Features
Prosecutorial Vs. Victim-based approaches to accountability
by Neville Ladduwahetty
A report in The Island (May 20, 2024) states that the UN human rights office has “criticised the Sri Lankan government’s failure to acknowledge and hold accountable the perpetrators of tens of thousands of enforced disappearances … Authors of the report also accuse the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam of “engaging in abductions” which were described as “tantamount” to enforced disappearances” (May 20, 2024). Continuing, the report adds that the UN. The High Commissioner for Human Rights had stated: “Accountability must be addressed. We need to see institutional reform for reconciliation to succeed”.
In the meantime, the Secretary General of Amnesty International (AI) had “called for Sri Lanka to be referred to the UN Security Council and subjected to international war crimes inquiry when she participated to pay tribute to those who perished at Mullivaikkal. While the call for Sri Lanka to be referred to the Security Council may have pleased those who came to pay tribute, the reality is that such a referral would inevitably be vetoed. However, the fact remains that AI along with the UN Human Rights is advocating a prosecutorial approach to Accountability.
For instance, the Nuremberg Trial was strictly prosecutorial. In contrast, the Marshall Aid Plan was Victim based. While the objective of the former was to seek justice for the victims by prosecuting the perpetrators of the crimes, it was the latter that enabled Germany to recover and join the community of nations as a powerful and respected member.
The question that divides scholars and others who pursue accountability is; which approach to adopt. Should it be prosecutorial or victim based? While some, such as the UN report cited above advocate a prosecutorial approach for the sake of justice, others such as the High Commissioner are non-committal as to which approach to adopt. Yet, others want some aspects of both approaches. Therefore, the first question to be addressed is which approach to adopt, taking into account the particularities of the Sri Lankan society and the background that led to the armed conflict.
ESTABLISHING the CONTEXT
At a fundamental level, the raison d’etre for the armed conflict was the deep sense of grievance felt by the Tamil community; a circumstance they believed could only be overcome by resorting to an armed conflict to establish a separate state for themselves. For those representing the State of Sri Lanka, their bounden duty was to protect and preserve the territorial integrity of their cherished unitary state in keeping with Article 3 of Protocol II that state: “Nothing in the Protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a State or the responsibility of the government by all legitimate means to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the State”. The only means by which these vastly contending positions could be resolved was through an armed conflict; a fact recognized by the UN Human Rights Commission in paragraph 182 and 183 of their OISL report of 2015.
Pargraph 182 states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict bound to respect the guarantees pertaining to the treatment of civilians ….”
Paragraph 183 states: “In addition, the government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.
Therefore, if both the Sri Lankan State and the LTTE “are bound alike” by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”, why is all the attention to address accountability ONLY fixated on the Sri Lankan State and none on the LTTE. Since most of those who perished in Mullivaikkal were victims of the policy adopted by the LTTE to take civilians hostage, and continue to endanger the security of hundreds of thousands taken hostage by continuing to engage in hostilities, should NOT the LTTE also be held accountable? This being the case, would the evidence gathering that is currently being undertaken by the UNHRC in order to exercise Universal Jurisdiction, also apply to policies such as hostage taking and shooting escapees?
PROSECUTORIAL APPROACH
Judging from the attention given ONLY to the government of Sri Lanka by the UNHRC and by entities such as AI, the outcome of any judicial processes would be skewed, which means NO justice, despite the fact that the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE “are bound alike” by relevant rules of customary international law as in common Article 3 and Protocol II; a fact confirmed below.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Judgment of 27 June 1986,
(NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), MERITS
Judgment – para. 215 to 292
“The conflict between the contras’ forces and those of the Government of Nicaragua is an armed conflict which is “not of an international character”. The acts of the contras towards the Nicaraguan Government are therefore governed by the law applicable to conflicts of that character; whereas the actions of the United States in and against Nicaragua fall under the legal rules relating to international conflicts. Because the minimum rules applicable to international and to non-international conflicts are identical, there is no need to address the question whether those actions must be looked at in the context of the rules which operate for the one or for the other category of conflict. The relevant principles are to be looked for in the provisions of Article 3 of each of the four Conventions of August 12, 1949, the text of which, identical in each Convention, expressly refers to conflict not having an international character” (ICJ Judgment, Nicaragua v. U.S para 215 – 292)
“In the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice observed that the acts of the Contras, fighting against the Nicaraguan Government, were governed by the law applicable to armed conflict not of an international character i.e. Common Article 3. Similarly, in the Tublada case, the Inter-American Commission considered”: Common Article 3’s mandatory provisions expressly bind and apply equally to both parties in internal conflicts, i.e. government and dissident forces. Moreover, the obligation to apply Common Article 3 is absolute for both parties and independent of the obligation of the other. Therefore, both the MTP attackers [the armed opposition group fighting in the conflict under consideration] and the Argentina armed forces had the same duties under humanitarian law” (Zegveld, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law, p.21, ICJ Judgment Nicaragua v. US para 119 and Case No. 11/137).
