Opinion
Nalin de Silva, his world and our worlds
It is hard to think of any Sri Lankan academic who has been vilified the way Nalin Kumar De Silva was. Nalin was not averse to calling out his ideological opponents and not in very polite terms either, but all those epithets essentially boiled down to ‘Pawns of the West,’ nothing more. He was, on the other hand, called racist, chauvinist and warmonger. Some, who obviously were clueless about ‘nation’ would call him ‘nationalist’ as though that was some kind of four-letter word.
There were others who referred to Nalin and his ideological comrade Gunadasa Amarasekera as ‘native intellectuals.’ They probably didn’t understand the word ‘intellect’ and its derivatives. I believe it was Nalin or maybe it was Gunadasa who observed that the term implied ‘international intellectuals.’ Perhaps those who called them ‘native intellectuals’ did so to confer upon themselves the tag ‘international intellectual’ but the very use of the term disqualified them, obviously. Pawns they were and are, Nalin believed.
The more informed, less threatened and less malicious referred to him as one of the two top ideologues of what was known as the ‘Jathika Chinthanaya School’ (the other being Gunadasa). No one has really succeeded in translating ‘Jathika Chinthanaya’ into English. ‘National Ideology’ somehow seems crude and erroneous. Those who subscribed to this school of thought, however, knew. They had a sense.
Nalin passed away in California, USA just a few hours before I started writing this. The final rites will be held from 1 to 5 pm (PST) on Sunday, May 5 at Fremont Blvd, Fremont. It is probably too soon to offer a comprehensive review of his work, as a teacher, political activist and thinker. It has to be mostly anecdotal but maybe that’s all I can do, not having associated with him closely.
Like most people who ‘knew’ Nalin, knowledge came mostly from reading what he has written. ‘Magey Lokaya’ (My world), probably the essay that best captures his theoretical explorations, is probably one of the most influential political treatises of the late 20th century. There were other books which addressed what was dubbed ‘The ethnic conflict’ where Nalin cogently tore apart the creative historiography of Eelamists and their apologists who had many axes to grind with the Sinhalese and/or Buddhists. In addition there were innumerable articles published weekly in the Divaina, Vidusara and later in the Midweek Review of ‘The Island.’ I’ll come to those later.
The first time I met him was when I went to see my friend and teacher Arjuna Parakrama. This was in the early 1990s. We were walking towards the ‘Open Canteen’ of the Colombo University when we ran into Nalin. Apparently the two had agreed to a debate. Arjuna said something about the logistics and added, ‘we must make sure we don’t become pawns of other people.’ Nalin muttered something with a laugh and walked away. Arjuna had heard: ‘he said I am a pawn.’ Arjuna didn’t take it as an insult. I don’t know if the debate did take place, but Arjuna told me years later that Nalin had acknowledged that he, Arjuna, was a good trade unionist. This was when Nalin had been suspended by the university.
My first one-on-one encounter happened in the late nineties. I was a student in the USA at the time and had written to Nalin. I was politically associated with the ‘Janatha Mithuro’ then and felt that Nalin’s ongoing clashes with Champika Ranawaka were unnecessary. I mentioned this. Nalin replied. He was ‘soft’ in the criticism. He merely stated, ‘No one disputes that Champika is very bright, but he should acknowledge the source of his ideas.
’ Champika, after he disassociated himself from the JVP-led student movement, was one of the prominent acolytes of Nalin’s ‘Chinthana Parshadaya.’ Convinced that a political movement and not a forum to discuss ideological/philosophical matters was what was needed, he, along with other young people who had become skeptical about Marxism, launched first the Ratawesi Peramuna and later the Janatha Mithuro. Nalin was one of their strongest critics.
I met him next at the Divaina editorial office. It must have been in 2001. I was working at the Sunday Island but enjoyed spending an hour or two at the Divaina. One day I saw Nalin and after saying hello, asked him if he had come to hand over an article. What follows is the rough English translation of what he told me in Sinhala. ‘No Malinda. You know, it’s a small amount that they pay me, but it is not small for me; even so it is irregular.’ It was the only income he had at the time.
In 2006 in Celigny, Switzerland, at a media opportunity just prior to the commencement of talks between the Government and the LTTE, I casually asked Jehan Perera of the National Peace Council who happened to be there, ‘how many people could you get to Lipton Circus for a protest if you didn’t have funding?’ Jehan, ideologically at odds with me though he was, offered an honest response: ‘probably none.’
That was the difference. The NGOs had bucks. They had, in 2002, a government committed to federalism and a president who was not in disagreement. They had both the private and state media at their disposal. The nationalists had Nalin and a few others.
The 1990s were all about federalism. Those opposed to federalism were called warmongers, racists and chauvinists. Nalin got a lot of that. And yet, after it had led to the ridiculous Ceasefire Agreement signed on February 22, 2002 and the consequent pantomime of ‘peace’ talks, federalism became a joke. The UPFA routed the UNP in April 2004 and Mahinda Rajapaksa pipped Ranil Wickremesinghe at the presidential election the following year, admittedly with some help from the LTTE which called for a boycott, probably costing Ranil the election.
That turn around in the fortunes of the nationalists may have surprised the Anglicized sections of the population, but what they probably never understood is the role played by Nalin, Gunadasa and others for well over two decades countering every lie of the Eelsmists, their apologists and other colonial remnants who can’t get enough of the English and English.
Several years later, in a new political avatar where he spoke of the bodisatva ‘Natha Deyyo,’ inviting much ridicule and invective, paradoxically from those who fervently believe in a creator god, immaculate conception, rising from the dead and so on, Nalin wrote ‘Batahira vidyava saha deviyo (Western science and god).’ I was invited to speak at the launch, as was Prof Carlo Fonseka.
Carlo, as irrepressible as Nalin, opted to focus on a chapter that the author had suggested he avoid. Nalin, responding, completely refuted Carlo. He had said, in Sinhala, ‘I didn’t want to do that to him; I knew I would have to if he chose to focus on that chapter; he did and I had no choice but to take him apart.’
In retrospect one could argue that Nalin should have avoided supporting politicians and political parties, but those moments hardly make a dent in the enormous contributions he has made to the political and ideological discourse in and on post Independence Sri Lanka. At worst, his texts need to be engaged with. Indeed, his detractors cannot but have a conversation with his works.
Nalin, for all his lectures on the chathuskotikaya (in opposition to the dvikotiyaka or the dialectic) was eminently dialectic in his political engagements, possibly a habit acquired during his Trotskyite days which he failed to shed after he felt Marxism was an inadequate and even erroneous doctrine. This is probably why he was often ‘in your fact’ with political and ideological opponents and found it hard to work with and develop a group of like-minded thinkers/activists. Again, this is hardly a serious crime. To me, anyway, he was an exceptional thinker and an influencer unlike any other over the past 40 years.
Nalin was indefatigable. He was all over the newspapers and when social media became fashionable he adapted quickly, writing daily posts using language appropriate to this new media culture. His last post was just a few days ago; in fact he mentioned that he was unwell and will not be writing for a few days. He won’t write again but he’s written so much that it would take years for anyone to go through the full corpus of his writings. He was, in his writing and his engagements, relentless.
May his sojourn through Sansara be brief.
Malinda Seneviratne
by Christopher White Vatican Correspondent
Pope Francis has written a sweeping letter to the U.S. bishops decrying the “major crisis” triggered by President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans and explicitly rejecting Vice President JD Vance’s attempts to use Catholic theology to justify the administration’s immigration crackdown.
“The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defencelessness,” reads the pope’s Feb. 11 letter.
Since taking office on Jan. 20, the Republican president has taken more than 20 executive actions aimed at overhauling the U.S. immigration system, including plans to ratchet up the deportations of undocumented migrants and halt the processing of asylum seekers.
The pope’s letter, published by the Vatican in both English and Spanish, offered his solidarity with U.S. bishops who are engaged in migration advocacy and draws a parallel between Jesus’ own experience as a migrant and the current geopolitical situation.
“Jesus Christ … did not live apart from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own land because of an imminent risk to his life, and from the experience of having to take refuge in a society and a culture foreign to his own,” writes Francis.
While the letter acknowledges the right of every country to enact necessary policies to defend itself and promote public safety, the pope said that all laws must be enacted “in the light of the dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights, not vice versa.”
The pontiff also goes on to clearly reject efforts to characterise the migrants as criminals, a frequent rhetorical device used by Trump administration officials.
“The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality,” the pope writes.
Soon after Trump took office, Vice President JD Vance — a recent convert to Roman Catholicism — attempted to defend the administration’s migration crackdown by appealing to St. Thomas Aquinas’ concept of ordo amoris.
“Just google ‘ordo amoris,’ ” Vance posted on social media on Jan. 30 in response to criticism he received following a Fox News interview.
During that interview, Vance said: “You love your family, and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world.”
While not mentioning Vance directly by name, Francis used his Feb. 11 letter to directly reject that interpretation of Catholic theology.
“The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan,’ that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception,” wrote the pope.
Since his election in 2013, Francis has become one of the world’s most vocal champions. His latest letter, however, marks a rare moment when the pontiff has directly waded into a country’s policy debates.
In the letter, however, he states that this is a “decisive moment in history” that requires reaffirming “not only our faith in a God who is always close, incarnate, migrant and refugee, but also the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person.”
“What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly,” the pope warned.
In a brief post on social media, the U.S. bishops’ conference shared the pope’s letter with its online followers.
“We are grateful for the support, moral encouragement, and prayers of the Holy Father, to the Bishops in affirmation of their work upholding the God-given dignity of the human person,” read the statement.
(The National Catholic Reporter)
For decades, three-wheelers—commonly known as tuk-tuks—have been a vital part of Sri Lanka’s transportation system. They provide an affordable and convenient way for people to get around, especially in areas where public transport is unreliable. However, successive governments have repeatedly discouraged their use without offering a viable alternative. While concerns about traffic congestion, safety, and regulations are valid, cracking down on three-wheelers without a proper replacement is unfair to both commuters and drivers.
For millions of Sri Lankans, three-wheelers are not just a convenience but a necessity. They serve as the primary mode of transport for those who cannot afford a private vehicle and as the only reliable last-mile option when buses and trains are not accessible. Senior citizens, people with disabilities, and those carrying groceries or luggage rely on tuk-tuks for their ease and accessibility. Unlike buses, which often require long walks to and from stops, three-wheelers offer door-to-door service, making them indispensable for those with mobility challenges.
In rural areas, where public transport is scarce, three-wheelers are even more critical. Many villages lack frequent bus services, and trains do not serve short-distance travel needs. Tuk-tuks fill this gap, ensuring people can reach markets, hospitals, and workplaces without difficulty. In urban areas, they provide a quick and affordable alternative to taxis and private vehicles, especially for short trips.
Despite their importance, three-wheelers have increasingly come under government scrutiny. Restrictions on new registrations, negative rhetoric about their role in traffic congestion, and limits on their operation in cities suggest that policymakers view them as a problem rather than a necessity. Authorities often cite traffic congestion, safety concerns, and lack of regulation as reasons for discouraging tuk-tuks. While these issues are valid, banning or restricting them without addressing the underlying transport challenges is not the solution.
The biggest flaw in the government’s approach is the absence of a proper alternative. Sri Lanka’s public transport system remains unreliable, overcrowded, and often inaccessible for many. Buses and trains do not provide efficient coverage across all areas, and ride-hailing services like Uber and PickMe, while convenient, are often too expensive for daily use. Without a suitable replacement, discouraging three-wheelers only makes commuting more difficult for those who rely on them the most.
Beyond the inconvenience to passengers, the economic impact of limiting three-wheelers is significant. Thousands of drivers depend on tuk-tuks for their livelihoods, and with rising fuel prices and economic instability, they are already struggling to make ends meet. Further restrictions will push many into financial hardship, increasing unemployment and poverty. For passengers, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds, losing three-wheelers as an option means higher transport costs and fewer choices.
Instead of discouraging tuk-tuks, the government should focus on improving and regulating them. Many countries have successfully integrated three-wheelers into their transport systems through proper policies. Sri Lanka could do the same by enforcing proper licensing and training for drivers, introducing digital fare meters to prevent disputes, ensuring better vehicle maintenance for safety, and designating tuk-tuk lanes in high-traffic areas to reduce congestion. These measures would make three-wheelers safer and more efficient rather than eliminating them without a backup plan.
The government’s push to restrict three-wheelers without providing a suitable alternative is both unfair and impractical. Tuk-tuks remain the only viable transport option for many Sri Lankans, particularly senior citizens, low-income commuters, and those in rural areas. Instead of treating them as a nuisance, authorities should recognise their importance and focus on making them safer and more efficient. Until a proper substitute is in place, discouraging three-wheelers will only create more problems for the very people who need them the most.
P. Uyangoda
Director-Education (retired)
Nedimala
By an Old Connoisseur
The incumbent rulers keep on reminding the people, ad nauseam, that the current administration is a government for the people by the people. They have claimed the current government was born out of the uprising of the people.
All governments in democratic societies are born out of the will of the people. In such a context, all such governments have to work towards the well-being of the people with undiluted commitment. There is no doubt in the minds of even the most discerning citizens of Sri Lanka that all these promulgations are indeed the most noble of objectives and one would justifiably expect such contentions to even warm the cockles of the hearts of all and sundry.
Yet for all this, we do need to remember and firmly reiterate to our politicians that this principle should be the bedrock on which the political governance of any democracy is based. The people of a country should come first and foremost in all considerations of any legally elected democratic government. True enough, we do know for sure that even despite the very loud vocal grandiloquence of all previous governments, and I repeat all previous governments, they did not go even a little distance to hold the welfare of the people to be sacred, and their deeds and interests were completely at loggerheads with such an honourable foundation as well as essential and admirable attitudes. Without any significant exceptions, all previous political systems over the last 77 years of independence of our much-loved Motherland, have gone on record as institutions that put themselves first in all their considerations.
In point of fact, we also have to agree even unequivocally that this noble task cannot be achieved by the politicians alone. Politicians will have to take steps to stimulate, facilitate and unite all sections of society so that our people will put their collective shoulder to the wheel in a concerted initiative to lift up this country from the mire into which it has been pushed by politicians of various hues. Delving deeper into the depths of this contention, the question arises as to what or who are understood as people. In any society when one talks of people, we should focus on all people; the rich and the poor, the able and the disabled, the educated and the not so well educated, the employed and the unemployed, public-sector workers and the private-sector workers, the farmers as well as the white-collar workers, government enterprises as well as community organisations, and the business enterprises; in fact, the whole lot of Homo sapiens in our country. To improve the well-being of people we need the participation and unstinted cooperation of all these groups in our populace. An abiding sense of patriotism in the psyche of all of our people is definitely the need of the hour.
Politicians lay down the policies and the public sector ensures the implementation of these rules and regulations to improve the wellbeing of people. The public sector, including all politicians of different sorts, are servants of the people and are not deities with unlimited power just to take care of themselves and their political institutions as well as their kith and kin and acolytes. To realise these exalted goals we have to ensure that we have certain universal rules including respect for our people at all times, fair distribution of resources in an equitable manner, kindness, empathy and respect for the freedom of others, preservation and conservation of nature and the environment, adherence to the rule of law, unmitigated compliance with basic human rights and dignity, as well as the development of those very fine humane attributes such as beneficence, non-maleficence and altruism.
If we are to develop by transforming society by the people for the people, we will have to internalise and translate these attributes in our behaviour all the time and in all sectors of the community. Political leadership alone cannot do this honourable task. Society has to unite under these values and other attributes to be articulated and facilitated by the leadership. This is what many other progressive countries have attempted, some of them forging ahead with great success. For this to happen the entire society will have to work together over a long time with respect and minimal adversity. The stakeholders for this endeavour would be all individuals of society, Public Service including the political leadership, Private Sector and their leading figures and Community Organisations including their management. Every member of the population of our wonderful country should be invited to put his or her shoulder to the common wheel in a trek towards prosperity to enable everybody to enjoy an era of opulence.
The most admirable theme for the celebrations of our independence on the 4th of February this year was “Let us join the National Renaissance”. It was a clarion call to enable us to rise up like the proverbial phoenix from the ashes towards a magnificent revival. In addition to all that has been written above, the government and its leadership, for their part, have an abiding duty to take all necessary steps to facilitate the revitalisation of patriotism to urge the populace to contribute to the prospect of national resurgence. Towards that end, the general public has to be happy in this thrice blessed land and they need to live in a country that is safe and affluent. The powers that be need to realise most urgently that unless corruption is completely eliminated, the drug lords effectively neutralised, murderers and other law-breakers swiftly brought to book, various Mafia-type impertinent audacious organised collectives such as Rice Millers, Egg Manipulators, Coconut Wheeler-dealers, and Private Transport Syndicates; all of which hold the public to ransom, are ruthlessly tamed, there is no way in which we can rise and march towards any kind of Nationwide Resurgence. Of course, equally importantly, the farmers who provide sustenance to the entire nation should be looked after like royalty. It is also ever so important that vital and purposeful steps are taken to develop the rural impoverished areas and take steps to alleviate the poverty of the downtrodden. If these things are not attended to, at least for a start, the grandiose but implausible and tenuous rhetoric of that call to rally would just be a ‘pus vedilla’, and could even be a virtual non-starter.
Trump to order English as official US language
Dozens arrested in global hit against AI-generated child abuse
Australia seal semi-finals spot after rain spoils Head’s party
-
Business5 days agoSri Lanka’s 1st Culinary Studio opened by The Hungryislander
-
Sports6 days agoHow Sri Lanka fumbled their Champions Trophy spot
-
News7 days agoSC notices Power Minister and several others over FR petition alleging govt. set to incur loss exceeding Rs 3bn due to irregular tender
-
Features6 days agoThe Murder of a Journalist
-
Sports6 days agoMahinda earn long awaited Tier ‘A’ promotion
-
Features6 days agoExcellent Budget by AKD, NPP Inexperience is the Government’s Enemy
-
News7 days agoMobile number portability to be introduced in June
-
Sports5 days agoAir Force Rugby on the path to its glorious past