I was taken aback by the response of the well-known academic Uswatte-Aratchi (U-A) to my article “Achievements of the Hunduwa”, which appeared in The Island on 15 March. In his piece, titled “Pot calling the kettle black?” (The Island, 23 April) U-A accuses me of belittling Sri Lanka in just the same way President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) did with his reference to Sri Lanka as a hunduwa. Being an academic of repute, U-A’s comments cannot be ignored and before I proceed further to explain, let me state that I am very sorry if what I stated appeared in any way to be derogatory; my intentions were otherwise.

U-A states, “Most sensible people, even uneducated, judge that the volume of a little drop (of whatever) is smaller than that of a hunduwa; so is weight. When the learned doctor emphatically maintains ‘we are not a hunduwa’ but ‘a little drop in the ocean’, is the pot calling the kettle black or worse?” He implies that my ‘insult’ is worse. Whilst conceding that a drop is smaller than a hunduwa, what baffles me is how an academic overlooked the fact that comparisons should be made based on context. Whereas AKD used hunduwa in the parliament to belittle the country, I used the term ‘little drop’ to highlight our achievements, which are disproportionate to our size. In contrast, AKD used hunduwa to trifle with the country.

“Surely, this little drop in the Indian ocean performed well beyond its size to have gained international recognition way back in history,” I said in my article. This cannot in any way be considered derogatory. In fact, what U-A stated in his article about the achievements of countries, either smaller or with populations smaller than ours, only supports my view that there is no correlation between a country’s size and its achievements.

U-A casts doubt on the assertion that Sri Lanka was once the ‘Granary of the East’; he cites instances of drought and famine. There may have been bad periods, as we are at the mercy of nature, but it does not negate the fact that there were periods of plenty too. Our rulers in days of yore did everything possible to feed the populace by building tanks and extensive irrigation systems. In addition to major works, there were networks of small projects, Uva being referred to as ‘Wellassa’; the land of one hundred thousand paddy fields fed by small tanks. What has the present government done to ease farmers’ burden? Absolutely nothing! Whilst farmers are struggling to eke out a living, rice millers are importing super-luxury vehicles and even helicopters!

I agree with U-A that unfortunately the contribution of the ordinary people is not well recorded in history. This is a universal problem, not limited to Sri Lanka. When one watches some of Prof. Raj Somadeva’s programmes, it becomes clear how ordinary people helped complete gigantic projects. Although there are many documentaries on how the pyramids were built, no one seems interested in exploring how Great Stupas in Anuradhapura were built with millions of bricks.

AKD is doing just the opposite of what he preached whilst in Opposition and does not seem to have any sense of shame. His hunduwa reference, possibly, makes him the only President to have demeaned the country.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Recent statements from Washington show how global politics is being increasingly framed along civilisational terms. The U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has referred to the idea of a shared “Western civilisation,” describing the U.S. and Europe as bound by common history, cultural heritage, and institutional traditions. At the same time, U.S. President Donald Trump has amplified comments about countries such as India, China, and Iran in the context of migration and geopolitical competition that reinforce a tendency to interpret global politics in civilisational terms. Taken together, these statements point to a broader shift: global affairs are being interpreted not only through the language of power and interest, but also through civilisational identities.

The appeal of such framing is understandable. It offers a sense of clarity in an era of rapid technological disruption, demographic change, and geopolitical uncertainty. But apparent clarity is not the same as analytical accuracy. Moreover, it is not an entirely new framing either. As early as the 1990s, political scientist Samuel Huntington had argued that global politics would evolve into a “clash of civilisations,” where cultural and religious identities would become the principal fault lines of international relations.

Civilisational explanations can obscure more than they reveal, particularly when they imply that cultural cohesion, rather than institutional adaptability, is the primary source of national strength. A historical record of the modem West suggests otherwise.

A look at history

Much of the West’s post-Cold War dynamism has rested not on homogeneity, but on openness — to talent, ideas, capital, and global competitive pressures. Its advantage has been institutional: the capacity to absorb diversity and convert it into innovation within rules-based systems.

Nowhere is this more evident than in today’s innovation economy. AI, in particular, has become the defining frontier of global competition, shaped by deeply international talent flows and research ecosystems. Companies such as Microsoft, Open Al, and NVIDIA exemplify systems in which breakthroughs depend on globally sourced expertise, cross-border collaboration, and the ability to attract the most capable minds regardless of origin.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored this complementary reality: innovation now operates through globally distributed production systems. Rapid vaccine development and distribution, by firms such as Modema and AstraZeneca, depended on international research networks and global manufacturing ecosystems. In the case of AstraZeneca, large-scale production through partnerships such as that with the Serum Institute of India illustrated how innovation and industrial capacity now operate across borders.

This is not an argument against immigration control. Immigration must be governed effectively, and civic norms must be upheld. But managing diversity is fundamentally different from retreating from it.

In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, openness remains a critical strategic asset. The West’s advantage lies not only in military alliances or economic scale, but in institutional resilience and its capacity to attract, integrate, and retain talent. Civilisational framing, by contrast, risks misdiagnosing this advantage —privileging identity over capability and boundaries over performance. Demographic realities reinforce this point. Many advanced economies face ageing populations. In this context, immigration is not simply a cultural or political issue, but an economic necessity.

Without sustained inflows of sldlled labour and human capital, growth slows, fiscal pressures increase, and innovation ecosystems weaken.

Openness as an advantage

The defining challenges of the 21st century —including AI governance and climate change —further highlight the limits of civilisational thinking. These are problems that cannot be addressed within cultural silos. Against this backdrop, framing global politics in terms of civilisational hierarchy carries risks. It encourages a narrowing of identity at precisely the moment when cooperation and adaptability are essential.

The question, therefore, is not whether identity matters. It dearly does. Societies require shared norms, institutional trust, and continuity. The more important question is whether democracies can manage change without losing confidence in the openness that has sustained their development. The strength of the West has historically rested on its ability to combine stability with adaptation — to absorb new influences while preserving core principles such as the rule of law, individual liberty, and accountable governance.

Therefore, the policy challenge ahead is not to retreat into notions of cultural purity, but to govern openness with clarity and purpose. This requires strengthening integration frameworks and reinforcing institutional trust. It also requires recognising that engagement with other civilisational spaces is not a concession, but a necessity in a globally interconnected world.

In a world of intensifying geopolitical rivalry, it may be tempting to define strength in narrower terms. But doing so risks undertnining one of the West’s most important strategic assets. Openness — disciplined, governed, and anchored in strong institutions — is not a vulnerability. It is a source of sustained advantage.

(Milinda Moragoda –Former Sri Lankan Cabinet Minister, diplomat and the Founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank. The Hindu – 08, May 2026)

By Milinda Moragoda

Contrary to the current government’s election promise to lower the electricity bill by 33%, electricity tariffs have been further increased by 18%, with effect from 11 May, 2026. A cosmetic concession has been given to the consumers with a consumption less than 180 units per month. However, they are already subject to the 10% increase already granted on 01 April, 2026. The subsidy of Rs 15 billion granted by the Treasury to enable this concession is highly questionable; it is a clear case of misleading the public. The subsidy of Rs. 15 billion is not a gift from Heaven, but is from public funds, which could have been used for other sectors which deserve assistance.

This was also the case prior to the IMF insisting that the electricity tariff should be cost-reflective. The then CEB wasted nearly a trillion rupees of treasury funds (read funds belonging to the people) over the past decade by adopting wasteful and ill-conceived generation options and other activities in the name of generating low-cost electricity.
Unfortunately, the IMF did not impose the essential condition that CEB should follow the concept of Least Economic Cost of Generation in selecting the generation mix.
The CEB’s persistent refusal to accept this principle and act thereon has been the main reason for the spate of increases in electricity tariff for the last several years as shown. (See Table 1)

This does not include the increases in April and May

The Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) has sought to lower tariffs in some instances, but it has failed to reverse the trend.

