Features
PARTICIPATORY ORIGINS: THE PADDY LANDS REGISTER
by Chandra Arulpragasam
The first step in the implementation of the tenancy reforms under the Paddy Lands Act of 1958 was to identify the tenant cultivators to be protected. The second was to establish Cultivation Committees which were to be elected by the landlords and the actual cultivators. Both of these required a record of the names of the owners and cultivators of every piece of paddy land in the country. Since no such records existed at that time, their creation was the first task of implementation.
Such records existed in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, having been created by the British to collect the land tax, their major source of revenue. In the absence of such a land tax in Ceylon, the British never bothered to create such land records here. In the new land reform context, however, the landlords often successfully passed off their tenants as daily paid workers with no rights under the law, while the tenants themselves were cowed into submission by threats of eviction and violence. The reforms based on these deceptive records often had the opposite effect of that intended by the land reforms, confirming the landlord as the actual cultivator while the tenant stood helplessly by, conniving in his own dispossession.
We thus faced two different problems in setting up land records for the implementation of the Paddy Lands Act. The first was the physical problem of identifying and surveying every piece of paddy land in the country and recording its owner, its actual cultivator, which would have taken many years to complete. Secondly, under the shadow of land reform, special efforts would be needed to identify the tenant cultivators, since they may have been evicted, or forced to deny that they were the actual sitting tenants – a more sensitive and difficult task. Both these tasks had to be completed within six months before the law came into effect in six districts.
So we decided to improvise a new and lean system of land records, which would record only the information essential for the Act’s implementation. We abandoned any idea of conducting physical surveys to record the extent of each holding, the quality of the land, etc. All we actually needed was an identification of the owner (his title could be verified later), the rough extent of land and its actual tenant or cultivator.
Knowing that collecting this information through the village or irrigation headmen may yield false information dictated by powerful landlords, we decided to do this through participatory means, involving all the parties concerned. It is important to note how uncommon it was at that time in our ex-colonial countries to draw on the power of the people, especially the poorer beneficiaries, to implement legislation. The procedure that we devised for this purpose, probably the first of its kind, is briefly described below.
A “secretary” was chosen from among the high-school educated youth to collect the needed information for each village. He would go to every field and farmer in the yaya, asking the extent of land, the name of the owner, tenant, etc. He would then prepare a rough map and record all paddy holdings in the village, showing ownership, tenancy, etc., which would be publicly displayed. A meeting of all persons with cultivation interests would then be convened, with a view to verifying the information in this preliminary map and list. After correction and approval by the village meeting, it would become the official register of all the paddy lands and cultivation interests in the village.
The procedure at the village meeting is interesting from a sociological point of view. The tactic used was to counterbalance the power of individual landlords by the countervailing voice of village knowledge. In respect of each paddy lot, the name of the owner and of the cultivator is read out, and the village voices its assent, dissent or correction. Even in cases where a landlord has intimidated his tenant to say that he is not a tenant, the village meeting is asked the question first, before the landlord or tenant is asked. Because the people know the facts, they are usually unanimous in their reply.
It is only after the village has spoken that the landlord is asked whether this is true, and only thereafter is the tenant asked the same question. When all farmers in the village have confirmed that a particular person is the tenant-cultivator of a particular piece of land, the landlord can hardly deny that fact. If the landlord still insists that he has no tenant on the land, the dispute is referred to the Board of Review; hence no injustice is done to the landlord. Despite these careful procedures, it is quite possible that the local landlord influence was so great in particular villages that even the village voice could have been silenced. We will never know, unless actual research is carried out – which was never done.
Two innovatory aspects in this method need to be noted. This was the first time that a participatory, non-bureaucratic method was used for the creation of land records in the developing world. Second, given the power of the landlords, a conscious effort was made to harness the social dynamics of village knowledge as a countervailing force against landlord power, in order to arrive at a village-approved record of all paddy lands. Using the above procedures, we were able, within a period of six months, to prepare a register of landlords, owners, tenants and agricultural laborers for implementation in the six districts to which the Act was initially applied.
Hence, despite Ceylon starting at a disadvantage in regard to land records, we were able to establish a more sensitive and accurate system of tenancy records than was achieved anywhere in the region. This record of all paddy lands came to be known later as the “Paddy Lands Register”, which has subsequently been used as the information-base for the country’s many agricultural development programmes, such as cooperative credit, the guaranteed price scheme for paddy, the fertilizer subsidy and crop insurance schemes.
(The writer worked as an Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture when the Paddy Lands Act was enacted)
Features
Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines
Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.
Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.
Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.
Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.
Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.
The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.
The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:
=Joint planning across operational divisions
=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making
=Continuous cross-functional consultation
=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates
Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.
Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.
By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst
Features
Why Pi Day?
International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow
The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.
Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.
It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.
Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.
Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.
π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)
The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.
π = 9801/(1103 √8)
For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.
It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.
This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.
Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.
Happy Pi Day!
The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.
by R N A de Silva
Features
Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink
The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.
As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.
It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.
Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.
Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.
Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.
The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.
While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.
On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.
Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.
Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.
Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.
Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.
Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.
However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.
-
News6 days agoPeradeniya Uni issues alert over leopards in its premises
-
News4 days agoRepatriation of Iranian naval personnel Sri Lanka’s call: Washington
-
News6 days agoWife raises alarm over Sallay’s detention under PTA
-
News3 days agoProf. Dunusinghe warns Lanka at serious risk due to ME war
-
Features4 days agoWinds of Change:Geopolitics at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia
-
Latest News6 days agoHeat Index at ‘Caution Level’ in the Sabaragamuwa province and, Colombo, Gampaha, Kurunegala, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya, Hambanthota and Monaragala districts
-
Sports2 days agoRoyal start favourites in historic Battle of the Blues
-
Features6 days agoThe final voyage of the Iranian warship sunk by the US

