, stop benchmarking success by Indian arrival volumes. Track:
* Revenue per Indian visitor
* Indian market share of total revenue (not arrivals)
* Yield gap: Indian revenue vs. other major markets
If Indians are 22.5% of arrivals but only 15% of revenue, we have a problem. If the gap widens, we are deepening dependency on a low-yield segment.
Fourth
, invest in Indian market quality rather than quantity:
* Train staff on Indian high-end expectations (luxury service standards, dietary needs)
* Develop bilingual guides and materials (Hindi, Tamil)
* Build partnerships with premium Indian travel agents, not budget consolidators
We should aim to attract 300,000 Indians generating $1,500 per trip (through wedding, wellness, MICE targeting), not 700,000 generating $600 per trip. The former produces $450 million; the latter produces $420 million, while requiring more than twice the operational overhead and infrastructure load.
Fifth
, accept the hard truth: India cannot and should not be 30-40% of our market mix. The structural yield constraints make that model non-viable. Cap Indian arrivals at 15-20% of total mix and aggressively diversify into higher-yield markets.
This will require political courage, saying “no” to easy volume in favour of harder-won value. But that is what strategy means: choosing what not to do.
The Dependency Trap

Every market concentration creates path dependency. The more we optimize for Indian tourists, visa schemes, marketing, infrastructure, pricing, the harder it becomes to attract high-yield markets that expect different value propositions.
Hotels that compete on price for Indian segments cannot simultaneously position as luxury for European segments. Destinations known for “affordability” struggle to pivot to premium. Guides trained for high-turnover, short-stay groups do not develop the deep knowledge required for extended cultural tours.
We are locking in a low-yield equilibrium. Each incremental Indian arrival strengthens the positioning as a “budget-friendly” destination, which repels high-yield segments, which forces further volume-chasing in price-sensitive markets. The cycle reinforces itself.
Breaking the cycle requires accepting short-term pain—lower arrival numbers—for long-term gain—higher revenue, stronger positioning, sustainable margins.
The Hard Question
Is Sri Lanka willing to attract two million tourists generating $5 billion, or three million tourists generating $4 billion?
The current trajectory is toward the latter, more arrivals, less revenue, thinner margins, greater fragility. We are optimizing for metrics that impress press releases but erode economic contribution.
The Indian market is not the problem. The problem is building tourism recovery primarily on a low-yield segment without strategies to either transform that segment to high-yield or balance it with high-yield markets.
We are building on sand. The foundation will not hold.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)
Features
Digital transformation in the Global South
Understanding Sri Lanka through the India AI Impact Summit 2026
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly moved from being a specialised technological field into a major social force that shapes economies, cultures, governance, and everyday human life. The India AI Impact Summit 2026, held in New Delhi, symbolised a significant moment for the Global South, especially South Asia, because it demonstrated that artificial intelligence is no longer limited to advanced Western economies but can also become a development tool for emerging societies. The summit gathered governments, researchers, technology companies, and international organisations to discuss how AI can support social welfare, public services, and economic growth. Its central message was that artificial intelligence should be human centred and socially useful. Instead of focusing only on powerful computing systems, the summit emphasised affordable technologies, open collaboration, and ethical responsibility so that ordinary citizens can benefit from digital transformation. For South Asia, where large populations live in rural areas and resources are unevenly distributed, this idea is particularly important.
People friendly AI
One of the most important concepts promoted at the summit was the idea of “people friendly AI.” This means that artificial intelligence should be accessible, understandable, and helpful in daily activities. In South Asia, language diversity and economic inequality often prevent people from using advanced technology. Therefore, systems designed for local languages, and smartphones, play a crucial role. When a farmer can speak to a digital assistant in Sinhala, Tamil, or Hindi and receive advice about weather patterns or crop diseases, technology becomes practical rather than distant. Similarly, voice based interfaces allow elderly people and individuals with limited literacy to use digital services. Affordable mobile based AI tools reduce the digital divide between urban and rural populations. As a result, artificial intelligence stops being an elite instrument and becomes a social assistant that supports ordinary life.
Transformation in education sector
The influence of this transformation is visible in education. AI based learning platforms can analyse student performance and provide personalised lessons. Instead of all students following the same pace, weaker learners receive additional practice while advanced learners explore deeper material. Teachers are able to focus on mentoring and explanation rather than repetitive instruction. In many South Asian societies, including Sri Lanka, education has long depended on memorisation and private tuition classes. AI tutoring systems could reduce educational inequality by giving rural students access to learning resources, similar to those available in cities. A student who struggles with mathematics, for example, can practice step by step exercises automatically generated according to individual mistakes. This reduces pressure, improves confidence, and gradually changes the educational culture from rote learning toward understanding and problem solving.
Healthcare is another area where AI is becoming people friendly. Many rural communities face shortages of doctors and medical facilities. AI-assisted diagnostic tools can analyse symptoms, or medical images, and provide early warnings about diseases. Patients can receive preliminary advice through mobile applications, which helps them decide whether hospital visits are necessary. This reduces overcrowding in hospitals and saves travel costs. Public health authorities can also analyse large datasets to monitor disease outbreaks and allocate resources efficiently. In this way, artificial intelligence supports not only individual patients but also the entire health system.
