Features

New arithmetic of conflict: How the drone revolution is inverting economics of war

Published

3 months ago

2026/03/30

Iranian drone

The contemporary global landscape is currently defined by two distinct but interconnected theaters of conflict that are fundamentally reshaping the future of military engagement, as noted by political analyst Fareed Zakaria. This shifts the advantage toward smaller states, or even non-state actors, who do not need to defeat a superpower in direct confrontation; they only need to sustain a constant level of low-cost harassment. In the Middle East, the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran have moved beyond traditional brinkmanship into a high-stakes confrontation centred on the Strait of Hormuz and regional infrastructure. This direction is characterised by Iran’s sophisticated use of asymmetric ‘precise mass’ to challenge American naval and technological superiority, forcing a re-evaluation of how a superpower maintains deterrence against a revolutionary regime that views its own hardware as expendable. This theatre serves as a primary example of how a medium-sized power can utilise low-cost, high-volume technology to neutralize the traditional advantages of a much wealthier adversary, potentially driving the region toward a dangerous nuclear threshold as conventional red lines are blurred.

Simultaneously, the war between Ukraine and Russia has become the world’s preeminent laboratory for the digital transformation of the battlefield. The direction of this conflict has shifted from a 20th-century war of attrition into a 21st-century war of algorithms, where the most critical ammunition is no longer just artillery shells, but data and software. Ukraine’s rapid adaptation—turning commercial drones into precision interceptors and using AI to process millions of combat images—has created a template for modern survival against a larger industrial power. Together, these two conflicts signal a global transition where the ‘exquisite’ military models of the past are being dismantled by the ‘new arithmetic’ of mass-produced precision. This essay examines how the inversion of war economics in these regions is ensuring that future supremacy will not belong to those with the most expensive platforms, but to those who can master the integration of industrial-scale with near-real-time software intelligence.

Fundamental departure

The ‘New Arithmetic of Conflict’ represents a fundamental departure from the 20th-century military paradigm, shifting the focus from high-cost, high-performance ‘exquisite’ systems to the power of ‘precise mass.’ For the last 50 years, military supremacy—particularly for the United States and its allies—has been defined by technologically superior platforms, such as the F-35 fighter jet or the Tomahawk cruise missile. While these systems are undeniably magnificent in their capabilities, they are also incredibly costly and irreplaceable in the short term. Because they take years to design and manufacture, losing even a handful in active combat is strategically damaging and painful for a modern military. This old model relied on a limited number of high-end assets that were slow to produce and even slower to replace, creating a vulnerability that smaller, more agile adversaries have now begun to exploit.

This traditional economic model is being turned upside down by the rise of cheap, commercial-off-the-shelf technology that achieves results previously reserved for superpower budgets. The emergence of the Shahed-type drone, which costs approximately $35,000, illustrates this shift perfectly. Unlike a $2 million cruise missile, these ‘one-way’ drones are built from common parts and can be launched in massive swarms. This creates a state of ‘precise mass,’ where the sheer volume of incoming, low-cost threats can overwhelm even the most sophisticated and expensive defence systems. The attacker no longer needs a massive industrial base to strike with precision; they only need the ability to scale simple, autonomous hardware.

Perhaps the most radical aspect of this inversion is the ‘cost-exchange ratio’ between attack and defence. In the past, an attacker generally had to spend more to destroy a target than a defender spent to protect it. Today, the arithmetic favours the attacker by an order of magnitude. To intercept a single $35,000 drone, a defender may be forced to fire a Patriot interceptor missile that costs roughly $4 million. This means the defender is spending over 100 times more than the attacker just to maintain the status quo. This economic reality suggests that a wealthier nation can effectively be ‘bankrupted’ or depleted of its ammunition reserves by a much smaller state or even a non-state actor using constant, low-cost harassment.

Primary laboratory

Ukraine has served as the primary laboratory for this new era of warfare, demonstrating that the real value in modern conflict is shifting from hardware to software and data. Ukrainian forces are producing stinging interceptor drones for as little as $2,000, capable of taking down far more expensive hardware. More importantly, they are treating battlefield data as a strategic asset, using millions of annotated images from combat flights to train drone AI. This creates a cycle of rapid wartime adaptation where lessons from the battlefield are turned into mass production in days rather than years. Ultimately, the winner of future conflicts may not be the nation with the finest individual platforms, but the one that can combine a small number of ‘exquisite’ weapons with a vast, intelligent, and cheaply networked mass of autonomous systems.