There were vehement protests by all concerned during the public hearing held on 6 May 2026 against any kind of tariff increase, which naturally would have grave negative ramifications on peoples cost of living and all other sectors of the economy. The numbers presented by the National System Operator (NSO), successor to the now defunct CEB were highly criticized as inaccurate and designed to deceive the public and presented only to say support their claim for the tariff increase.

Most critically, the question of the required supply of coal, especially the substandard variety currently being used, was questioned. Given the onset of monsoons, it is doubtful whether even the emergency supplier can deliver 330,000 MT of coal to meet the supply shortfall at higher prices. The original supplier failed to deliver the last five shipments.

As such, it is now very likely that there will be a shortage in the electricity supply in the coming months. In addition, the NSO in its submission has predicted an increase in demand of 118 GWh during the next quarter. What is the plan of NSO to meet this demand? Will it try to meet the shortfall by increased use of oil, resorting to the much-dreaded Emergency Purchases as done previously? If that is the case, there will be another demand for a tariff increase in September 2026 to cover the additional costs.

Hobson’s Choice for PUCSL

However, the writer, taking a pragmatic view that the PUCSL, is faced with the difficult position of ensuring that the NSO is able to function and to maintain the national electricity supply, the breakdown of which is unfathomable, proposed that some increase in tariff in the present instance was inevitable, however, distasteful and unpopular that would be. This is in light of the massive increase in the price of all forms of oil used for the power generation and the loss of generation capacity caused by the coal scam. It is not possible to accept a complete loss of the supply nor prolonged power cuts as happened in 2022. Neither the CEB nor its successor, the NSO, has been proactive in anticipating the current crisis in spite of many years of warnings of the danger of over dependence on imported fossil fuels which Sri Lanka has absolutely no control over where either price or supply is concerned. It is imperative that even at this late stage the NSO reverse this situation by reducing such dependence, as Sri Lanka now enjoys the means of filling that gap using economical and abundantly available indigenous sources of renewable energy such as Solar Wind and Biomass.

Therefore, I proposed that whatever tariff increase was granted be made strictly conditional to NSO acting swiftly to formulate plans fast to eliminate the use of any kind of oil for power generation.

Pragmatic approach of PUCSL

It is of great relief to the consumers and the county that the PUCSL has accepted this proposal and imposed the following conditions in granting the 18% tariff Increase to consumers over 180 units per month.

Conditions of PUCSL

1. NSO shall review its generation plan to eliminate the oil dependency of Sri Lanka energy mix by 2030 and to achieve the renewable energy targets, the generation plan to be ready by end 2026.

Several other measures have also been adopted to ensure that all licensees comply. It is imperative that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake realise that abiding by these conditions is the only way he can hope to deliver on his promise of reducing the consumer tariff.

Even though achieving the 33% tariff reduction will take some time, given that the baseline has shifted considerably upwards due the past tariff increases, the implementation of these conditions imposed immediately can arrest the dangerous trend of ever increasing consumer tariff. The President should be vigilant to prevent any attempts by interested parties to perpetuate the use of oil for power generation by sabotaging this much-delayed change, and perhaps by hiding behind some clause in the recently enacted Electricity Act. It will be in his interest to monitor the events closely, perhaps via the newly-appointed Secretary to the Ministry of Power and Energy.

PUCSL’s proactive role

The PUCSL has been proactive in this regard by foreseeing the need for
accelerated development and integration of solar PV as the fastest means of filling the gap created by the gradual elimination of oil use. It has already published a stagewise plan to achieve this goal by 2030

Furthermore, recognising that the change can be achieved by attracting private investment, the PUCSL is currently planning to publish Feed in Tariff (FIT) applicable for the integration of storage batteries to overcome the often repeated issue of variability and thereby the potential instability of the grid . It’s even more important that the correct size of these batteries will enable the ” Prosumers” to export the much-needed power to the grid during the peak hours.

The excessive use of the excessive diesel and other oils is needed mostly during the peak hours. It is feasible for this need to be filled by exporting solar and wind via battery storage. It is to be noted that a substantial amount of solar and wind energy is currently curtailed during the weekend daylight hours without compensation to the developers, claiming the supply is in excess of the demand. Moreover, the payments due to these developers have been delayed over several months now amounting to over Rs 10 billion. In the meantime, we have been paying for the use of oil imported with scarce foreign exchange.

We solicit the vigilance of the respective authorities,including the Presidential Secretariat, to ensure that no barriers are created by interested parties for the implementation of the PUCSL proposals.

In this regard, the issue of delayed payments to the Renewable Energy Developers should be resolved urgently as these are the very same developers who can contribute most speedily to implement the strategy proposed by the PUCSL.

The low hanging fruit

Taking a pragmatic view of the situation, one will see that even in a situation where all parties willingly and readily accept this strategy as the only way forward, there is much work to be done before the energy stored in batteries could be exported to the grid.

The fastest option is to permit the emerging new rooftop solar systems to
be developed coupled with batteries in the off-grid mode, which does not require the traditional grid integration.

They shall be permitted to join the system when smart meters are in place to enable such energy to be exported during the peak hours and also to implement the time of use (TOU) tariff system to pay only for the energy exported during this time slot only.

It is imperative that very urgent action be taken to effect these changes, with the installation of smart meters to consumers who require them. The current increase of 18% of the tariff to this class of consumers who are able to fund the solar PV plus batteries will enhance the financial feasibility of this move and therefore should be considered an incentive to do so although unintentionally. This is illustrated to be compared with the same analysis published in my previous article. (See table 2)

When the FIT for exports to the grid off the batteries are announced the saving would be much greater as there is a possible excess generation that can be exported to the grid during peak hours, further assisting the reduction of the need for diesel generation.

The NSO should also recognise the value of the contribution by this group of consumers as the energy consumed by them during the peak hours will no longer be drawn from the grid thus in effect reducing the need for use of diesel during this period.

Using the data submitted with the claim, it can be seen that Rs 6,287 million will be required to generate 51 GWh of electricity using diesel, presumably at the current price of Rs. 382 per litre. This relates to a cost of generation of Rs 122.60 per kWh accepted without contest. The income they would get per unit even after the 18% increase from this class of consumers would be Rs 100 per unit. As such, even if the cost of diesel remains at the present level which is most doubtful, the NSO will be able to save at least Rs 22.60 per unit of energy that is not supplied to these “Prosumers”

The PUCSL’s proposed plan to eliminate the use of oil stipulates that the use of diesel for power generation should be done only during the peak hours and should be eliminated in 2026. The installation of smart meters and implementation of the TOU tariff system will have to be completed fast to achieve this goal

However, the process of Prosumers installing systems in the off-grid mode will help as they would not use the grid during the peak hours. They may use the grid during the off-peak hours. But since at this stage the system is not grid-integrated there is no impact on grid stability and thus prior approval is not required. They are in a position to install these systems in anticipation of the proposed system of exports, and save on their monthly electricity bills while helping reduce the peak load. They will also be protected from any power cuts, which are looming.

As such, we expect the PUCSL as well the NSO to pressure Sri Lanka
Customs to allow the duty and other concessions granted by them at the point of imports large scale batteries of 1 MWh capacity to be granted to the smaller scale batteries of kWh scale which at present are subject to levies up to 47%, and this should be corrected forthwith to attract more “Prosumers”.

The condition imposed by the PUCSL on the recent tariff increase is fair and very pragmatic. It is time for the NSO to recognize its national duty and obligation to the people of Sri Lanka to think positively and overcome two decades of negative stance the CEB adopted much to the detriment of Sri Lanka’s interest.