Agriculture, which remains a primary livelihood for millions in South Asia, is also undergoing transformation. Farmers traditionally rely on seasonal experience, but climate change has made weather patterns unpredictable. AI systems that analyse rainfall data, soil conditions, and satellite images can predict crop performance and recommend irrigation schedules. Early detection of plant diseases prevents large-scale crop losses. For a small farmer, accurate information can mean the difference between profit and debt. Thus, AI directly influences economic stability at the household level.
Employment and communication reshaped
Artificial intelligence is also reshaping employment and communication. Routine clerical and repetitive tasks are increasingly automated, while demand grows for digital skills, such as data management, programming, and online services. Many young people in South Asia are beginning to participate in remote work, freelancing, and digital entrepreneurship. AI translation tools allow communication across languages, enabling businesses to reach international customers. Knowledge becomes more accessible because information can be summarised, translated, and explained instantly. This leads to a broader sociological shift: authority moves from tradition and hierarchy toward information and analytical reasoning. Individuals rely more on data when making decisions about education, finance, and career planning.
Impact on Sri Lanka
The impact on Sri Lanka is especially significant because the country shares many social and economic conditions with India and often adopts regional technological innovations. Sri Lanka has already begun integrating artificial intelligence into education, agriculture, and public administration. In schools and universities, AI learning tools may reduce the heavy dependence on private tuition and help students in rural districts receive equal academic support. In agriculture, predictive analytics can help farmers manage climate variability, improving productivity and food security. In public administration, digital systems can speed up document processing, licensing, and public service delivery. Smart transportation systems may reduce congestion in urban areas, saving time and fuel.
Economic opportunities are also expanding. Sri Lanka’s service based economy and IT outsourcing sector can benefit from increased global demand for digital skills. AI-assisted software development, data annotation, and online service platforms can create new employment pathways, especially for educated youth. Small and medium entrepreneurs can use AI tools to design products, manage finances, and market services internationally at low cost. In tourism, personalised digital assistants and recommendation systems can improve visitor experiences and help small businesses connect with travellers directly.
Digital inequality
However, the integration of artificial intelligence also raises serious concerns. Digital inequality may widen if only educated urban populations gain access to technological skills. Some routine jobs may disappear, requiring workers to retrain. There are also risks of misinformation, surveillance, and misuse of personal data. Ethical regulation and transparency are, therefore, essential. Governments must develop policies that protect privacy, ensure accountability, and encourage responsible innovation. Public awareness and digital literacy programmes are necessary so that citizens understand both the benefits and limitations of AI systems.
Beyond economics and services, AI is gradually influencing social relationships and cultural patterns. South Asian societies have traditionally relied on hierarchy and personal authority, but data-driven decision making changes this structure. Agricultural planning may depend on predictive models rather than ancestral practice, and educational evaluation may rely on learning analytics instead of examination rankings alone. This does not eliminate human judgment, but it alters its basis. Societies increasingly value analytical thinking, creativity, and adaptability. Educational systems must, therefore, move beyond memorisation toward critical thinking and interdisciplinary learning.
AI contribution to national development
In Sri Lanka, these changes may contribute to national development if implemented carefully. AI-supported financial monitoring can improve transparency and reduce corruption. Smart infrastructure systems can help manage transportation and urban planning. Communication technologies can support interaction among Sinhala, Tamil, and English speakers, promoting social inclusion in a multilingual society. Assistive technologies can improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, enabling broader participation in education and employment. These developments show that artificial intelligence is not merely a technological innovation but a social instrument capable of strengthening equality when guided by ethical policy.
Symbolic shift
Ultimately, the India AI Impact Summit 2026 represents a symbolic shift in the global technological landscape. It indicates that developing nations are beginning to shape the future of artificial intelligence according to their own social needs rather than passively importing technology. For South Asia and Sri Lanka, the challenge is not whether AI will arrive but how it will be used. If education systems prepare citizens, if governments establish responsible regulations, and if access remains inclusive, AI can become a partner in development rather than a source of inequality. The future will likely involve close collaboration between humans and intelligent systems, where machines assist decision making while human values guide outcomes. In this sense, artificial intelligence does not replace human society, but transforms it, offering Sri Lanka an opportunity to build a more knowledge based, efficient, and equitable social order in the decades ahead.
by Milinda Mayadunna
Features
Governance cannot be a postscript to economics
The visit by IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva to Sri Lanka was widely described as a success for the government. She was fulsome in her praise of the country and its developmental potential. The grounds for this success and collaborative spirit go back to the inception of the agreement signed in March 2023 in the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s declaration of international bankruptcy. The IMF came in to fulfil its role as lender of last resort. The government of the day bit the bullet. It imposed unpopular policies on the people, most notably significant tax increases. At a moment when the country had run out of foreign exchange, defaulted on its debt, and faced shortages of fuel, medicine and food, the IMF programme restored a measure of confidence both within the country and internationally.