Building on the distinction between the ‘exquisite’ and the ‘expendable,’ the shift in military doctrine reflects a move away from the post-Cold War reliance on a small number of ultra-sophisticated assets toward a more resilient, high-volume architecture. For decades, Western military superiority was predicated on having the most advanced technology in the sky or on the sea, but the sheer cost and complexity of these systems have created a ‘fragility of excellence.’ When a single stealth fighter costs over $100 million, its loss is not merely a tactical setback but a national news event and a significant blow to the overall fleet’s readiness. This creates a psychological and strategic ‘risk aversion,’ where commanders may hesitate to deploy their most capable assets in high-threat environments for fear of losing an irreplaceable piece of national infrastructure.

Furthermore, the industrial reality of ‘exquisite’ systems is that they are built on highly specialised, low-volume production lines. In a high-intensity conflict, the rate of attrition—the speed at which equipment is destroyed—can quickly outpace the capacity of a modern industrial base to replace it. If a nation can only produce a few dozen advanced interceptors a year but loses hundreds of drones or missiles in a single week of combat, the mathematical deficit becomes insurmountable. This bottleneck has forced a re-evaluation of what constitutes a ‘good’ platform; the priority is shifting toward systems that are ‘good enough’ to be effective but cheap enough to be lost without compromising the mission or the budget.

In contrast to these legacy systems, the ‘expendable’ model treats hardware as a consumable resource, much like ammunition. By utilising modular designs and civilian-grade components, nations can mass-produce thousands of autonomous units that are inherently ‘attrition-tolerant.’ This does not mean the end of high-end technology, but rather its repositioning. Instead of a single $100 million jet trying to do everything, the future likely involves a ‘high-low’ mix where a few exquisite platforms act as command-and-control hubs, orchestrating vast swarms of cheap, expendable drones. This evolution ensures that even if the enemy successfully targets dozens of units, the collective network remains functional, shifting the strategic advantage back to the side that can sustain the fight through industrial scale and digital adaptability.

Concept of ‘precise mass’

The concept of ‘precise mass’ represents a strategic pivot where quantity possesses a quality of its own, enabled by the democratization of high-end technology. Historically, precision was a luxury available only to the world’s most advanced militaries, requiring specialised Guidance Systems and satellite constellations. Today, the ‘New Arithmetic’ flips this model by integrating commercial-off-the-shelf components—such as GPS chips found in smartphones and engines from hobbyist aircraft—into lethal, autonomous platforms.

This shift allows smaller states and non-state actors to achieve tactical objectives that once required a superpower’s budget, effectively levelling the playing field through the clever application of low-cost innovation.

The ‘Shahed Model’ serves as the primary case study for this transformation. By producing ‘one-way’ suicide drones for approximately $35,000 each, Iran has created a weapon that is essentially a flying piece of ammunition.

Because these drones are built from common, globally available parts, they are insulated from many traditional supply chain disruptions and can be manufactured at an industrial scale that far outpaces sophisticated cruise missiles. This approach prioritises ‘good enough’ technology—systems that are sufficiently accurate to hit a target but inexpensive enough to be deployed in staggering numbers without financial second-guessing.

The true power of this model is realised through ‘swarm tactics,’ which weaponise the mathematical limitations of modern air defences. When a country launches dozens or even hundreds of these low-cost drones simultaneously, it forces the defender into a ‘saturation’ crisis. Even the most advanced missile defence systems have a limited number of interceptors and can only track a finite number of targets at once. By flooding the airspace with cheap decoys and suicide drones, an attacker can ensure that while many units are shot down, a sufficient percentage will inevitably leak through to strike their targets. This creates a state of ‘precise mass,’ where volume becomes the ultimate delivery mechanism for precision, rendering traditional, high-cost defence umbrellas increasingly obsolete.

This evolution signifies that the era of the ‘silver bullet’—the single, perfect weapon—is giving way to the era of the ‘steel rain.’ In this new environment, the strategic advantage shifts to the side that can manage the highest rate of ‘precise attrition.’ Success is no longer measured by the technical sophistication of a single strike, but by the ability to sustain a continuous, overwhelming flow of autonomous threats that exhaust the enemy’s resources, patience, and defensive capacity.

‘Bankruptcy of the Defence’

The ‘Bankruptcy of the Defence’ represents a critical failure in the modern military-industrial complex’s ability to counter asymmetric threats. In the 20th century, the financial burden of warfare typically fell on the aggressor, who had to invest in expensive bombers or long-range missiles to penetrate a nation’s borders. Today, that economic gravity has shifted entirely. The most radical part of this inversion is the ‘cost-exchange ratio,’ a mathematical reality that turns defensive success into a financial liability. When a defender successfully intercepts a threat, they are often winning the tactical battle while simultaneously losing the economic war.

This disparity is most visible in what can be called the ‘$4 Million Solution.’ In modern conflict zones, we regularly see sophisticated air defence batteries—designed to intercept high-altitude ballistic missiles—being forced to engage low-speed, ‘suicide’ drones. Using a $4 million Patriot interceptor to neutralise a $35,000 Shahed-type drone is an unsustainable strategy. Even if the defence achieves a 100% intercept rate, the attacker is essentially ‘trading up’ in value at a staggering scale. The defender is forced to expend a finite, high-cost resource to eliminate a nearly infinite, low-cost nuisance, creating a logistical bottleneck where the supply of interceptors can never meet the demand of the swarm.

This ‘Losing Game’ fundamentally alters the grand strategy of global powers. Mathematically, when a defender is spending over 100 times more than the attacker per engagement, they are participating in a process of rapid financial and material depletion. As Fareed Zakaria notes, this ‘new arithmetic’ shifts the advantage toward smaller states, insurgent groups, or even criminal organisations. These actors do not need to defeat a superpower’s navy or air force in a direct confrontation; they only need to sustain a constant level of low-cost harassment. Over time, the cost of maintaining a ‘perfect’ defense becomes so high that it can effectively bankrupt a wealthier opponent or force them to withdraw from a region simply because the price of protection has become greater than the value of the presence.

Interceptors alone won’t do

Ultimately, this economic inversion suggests that the future of defence cannot rely on ‘exquisite’ interceptors alone. The current model is built on a scarcity of precision, but in an era where precision is mass-produced, the defense must find a way to make interception as cheap as the intrusion. Until a nation can field directed-energy weapons or low-cost kinetic interceptors that match the $35,000 price point of the threat, they remain trapped in a defensive paradigm that is both mathematically flawed and strategically exhausting.

The final piece of this military evolution is the emergence of Ukraine as the ‘Great Laboratory’ of modern warfare, where necessity has birthed a model of adaptation that operates at wartime speed. This environment has transformed the country from a passive recipient of aid into a sovereign architect of a new kind of combat. Central to this transformation is the development of the ‘STING’ interceptor drone. Produced by groups like Wild Hornets for approximately $2,000, these drones can reach speeds of 280 km/h—fast enough to chase down and destroy the lumbering Shahed drones that have plagued Ukrainian infrastructure. By mid-2025, these low-cost predators had already downed over 3,000 enemy targets, proving that a $2,000 solution could reliably neutralize a threat costing tens of thousands, further tilting the economic scales in favor of the agile defender.

However, the most significant output of this laboratory is not the hardware itself, but the data it generates. Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov has noted that Ukraine now possesses a unique array of battlefield data that is unmatched anywhere in the world, including millions of annotated images gathered during tens of thousands of combat flights. In a historic move, Ukraine has begun opening access to this ‘digital ammunition’ through a dedicated AI platform. This allows international partners and defense firms to train their algorithms on real-world combat footage—spanning everything from electronic warfare interference to the movements of camouflaged ‘turtle tanks’—bridging the ‘sim-to-real’ gap that often causes sophisticated Western drones to fail in unpredictable, messy environments.

‘Software-defined’ battlefield

This data-centric approach has led to a ‘software-defined’ battlefield where the loop between a lesson learned, and a technical update is measured in days. Ukraine is now moving toward a procurement model where AI-driven analytics, rather than manual requests, determine which systems are purchased based on their real-world effectiveness. By treating every drone sortie as a data point in a broader matrix, the Ukrainian military is effectively closing the loop on procurement and employment, ensuring that only the most effective, attrition-tolerant technologies reach the front. This institutionalisation of failure analysis into the next generation of software means that the ‘Made in Ukraine’ badge has become a global gold standard for battle-proven, autonomous technology.

Ultimately, the implications of this laboratory stretch far beyond the current conflict. As human judgment gradually gives way to computer algorithms for target detection and navigation, the war’s most valuable legacy may be the creation of the world’s first ‘algorithmic’ military. The transition from industrial mass to algorithmic precision suggests that the countries that prevail in the future will not be those with the largest stockpiles of stagnant hardware, but those that can own and manage the ‘data polygons’ necessary to refine their autonomous systems in near-real time. Ukraine is no longer just fighting a war; it is hosting the debut of a future where data is the ultimate force multiplier.

The inversion of war economics signifies a fundamental shift where industrial capacity and software integration have eclipsed the traditional pursuit of ‘technological exquisiteness’ as the primary metrics of military power. For decades, the measure of a superpower was its ability to field a small number of nearly invulnerable, multi-million-dollar platforms. However, in the modern landscape, these ‘exquisite’ systems are increasingly vulnerable to ‘precise mass’—vast swarms of low-cost, autonomous drones that can be produced at a rate of thousands per day. This transition means that the ‘physical platform’ is becoming a commodity, while the true competitive advantage lies in the ‘compute foundation’ and ‘software-defined’ capabilities that allow these systems to be networked and updated in real-time. Consequently, the victor in future conflicts will not necessarily be the nation with the most expensive fighter jet, but the one that can maintain a resilient, high-volume industrial base capable of sustaining an ‘attrition-tolerant’ force that evolves faster than an adversary can target it.

Double-edged sword for smaller nations

For smaller nations like Sri Lanka, the arrival of this new military era offers a double-edged sword of strategic opportunity and profound vulnerability. Traditionally, small states were sidelined in the global arms race due to the prohibitive costs of ‘exquisite’ platforms like advanced fighter jets or missile destroyers, which often consumed unsustainable portions of a national budget. However, the shift toward ‘precise mass’ means that countries with limited resources can now develop significant deterrent capabilities through the localised production of low-cost, high-impact autonomous systems. By investing in software-defined defences and domestic drone manufacturing, a nation like Sri Lanka can achieve a level of coastal and territorial security that previously required a superpower’s investment. Not only that, but Sri Lanka can also develop into an export market for the new precise technology which has a wide demand from warring countries. Conversely, the democratisation of these ‘one-way’ technologies also means that non-state actors or regional adversaries can more easily threaten national infrastructure, forcing small nations to prioritise digital resilience and rapid technological adaptation over the maintenance of ageing, high-cost legacy hardware.

by Prof. M. W. Amarasiri de Silva

All News Advertisement

Features

New mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – I

Published

6 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill was passed by the Parliament on Thursday, June 11, 2026. Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, introduced the Bill, and explained its provisions and value for Sri Lanka and global developments in the use of mediation. Encouragingly, it was passed unanimously.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to provide legislative support for the use of mediation is timely and most welcome. Given that the backlog of cases pending before courts is over a staggering 1.1 million, it is clear that Sri Lanka is yet another country that remains challenged to find responses to make dispute resolution more efficient. The impact of laws delays is serious and damaging not only to the disputants personally, but also for businesses and the economic development of the country. The delays in concluding cases impacts the economy adversely, both directly and indirectly, but are often seen only as an access to Justice concern. This is unfortunate. In many jurisdictions across the globe, alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), such as mediation, have been introduced to alleviate laws delays. While Sri Lanka enacted legislation (1988) to provide for mediation in respect of minor community disputes of a low monetary threshold, the enactment of the new law heralds a commitment to provide for the recognition of a disciplined regime for its use for higher value civil and commercial disputes.

The new law provides for the recognition of mediation as a dispute resolution option that can be voluntarily selected by parties, and for a governance regime to ensure that mediations are conducted in compliance with certain standards which are globally accepted. It provides statutory recognition to the principle that a mediated settlement agreement that has been signed by the disputants, is valid in law. It does not provide for any management control by government or establish entities. In addition to the voluntary reference by parties, a court can also refer a dispute in an action before it, to mediation, at its discretion, after considering all circumstances and if considered appropriate. The voluntary nature of the process is not affected because, while the court can refer the dispute to mediation and the parties must then engage in the mediation, there is no compulsion for the parties to settle against their will.

The law sets out the obligations of Mediators, disputants and the Service Provider. Certain categories of disputes cannot be referred to mediation. These are disputes the settlement of which requires the inclusion of terms that can be given effect to, only on a decree of court, such as the termination of a marriage or a declaration of nullity of marriage or the adoption of a child or the partition of land to obtain rights in rem. A schedule sets out eleven (11) categories of actions that cannot be settled by mediation. However, matters relevant to such disputes may be mediated for the purpose of submitting terms of settlement to court for consideration of incorporation in a judgement, decree or order in compliance with applicable law.

The new law also provides that in a mediation, certain key principles of the process must be complied with. These include the confidentiality and the without prejudice rule in respect of matters discussed at the mediation; the rule that Mediators must be neutral and impartial; the party centric nature of the process that provides primacy to the wishes of the disputants including that it is they that determine the outcome and that a settlement is reached only if all disputants agree to the terms; the noncoercive role of the mediator whose duty is to facilitate and manage the process using mediation specific skills and techniques, but is debarred from imposing a decision. Although a settlement agreement is valid in law, provision is included to obtain a decree of court, based on the terms of the settlement. A mediated settlement agreement can be set aside on an application made to court, on specific limited grounds which are provided for, including that it is offensive to the public policy of the country. If the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, a certificate of non-settlement is issued. The provisions of the law are based on international best practices and principles articulated in the 1988 UN Mediation Convention (the Singapore Convention) and the UNCITRAL model law.

The popularity of mediation has grown for its value in being time efficient, cost effective and party centric. Parties have control over the outcome and have the space to discuss their concerns, fears and interests and need never agree to settle unless fully satisfied that settlement terms address their interests. Disputants are free to walk out of a mediation process at any time, if dissatisfied with the progress. The discussions are confidential and a valuable feature is that the process offers an opportunity to reduce acrimony which is prevalent in most disputes, and to restore fractured relationships which is very important in family and business related disputes. This benefit and the prospects for governments to reduce the cost of the administration of justice, by using mediation, is articulated in the preamble to the 2018 UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) which states that the use of mediation results in significant benefits.

Pursuant to the interest generated within the country regarding the value of using Mediation for commercial dispute resolution, and heralding what we like to see as the initial steps of a Mediation boom in the country, several positive advancements have taken place –

* Parties have opted to include mediation in the dispute resolution clause in contracts;

* Given that mediating disputes requires very specialised techniques and skills, many professionals, including predominantly Lawyers, have engaged in training programmes offered by international training bodies that offer accreditation;

* Trained Mediators are engaged in an effort to form themselves as a professional Organisation;

* Mediation Advocacy training programmes have been held to train Lawyers on their niche role in the mediation process. That role is distinctly different to that of a court Lawyer who’s obligations are centred on an adversarial approach where the dispute is adjudicated in terms of the law alone. Hence lawyers need training to be useful within a non-adversarial process which is party centric and has a focus on reaching a settlement, based on the interests of disputants.

* Sri Lanka enacted the Recognition and Enforcement of International Mediated Settlement Agreements Act No. 5 of 2024 (the UN Mediation Convention Act) and ratified the Convention becoming the 14th country to do so. Sri Lanka will be seen as an investor friendly country in respect of dispute resolution where mediation is used, since it offers an enforcement regime which is recognised universally.

* The landmark determination of the Supreme Court (SC SD 22 of 2025) in the challenge by the Bar Association to the constitutionality of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill, found that none of the provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional and gave a judicial sign off to statutory provisions that seek to ensure that mediation services are provided in this country, in a disciplined manner in compliance with universally accepted standards.

* Perhaps, inspired by the statutory obligation imposed on judges to attempt pretrial settlement of disputes, in terms of the Small Claims Court Act and the Small Claims Court Procedure Act (both of 2022) and the Civil Procedure Code provisions on Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Orders, 125 District Judges were recently trained (with support from the ADB) in Mediation. The training provided a dual benefit – it provided training in skills that are required to settle disputes and equally importantly, provided a comprehensive understanding of how mediation will function when judges themselves refer disputes for settlement by private mediators.

* Trained Mediators are already conducting mediations with success.

* A not-for-profit guarantee company, the International ADR Centre – www.iadrc.lk ) was established in 2018 as a joint venture of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law & Practice (ICLP) to promote ADR and is actively engaged in promoting mediation through training, disseminating information and creating awareness among stakeholders, including the business sector. In addition to the International ADR Centre, “Udecide” is a project that promotes training of mediators and other activities that enrich the mediation culture.

* Commercial Mediation has been included in the Masters level programme at the Colombo University;

* The Sri Lanka Law College offers a component on Mediation in the Post Attorney Diploma programme, which commenced recently.

The private sector was actively engaged in the drafting of the Mediation Bill under the leadership of the International ADR Centre, which held many stakeholder consultations to obtain feedback from those that were conversant with the subject. The Centre had previously assisted the government to draft the UN Mediation Convention Act (Act No. 5 of 2024).

Several international Organisations that previously provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration, have provided for institutional rules to provide mediation services. These include WIPO and the ICC. Specifically, in relation to Investor State dispute resolution (ISDR), the International Bar Association (IBA) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2012 and ICSID (of the World Bank group) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2022. UNCITRAL, which is currently working on reforming ISDR, promotes mediation, observing that the use of mediation could reduce the costs of ISDS and also preserve relationships between the investor and the State. UNCITRAL has formulated provisions on and Guidelines for, Mediation for investor state dispute resolution.

(To be continued)

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney-at-Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Centre.

Features

A Testament to the Sri Lankan family

Published

6 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The passing of Dr. Devanesan Nesiah a few days ago brought back memories that spanned more than four decades. Devanesan signed the witness register at my marriage in 2002. It was a year of hope. The Ceasefire Agreement between the government and the LTTE had brought a respite from a war that had devastated the country for nearly two decades. The possibility of peace seemed real. It was fitting that Devanesan should be present on that occasion because his entire life was dedicated to building bridges across divides and seeking rational and humane solutions to conflict. He was a friend, mentor, and guide whose life embodied values that Sri Lanka, indeed the world, needs today.

In reflecting on Dr. Nesiah’s life, we need to be reminded that the forces that unite us as a people in Sri Lanka are stronger than those that divide us, and that the bonds of human affection can transcend even the deepest divisions of ethnicity, history and politics. I first met him in 1984. I had just had my very first newspaper article published in the Jaffna-based Saturday Review. The editor was Gamini Navaratne, a Sinhalese. This was a reminder that even during the darkest period of ethnic conflict, the bonds between communities remained strong. The article I had written was based on my encounters with the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983.

At that time, Dr Nesiah was the Government Agent of Jaffna. Tens of thousands of Tamil people who had fled violence in the south had been transported to the north by a government that had failed to protect them. He came up to me at an event, introduced himself, and told me that he liked what I had written. He also said that he would soon be leaving for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and that we could meet there. Over the next three years, Devanesan and his wife Anita adopted me into their family. I used to visit them two or three times a week, not only to be given meals by Anita but to discuss matters with Devanesan. These included the academic papers and newspaper articles that were written. Later, Anita earned her PhD in religion and served on the boards of many civic organisations, including the National Peace Council.

Practical Solution

In 1992, we had both returned to work in Sri Lanka when Devanesan invited me to accompany him to Jaffna to celebrate the eightieth birthday of his father, K Nesiah, the distinguished educationist affectionately known as Professor Nesiah. The older Nesiah had been a leading member of the Jaffna Youth Congress. This remarkable movement championed complete independence from British rule, national unity, and the eradication of social inequalities based on caste and communal identity.

At a time when many feared that independence would lead to majoritarian domination, the leaders of the Youth Congress chose instead to place their faith in a shared Sri Lankan future. They believed that people from different communities could build a common nation while preserving their distinctive identities. So did Devanesan. This vision remains relevant today. It needs to be actualized.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is not that diversity exists. Diversity exists in every society. The tragedy is that we often allow diversity to become a source of fear, though we share many of the same values of family, hospitality, respect for elders and compassion towards others. During our visit to Jaffna in 1992, we met representatives of the LTTE administration, including Raheem. The discussion turned to the controversial issue of merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Dr Nesiah argued that if the merger could not be achieved due to political opposition, it might be more rational to seek greater powers for provincial councils instead. Raheem disagreed. Devanesan was interested in finding practical ways to achieve justice and coexistence. That was characteristic of him.

Devanesan Nesiah was a student of conflict and strategy. He became a doctoral student of Professor Thomas Schelling, who would later receive the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on conflict and cooperation. Schelling’s insight was that even in the midst of conflict, there are usually common interests that adversaries share. Even adversaries locked in a struggle usually depend on each other for the outcome they each want. The challenge is to identify those common interests and build upon them. Conflict is not simply a contest between enemies. It is also a search for ways to coexist. Together as students and peace practitioners, we applied those theories to the Sri Lankan context to understand what was going on and to share that understanding with the Sri Lankan people.