Judging from the ICJ opinions cited above, it is certain that not only violations by the Sri Lanka Government but also violations perpetrated by the LTTE should be reviewed in the course of a Judicial Trial, since they are “bound alike”. Therefore, although violations by the Government forces and LTTE would be judged by Common Article 3, the fact remains that the leadership of the LTTE who ordered the taking of 300,000 plus civilians, hostage is not among the living or has disappeared, and cannot be subjected to a trial despite the fact that the act of taking civilians hostage amount to a war crime and a crime against humanity. Thus, the exercise of gathering evidence against Government perpetrators pales in significance compared with endangering the security of 300,000 plus civilians that were taken hostage. Despite this, a prosecutorial process would mean a skewed outcome of any trial because of the strong possibility that violations perpetrated by the Sri Lankan Government would dominate the trial.
Thus, while a few of those associated with the LTTE would have to face prosecution, the majority cannot be located or identified since they have acquired new identities and are domiciled in foreign countries. Also, others who were in positions to exercise command responsibility, but are no longer among the living cannot be prosecuted for the crimes committed, e.g. taking 300,000 civilians hostage and killing those who attempted to escape.
Under circumstances where it would be next to impossible to identify and prosecute former members of the LTTE because they are dispersed primarily in the West with fresh identities, a prosecutorial approach would lead to an asymmetric outcome resulting in the polarization of the two communities to a degree that could give cause for instability and even resumption of hostilities since the numbers associated with successive Governments who could be identified and prosecuted would significantly be more.
Furthermore, while it would be possible to identify those associated with the Government responsible for command, it is NOT possible to identify the leaders of the LTTE who were responsible because they are no longer among the living.
The net effect of such an asymmetric outcome following a prosecutorial process would permanently damage the efforts advocated and undertaken to bring about reconciliation.by successive Governments. For the UNHRC to include the provision in several of its Resolutions that “a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions….”, is because their perception is based on the premise that prosecuting the guilty would foster reconciliation.
While such a premise may be applicable to normal law and order situations, it is NOT applicable to Sri Lanka’s armed conflict that spanned three decades involving two communities if the prosecutorial process causes disproportionate outcomes as referred to above. Furthermore, if the outcome is such that more from the Sinhala majority community is prosecuted than from the minority Tamil community for whatever reason, the consequences would be to seriously setback the reconciliation processes; an outcome that defeats what the UNHRC hopes to achieve.
VICTIM BASED APPROACH
The real possibility of such serious outcomes, requires that the scope of the investigation is limited to such a degree that legal prosecution is not possible in the context of Sri Lanka. However, the scope of the investigation could be such that it is possible to establish the body of evidence associated with a particular incident There is strong evidence that the security forces targeted temporary hospitals despite being aware of their location. However, there is also counter evidence that the LTTE directed artillery fire from such locations and moved their ordinance soon after, thus tempting the security forces to target these make-shift hospitals. The investigation would then be limited to what each party to the conflict did in a given situation and not go beyond as to who was culpable to warrant prosecution under the relevant laws. Investigations would thus be a record of actions taken by respective parties to the conflict without delving further to establish which party was responsible for which violation of which laws, Human Rights or Humanitarian.
While this concept takes root, the leadership of both communities should jointly develop mechanisms to address the needs of victims and take joint responsibility for their implementation, instead of depending solely on the elected Government for Reconciliation to be effective and unity restored.
CONCLUSION
In light of the hard reality associated with prosecutorial processes cited above, and the ruling by the International Court of Justice in the case. Nicaragua v. U.S the “acts of the Contras fighting against the Nicaraguan Government were governed by the law applicable to armed conflict not of an international character i.e. Common Article 3…”. Therefore, the approach should be to limit investigations, not with the intent of prosecution because it would be skewed for reasons cited above. but with the intent of recording the events that occurred during the armed conflict, and which party to the armed conflict could be identified with the respective violations with a view to use this body of evidence to institute reforms to prevent recurrence.
It is indeed a matter of serious concern that successive Sri Lankan Governments have failed to acknowledge that the Sri Lankan Security Forces and the LTTE are bound alike by the laws applicable to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. This has seriously dented addressing issues of accountability in a balanced manner.
At the end of such investigations the present leadership of the parties to the conflict should acknowledge the serious omissions and commissions committed by both parties and move on by declaring the broadest possible amnesty to all who were associated with the conflict as stated in Section 5 of Article 6 of the Additional protocol II of 1977.
Article 6 Section 5 States: “At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavor to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained”.
Since such amnesties and pardons have been instituted starting with the release of child soldiers and nearly 11,000 plus former LTTE combatants and more recently the release of prisoners, the practice has been in operation from time to time. This process would have gained momentum if not for the clamour for prosecutorial processes locally and resolutions of UNHRC that are tantamount to External intervention. The need therefore, is to regularize this practice and bring closure to an issue whose time has come.
Features
Building on Sand: The Indian market trap
(Part III in a series on Sri Lanka’s tourism stagnation.)
Every SLTDA (Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority) press release now leads with the same headline: India is Sri Lanka’s “star market.” The numbers seem to prove it, 531,511 Indian arrivals in 2025, representing 22.5% of all tourists. Officials celebrate the “half-million milestone” and set targets for 600,000, 700,000, more.
But follow the money instead of the headcount, and a different picture emerges. We are building our tourism recovery on a low-spending, short-stay, operationally challenging segment, without any serious strategy to transform it into a high-value market. We have confused market size with market quality, and the confusion is costing us billions.
Per-day spending: While SLTDA does not publish market-specific daily expenditure data, industry operators and informal analyses consistently report Indian tourists in the $100-140 per day range, compared to $180-250 for Western European and North American markets.
The math is brutal and unavoidable: one Western European tourist generates the revenue of 3-4 Indian tourists. Building tourism recovery primarily on the low-yield segment is strategically incoherent, unless the goal is arrivals theater rather than economic contribution.
Comparative Analysis: How Competitors Handle Indian Outbound Tourism
India is not unique to Sri Lanka. Indian outbound tourism reached 30.23 million departures in 2024, an 8.4% year-on-year increase, driven by a growing middle class with disposable income. Every competitor destination is courting this market.
This is not diversification. It is concentration risk dressed up as growth.
How did we end up here? Through a combination of policy laziness, proximity bias, and refusal to confront yield trade-offs.
1. Proximity as Strategy Substitute
India is next door. Flights are short (1.5-3 hours), frequent, and cheap. This makes India the easiest market to attract, low promotional cost, high visibility, strong cultural and linguistic overlap. But easiest is not the same as best.
Tourism strategy should optimize for yield-adjusted effort. Yes, attracting Europeans requires longer promotional cycles, higher marketing spend, and sustained brand-building. But if each European generates 3x the revenue of an Indian tourist, the return on investment is self-evident.
We have chosen ease over effectiveness, proximity over profitability.
2. Visa Policy as Blunt Instrument
3. Failure to Develop High-Value Products for Indian Market

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

Every market concentration creates path dependency. The more we optimize for Indian tourists, visa schemes, marketing, infrastructure, pricing, the harder it becomes to attract high-yield markets that expect different value propositions.
Hotels that compete on price for Indian segments cannot simultaneously position as luxury for European segments. Destinations known for “affordability” struggle to pivot to premium. Guides trained for high-turnover, short-stay groups do not develop the deep knowledge required for extended cultural tours.
We are locking in a low-yield equilibrium. Each incremental Indian arrival strengthens the positioning as a “budget-friendly” destination, which repels high-yield segments, which forces further volume-chasing in price-sensitive markets. The cycle reinforces itself.
Breaking the cycle requires accepting short-term pain—lower arrival numbers—for long-term gain—higher revenue, stronger positioning, sustainable margins.
The Hard Question
Is Sri Lanka willing to attract two million tourists generating $5 billion, or three million tourists generating $4 billion?
The current trajectory is toward the latter, more arrivals, less revenue, thinner margins, greater fragility. We are optimizing for metrics that impress press releases but erode economic contribution.