Since 1965 Sri Lanka has entered into agreements with the IMF on 16 occasions none of which were taken to their full term. The present agreement is the 17th agreement . IMF agreements have traditionally been focused on economic restructuring. Invariably the terms of agreement have been harsh on the people, with priority being given to ensure the debtor country pays its loans back to the IMF. Fiscal consolidation, tax increases, subsidy reductions and structural reforms have been the recurring features. The social and political costs have often been high. Governments have lost popularity and sometimes fallen before programmes were completed. The IMF has learned from experience across the world that macroeconomic reform without social protection can generate backlash, instability and policy reversals.
The experience of countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal in dealing with the IMF during the eurozone crisis demonstrated the political and social costs of austerity, even though those economies later stabilised and returned to growth. The evolution of IMF policies has ensured that there are two special features in the present agreement. The first is that the IMF has included a safety net of social welfare spending to mitigate the impact of the austerity measures on the poorest sections of the population. No country can hope to grow at 7 or 8 percent per annum when a third of its people are struggling to survive. Poverty alleviation measures in the Aswesuma programme, developed with the agreement of the IMF, are key to mitigating the worst impacts of the rising cost of living and limited opportunities for employment.
Governance Included
The second important feature of the IMF agreement is the inclusion of governance criteria to be implemented alongside the economic reforms. It goes to the heart of why Sri Lanka has had to return to the IMF repeatedly. Economic mismanagement did not take place in a vacuum. It was enabled by weak institutions, politicised decision making, non-transparent procurement, and the erosion of checks and balances. In its economic reform process, the IMF has included an assessment of governance related issues to accompany the economic restructuring process. At the top of this list is tackling the problem of corruption by means of publicising contracts, ensuring open solicitation of tenders, and strengthening financial accountability mechanisms.
The IMF also encouraged a civil society diagnostic study and engaged with civil society organisations regularly. The civil society analysis of governance issues which was promoted by Verite Research and facilitated by Transparency International was wider in scope than those identified in the IMF’s own diagnostic. It pointed to systemic weaknesses that go beyond narrow fiscal concerns. The civil society diagnostic study included issues of social justice such as the inequitable impact of targeting EPF and ETF funds of workers for restructuring and the need to repeal abuse prone laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Online Safety Act. When workers see their retirement savings restructured without adequate consultation, confidence in policy making erodes. When laws are perceived to be instruments of arbitrary power, social cohesion weakens.
During a meeting between the IMF Managing Director Georgeiva and civil society members last week, there was discussion on the implementation of those governance measures in which she spoke in a manner that was not alien to the civil society representatives. Significantly, the civil society diagnostic report also referred to the ethnic conflict and the breakdown of interethnic relations that led to three decades of deadly war, causing severe economic losses to the country. This was also discussed at the meeting. Governance is not only about accounting standards and procurement rules. It is about social justice, equality before the law, and political representation. On this issue the government has more to do. Ethnic and religious minorities find themselves inadequately represented in high level government committees. The provincial council system that ensured ethnic and minority representation at the provincial level continues to be in abeyance.
Beyond IMF
The significance of addressing governance issues is not only relevant to the IMF agreement. It is also important in accessing tariff concessions from the European Union. The GSP Plus tariff concession given by the EU enables Sri Lankan exports to be sold at lower prices and win markets in Europe. For an export dependent economy, this is critical. Loss of such concessions would directly affect employment in key sectors such as apparel. The government needs to address longstanding EU concerns about the protection of human rights and labour rights in the country. The EU has, for several years, linked the continuation of GSP Plus to compliance with international conventions. This includes the condition that the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) be brought into line with international standards. The government’s alternative in the form of the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PTSA) is less abusive on paper but is wider in scope and retains the core features of the PTA.
Governance and social justice factors cannot be ignored or downplayed in the pursuit of economic development. If Sri Lanka is to break out of its cycle of crisis and bailout, it must internalise the fact that good governance which promotes social justice and more fairly distributes the costs and fruits of development is the foundation on which durable economic growth is built. Without it, stabilisation will remain fragile, poverty will remain high, and the promise of 7 to 8 percent growth will remain elusive. The implementation of governance reforms will also have a positive effect through the creative mechanism of governance linked bonds, an innovation of the present IMF agreement.
The Sri Lankan think tank Verité Research played an important role in the development of governance linked bonds. They reduce the rate of interest payable by the government on outstanding debt on the basis that better governance leads to a reduction in risk for those who have lent their money to Sri Lanka. This is a direct financial reward for governance reform. The present IMF programme offers an opportunity not only to stabilise the economy but to strengthen the institutions that underpin it. That opportunity needs to be taken. Without it, the country cannot attract investment, expand exports and move towards shared prosperity and to a 7-8 percent growth rate that can lift the country out of its debt trap.
by Jehan Perera
-
Features3 days agoWhy does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
-
Features3 days agoReconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
-
Features3 days agoVictor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
-
Features2 days agoLOVEABLE BUT LETHAL: When four-legged stars remind us of a silent killer
-
Features3 days agoVictor, the Friend of the Foreign Press
-
Latest News5 days agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Latest News4 days agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News5 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction
