Features

SRI LANKA TODAY AND TOMORROW

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/18

Some of Sri Lanka’s Presidents and Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike

Safeguarding the Buddhist Civilisational Foundation of a Plural Nation An analytical examination of history, religious influence, extremism, social media, politics and external strategic interests

by A Concerned Sri Lankan Buddhist

Sri Lanka is entering another decisive period in its long history. The country has survived colonial conquest, political upheaval, ethnic conflict, terrorism, economic collapse and repeated changes of government. Yet beneath these political changes lies a deeper question that receives far less serious attention: What kind of country will Sri Lanka remain for the next generation?

This is not simply a question of which political party wins elections. It concerns the civilisation that has shaped the island for more than two millennia, the constitutional relationship between the State and Buddhism, the protection of all religious communities, the emergence of religious extremism, the influence of foreign powers, the transformation of society through social media, and the ability of Sri Lankans to think independently about their own future.

The question deserves neither emotional nationalism nor political correctness. It deserves evidence.

Sri Lanka’s 2024 Census records Buddhists as 69.8 per cent of the population, Hindus as 12.6 per cent, Muslims as 10.7 per cent, Roman Catholics as 5.6 per cent and other Christians as 1.3 per cent. Sinhalese constitute 74.1 per cent of the population. These figures establish an important reality. Sri Lanka remains a country in which Buddhism and Sinhala culture constitute the demographic and historical majority. But they establish another reality as well: approximately 30 per cent of the population belongs to other religious traditions.

Therefore, the future cannot be built either by pretending that Sri Lanka has no distinctive Buddhist civilisation or by treating minorities as outsiders who have no legitimate place in the country. The challenge is to preserve the first reality without violating the second. A civilisation cannot be understood merely through a census. Theravâda Buddhism did not become important to Sri Lanka merely because a modern census happens to record a Buddhist majority.

The arrival of Arahant Mahinda during the reign of King Devanampiyatissa began a civilisational transformation whose influence extended into education, literature, architecture, irrigation, agriculture, medicine, law, art and the moral conception of kingship. The relationship between the State and Buddhism consequently developed over centuries. The king was expected to protect the Sasana, while the Sangha was expected to preserve and teach the Dhamma and Vinaya.

That historical relationship is not identical to modern theocracy. It is better understood as a civilisational relationship in which political power was expected to operate within a moral framework. This distinction matters today. A Buddhist-majority country does not need to become a Buddhist theocracy. Nor does protecting Buddhism require denying other citizens their religious freedoms. The Sri Lankan Constitution itself recognises this balance. Article 9 states that: «”The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place” and requires the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana while assuring religious rights under Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

This constitutional arrangement should neither be quietly weakened nor interpreted as a licence for discrimination. It should be understood according to both halves of the constitutional principle: foremost place for Buddhism and religious freedom for all.

Colonialism changed the balance

The historical relationship between religion and political power changed dramatically with European colonialism. The Portuguese, Dutch and British did not merely change the administration of the island. Colonial rule also transformed the relationship between education, political authority, economic opportunity and religion.

The Kandyan Convention of 1815 is particularly significant. When the British assumed control of the Kandyan Kingdom, Article 5 promised to protect and maintain the Buddhist Order, its customs and places of worship. The National Archives records this undertaking explicitly. Yet colonial administration also created circumstances in which Christian missionary institutions enjoyed considerable advantages in education and social organisation. The nineteenth-century Buddhist revival was therefore not simply a religious movement. It was also a civilisational response.

The great debates culminating in the Panadura Debate of 1873 demonstrated that Buddhist monks and lay intellectuals responded through education, public debate, printing and intellectual engagement rather than merely through violence. The National Library describes the Panadura documents as products of a period of religious discord between Buddhists and Christians, but also notes that the debate
contributed to greater mutual understanding and respect.

This historical experience contains an important lesson for the present. When Buddhism feels threatened, the strongest response is not hatred. It is intellectual strength. The Buddhist revival succeeded because people studied, debated, wrote, established schools and educated a new generation. That lesson remains relevant.

Islam must be distinguished from Islamist extremism

Any serious discussion of Sri Lanka’s future must confront the development of Islamist extremism. But it must do so honestly. Sri Lankan Muslims are not synonymous with Islamist extremists. Muslims have been part of Sri Lankan society for centuries as traders, farmers, professionals, business people, public servants, politicians and neighbours. Muslim communities have also themselves suffered from terrorism and communal violence.

For example, the LTTE massacre of Muslim worshippers at Kattankudy in 1990 remains a terrible reminder that Muslims themselves have been victims of extremist violence. Therefore, an argument that presents the entire Muslim population as an organised threat to Buddhism would be historically inaccurate and socially destructive. But avoiding that error must not mean denying the existence of Islamist extremism. The 2019 Easter Sunday attacks provide incontrovertible evidence that extremist Islamist networks became a grave national-security threat. Sri Lanka’s Parliamentary Select Committee found that intelligence agencies had information concerning the radicalisation of individuals associated with Zahran Hashim and the National Thowheeth Jama’ath before the attacks. The Committee recorded intelligence concerning radicalisation dating from earlier years, lists of radicalised individuals, and repeated police/intelligence awareness of Zahran and his associates.

The attacks on Easter Sunday 2019 killed more than 250 people and injured many others. Parliament’s own description of the Select Committee emphasised that the inquiry concerned whether intelligence had been received beforehand and whether authorities had taken adequate measures to prevent the attacks.

The lesson is not that Sri Lanka should fear Muslims. The lesson is that a modern State must identify extremist ideology and organised networks before they become terrorist networks. This requires intelligence, investigation, monitoring of legitimate security indicators, appropriate regulation of foreign funding, counter-radicalisation programmes and cooperation with responsible Muslim leaders.

It requires the courage to confront extremism without creating collective suspicion. The Easter lesson is also a lesson about State failure. One of the most disturbing features of the Easter attacks was not merely the existence of extremists. It was the failure to act effectively on information that existed. A democracy cannot protect its citizens merely by collecting intelligence. Intelligence must reach the people responsible for action, and institutions must respond. This principle applies equally to all forms of extremism.

If an extremist group is Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Marxist, nationalist or separatist, the State must apply the same standard. The issue must be conduct and evidence—not ethnicity or religion.

Christianity and foreign religious influence

There is legitimate reason to examine the influence of foreign-funded religious organisations, missionary activity and forms of evangelical expansion in Sri Lanka. But again, distinctions are essential. Catholic and Christian Sri Lankans are citizens of the country. Their religious freedom is constitutionally protected. The appropriate question is therefore not: “How do we stop Christians?”

It should be: “Are all religious organisations, regardless of faith, operating transparently and within the same laws?” Foreign donations, religious institutions, educational programmes, property transactions, political lobbying and organised proselytisation should be subject to transparent and consistently applied laws.

If a Buddhist organisation receives foreign money, it should be accountable. So also Christian, Islamic and Hindu organisations. Whoever receives foreign money, it should be accountable. There should be one law, one standard and one transparent system. This would protect religious freedom rather than undermine it.

The present government has itself continued to engage institutionally with religious communities. In August 2026, for example, government representatives held discussions with Catholic Church representatives concerning Catholic schools, religious instruction and the recruitment of clergy into teaching. Such engagement is not itself evidence of an anti-Buddhist policy. The legitimate question is whether the State provides comparable attention and protection to the Buddhist Sasana and to other religious communities while
maintaining the constitutional position of Buddhism.

Is the present government anti-Buddhist?

This question must be handled carefully. There are sections of the Buddhist community who believe that the present National People’s Power administration is insufficiently sympathetic to Buddhism or is attempting to reduce the historic political and cultural position of the Sangha. That concern should not simply be dismissed.

At the same time, the available evidence does not establish that the government has adopted a policy of abolishing Buddhism’s constitutional position or destroying the Buddha Sasana. Indeed, the evidence points in both directions. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake publicly participated in the 2026 State Vesak Festival and called on citizens to safeguard the Buddha Sasana and Dhamma for future generations. He also described spiritual revival as important to economic revival.

The government has also stated that piriven education needs strengthening to revitalise the Buddha Sasana in the face of social change. These facts make it difficult to sustain the proposition that the government has an official policy to eradicate Buddhism. However, this does not mean that Buddhist concerns should be ignored. A government may legally preserve Buddhism’s constitutional position while still making decisions that sections of the Buddhist community regard as insufficiently respectful of the historical role of the Sangha. The proper response is therefore scrutiny, dialogue and evidence—not conspiracy theories.

The Sangha and the danger of politicisation

There is another uncomfortable truth that Buddhists must confront themselves. Some of the damage to the public image of Buddhism does not originate outside Buddhism. It originates within the Buddhist community. When monks become deeply involved in partisan politics, make statements without sufficient evidence, become associated with financial controversy, behave aggressively in public or use social media irresponsibly, the resulting damage cannot automatically be attributed to a conspiracy against Buddhism.

The Sangha is not protected from criticism simply because someone wears the robe. The Buddha’s teaching itself places extraordinary emphasis on conduct. Therefore, the Buddhist response to criticism should be neither blind defence nor blind condemnation. It should be: Is the criticism true? If it is true, correct the conduct. If it is false, demonstrate why. This is far more powerful than accusing every critic of being an enemy of Buddhism.

The case of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera

The recent legal developments concerning Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera illustrate the complexity of this issue. For many Sinhala Buddhists, the monk became a prominent public voice warning about religious extremism and possible threats to the country’s Buddhist character. Others have accused him of contributing to religious polarisation and of crossing legal boundaries. Both aspects need to be examined separately.

On September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court invalidated former President Maithripala Sirisena’s presidential pardon of Ven. Gnanasara Thera, holding that the exercise of the pardon power was invalid in law. The significance of this case goes beyond the individual monk. It raises a larger question: Should the defence of Buddhism depend on political power protecting individual monks from the consequences of their conduct? The answer should be no.

Buddhism is stronger than any individual monk.If a monk exposes a genuine threat, his evidence should be investigated. If a monk violates the law, the law should apply. If allegations made by a monk are false, they should be challenged. If allegations are true, authorities must act regardless of who made them. This is how a Buddhist society can preserve both Dhamma and the rule of law.

Social media: perhaps the greatest battlefield

Sri Lanka’s next major struggle may not be fought with guns. It may be fought with algorithms. Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, WhatsApp and other platforms have fundamentally changed how Sri Lankans receive political and religious information. A person can now create an anonymous account, publish an allegation against a monk, Muslim, Christian, politician or ethnic community, and reach thousands of people before anyone checks whether the claim is true.

A deliberately edited video can be more powerful than a documented investigation. An emotionally provocative headline can spread faster than a correction. A false story can become socially “true” simply because thousands of people repeat it. This presents a serious danger to Buddhism.

A sustained campaign portraying every monk as corrupt, every Buddhist organisation as extremist, or every Buddhist expression of national identity as “racist” could eventually weaken public confidence in the Sangha. But the opposite danger is equally serious. If every criticism of a monk is described as an attack on Buddhism, genuine misconduct becomes impossible to correct.

The answer is therefore media literacy grounded in evidence. Before sharing a religiously inflammatory message, every citizen should ask: Who created it? What evidence supports it? Can the original source be found? Has the image or video been edited? Who benefits if I believe it? Is the account anonymous? Have independent sources confirmed the claim? Is the message designed to make me angry before I have time to think? These simple questions could prevent enormous social damage.

Foreign powers and Sri Lanka’s strategic vulnerability

Religious influence is only one dimension of Sri Lanka’s vulnerability. Geography has made the island strategically important for centuries. Sri Lanka lies close to the major maritime routes of the Indian Ocean. Ports, energy infrastructure, telecommunications, digital networks, shipping, logistics and natural resources therefore have strategic as well as commercial significance.

India, China, the United States, Japan, the European Union, Gulf states and other international actors have legitimate economic and strategic interests in Sri Lanka. The problem is not foreign investment. The problem is strategic dependency without national safeguards. Recent developments demonstrate the scale of competition. In April 2025, India and the United Arab Emirates agreed with Sri Lanka to develop an energy hub around Trincomalee.

Reuters described the project in the context of growing Indian strategic competition with China. India had provided approximately US$4 billion in assistance during Sri Lanka’s 2022 economic crisis, while Chinese interests remained deeply involved in infrastructure and energy projects, including Hambantota.

Sri Lanka should welcome investment from all countries. But no government should allow the country to become an instrument of another country’s geopolitical strategy. The question should always be: What does Sri Lanka gain? What does Sri Lanka give up? Who controls the asset? For how long? What happens if political relations change? Does the agreement increase or decrease Sri Lanka’s strategic independence? This should be the national standard whether the partner is India, China, the United States, Europe, the Gulf or anyone else.

The greatest danger may be internal

There is a temptation to believe that Buddhism can be destroyed only by external enemies. History suggests otherwise. A civilisation usually becomes vulnerable when it loses confidence in its own principles. If Buddhist children learn only rituals but not the Dhamma, Buddhism becomes fragile. If temples become centres of political competition rather than ethical education,
Buddhism becomes fragile.
If monks are respected only because of the robe rather than because of their conduct, Buddhism becomes fragile. If parents transmit religious identity without understanding, Buddhism becomes fragile. If young people find Buddhism irrelevant to modern life, Buddhism becomes fragile. If superstition replaces investigation, Buddhism becomes fragile. If political power is mistaken for Dhamma, Buddhism becomes fragile. If Buddhists respond to every disagreement with anger, Buddhism becomes fragile. The strongest defence of Theravâda Buddhism is therefore not a political campaign. It is excellent Buddhist education and excellent Buddhist conduct.

What should Sri Lanka do?

First, the constitutional position of Buddhism should be maintained. Article 9 should not be casually weakened or politically reinterpreted. At the same time, its guarantee of religious freedom should be equally respected. Second, Sri Lanka needs a comprehensive national policy against religious extremism. Such a policy must distinguish between ordinary religious belief and extremist ideology. Third, foreign religious funding should be transparent. The same regulations should apply to every religion. Fourth, Sri Lanka should strengthen intelligence and counter-radicalisation mechanisms.

The Easter experience demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of failing to act on credible warnings. Fifth, Buddhist archaeological and cultural sites must be protected through professional, evidence-based mechanisms. Historical claims should be investigated by archaeologists, historians, epigraphists and other qualified scholars rather than decided through political emotion. Sixth, Buddhist education must be modernised. Young Buddhists should learn the Tipitaka, ethics, meditation and history, but they should also learn science, critical thinking, economics, constitutional principles, media literacy and responsible citizenship.

A young Buddhist who understands the Dhamma and can independently analyse a manipulated social-media video is far better protected than someone who merely
forwards religious slogans. Seventh, the Sangha itself should consider serious institutional reform. Monastic education should strengthen knowledge of Pali, Tipitaka, Vinaya, Buddhist philosophy, history and meditation while also giving monks appropriate understanding of contemporary society. Most importantly, the distinction between a monk who represents the Dhamma and a monk who merely uses the robe as a political identity must become clearer.

What does “Sinhala Buddhist values” actually mean?

This phrase is sometimes used carelessly. If it means ethnic superiority, hostility towards minorities or religious discrimination, it cannot provide a peaceful future for Sri Lanka. But if it means the ethical and civilisational principles historically associated with Sri Lankan Buddhism, it contains values that can benefit the whole country.

Those values include: Sîla — moral conduct; Sacca — truthfulness; Mettâ — loving-kindness; Karuṇâ — compassion; Paññâ — wisdom; Ahimsa — non-violence; Appamâda — heedfulness. Justice and responsibility.

These values do not require hatred of Muslims, Christians, Tamils or foreigners.They do not require hatred of Christians. Indeed, a Buddhist civilisation that has genuinely understood the Buddha’s teaching should be capable of protecting its own identity without dehumanising others.

A Buddhist country must not become an intolerant country

This distinction is essential for Sri Lanka’s future. The preservation of Buddhist civilisation and the preservation of religious freedom are not necessarily contradictory. A Buddhist-majority nation can say: This is our historical civilisation. It can also say: You are equally protected as a citizen. It can say: We will protect the Buddha Sasana. It can also say: We will protect your right to practise your religion.

It can say: We will investigate Islamist extremism. It can also say: We will not blame ordinary Muslims for crimes committed by extremists. It can say: We will examine foreign missionary influence. It can also say: We will not discriminate against ordinary Christians. It can say: We respect the Sangha. It can also say: No monk is above the law. That is not weakness. It is constitutional maturity.

Sri Lanka’s choice

Sri Lanka’s future will not ultimately be decided by India, China, America, Europe, Islam, Christianity or any other external force. Foreign powers can exploit weaknesses, but they cannot create every weakness. Our own weaknesses matter. If Sri Lanka becomes economically dependent, corrupt, politically divided, historically ignorant and socially addicted to misinformation, external influence will naturally increase.

If Sri Lanka becomes economically competent, institutionally strong, ethically governed, historically confident and intellectually independent, external powers will have much less ability to dictate its future. The same is true of Buddhism.

A strong Buddhism does not need to silence criticism, fear questions or hate another religion. A strong Buddhism does not need to fear questions. It produces people capable of examining reality. That is why the most important question for Sri Lanka today is not: “Who is trying to destroy us?” It is: “Are we becoming a society that can be destroyed because we have abandoned truth, wisdom, discipline and responsibility?”

The Buddha’s teaching begins with seeing reality as it is. Sri Lanka should do the same. We should investigate Islamist extremism without demonising Muslims. We should examine foreign religious influence without inventing conspiracies. We should investigate foreign strategic interests without becoming anti-foreign. We should protect Buddhist heritage without denying the rights of minorities. We should criticise monks when necessary without humiliating the Sangha. We should question governments without turning every political disagreement into a conspiracy.

And we should use social media without allowing social media to use us. The Sri Lanka we hand to the next generation should not merely be a country where Buddhism survives on paper. It should be a country where the ethical substance of Buddhism—truth, compassion, wisdom, restraint and responsibility—still influences how people live. That would be a far stronger victory than defeating any imagined enemy.

Sri Lanka has survived for centuries because generations before us protected something larger than themselves. Our responsibility now is not simply to preserve a territory. It is to preserve a civilisation—without losing our humanity in the process.

All News Advertisement

Features

It is not 1968, but protests are everywhere except Sri Lanka

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/18

Thilina Walpola

From Paris Tranquil

by Rajan Philips

Paris has exploded in protests barely two weeks after peacefully assembling nearly a million people on its streets to welcome and salute Pope Leo XIV on his first visit to France. The good Pope himself has since been diagnosed with lung cancer and is convalescing after surgery in the Vatican. The protest triggers in France are youth frustrations over the state of the country’s education system and the broken conditions of its schools. The scale and mode of the current protests have brought back memories of the great French student protests in May 1968. The two are not the same and even though they may be comparable in appearance, the circumstances between then and now are vastly different and so will be the consequences.

It is not only in Paris, but the protests are also everywhere else in France. As well as in other cities in other countries in Europe and extending beyond. The protest triggers vary from country to country, but the arc of the protests from Paris to Delhi has a common strand: youth frustrations. Everywhere, it is the youth that is on the march – for better education in France, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Albania and Austria; housing access and affordability in Spain; and opposition to official tampering with electoral voter lists in India. The young are restless about their future. “No future, no calm” is the chant in Paris.

France’s union of students, Union Syndicale Lycéenne (USL) had outlined four basic grievances before the protests began: “lack of teachers and staff, “dilapidated lycées,” overloaded timetables and classes, and the stress caused by Parcoursup” (a government web portal used for university admissions). The French government’s initial lukewarm response provoked the protests and when the government took a ham fisted approach, things went out of control. It has been the same story in other countries.

In India, the Modi government unleashed the police forces on students and others protesting the manipulation of the voter lists by the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, and calls for his resignation have become the rallying cry of the protests. The protests are no longer limited to the “Cockroach” youth movement or the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), and more mainstream opposition parties are all in the fray.

Defending the Constitution has become the new motif for Rahul Gandhi and the Congress Party. The Cockroach movement that first tasted political blood in June this year, by forcing the resignation of the Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over national exam leaks, is looking for a second scalp. The government is not in any immediate danger, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi is rapidly losing his political varnish and these protests may mark the beginning of his retirement.

In Spain, Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has called a snap election on the housing question, hoping to steal a march on the conservative Popular Party that has been leading in the opinion polls. Mr. Sanchez has been in power since 2018 and, despite the fluctuations in domestic approval rating, has gained international prominence following his clashes with Trump and Isreal over Gaza and the Iran war.

The beleaguered French President Emmanual Macron has six months left in office, and the next presidential election will be held in either April or May next year. In the cabinet meeting after three weeks of protests, President Macron reportedly acknowledged “that young people have legitimate concerns, but said these are being exploited for political purposes and turned into urban violence.”

The two main contenders to replace Macron are Jean-Luc Mélenchon who leads the far-left France Unbowed (LFI) Party, and Marine Le Pen leading the far-right National Rally (RN Party. Mélenchon is supportive of the protests, has condemned police brutality, and has participated in the Paris demonstrations. Le Pen, on the other hand, who is also the front runner in opinion polls, has blamed the students and supports police deployment against them.

There is also speculation that former President François Hollande (2012-2017) may stage a comeback as a more normal alternative to the two extreme contenders. Although he was deeply unpopular when he left office foregoing a second run, Mr. Hollande is considered to have been mostly mocked (as Rain Man) but not at all hated. His moderate positions and his socialist roots may attract a portion of the French electorate that is tired of “Jupiter” Macron and is weary of the diametrically opposite prospects.

: To Paris Turbulent

1968 Throwback

Whichever way, an orderly transition through France’s “rentrée politique” is in the offing, and the protesters are not clamouring to overthrow anything. That is a far cry from what transpired in 1968, when student protests ultimately led to the ouster of Charles de Gaulle. And there was more. Amidst convulsions in the US over Civil Rights legislation and the prosecution of the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated, President Johnson declared that he will not be a candidate in the 1968 presidential election, and Richard Nixon was elected as President eight years after his defeat by John Kennedy.

Besides the protests in France, there were protests in the then Communist countries and Yugoslavia, the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia, the start of the troubles in Northern Ireland, and uprisings against military juntas in Latin America. Africa was becoming more and more independent and there were strong prospects of secular nationalism in the Middle East. The year 1968 also marked the start of many social movements including feminism, and the environmental and anti-war movements. Socialists were a force to reckon with in France and Italy, both politically and electorally. New Left politics was emerging as a counter to both unbridled capitalism and Soviet orthodoxy. The Club of Rome was born in 1968.

“L’imagination au pouvoir” (Power to the imagination) became the battle cry in Paris in May 1968. The protests were infused with optimism for a new social order supervening the postwar material progress. There were powerful cultural and literary overtones that have proved to be more durable than the political projects that inspired them. Television became the main political medium, if not also the message. Although the state power and structures survived, other structures were broken and the intellectual and cultural legacies of 1968 have continued.

It is a different ball of wax in 2026. The protesting students are not looking for any brave new world, but for decent furniture, clean toilets and back to basics teaching and immediate remedies to problems that should not be there in the first place. In Spain, the younger generation is looking for housing at affordable rents. European demographics are also not helpful. The ageing population has its own needs and demands while the youth are increasingly drawn from the immigrant and the working class sections of society. High youth unemployment, zero growth, and government debt have become recipe for stagnation and not resolution. In theory, it is called “gerontonomia,” a form of “democratically sustained economic stagnation.”

In politics, the radicals and populists were dominantly on the right unlike in 1968 when the political left held sway even if it was not in power. Donald Trump, who vulgarly led the rise of the ugly right, may be on his way out, but it is a different story elsewhere. The right has returned to power practically in every South American country. Brazil is almost equally divided between its socialist President Lula de Silva and his presidential challenger Flavio Bolsonaro, the Senator son of Jair Bolsonaro who is in prison for fomenting insurrection to upend the 2022 presidential election.

In 1968, China was at the peak of its Cultural Revolution. It is a different China now. Indonesia was beginning its post-Soekarno era, just as India was adapting to life without Nehru, albeit in vastly different ways. Field Marshal Ayub Khan was overthrown in Pakistan – then with its two wings, east and west, separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory. Within three years, Bangladesh would break free quite violently, redrawing forever the colonial map of the subcontinent. Bangladesh had another uprising in 2024 and the new government is struggling to keep the many promises it made in the elections that followed the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina after 15 years in power. Imran Khan decidedly eschewed Sri Lanka’s ‘aragalaya’ example to protest his ouster in Pakistan, but the army has locked him up and seems to be in no mood to release him. Now there are protests in Pakistan for his release before it is too late for everyone’s good.

It was all relatively quiet in Sri Lanka in 1968, but it would not be for long. The 1970s and every other decade since have seen political turmoils of one kind or another. 1968 / 1969 were also the years when Sri Lanka’s parliament began considering a response to the 1964 Privy Council ruling (in Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe) and its implications for the ‘unalterably entrenched’ clauses of the Soulbury Constitution.

Dr. Colvin R de Silva, then an opposition LSSP MP, took over the debate and convinced everybody that the path to reforming the constitution was not through amending the Soulbury Constitution, but bypassing it and creating a new constitution and a new republic. Dr de Silva accomplished both but not without creating unintended consequences. Tamil separatism was one, and transforming Sri Lanka into a presidential polity was another. The former has come and gone, while the latter is still in force in spite of many promises and mandates to revert the country to its earlier parliamentary system.

President Dissanayake and the NPP government are the latest in a long line of promisers. The country is waiting for the final fulfillment of the promise and not its betrayal. The government can claim some credit for the current quiet in the country, but it would be a fool’s paradise to assume that peace and power are permanent.

Features

India and Sri Lanka must move beyond Katchatheevu to save the Palk Bay

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/18

Thilina Walpola

By Milinda Moragoda

The latest proceedings before the Supreme Court of India offer an opportunity to move the Katchatheevu island debate beyond the familiar question of sovereignty. While hearing petitions challenging the 1974 and 1976 India-Sri Lanka maritime agreements, the court urged the central and Tamil Nadu governments to sensitise fishermen about the consequences of crossing the international maritime boundary and entering Sri Lankan waters. The Indian government, meanwhile, has made clear that it does not intend to reopen the agreements and is pursuing concerns relating to Indian fishermen through diplomatic channels.

More significantly, the Attorney General pointed to the depletion of fish stocks in Indian waters as one reason fishermen venture into Sri Lankan waters. The court also raised questions about fishing practices and the condition of Indian coastal waters during the hearing.

These observations point towards a more fundamental question: is the continuing focus on Katchatheevu distracting both India and Sri Lanka from the real crisis—the depletion of the Palk Bay’s marine resources and the persistence of destructive fishing practices?

A problem larger than an island

Over 50 years ago, Sri Lanka and India signed two maritime boundary agreements—one in 1974 and the other in 1976—defining the International Maritime Boundary Line and establishing the respective maritime jurisdictions of the two countries, including Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Katchatheevu. The agreements did not grant Indian fishermen traditional fishing rights in Sri Lankan waters, nor did they provide reciprocal rights to Sri Lankan fishermen in Indian waters.

The constitutional and legal challenges to those agreements remain before the Indian Supreme Court. The court has not adjudicated their constitutional validity, and the matter remains pending. At the bilateral level, however, successive governments have treated the maritime boundary established by the agreements as the basis for managing relations between the two countries.

The concerns of Tamil Nadu’s fishing communities are genuine. Indian fishermen and their families face economic hardship when boats are detained and fishermen are arrested after crossing the maritime boundary. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay has recently urged the Indian government to intervene to secure the release of detained fishermen and seized boats and called for renewed dialogue.

But these immediate concerns point towards a larger question: why are fish stocks being depleted, and what can be done to restore them?

The problem cannot be addressed simply through repeated diplomatic representations, arrests, releases and demands for the return of fishing boats. Nor can it be resolved by continually reopening the political debate over Katchatheevu.

The Palk Bay is a shared ecological system whose resources are finite. Its health ultimately determines whether fishing communities, on either side of the maritime boundary, can continue to make a living from it.

The ecological toll

Bottom trawling is at the heart of the problem. Dragging heavy nets across the seabed destroys marine habitats, captures juvenile fish and generates substantial bycatch. Its effects are cumulative and potentially long-lasting.

The issue is, therefore, not simply whether fishermen cross an international maritime boundary. It is also the impact on the marine ecosystem of continued large-scale, destructive fishing.

Sri Lanka’s Northern Province, once home to a thriving fishing industry, has experienced a sharp decline in fish catches, from 35,000 metric tonnes in 1995 to 17,000 metric tonnes in 2023. Multiple factors have contributed to this decline, including the legacy of decades of conflict and displacement. But pressure from large-scale trawling in the Palk Bay has added to the difficulties faced by northern fishing communities.

For fishermen on both sides, the long-term interest should, therefore, be the same: preserving the marine resource on which their livelihoods depend.

A consistent but passive response

Sri Lanka has maintained a consistent and restrained position on Katchatheevu for five decades, working within established legal and diplomatic frameworks. The island has also remained a symbol of the longstanding links between the two countries, particularly through St Anthony’s Church and the annual pilgrimage attended by devotees from both sides.

But Sri Lanka has done little to give Katchatheevu a constructive contemporary role. That should change.

Years ago, the Pathfinder Foundation proposed the establishment of a marine research station on Katchatheevu, led by the Department of Fisheries, the National Aquatic Resources Agency (NARA), and Sri Lankan universities.

The proposal deserves renewed consideration.

Turning Katchatheevu into a platform for science.

A marine research station would give Sri Lanka a practical means of exercising responsible stewardship while contributing to the preservation of the wider Palk Bay ecosystem.

It could monitor marine biodiversity and ecological degradation, assess the long-term impact of bottom trawling, track migratory patterns and spawning cycles, and provide scientific data for fisheries policy. It could also serve as a platform for marine diplomacy and dialogue between India and Sri Lanka.

India already possesses substantial marine research capabilities. Sri Lanka should develop a complementary capability on its side of the maritime boundary.

Advances in solar power, desalination and modular construction have also reduced the logistical obstacles that might once have made such a facility difficult to establish. A low-impact, high-value research station is now a feasible proposition.

From dispute to cooperation

The current debate offers an opportunity to change the nature of the conversation.

Tamil Nadu’s concern for its fishermen is legitimate. Sri Lanka’s concern about illegal fishing and the degradation of its marine resources is equally legitimate. Treating one concern as valid and the other as an obstacle will not produce a durable solution.

Nor will repeatedly returning to the sovereignty question.

Instead, India and Sri Lanka should focus on the management of the Palk Bay as a shared ecological system. Joint scientific monitoring, conservation programmes and discussions on regulated and sustainable fishing could provide the basis for practical arrangements that protect livelihoods while phasing out destructive practices, such as bottom trawling.

Such cooperation would not require either country to compromise its sovereignty or its legal position.

It would require both to recognise that marine ecosystems do not respect political boundaries.

Science over sentiment

The Katchatheevu debate has continued for decades. The immediate concerns of detained fishermen and fishing communities must be addressed through established diplomatic and legal channels. But those measures cannot substitute for a long-term solution.

The real challenge is not simply who possesses Katchatheevu. It is whether the waters surrounding the island will continue to support the communities that depend on them.

For Sri Lanka, the answer should be neither rhetorical confrontation nor passive diplomacy. It should be science, responsible stewardship and constructive regional cooperation.

Katchatheevu need not remain a symbol of contention. Properly used, it could become a platform for marine research, environmental stewardship and sustainable cooperation between India and Sri Lanka.

(Milinda Moragoda is a founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank. tweets @MilindaMoragoda. email@milinda.org, courtesy of The Print)

Features

Rome:My First Diplomatic Assignment

Published

1 hour ago

2026/10/18

Thilina Walpola

(Excerpted from “Madam-Sir,” by Manel Abeysekera career and dilemmas of Ceylon’s first woman diplomat)

After the training in London I was assigned to our Embassy in Rome as Attache as I was still a probationer in the sense we needed to pass the First Efficiency Bar Examination plus acquire proficiency in the assigned foreign language within a period of three years before being designated Third Secretary. The Italians simply could not understand the meaning of “probationer” in my passport [which I do not think should have been in our passports] and always looked askance at me thinking I was out of jail on probation!

My Ambassador, Sir Arthur Ranasinha, much to my embarrassment [probably to his too], was my brother Lakshman’s father-in-law whom I used to address at home as “Uncle” and now had to address as “Excellency” in public. To my surprise, I made the transition quite easily and never made a faux pas. Sir Arthur and Lady Ranasinha insisted that I stay with them rather than at a hotel till I found an apartment. It was extremely kind of them, but I insisted, after the first few days, that I not travel with him in the official car but find my own way to the Embassy as I did not want the staff to think that I was being favoured by the Ambassador which would have been bad for both of us.

Little did I know that I would have only 10 months in Rome. I was grateful to Methodist College for my knowledge of Latin and Roman history as I wandered around the city having a closer look at places and monuments, some of which I had already seen on our family tour of Europe in 1950 ten years before. Once again I was able to treat myself to Grand Opera both in the magnificent Opera House as well as in the spectacular Baths of Caracalla. Art and architecture of such munificence was there for me to savour.

I think Rome is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and unique in the way that the old and the new blend naturally. Italy is the place to boost any woman’s ego especially if she were a foreigner because of the fun loving, romantic and gallant Italians to whom the chase was the thing rather than the capture! They seem to be able to spot a foreigner a mile off as happened to my English friend and flat mate from New Hall, Mary Anne Pritchard whom I had arranged to meet at the Memorial of Vittorio Emmanuele [the first King of Garibaldi’s united Italy], popularly known as “the wedding cake” as it had some tiers and was white in colour.

She had been a little ahead of time and, when I arrived on the scene, she was surrounded by a number of Romeos – wasn’t she glad to see me and be “rescued”! As I have observed, Italians have a nose for foreigners, whatever be their colour! I found it great fun as I had got used to it and as the Romeos were never dangerous and one could extricate oneself from them! On one occasion, when I was walking to the Embassy, two Romeos on a motor bike were insisting on giving me a ride when the Indian Ambassador drove past with flag flying and, seeing a woman in saree, put his head out of the car window and, in a flash the Romeos disappeared and I was able to proceed!

I feel that keeping up their reputation of being handsome Latin lovers was a cult with them! This seemed to be extended beyond belief as when I went to the telecommunication authority to pay the private portion of my telephone bill the officer who dealt with me who looked quite professional though young naturally came to know my telephone number. The next evening my delightful “daily” maid Maria asked me who was telephoning my apartment and asking for the “the princess” to whom she had firmly replied that there was no princess living there!

Subsequently when I answered such a call, I realized it was the official who had attended to my telephone bill! He professed a keen interest in the history and culture of Ceylon and wanted to come and learn all about it from me! I promptly told him that it was my male colleague in the Embassy that dealt with it – which was not really true – and that he was most welcome to meet him! As I expected, that cooled his ardour!

My senior colleague [he and I were the only diplomatic officers], Melville Fernando and his wife Shelagh took me under their wing and really looked after me. I fondly called him “Unkie” as he was quite avuncular to me and Shelagh “Agh Agh” and he called me Manuel Gomez! [shades of my Oxford tutor!]. Three Ceylonese who were in and out of the Embassy and who were sharing an apartment with Nada [A. Nadarajah] our Chief Clerk, were Lakdasa Hulugalle who was with FAO, a son of the former Ambassador – with whom I had stayed one night en route to Maratea to visit Maria my Italian friend from Cambridge — Mahinda Pethiyagoda [Peththa to his friends] and S.K Charles, both of whom were students.

They told me that they had seen me in my sitting-room through their sitting-room window. I simply did not believe them as they were great teasers, but when they described the saree I was wearing the previous day, it seemed convincing as I had not met them that day. So, when I went home, I looked out of the two windows of my apartment – the sitting-room one and my bedroom one and realized to my horror that it was in my bedroom that they had actually seen me and thanked my lucky stars that I had been fully clothed at the time. My bedroom window was directly below their sitting-room window as mine was on the ground floor and theirs on the first floor next door!

I had taken the first apartment I had seen within my rent ceiling as I was keen on moving out of the Ambassador’s residence, without bothering about who my neighbours were. After my discovery, I kept my bedroom window shuttered whenever I was in it. Soon after, my neighbours invited Melville, Shelagh and me to dinner and as I was only going next door, I did not bother to carry a handbag but put my set of keys and a handkerchief in my coat pocket. After dinner Melville and Shelagh insisted on seeing me home and luckily, before they left, I discovered that I did not have my key case and, thinking that the boys had taken it from my coat pocket after I had taken it off and hidden it, we went back to their apartment and demanded it.

They looked the picture of innocence and denied having hidden it and, fumbling in my coat pocket I realized that there was a hole in it through which the case could have dropped. Though we retraced our steps, with the boys joining in the search, we could not find it. The key case was an Indian one with a design on it and a zip and it may well have happened that someone could have picked it up thinking that it was a purse. I was able to get into my apartment with the Portiera’s [female porter] front door key.

Next day Melville organized the changing of the front door lock and that of my bedroom. Italians are rather like us: they are wont to do a job in fits and starts! So, when I got home that evening, I did not realize that though the front door lock had been changed, the bedroom one had one handle – only on the outside. After a shower and having had my dinner, I went into my room and having unwittingly allowed the door to close, I found that I could not open it from inside! As it was late, all I could do was to laugh myself to sleep!

Melville would always call for me on his way to the Embassy, and I woke up early and called him about my plight and asked him to come a little early so that I could throw him the key of my apartment door through my bedroom window so that he could enter and open my bedroom door where I was marooned! The good soul he was, he did so and got into the Portiera’s courtyard below my window from which I threw him the key. He made up his own funny version of it that he had to serenade me before I threw down the key, nor did he let me forget the episode!

Melville liked to take the mickey out of me and advised me to buy a Fiat Panic car. Knowing Latin I did not fall for it, but when he suggested that I buy a Super Cortomaggiore, I fell for it as I did not know that it was the Italian term for super petrol!

My Ambassador very thoughtfully let me handle FAO work and it was a great thrill for me to sit behind the Ceylon name board at meetings. The experience of getting to know the workings of a UN Specialised Agency stood me in good stead when I was accredited to ECAFE when I served in Bangkok. It also gave me entre to Dr. B.R. Sen, the Indian Director General of FAO. He even suggested that I join FAO but wisely advised that I should wait until I was more senior in my own Service so that I could join at a higher level.

An amusing incident involving Dr. and Mrs Sen comes to mind when I was back in Ceylon after Rome, and they visited as the guests of their friend, the Governor General Sir Oliver Goonetilleke. Since they knew me I was assigned the task of taking them to Kandy and Nuwara Eliya where we stayed at the Governor General’s Residence. Sir Oliver was a close friend of our family and as he considered Mother a lucky person, he used to come on the first of the year to partake of kiribath.

Needless to say, his recollection of me was as a young woman lacking in experience to handle the duty of looking after his illustrious friends. So he called the Manager of King’s Pavilion, Kandy to enquire after his friends and to advise me to make sure that they were offered drinks before dinner and the like. In Nuwara Eliya, H.M. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip had stayed at Queen’s Cottage where we were to stay and while the Sens were accommodated in the room that had been used by the Queen, I was accommodated in the one next door which had been used by the Prince.

Before dinner I thought I would have a bath in the refurbished attached bathroom. Although it was December and quite cold, the warm water made me feel great but, as I was finishing my bath, I heard the telephone ring in the room; there was no time to dry myself and put on my dressing gown and so I wrapped a bath towel round me and, dripping wet and shivering, I dashed to the telephone and answered it. To my surprise it was Sir Oliver on the line, to enquire after his friends.

While Sir Oliver had a natural stammer, I too must have been stuttering because of the cold! As soon as the call ended, I buzzed the operator and asked from whom the call had been as I thought that perhaps my brother was pulling my leg! But the operator’s shocked reply was that it was the “Uthumanan” and had I not recognized his voice! Wasn’t I glad and relieved that I had responded correctly! My brother, who when told the tale, assured me he would never have pulled my leg when I was on official duty!

My first experience of a cocktail reception was in Rome and so was my introduction to the popular Italian aperatif Campari. It was popular as a long drink with soda or orange juice or as a cocktail called negroni mixed with vodka. The deep crimson colour of the negroni made me reach for it, but one sip of it and I never tasted it again – so bitter was it on my tongue. Campari was one of the few drinks I was unfamiliar with as Father was a connoisseur of both liquors as well as liqueurs and taught me much of what I know; however, it was in Rome that I became acquainted with Italian aperitifs like Campari and the finer points of wines, their vintages and “bouquet”.

I must say that I enjoyed every moment of my stay in Italy and everyone in the Embassy was most kind and helpful and, apart from the Ambassador and his wife, Melville and Shelagh, there were others like Ornella Gulmanelli, a secretary who was always so caring and with whom I am in touch and see whenever I go to Rome, as well as others outside the Embassy like Nelson Fernando, Director of the Ceylon Tea Centre, who was great fun and had a lovely tenor voice, and whom we called Nelsone and his Italian wife.

My young girl friend Nelun de Silva whose step father Mr. Williams was with FAO and whose mother would allow her only to spend a night or week end with me in my apartment and, of course, both of us became and still are good friends as also with her husband Selvan Mather.

We had a lot of fun together but I had a problem of keeping the Italian Romeos away from her as she was and still is beautiful! We took a photograph together and titled it “Manel Nelun ha!” as in the famous “Danno Budunge”! One of my treats was to have been taken by Nelun’s parents to the Verdi Opera “Aida” staged at the Baths of Caracalla, where the Triumphal March was depicted with horses and chariots on stage – a most spectacular scene.

During my term in Rome, I had the joy of being in Venice to organize our stall at the Venice Biennale of Art, and taking time to visit the old Palace and St. Mark’s Cathedral. While in Rome, I sat for the First Efficiency Bar Examination and passed it – two years ahead of time – which resulted in my becoming a “passed Probationer” with the promoted rank of Third Secretary. This meant that as the Mission had no financial cadre provision to have more than one Third Secretary it could not pay my salary and I had to be transferred out.

I was extremely sad to end my “Roman Holiday” as it were. My Ambassador told me that he felt this would happen but that he did not tell me so as he thought that I might postpone sitting the Examination and as he felt it was not good for my career since he believed that young officers should get over examinations as soon as possible. I was given a farewell by the Embassy and I recall that the cork of the Champagne bottle popped, flew out and landed on my head! This I was assured was a lucky omen! I was given not surprisingly a cocktail shaker as a parting gift!

The only reason that I was glad to get home was that Mother had had a stroke. Yet Father advised me to accept New Delhi if offered as he thought it would be a good experience and, in any case, I would not be far from home. But that was not fulfilled as the Government was economising on foreign exchange and, alas, I never had the chance of serving in India which I have always considered is the cornerstone of our foreign policy.

So I took the sea route to Colombo from Naples, where Melville and Nada took me. A lasting, appropriate memory of the Italian character and of my departure was the lunch we had of very good fish, with Melville ordering three portions of the same for each of us. However, when the bill was brought, he noticed that he had been overcharged as it was not divisible by three; when questioned, the waiter smiled disarmingly and asked Melville whether he had not noticed that the lady had been served a “beeg fish”!