The Indian market is not the problem. The problem is building tourism recovery primarily on a low-yield segment without strategies to either transform that segment to high-yield or balance it with high-yield markets.
We are building on sand. The foundation will not hold.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)
Features
Digital transformation in the Global South
Understanding Sri Lanka through the India AI Impact Summit 2026
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly moved from being a specialised technological field into a major social force that shapes economies, cultures, governance, and everyday human life. The India AI Impact Summit 2026, held in New Delhi, symbolised a significant moment for the Global South, especially South Asia, because it demonstrated that artificial intelligence is no longer limited to advanced Western economies but can also become a development tool for emerging societies. The summit gathered governments, researchers, technology companies, and international organisations to discuss how AI can support social welfare, public services, and economic growth. Its central message was that artificial intelligence should be human centred and socially useful. Instead of focusing only on powerful computing systems, the summit emphasised affordable technologies, open collaboration, and ethical responsibility so that ordinary citizens can benefit from digital transformation. For South Asia, where large populations live in rural areas and resources are unevenly distributed, this idea is particularly important.
People friendly AI
One of the most important concepts promoted at the summit was the idea of “people friendly AI.” This means that artificial intelligence should be accessible, understandable, and helpful in daily activities. In South Asia, language diversity and economic inequality often prevent people from using advanced technology. Therefore, systems designed for local languages, and smartphones, play a crucial role. When a farmer can speak to a digital assistant in Sinhala, Tamil, or Hindi and receive advice about weather patterns or crop diseases, technology becomes practical rather than distant. Similarly, voice based interfaces allow elderly people and individuals with limited literacy to use digital services. Affordable mobile based AI tools reduce the digital divide between urban and rural populations. As a result, artificial intelligence stops being an elite instrument and becomes a social assistant that supports ordinary life.
Transformation in education sector
The influence of this transformation is visible in education. AI based learning platforms can analyse student performance and provide personalised lessons. Instead of all students following the same pace, weaker learners receive additional practice while advanced learners explore deeper material. Teachers are able to focus on mentoring and explanation rather than repetitive instruction. In many South Asian societies, including Sri Lanka, education has long depended on memorisation and private tuition classes. AI tutoring systems could reduce educational inequality by giving rural students access to learning resources, similar to those available in cities. A student who struggles with mathematics, for example, can practice step by step exercises automatically generated according to individual mistakes. This reduces pressure, improves confidence, and gradually changes the educational culture from rote learning toward understanding and problem solving.
Healthcare is another area where AI is becoming people friendly. Many rural communities face shortages of doctors and medical facilities. AI-assisted diagnostic tools can analyse symptoms, or medical images, and provide early warnings about diseases. Patients can receive preliminary advice through mobile applications, which helps them decide whether hospital visits are necessary. This reduces overcrowding in hospitals and saves travel costs. Public health authorities can also analyse large datasets to monitor disease outbreaks and allocate resources efficiently. In this way, artificial intelligence supports not only individual patients but also the entire health system.
Agriculture, which remains a primary livelihood for millions in South Asia, is also undergoing transformation. Farmers traditionally rely on seasonal experience, but climate change has made weather patterns unpredictable. AI systems that analyse rainfall data, soil conditions, and satellite images can predict crop performance and recommend irrigation schedules. Early detection of plant diseases prevents large-scale crop losses. For a small farmer, accurate information can mean the difference between profit and debt. Thus, AI directly influences economic stability at the household level.
Employment and communication reshaped
Artificial intelligence is also reshaping employment and communication. Routine clerical and repetitive tasks are increasingly automated, while demand grows for digital skills, such as data management, programming, and online services. Many young people in South Asia are beginning to participate in remote work, freelancing, and digital entrepreneurship. AI translation tools allow communication across languages, enabling businesses to reach international customers. Knowledge becomes more accessible because information can be summarised, translated, and explained instantly. This leads to a broader sociological shift: authority moves from tradition and hierarchy toward information and analytical reasoning. Individuals rely more on data when making decisions about education, finance, and career planning.
Impact on Sri Lanka
The impact on Sri Lanka is especially significant because the country shares many social and economic conditions with India and often adopts regional technological innovations. Sri Lanka has already begun integrating artificial intelligence into education, agriculture, and public administration. In schools and universities, AI learning tools may reduce the heavy dependence on private tuition and help students in rural districts receive equal academic support. In agriculture, predictive analytics can help farmers manage climate variability, improving productivity and food security. In public administration, digital systems can speed up document processing, licensing, and public service delivery. Smart transportation systems may reduce congestion in urban areas, saving time and fuel.
Economic opportunities are also expanding. Sri Lanka’s service based economy and IT outsourcing sector can benefit from increased global demand for digital skills. AI-assisted software development, data annotation, and online service platforms can create new employment pathways, especially for educated youth. Small and medium entrepreneurs can use AI tools to design products, manage finances, and market services internationally at low cost. In tourism, personalised digital assistants and recommendation systems can improve visitor experiences and help small businesses connect with travellers directly.
Digital inequality
However, the integration of artificial intelligence also raises serious concerns. Digital inequality may widen if only educated urban populations gain access to technological skills. Some routine jobs may disappear, requiring workers to retrain. There are also risks of misinformation, surveillance, and misuse of personal data. Ethical regulation and transparency are, therefore, essential. Governments must develop policies that protect privacy, ensure accountability, and encourage responsible innovation. Public awareness and digital literacy programmes are necessary so that citizens understand both the benefits and limitations of AI systems.
Beyond economics and services, AI is gradually influencing social relationships and cultural patterns. South Asian societies have traditionally relied on hierarchy and personal authority, but data-driven decision making changes this structure. Agricultural planning may depend on predictive models rather than ancestral practice, and educational evaluation may rely on learning analytics instead of examination rankings alone. This does not eliminate human judgment, but it alters its basis. Societies increasingly value analytical thinking, creativity, and adaptability. Educational systems must, therefore, move beyond memorisation toward critical thinking and interdisciplinary learning.
AI contribution to national development
In Sri Lanka, these changes may contribute to national development if implemented carefully. AI-supported financial monitoring can improve transparency and reduce corruption. Smart infrastructure systems can help manage transportation and urban planning. Communication technologies can support interaction among Sinhala, Tamil, and English speakers, promoting social inclusion in a multilingual society. Assistive technologies can improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, enabling broader participation in education and employment. These developments show that artificial intelligence is not merely a technological innovation but a social instrument capable of strengthening equality when guided by ethical policy.
Symbolic shift
Ultimately, the India AI Impact Summit 2026 represents a symbolic shift in the global technological landscape. It indicates that developing nations are beginning to shape the future of artificial intelligence according to their own social needs rather than passively importing technology. For South Asia and Sri Lanka, the challenge is not whether AI will arrive but how it will be used. If education systems prepare citizens, if governments establish responsible regulations, and if access remains inclusive, AI can become a partner in development rather than a source of inequality. The future will likely involve close collaboration between humans and intelligent systems, where machines assist decision making while human values guide outcomes. In this sense, artificial intelligence does not replace human society, but transforms it, offering Sri Lanka an opportunity to build a more knowledge based, efficient, and equitable social order in the decades ahead.
by Milinda Mayadunna
Features
Governance cannot be a postscript to economics
The visit by IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva to Sri Lanka was widely described as a success for the government. She was fulsome in her praise of the country and its developmental potential. The grounds for this success and collaborative spirit go back to the inception of the agreement signed in March 2023 in the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s declaration of international bankruptcy. The IMF came in to fulfil its role as lender of last resort. The government of the day bit the bullet. It imposed unpopular policies on the people, most notably significant tax increases. At a moment when the country had run out of foreign exchange, defaulted on its debt, and faced shortages of fuel, medicine and food, the IMF programme restored a measure of confidence both within the country and internationally.
Since 1965 Sri Lanka has entered into agreements with the IMF on 16 occasions none of which were taken to their full term. The present agreement is the 17th agreement . IMF agreements have traditionally been focused on economic restructuring. Invariably the terms of agreement have been harsh on the people, with priority being given to ensure the debtor country pays its loans back to the IMF. Fiscal consolidation, tax increases, subsidy reductions and structural reforms have been the recurring features. The social and political costs have often been high. Governments have lost popularity and sometimes fallen before programmes were completed. The IMF has learned from experience across the world that macroeconomic reform without social protection can generate backlash, instability and policy reversals.