Rational Empathy

Dr Nesiah spoke his mind, truth to power. He was a man of logic, rationality, and principle. His integrity came at a cost. His public service career experienced many ups and downs because he refused to accommodate irrational or corrupt demands. There were periods when he was sidelined into that administrative limbo known as the “pool” and assigned no substantive responsibilities for refusing to give in to political demands. Like the rest of his larger family, most notably the Hoole family of Jaffna, he would not abandon his principles. In 2018, to protest the action of President Maithripala Sirisena in sacking the then government he returned his Deshamanya Award (Pride of the Nation) national civil honourn which was soon thereafter overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. His commitment was not to personal advancement, but to what he believed was right.

My wife Sumadhu recalls a story he told her. One day, while travelling on official duty, he told her how he had seen a thalagoya, a monitor lizard, trussed up and being taken away for slaughter. The sight of the creature’s suffering affected him deeply. He said he saw tears in its eyes and described the moment of awakening. From that day onwards, he gave up eating meat.

The story brings to mind the biblical story of the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus and the Buddhist exhortation, “May all living beings be well and happy.” But the deeper significance lies not in religious comparison. It lies in the awakening of empathy.

That was the essence of Dr Devanesan Nesiah’s worldview. The prejudices that society often imposes through ethnicity, religion, caste, or gender had little hold on him. He saw them as human constructs that often served to privilege some while excluding others. Such were his values that made him an extraordinary human being. Dr. Nesiah lived according to that understanding. He showed that integrity can survive amidst conflict. He reminded us that reason and compassion are not opposites but partners, that what unites us as Sri Lankans inhabiting our common island home has always been greater than what divides us, and we need to build our institutions accordingly.

I am proud that he was my friend. I am grateful that he was my mentor.

by Jehan Perera

Features

City of Dreams …Heartbeat of Colombo

Published

6 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

Enroute

If Colombo’s nightlife had a pulse, you’d find it 23 floors up, at Gatz, City of Dreams, Cinnamon Life.

The entertainment lounge has shed its old skin and stepped out supper-club style — think dim lights, clinking glasses, and live music that doesn’t ask you to choose between dinner and a show. You get both.

What’s more, at the new look Gatz the music never stops and it’s all happening seven nights a week … with live entertainment, and this is the scene, beat by beat:

Monday and Tuesday: Top Hats with Daniella/Naomi, from 7.00 pm onwards.

Sohan, Kamal Munasinghe (GM, Cinnamon Life) and Imran of
Funtime Entertainments

One of Colombo’s most sought-after bands is now a Monday-Tuesday ritual.

With a super repertoire, Top Hats can swing from lounge jazz to dancefloor fire. Big venues love them. Now Gatz gets to claim them.

Wednesday: Enroute with Gananath & Debbie – from 7.00 pm onwards.

Want New York at sunset? This is it. Gananath & Debbie transport you straight to the heady days of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Ray Charles …old-school cool, live and unfiltered.

Thursday to Sunday: Terry & the Big Spenders – from 8.00 pm onwards.

Terry & The Big Spenders

The crowd favourite. A super big band sound that owns the 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you’ve been waiting for horns, harmonies, and nostalgia with volume, Terry & the Big Spenders deliver it nightly. No wonder they’re a huge hit.

Gatz is now an entertainment lounge, in Supper Club style, with Happy Hour very day, from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm because the night, they say, should start with a toast.

And, from July, weekends at the Gatz go global. Local and foreign guest stars will be around to entertain you. Gatz is certainly booking big.

Wow! That would be another exciting experience for those patronising the most talked about venue in town.

In charge of the new setup is our legendary entertainer/singer Sohan Weerasinghe, along with Imran of Funtime Entertainment.

The twosome, with invaluable assistance from the General Manager, Kamal Munasinghe, and the entire team at Cinnamon Life, have built Gatz into more than a venue. They have turned it into the “Heartbeat of the City.”

So come for happy hour. Stay for Terry’s horns, Sing-along with Enroute and Dance with Top Hats, all on the 23rd floor, and while Colombo sparkles below the bands will take you higher.

Remember, the heartbeat is loudest at Gatz.