Features

Single entrepreneur – the difficult years and the Russian trade

Published

3 years ago

2023/08/27

(Excerpted from the autobiography of Merrill, J. Fernando)

The early 1970s were difficult years for all businessmen in the country. The changes on the political front and the progressive policy of Ceylonisation resulted in forcing the foreign company owner out, but, simultaneously, created doubt in the minds of the potential local investor/entrepreneur. The Marxist doctrine which underpinned State economic policy and attitude did little to encourage the spirit of private entrepreneurship, unless it was for a few individuals who, for various reasons, found favour with the Government.

The exit of expatriate business families such as the Joneses (of AF Jones) did enable politically-unaffiliated locals such as me, to get a toehold in the tea export business. Given my strongly-held views on the tea export trade, particularly the British domination of the industry, which was highly detrimental to the interests of the producer with its sublimation of the real value potential of the authenticity of Pure Ceylon Tea, I would certainly have eventually set out on my own. The opportunity may not have come so early though, if not for the decidedly ‘foreigner unfriendly’ stance of the first Bandaranaike Government.

In 1974 I launched Merrill J. Fernando Exports Ltd., of which I was the sole owner. I believe this was a turning point in my business career as a tea exporter, for I was able to build on and consolidate on the back of the contacts I had made and the connections that I had established, in most countries of the tea-drinking world. The fact that the company bore my name was later a huge advantage that I did not foresee when I started marketing ‘Dilmah’ as a highly-personalized family brand. The latter eventually became its unique selling point. Whilst unhesitatingly conceding the element of good fortune – divine intervention, in my view – that is inherent in every success story, there was always my readiness to grasp opportunities as they presented themselves, in spite of the ever-present risk element.

I became the fourth largest exporter in the country when, in 1974, Merrill J. Fernando Co. Ltd. exported 24 million pounds of tea. It gave me business satisfaction as I was competing with the giants in the country, but exporting bulk tea to blenders and packers abroad never gave me the sense of achievement I was looking for. It was not a challenge as such an enterprise does not require vision or real skill. One had only to be competitive. The entire process was concerned only with generating volume, which had nothing to do with creating real value. But my long involvement in the bulk tea trade gave me knowledge and experience of the trade, and the trading disciplines, which served me well later when I started marketing my own brand.

My contacts in the USSR began playing a very significant role in my business and the subsequent development of the ‘Dilmah’ brand. Before the dissolution of the USSR, I would visit Moscow at least four or five times a year, mainly in connection with the supply of bulk tea. Grigory Pipinov, who became my friend when he was Deputy Russian Trade Commissioner in Sri Lanka, was of great help to me. During his stint in Sri Lanka, he and his wife Lilian were frequent visitors to my home. He was also a great cook and would spend much more time and effort organizing his frequent barbecue parties, for which he bought the beef from a particular butcher in Borella, and marinate for hours in my kitchen! The level of culinary perfection he required, in his view, could be achieved only by himself.

On all my visits to the USSR, I would be met at the airport by two or three officials and conducted to the National Hotel, the only equivalent then to a five-star hotel in Moscow. It had been built in 1903, during Czarist times, and was located close to both the Red Square and the Kremlin. My meetings were mostly with Grigori Pipinov and Bathov, Chairman of Sojuzplodoimport (Sojuz). The latter was also an extremely nice man and I developed very good relationships with the two, and all of the others that I dealt with. I gained their confidence as, in all my dealings with them, I was absolutely straightforward and they soon they realized that my agenda was what was on the table.

The tea trade in Russia was controlled by the State-owned Sojuz, a Moscow-based entity established in 1966 for the import of various food items in to Russia, including coffee and cocoa. It also owned a couple of premium vodka brands, such as Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya. Despite the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union and the privatization of many previously State-controlled trade arms, control of Sojuz was retained by the State.

Whilst it was operating under State control, Sojuz imports of tea amounted to about USD 1.5 billion in value, annually. India accounted for about 60% of it, in volume. The balance was made up by China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, collectively. Up to about 1988, average annual imports by the bloc amounted to about 135 million kilos. In the years 1989-1991, the volume reached 200 million kilos and in 1992, increased further to 260 million kilos. Till then, all the tea imported to the CIS bloc (Confederation of Independent States – 11 countries initially, increasing to 12 with the addition of Georgia in 1993), was processed in 16 tea packaging factories spread out across the bloc, and distributed to retail shops at fixed prices, under an agreement with the Ministry of Food and Industry and the Ministry of Internal Trade. The entire process, from importation of bulk to the cup of the consumer, was controlled by the State.

Tea and Perestroika

In 1988, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia wanted to import 20,000 MT per month. I agreed to give my buyers 500 MT and then gradually increase it to 1,000 MT. For me, it was a golden opportunity. Pipinov indicated to me that they were considering purchasing Dilmah tea exclusively, in 250 gm and 500 gm packs. I was invited by him to travel to Russia, to meet his Chairman, Bathov, and within a week I was in Moscow.

They accepted whatever price I quoted to them and, in order to maintain the trust in the relationship, I always ensured that my prices stayed reasonable in the context of the prevailing market. I believe that they were fully aware of this. Between 1988 and 2002, I used to ship an average of 100×40 ft. containers per month of bulk tea to Russia. Initially, whilst the dealings were directly with the Russian Government, trading conditions and commercial interactions were stable and reliable. I shipped tea to various ports in the USSR. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Republic and the consequent muscling in of the Russian Mafia in to the trade, the business became fraught with difficulties and physically dangerous to other participants.

When I first started supplying large volumes against the Sojuz orders, as a result of my heavy buying, the Colombo Auction prices shot up by about Rs. 15 per kilo and I had to absorb substantial losses on my first order. I had indicated to Bathov and Pipinov that I would be quoting a very moderate price on the first order, but that I would have to adjust it thereafter, as I knew for a certainty that the auction price would increase sharply. That is exactly what happened.

On my next trip to Moscow, when Bathov asked me about my losses resulting from the tea market upturn, I told him that irrespective of the bottom line, I would maintain the agreed quality of service. He asked me for my new price for the second order – adjusted by me to cover my previous loss – and actually insisted that I increase it. I made a further small adjustment, but still kept it at a reasonable level. The fact that I did not try to exploit their urgent need for tea to my advantage established trust between us.

The new contracts enabled me to recover the losses I made on the earlier orders and start on the road to profit. I made certain that, irrespective of Colombo Tea Auction price fluctuations, I delivered consistent quality and freshness. This was the business which, for a considerable period of time, made ‘Dilmah’ a household name in Russia and also paved the way for its subsequent successes in other countries.

This importance of establishing one’s credentials with the buyer with the very first order is an invaluable first principle, which I learned for myself when, during my time as a trainee tea taster, I did a little extra business by supplying shops in Negombo with tea. I used to impress on my people in the company, from the very inception, that the tea export trade is a business of frequently-fluctuating fortunes. The latter is directly tied to auction price movement and the first principle is, irrespective of the auction price, to maintain consistent quality. If you supply lower quality to maintain profit, the loss of the buyer is a guaranteed consequence. If you stay the course with integrity, you will eventually prosper.

I entered the Russian trade when the socialist bloc was one nation and, over the years, watched its fragmentation even as I continued to ply my trade with them. One immediate result of the break-up was the sudden increase in tea import volumes, surging from around 135 million kg in 1988 to 260 million kg by 1992. At the time of the dissolution, only the Republic of Russia had the infrastructure for the import and export trade. Therefore, the release of tight state controls and the sudden exposure to a free market environment, presented opportunities to aspiring private sector entrepreneurs to move into an area which, previously, had no direct dealings with local traders.

Our marketing blunder and a lost opportunity

Our traders foolishly misinterpreted Russian market preferences, assuming that it would be an ideal destination for cheap tea, which could be sold with large margins. In fact, this misjudgment of the CIS market – as it later came to be called – even led to requests by our traders for a revision of minimum product standards in exports to Russia. What the newcomers to the Russian trade failed to realize was that even under the previous State monopoly, Russia had been purchasing largely quality tea and that despite the liberalization, the market’s expectations of Ceylon Tea did not change. As a result, eventually, the fly-by-night operators were forced to drop out, whilst the reputed, established brands stayed the course.

The Russian market could be roughly segmented in to four. At the bottom there was space for cheap blends. Then there were the slightly superior blends which came largely from the UK and, above that, Dilmah, noted for its consistent quality. At the top level were a few specialty products from well-known UK brands. A matter of interest was that a few of the multinational and European brands of tea, whilst being expensive, were also of consistent good quality. Those brands were a serious threat to Ceylon Tea, on account of their quicker delivery capability from destinations close to Russian ports, and, also because of their reliable quality.

With my emphasis on supplying quality tea at a proportionate price, as the first major Sri Lankan entrant to the Russian market, I was able to establish a valuable quality principle in the expectation of the Russian consumer of Ceylon Tea. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the consequent dismantling of the State-controlled centralized purchasing policy was an ideal entry opportunity for our exporters to develop our own brands for export to the newly-created independent states. The market was surging and the Russian buyer was literally at our mercy. However, in the import/export free-for-all which ensued at the fall of the Soviet Union, many of our traders, despite my warnings, entered into cheap bargains with Russian traders to packet and supply low-cost tea under Russian labels instead of establishing purely Sri Lankan/Ceylon Tea brands.

With the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, in addition to Sri Lanka, countries such as Indonesia, China, Kenya, and India became active suppliers to the separate states of the original Soviet Union. Collectively, these states comprised the world’s largest single Black Tea market (apart from Indian internal consumption) and I confidently expected the market, jointly, to eventually move up to 300 million kg, annually.

In my experience, when a previously centrally-controlled market is opened for competition, within a matter of months consumers decide on brand preferences, depending on quality, presentation, and price. Once those standards are established in the minds of the consumers, it is difficult to wean them away. Had we quickly developed a strategy by combining both State and private resources to secure a reasonable share of the CIS market by treating it as a preferred region, we would be exporting 120 million kg to that market, annually, today, provided our national production continued to increase at a reasonable rate, ensuring that supplies to other markets did not suffer as a result.

In fact, in March 1993, I made such a proposal to Mr. R. Paskaralingam, then Secretary of the Ministry of Policy Planning and Implementation, suggesting that the Tea Board, Export Development Board, and Central Bank, should pool appropriate resources in developing a marketing plan for the CIS bloc in its entirety. I also offered my total support to such a project, backed by my knowledge and experience in the Russian trade.

3rd March, 1993
Mr. R. Paskaralingam,
Secretary,
Ministry of Policy Planning and Implementation, 123, Wijerama Mawatha,
COLOMBO 7,

Dear Mr. Paskaralingam,

MARKETING STRATEGY TO GUIDE USSR – CIS IMPORTS TOWARDS SALVAGING CEYLON TEA INDISTRY

For many years, we were the major supplier of bulk tea to the former USSR, outside the period when it was a monopoly of Consolexpo. In respect of Value Added Teas, we were the exclusive supplier. In the final year, leading to the breakup of the USSR, our Value Added exports were in excess of Rs. 1 billion.

In the years 1991 and 1992, there were hardly any exports, due to political and economic crisis prevailing in CIS countries,The position leading to exports to CIS countries took a dramatic turn in the last three months, when demand for Value Added Tea, from all Tea producing countries, escalated. India, Indonesia, China, Kenya and Sri Lanka are active in supplying these Republics, at the present time. Within the next six months, consumers will determine their preferences for quality and presentation, which will lead to market share, for each country or product, in what is the world’s largest single tea market.

CIS importers know nothing about tea or private trade, as yet. In this scenario, they are exploited by intermediaries, who contract to supply tea at good prices and draw stock from suppliers in this country at very low prices, for very poor tea. CIS consumers pay high prices for relatively poor tea. This exercise benefits only intermediaries in Europe, UK, USA, Canada and some other countries.

The total CIS market for tea is approximately 300 million kilos, p.a. and it will grow steadily.A suitable strategy must be developed immediately, to secure a good share of this market, for Ceylon tea, which I believe will be 50 million in 1993 and no less than 120 million per year, from 1994, provided we treat CIS as a preferred market and make a concerted effort, using the SLTB, EDB and Central tank to co-operate very closely, towards evolving a marketing plan, which I shall assist in formulating.

I have no doubt that exports to CIS countries will increase Auction price levels, to guarantee the operation of Plantations profitably, if opportunities in that market are harnessed for the benefit of Ceylon tea.

Considerable harm to the image of Ceylon tea has already been caused by misguided exporters, who are shipping very poor tea. Government should not watch this situation helplessly, as it will deny to Ceylon tea, a golden opportunity to balance its annual budget, if the export trade is correctly guided and monitored, in respect of exports to CIS countries.

TEA SMALL HOLDERS FACTORIES LIMITED

I understand that TEA SMALL HOLDERS FACTORIES LIMITED is due for privatization shortly. I shall be prepared to acquire a 51 % stake in it and develop the Company to produce value added teas, at plantation level, and export direct to CIS countries. This would offer maximum possible return to small holders and workers on these plantations. In fact, I may be able to persuade a CIS investor, with tea interests, to participate in this venture. This would be a model on which several ” growers’ co-operatives”, could be developed to manufacture value added products, for direct export.

I shall be leaving for Australia on 15th March and would like to meet with you, soon after your return from the U.S. If you agree with what I suggest, I am prepared to delay my departure by 3 or 4 days, in order to get the marketing plan underway, in association with SLTB, EDB and the Central Bank.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
MERRILL J. FERNANDO,

All News Advertisement

Up Next

Events leading to the signing of the Indo-Lanka Agreement

Don't Miss

Bad Idea, Terrible Timing: Critiquing Rajan Philips’ Reform Agenda

Click to comment

Features

High Stakes in Pursuing corruption cases

Published

7 hours ago

2026/05/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Kapila Chandrasena

The death of the most important suspect in the Sri Lankan Airlines Airbus deal has drawn intense public speculation. Kapila Chandrasena the former CEO of the heavily loss-making national airline was found dead under circumstances that the police are still investigating.

He had recently been arrested by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption in connection with the controversial Airbus aircraft purchase agreement signed in 2013. Police investigations are continuing into the cause of death and whether or not he committed suicide. The unresolved death brings to light the high stakes involved in accountability efforts of this nature.

The uncertainty surrounding Chandrasena’s death has revived public memories of other mysterious deaths linked to corruption investigations and public scandals. Among them is the death of Rajeewa Jayaweera, a former SriLankan Airlines executive and outspoken critic of the Airbus transaction. He was following in the tradition of his father, the late foreign service officer and public servant Stanley Jayaweera who mentored the younger generation in good governance practices and formed the group “Avadhi Lanka” along with icons such as Prof Siri Hettige. Rajeewa had written a series of articles exposing irregularities in the deal before he was found dead near Independence Square in Colombo in 2020. The CCTV cameras in that high security area were turned off. Questions raised at that time whether or not he had committed suicide were not satisfactorily resolved.

The controversy about the cause of Chandrasena’s death is diverting attention away from the massive damage done to the country by the SriLankan Airlines deal itself. The value of the aircraft agreement was close to the size of the International Monetary Fund bailout package that Sri Lanka desperately needed by 2023 in order to stabilise the economy after bankruptcy. Sri Lanka’s IMF Extended Fund Facility amounted to about USD 3 billion spread over four years. The comparison shows the scale of the losses and liabilities that irresponsible and corrupt decisions have imposed on the country and which must never happen again.

Wider Pattern

The corruption linked to the Airbus transaction came fully into the open only because of investigations conducted outside Sri Lanka. In 2020 Airbus agreed to pay record penalties of more than EUR 3.6 billion to authorities in Britain, France and the United States to settle global corruption investigations. Sri Lanka was identified as one of the countries where bribes had allegedly been paid in order to secure contracts. The Airbus deal involved the purchase of six A330 aircraft and four A350 aircraft valued at approximately USD 2.3 billion. Investigations showed that Airbus paid bribes amounting to nearly USD 16 million in order to secure the contract. According to court submissions, at least part of this money amounting to USD 2 million was transferred through a shell company registered in Brunei and routed through Singapore bank accounts linked to the late airline CEO and his wife.

The commissions involved in this deal may seem comparatively small compared to the overall value of the contracts but devastating in their consequences. But they also show that a few million dollars paid secretly to decision makers could lead to the country assuming liabilities worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars over decades. This is why corruption is not simply a moral issue. It is a direct economic assault on the living standards of ordinary people. Money lost through corruption is money unavailable for schools, hospitals, rural development and job creation. In the end the burden falls on ordinary citizens who are left to repay debts incurred in their name without receiving commensurate benefits in return.

The SriLankan Airlines transaction gives an indication of the wider pattern of corruption and misuse of national resources that has taken place over many years. This was not an isolated incident. There were numerous large scale infrastructure and procurement projects that imposed heavy debts on the country while enriching politically connected individuals and their associates. Other projects such as the Colombo Port City, Hambantota Harbour and highway construction reveal a similar pattern.

Less publicised but equally damaging scandals have involved fertiliser medicine and energy contracts. Investigations into medicine procurement in recent years uncovered allegations that substandard pharmaceuticals had been imported at inflated prices causing both financial losses and risks to public health.

Moral Renewal

The present government appears determined to investigate major corruption cases in a manner that no previous government has attempted. Those who ransacked and bankrupted the treasury need to be dealt with according to the law. There is considerable public support for efforts to recover stolen assets and ensure accountability.

In his May Day speech President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stated that around 14 corruption cases were nearing completion in the courts this very month and called upon the public to applaud when verdicts are delivered. Political opponents of the government claim that such comments could place pressure on the judiciary and blur the separation between political leadership and the courts. But the deeper public frustration that underlies the president’s remarks also needs to be understood.

The challenge facing Sri Lanka is twofold. The country must ensure that justice is done through due process and independent institutions. If anti corruption campaigns become politicised they can lose legitimacy. But if corruption and abuse of power continue without consequences the country will remain trapped in a cycle of economic decline and moral decay. Sri Lanka also needs to confront past abuses linked to the war period. There are allegations of kidnapping, extortion, disappearances and criminal activity in which members of the security forces have been implicated. Vulnerable sections of the population suffered greatly during those years. If political leaders turned a blind eye or actively connived in such crimes they too need to be held accountable under the law. Selective justice will not heal the country. Accountability must apply across the board regardless of political position, ethnicity or institutional power.

Sri Lanka has paid a very heavy price for corruption and impunity. The economic collapse of 2022 did not occur overnight. It was the result of years of bad governance, reckless decision making, abuse of power and the misuse of public wealth. If the country is to move forward the focus cannot be diverted by sensational speculation alone. Suspicious deaths and political intrigue may dominate headlines for a few days. But the larger issue is the system that enabled corruption to flourish without accountability for so long. The real national task is to end that system. Sri Lanka cannot build a prosperous future on a foundation of corruption and impunity. Unless those who looted public wealth are held accountable and the systems that enabled them are dismantled, the country risks repeating the same cycle again.

Jehan Perera

Features

When University systems fail:Supreme Court’s landmark intervention in sexual harassment case

Published

7 hours ago

2026/05/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Over seven years after making an initial complaint of sexual harassment against her research supervisor, Dr. Udari Abeyasinghe, then a temporary lecturer and now a senior lecturer at the University of Peradeniya, has been finally served justice. On May 8, 2026, the Supreme Court made the following directions regarding Udari’s fundamental rights case: “1) The 1st Respondent [her research supervisor] is prohibited from accepting any post, whether paid or not or honorary, in any university, educational institute or other academic institution; 2) The UGC to issue a direction to all universities and other institutions, coming under its purview, to abstain from giving any appointment, whether paid or not, or honorary, to the 1st Respondent; and 3) The University of Peradeniya, including the Council and respective Respondent [sic], are directed to take appropriate measures to enforce and raise awareness of the University of Peradeniya’s policy on Sexual or Gender-Based Harassment and Sexual Violence for staff and students, including conducting mandatory annual seminars for all academics, staff and students.” I recently spoke with Udari to learn about her experience battling the University’s sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) procedures.

Violence and injustice

Udari was a temporary lecturer when she began working on her MPhil degree. Her research supervisor was a Senior Professor and Dean of her faculty. The harassment began in 2017.

When Udari reached out for support to the SGBV Committee of the University of Peradeniya, the Chair explained the complaint procedure, including how a third party could make a complaint on her behalf. In July 2018, Udari’s mother made a written complaint to the Vice Chancellor (VC). “The very next day [my supervisor] called me … and asked me to withdraw the complaint because it would look bad for me … the university should have taken measures to separate the complainant from the perpetrator … but nothing like that happened.”

Before making the formal complaint, Udari reached out to other academic staff at her Faculty. She shared her experience with a few close colleagues. Many advised her to leave the Faculty. “No one in the Faculty supported me publicly, although some sympathised privately … I was a temporary lecturer … no one really cared.” Some of her colleagues and non-academic staff who knew about the harassments, asked her to avoid involving them because they feared retaliation from higher powers.

Udari faced a preliminary inquiry and then a formal inquiry. The preliminary inquiry took place about four months after her complaint, and the inquiry committee recommended proceeding to a formal inquiry. The latter was held about a year after the initial complaint. “I got to know unofficially that [my supervisor] had got hold of all the statements made at the preliminary inquiry and pressured some colleagues to change their statements before the formal inquiry.” During the time of the formal inquiry, an anonymous letter (“kala paththaraya”) was circulated among staff: “It was a character assassination … the same kala paththaraya would get circulated from time to time.” After the formal inquiry committee submitted its report and recommendations, Udari was informed, in writing, that the University Council had dismissed the report.

“Neither the preliminary inquiry report nor the formal inquiry report were shared with me … I had to make a formal request to the VC and only then did I get a copy of the preliminary inquiry report… I had to get the formal inquiry report through an RTI (a request under the Right to Information Act). What I understand is that [my supervisor] had influenced the Council … that’s why they rejected the report…saying there had been a delay of six months to make a complaint ….” (N. B. there are no time limitations for submitting a complaint in the SGBV by-laws of the University of Peradeniya, although such time bars exist at other universities).

Udari then submitted formal complaints to the University Grants Commission (August 2020) and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (December 2020), and finally filed a fundamental rights case at the Supreme Court in March 2021. Five years later, on May 8th 2026, Udari’s complaint was vindicated.

University procedures and inquiries

When her mother submitted the complaint against her supervisor, Udari was a temporary lecturer. She had given up her dream of pursuing an academic career because she did not think she would be recruited to a permanent position after making a complaint against a faculty member. It is encouraging that Udari was recruited, but in most instances, students and junior staff endure and stay silent to avoid jeopardising their academic careers. We currently have no procedures in place at universities to protect victims and witnesses from backlash.

According to Udari, the former Chair of the SGBV Committee and the members of her preliminary inquiry panel played a crucial role in her case, and, in her words, “could not be influenced.” But SGBV by-laws at state universities place inordinate power in the hands of the Council and VC. According to the SGBV by-laws of the University of Peradeniya, the Council appoints the 15-member SGBV Committee comprising “[t]wo (02) persons from among the members of the Council; [t]en (10) persons drawn from the permanent and senior members of the academic community; and [t]hree (03) persons external to the University, from among the retired academic or administrative staff of the University” (Section 2.1). While the by-laws recommend appointing persons who have demonstrated “gender-sensitivity, proven interest in working on issues of gender equality and equity, and trained to investigate and inquire into cases of sexual or gender-based harassment and sexual violence” (Section 2.1), we know this is often not the case. In many universities, VCs control which cases are taken up and end up in an inquiry. Most students and staff at state universities have little faith in the existing SGBV complaint procedures.

As Udari experienced, the decisions of inquiry committees can be overruled and dismissed by University Councils, indicating the importance of appointing appropriate members to the Councils. The Deans of faculties, who are Ex-officio members, usually collude to protect their own interests and fiefdoms, while the appointment of external members to Councils is deeply politicised. At present, there is no application process or vetting of candidates before they are appointed. They are usually persons who are seen to be sympathetic to the incumbent political dispensation. Furthermore, external members are dependent on the university hierarchy for information on the issues being discussed, the details of which are often hidden from them. It is not surprising then that University Councils would adjudicate on the side of power.

Final recommendation

Beyond barring Udari’s former research supervisor from holding positions in the university system, the Supreme Court has directed the University of Peradeniya to raise awareness on SGBV among staff and students. While SGBV is addressed in the induction courses and orientation programmes at universities, staff and students must be made aware of the nitty-gritties of complaint procedures, including time bars, which were crucial to the outcome of Udari’s case. But is raising awareness sufficient? Do we have ways to hold university authorities accountable for arbitrary and/or prejudicial decision-making and other abuses of power?

For Udari, life continues to be difficult, with constant surveillance of her activities.

“In November 2024 , I shared a post about my case.. it was a newspaper article stating that the Supreme Court had granted leave to proceed… I just took a photograph of it and posted it on my Facebook without any captions… a few weeks later I was summoned by higher authorities…I was informed that several academics had verbally complained about me using my social media to tarnish the name of the faculty and the university and, if that’s the case, that I should know that the University Council has the authority to take action against me … we also spoke briefly about the case and at one point I was told that this incident (harassment) happened to me because I showed some positivity towards (the perpetrator) …”

Let’s hope that university administrations pause before victimising and revictimising SGBV survivors in future. As a community, we have to rethink the hierarchical ways in which universities function and create a meaningful mechanism that supports students and staff to complain without fear of repercussion.

Thank you, Udari, for taking this step forward. University administrations will have to stop, listen and change their ways.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna, and is an alumna of the University of Peradeniya).

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

By Ramya Kumar

Features

‘Nidahase’ in the spotlight

Published

7 hours ago

2026/05/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Senani Wijesena, the Sri Lankan-Australian singer-songwriter, known for fusion pop/R&B with ethnic elements, like the tabla and sitar, is in the news again.

She was featured in The Island, in early April (2026), regarding her career in the music scene, and the release of her first ever Sinhala song ‘Nidahase.’

The song was released in Sri Lanka, on 17th April, with Senani in town to do the needful.

The music video was filmed at the Polgampola Waterfall, in Sri Lanka, and also features co-star Senura Ambegoda … playing the romantic interest.

Describing the setup, Senani had this to say:

“To achieve the high falls scenes, I had to climb large rocks and slippery edges to get to the top of the falls, and I had to do it in the yellow saree I was wearing. Of course the film crew assisted me.”

The initial scenes were filmed in bustling Pettah where Senani meets co-star Senura Ambegoda, working in a street stall, and when their eyes meet it triggers a memory of soul connection and transports her into another world entering the forest scene.

The forest, says Senani, symbolically represented a retreat to nature and peace.

The couple later rejoin at Colombo City Centre where they danced together and enjoyed each other’s company.

Says Senani: “The short dance routine was created on the spot, on set. Senura is a dance teacher, as well as a model and actor, and we learnt the routine, in 10 minutes, before it was filmed.”

‘Nidahase’ means Freedom in English – about being free in life, love, expression and movement.

It’s, in fact, a reworked version of her highly successful English song ‘Free’ which was nominated for a Hollywood Music In Media award in the RNB/Soul category, and also reached the Top 20 of the Music Week Dance charts in the UK.

‘Nidahase’ can be heard on all streaming platforms, including Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon.

Senani’s YouTube channel is www.youtube.com/senanimusic

Her social media pages are: www.instagram.com/senanimusic and www.facebook.com/senanimusic. Her website is www.senani.com

For the record, Senani is the daughter of film actress Jeevarani Kurukulasuriya and Dr Lanka Wijesena.