The experience of countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal in dealing with the IMF during the eurozone crisis demonstrated the political and social costs of austerity, even though those economies later stabilised and returned to growth. The evolution of IMF policies has ensured that there are two special features in the present agreement. The first is that the IMF has included a safety net of social welfare spending to mitigate the impact of the austerity measures on the poorest sections of the population. No country can hope to grow at 7 or 8 percent per annum when a third of its people are struggling to survive. Poverty alleviation measures in the Aswesuma programme, developed with the agreement of the IMF, are key to mitigating the worst impacts of the rising cost of living and limited opportunities for employment.
Governance Included
The second important feature of the IMF agreement is the inclusion of governance criteria to be implemented alongside the economic reforms. It goes to the heart of why Sri Lanka has had to return to the IMF repeatedly. Economic mismanagement did not take place in a vacuum. It was enabled by weak institutions, politicised decision making, non-transparent procurement, and the erosion of checks and balances. In its economic reform process, the IMF has included an assessment of governance related issues to accompany the economic restructuring process. At the top of this list is tackling the problem of corruption by means of publicising contracts, ensuring open solicitation of tenders, and strengthening financial accountability mechanisms.
The IMF also encouraged a civil society diagnostic study and engaged with civil society organisations regularly. The civil society analysis of governance issues which was promoted by Verite Research and facilitated by Transparency International was wider in scope than those identified in the IMF’s own diagnostic. It pointed to systemic weaknesses that go beyond narrow fiscal concerns. The civil society diagnostic study included issues of social justice such as the inequitable impact of targeting EPF and ETF funds of workers for restructuring and the need to repeal abuse prone laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Online Safety Act. When workers see their retirement savings restructured without adequate consultation, confidence in policy making erodes. When laws are perceived to be instruments of arbitrary power, social cohesion weakens.
During a meeting between the IMF Managing Director Georgeiva and civil society members last week, there was discussion on the implementation of those governance measures in which she spoke in a manner that was not alien to the civil society representatives. Significantly, the civil society diagnostic report also referred to the ethnic conflict and the breakdown of interethnic relations that led to three decades of deadly war, causing severe economic losses to the country. This was also discussed at the meeting. Governance is not only about accounting standards and procurement rules. It is about social justice, equality before the law, and political representation. On this issue the government has more to do. Ethnic and religious minorities find themselves inadequately represented in high level government committees. The provincial council system that ensured ethnic and minority representation at the provincial level continues to be in abeyance.
Beyond IMF
The significance of addressing governance issues is not only relevant to the IMF agreement. It is also important in accessing tariff concessions from the European Union. The GSP Plus tariff concession given by the EU enables Sri Lankan exports to be sold at lower prices and win markets in Europe. For an export dependent economy, this is critical. Loss of such concessions would directly affect employment in key sectors such as apparel. The government needs to address longstanding EU concerns about the protection of human rights and labour rights in the country. The EU has, for several years, linked the continuation of GSP Plus to compliance with international conventions. This includes the condition that the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) be brought into line with international standards. The government’s alternative in the form of the draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PTSA) is less abusive on paper but is wider in scope and retains the core features of the PTA.
Governance and social justice factors cannot be ignored or downplayed in the pursuit of economic development. If Sri Lanka is to break out of its cycle of crisis and bailout, it must internalise the fact that good governance which promotes social justice and more fairly distributes the costs and fruits of development is the foundation on which durable economic growth is built. Without it, stabilisation will remain fragile, poverty will remain high, and the promise of 7 to 8 percent growth will remain elusive. The implementation of governance reforms will also have a positive effect through the creative mechanism of governance linked bonds, an innovation of the present IMF agreement.
The Sri Lankan think tank Verité Research played an important role in the development of governance linked bonds. They reduce the rate of interest payable by the government on outstanding debt on the basis that better governance leads to a reduction in risk for those who have lent their money to Sri Lanka. This is a direct financial reward for governance reform. The present IMF programme offers an opportunity not only to stabilise the economy but to strengthen the institutions that underpin it. That opportunity needs to be taken. Without it, the country cannot attract investment, expand exports and move towards shared prosperity and to a 7-8 percent growth rate that can lift the country out of its debt trap.
by Jehan Perera
-
Features4 days agoWhy does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
-
Features4 days agoReconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
-
Features4 days agoVictor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
-
Features3 days agoLOVEABLE BUT LETHAL: When four-legged stars remind us of a silent killer
-
Features4 days agoVictor, the Friend of the Foreign Press
-
Latest News5 days agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Latest News5 days agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News5 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction
