Opinion
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part IV
Sri Lankan Foreign Policy since the End of the Cold War
By the end of the Cold War, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy priorities were predominantly shaped by its armed conflict with the LTTE, despite pivotal shifts in its regional and global geopolitical spaces. The significance of the country’s foreign relations was largely viewed through the lens of its strategic needs in the ongoing civil war, often overshadowing other broader regional and global developments.
The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of 1987 and the subsequent establishment of the Provincial Council system under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution failed to bring lasting peace and merely perpetuated the vicious cycle of violence. Meanwhile, the uprising (1987-1989) led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and its ruthless suppression deepened the political and social turmoil and tarnished the country’s democratic credentials, further constraining the government’s ability to focus and react to broad external strategic developments. As a result, the critical shifts occurring in South Asia, the Indian Ocean, and the global strategic environment after the Cold War were more or less overlooked in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy decisions.
Following the decisive military defeat of the LTTE in 2009, Sri Lanka underwent a significant shift in its politico-strategic needs, marking the beginning of a new phase in the country’s foreign policy. With the conclusion of the protracted civil war, a different set of issues came to the forefront and decided Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and geopolitical priorities. Accordingly, the evolution of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in the post-Cold War era can be divided in two distinct phases, with the end of the war in 2009 acting as a pivotal turning point.
Enduring Crises and Foreign Policy
under President Premadasa
When Ranasinghe Premadasa assumed the presidency after a violence-ridden election, Sri Lanka was mired in multi-faceted crises. The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), initially deployed to supervise the Peace Accord, quickly found it embroiled in violent conflict with the LTTE in the North. Maneuvering the IPKF’s withdrawal without alienating India became a delicate and daunting challenge. Meanwhile, the brutal suppression of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurgency in the South only deepened the country’s instability and culpability, further intensifying international backlash over human rights violations.
Despite facing significant challenges, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy lacked coherence and strategic direction. The government’s foreign policy responses were often reactive, addressing events in isolation rather than within a broader strategic framework. Decision-making appeared to be driven more by immediate political considerations than by long-term objectives. As a result, Sri Lanka became entrapped in a foreign policy dilemma, struggling to manage multiple crises across various fronts simultaneously.
One of President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s key achievements was persuading/pressuring India to withdraw the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka in 1990. However, it also strained Indo-Sri Lanka relations in the short term. One of the key achievements of President Ranasinghe Premadasa was persuading India to withdraw the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka. However, this success came at the cost-damaging Indo-Sri Lanka relations.
During a public meeting on June 1, 1989, President Premadasa demanded the complete withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri Lanka by July 29, 1989, giving India just two months’ notice. India was taken aback by the manner in which this demand was made and made it clear that Sri Lanka could not impose a unilateral deadline. India was only prepared for a phased withdrawal and had limited options. In response, India made a misguided decision to train a Tamil National Army.
In an effort to pressure India into withdrawing the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka, President Premadasa sought to leverage the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). In July 1989, Sri Lanka boycotted the SAARC Ministerial-level meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan. Furthermore, Sri Lanka made it clear that it would not host the SAARC Summit scheduled later that year in Colombo. The Sri Lanka informed SAARC countries that the Summit could not precede in Colombo as long as the IPKF remained stationed in the country against its will (RavinathaAryasinha, 1997: 54)
After V.P. Singh of Janata Dal became Prime Minister of India in December 1989, the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka was expedited. In contrast to Rajiv Gandhi’s position, I.K.Gujral, the External Affairs Minister in the Janata Dal government, stated that “Tamil security is an internal matter of Sri Lanka.” He expressed hope that the Sri Lankan government had learned from the lessons of history and would no longer deny the country’s ethnic minorities their due rights (Sunday Times, 29 April 1990).
However, the rescheduled Summit for Colombo in 1990 was ultimately not held there. The Maldives insisted on hosting the summit in Malé, coinciding with the 25th anniversary of it becoming a Republic. The failure of the planned 1990 summit in Colombo also reflects the complex regional dynamics at the time.
After the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in 1990, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) swiftly reemerged as a formidable military and political force in the North and East of Sri Lanka, setting the stage for the onset of Eelam War II in June 1990. In the 1990s, parallel to the expansion of Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, the LTTE’s international influence grew significantly.
Its front organisations in Western countries became increasingly active, openly fundraising, pressuring host governments on behalf of the LTTE, and even facilitating the transportation of arms and supplies to the conflict zones in Sri Lanka. This growing international network of support posed a substantial challenge to the Sri Lankan government. Moreover, the LTTE frequently framed its actions as a response to alleged human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government, using this narrative to justify its activities and gain international sympathy and support. The complexities of this issue—encompassing both military confrontations and political maneuvering—posed a formidable challenge that required a comprehensive strategy and sharp diplomatic acumen.
The Premadasa administration failed to fully recognise the growing significance of the international public sphere and the increasing prominence of international human rights frameworks. These were often dismissed as instruments of the LTTE’s propaganda. The Sri Lankan government held a largely negative view of Western countries that raised human rights concerns, perceiving these countries as supportive of the LTTE. This perception, coupled with a failure to distinguish between the LTTE and the broader ethnic conflict, impeded the government’s ability to formulate an effective strategy in response to international criticism.
Despite his unconventional approach, President Premadasa recognised that the Foreign Ministry was in disarray, lacking direction amidst the decisive challenges facing the country. In response, he established a Foreign Affairs Study Group, chaired by Dr. Gamani Corea, to address the situation (Dayan Jayatilleka, 2017). The group completed its report on restructuring Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and diplomatic missions, but before it could be presented, President Premadasa was tragically assassinated. Following his death, President Wijetunga, the caretaker president, assumed office but hesitated to take any new initiatives on the matter.
Change Vision and Restructuring under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga
The efforts to instill a new policy vision and reshape the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) began after the People’s Alliance (PA) assumed power in 1995 under the leadership of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. By the time Kumaratunga assumed the presidency, the MFA was in disarray—lacking direction and burdened by excessive politicisation. To address this, President Kumaratunga appointed Lakshman Kadirgamar as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Drawing on his extensive experience as an international civil servant, Kadirgamar implemented reforms to streamline recruitment, promotions, and diplomatic postings, restoring some order to the MFA. At the same time, the government sought to bolster Sri Lanka’s democratic image on the international stage.
Strengthening the country’s credentials as a functional democracy was viewed as essential for garnering global support in addressing the LTTE military challenge. In this context, internal policy reforms were expected to provide strong backing to a foreign policy with a clear vision and direction.
The PA government marked a significant departure from the antagonistic stance of its predecessors towards international human rights bodies. Recognising the growing influence of the global public sphere on national policies, the PA government made a deliberate effort to engage with key international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations. These engagements included open dialogues aimed at addressing concerns about Sri Lanka’s human rights situation.
The PA government’s commitment to international human rights standards and norms was demonstrated by its ratification of several major international human rights conventions. Additionally, the PA Government worked to strengthen domestic human rights institutions, particularly the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), further solidifying its dedication to human rights both within Sri Lanka and on the international stage. These efforts were seen as essential for two reasons: promoting domestic reconciliation and enhancing Sri Lanka’s international credibility.
In light of the geopolitical implications of India’s strategic rise and changes in the South Asian geopolitical landscape, developing strong ties with India remained a key achievement of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy under the People’s Alliance (PA) government. After decades of mutual suspicion,
accusations, and tensions, both countries recognised the importance of normalising their relations. President Chandrika Bandaranaike’s new vision and foreign policy approach provided a significant opportunity for a fresh start towards rapprochement. The Indian government’s diplomatic shift, marked by the Gujral Doctrine introduced by External Affairs Minister I. K. Gujral in 1996, further paved the way for improved bi-lateral relations. Indo-Sri Lanka relations had not been as cordial for decades as they were under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. A key testament to the South Asian policy of the Kumaratunga administration was the 10th SAARC Summit held in Sri Lanka in 1998. During this summit, informal discussions between India and Pakistan, initiated through the personal efforts of President Kumaratunga, marked a critical development in the regional strategic context.
Under President Premadasa, Sri Lanka’s relations with Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, began to deteriorate rapidly. For a small country like Sri Lanka, which was grappling with a significant internal armed conflict with international Diaspora linkages, navigating the post-Cold War global strategic landscape became a critical challenge. Nearly two-thirds of Sri Lanka’s export market was tied to the West—primarily Britain, the United States, and the European Union. At the same time, the LTTE’s international headquarters operated from Western capitals. Given this, Sri Lanka paid a steep price for its adversarial stance toward these Western powers. In contrast, one of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s notable achievements was her efforts to foster better relations with the West. By implementing internal democratic reforms and adopting the PA’s approach to the ethnic crisis, she created a more favourable environment for diplomatic engagement. This foreign policy shift paid off: In 1996, the United States resumed arms sales to Sri Lanka, and the US “Green Beret” corps began offering advanced training to the Sri Lankan security forces. This military support included specialized training missions by the US Navy SEALs, the US Air Force Special Operations Squadron, and the US Army’s Psychological Operations Group. The proscription of LTTE as a terrorist organization by the United States in October 1997, followed by similar designations from the United Kingdom in 2000 and Australia in 2001, dealt a severe blow to the LTTE international operations.
The dynamics of the crisis, however, posed significant obstacles to the continued implementation of this policy. Negotiations with the LTTE, which began in October 1994, collapsed on April 17, 1995, when the LTTE withdrew from both the talks and the ceasefire after four rounds of discussions. The hope of achieving a negotiated settlement with the LTTE was dashed within six months. The conflict with the LTTE once again became the central focus of foreign policy, but this time, the government’s
approach shifted from defensive to more assertive.
With the onset of Eelam War III, the government launched the Reviresa operation in November–December 1995 and regained control of Jaffna from the LTTE. In September 1996, the government conducted the Sath Jaya operation, which led to the recapture of Kilinochchi. However, the situation began to change in 1998. The government’s attempt to establish a land route to Jaffna failed, resulting in heavy human and material losses. By late 1998, military camps in Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, and Elephant Pass fell to the LTTE. Between 1999 and 2000, the Sri Lankan government forces suffered continuous setbacks on the military front.
Similarly, the proposal for the devolution of power, which had been incorporated into a draft of the new constitution, became entangled in political debates with the United National Party (UNP). The country had shown readiness to accept devolution through widespread public awareness campaigns, such as the Sudu Nelum movement. However, when the proposal was only presented to Parliament in August 2000, it was rejected by the UNP. As a result, the People’s Alliance (PA) government was unable to fulfill one of its key political promises to both the Tamil people and the international
community.
In 1999, another attempt was made to resume talks with the LTTE, this time with the prospect of third-party facilitation. President Kumaratunga explored the possibility of securing international involvement, with potential facilitators including France, a joint Commonwealth team, and the Vatican. By March 2000, the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE agreed on Norway as the mediator. With Norwegian facilitation, a Ceasefire Agreement was drafted between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE, scheduled to be signed on April 11, 2001. However, two days before the signing, the LTTE
unexpectedly declared that they would not proceed with the agreement, without providing any explanation for their decision.
(To be continued)
by Gamini Keerawella
Opinion
Remembering Douglas Devananda on New Year’s Day 2026
I have no intention of even implicitly commenting on the legality of the ongoing incarceration of Douglas Devananda.
I’ve no legal background, and that’s because having been selected for the Law faculty at the University of Colombo on the basis of my A level results, I opted to study Political Science instead. I did so because I had an acute sense of the asymmetry between the law and justice and had developed a growing compulsion on issues of ethics—issues of right and wrong, good and evil.
However, as someone who has had a book published in the UK on political ethics, I have no compunction is saying that as a country, as a society, there has to be a better way than this.
It is morally and ethically wrong, indeed a travesty, that Douglas, a wounded hero of the anti-LTTE war, should spend New Year 2026 in the dreaded Mahara prison.
Douglas should be honoured as a rare example of a young man, who having quite understandably taken up arms to fight against Sinhala racism and for the Tamil people, decided while still a young man to opt to fight on the side of the democratic Sri Lankan state and to campaign for devolution for the North and East within the framework of a united Sri Lanka and its Constitution.
Douglas was an admired young leader of the PLA, the military wing of the Marxist EPRLF when he began to be known.
Nothing is more ironic than the historical fact that in July 1983 he survived the horrifying Welikada prison massacres, during which Sinhala prisoners, instigated and incentivized from outside (Gonawela Sunil is a name that transpired), slaughtered Tamil prisoners and gauged out their eyes.
Having escaped from jail in Batticaloa, Douglas came back to Sri Lanka in 1989, having had a change of heart after hundreds of youngsters belonging to the EPRLF, PLOT, and TELO had been massacred from 1986 onwards by the hardcore separatist, totalitarian Tigers. He was welcomed by President Premadasa and Minister Ranjan Wijeratne who took him and his ‘boys’ under their wing. There are photos of Douglas in shorts and carrying an automatic weapon, accompanying Ranjan Wijeratne and the Sri Lankan armed forces after the liberation of the islands off Jaffna from the Tiger grip.
It is Douglas who kept those vital islands safe, together with the Navy, throughout the war.
Douglas stayed with the democratic Sri Lankan state, remaining loyal to the elected president of the day, without ever turning on his or her predecessor. He probably still wears, as he did for decades, the fountain pen that President Premadasa gifted him.
During the LTTE’s offensive on Jaffna after the fall of Elephant Pass, the mass base built up by Douglas which gave the EPDP many municipal seats, helped keep Jaffna itself safe, with more Tamil civilians fleeing into Jaffna than out of it. I recall President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga giving him a satellite phone. Army Chief Lionel Balagalle gave him a pair of mini-Uzis for his safety.
Douglas was no paramilitary leader, pure and simple. His public speech on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, delivered without a teleprompter, is an excellent roadmap for the graduated implementation of the 13th amendment and the attainment of maximum devolution within a unitary state.
Like Chandrika, Douglas has had his sight severely impaired by the LTTE. As a Minister he had visited Tamil detainees imprisoned in wartime, and been set upon by a group of LTTE prisoners who had planned for his visit, concealing sharpened handles of steel buckets in the ceiling, and slammed the pointed metal through his skull. Douglas still needs repeated daily medication for his eyes which were miraculously saved by the Sri Lankan surgeons who repaired his skull, but at a subsequent stage, he was also treated by surgeons overseas.
No Sri Lankan, Sinhala or Tamil, civilian politician or military brass, has survived as many attempted assassinations by the Tigers as has Douglas. I believe the count is eleven. There’s a video somewhere of a suicide bomber blasting herself in his office, yards away from him.
Under no previous Sri Lankan administration since the early 1980s has Douglas found himself behind bars. He has served and/or supported seven democratic Presidents: Premadasa, Wijetunga, Chandrika, Mahinda, Sirisena, Gotabaya and Wickremesinghe. He has been a Minister over decades and a parliamentarian for longer.
He was a firm frontline ally of the Sri Lankan state and its armed forces during the worst challenge the country faced from the worst enemy it had since Independence.
During my tenure as Sri Lanka’s ambassador/Permanent representative to the UN Geneva, Douglas Devananda came from Colombo to defend Sri Lanka in discussions with high level UN officials including UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay. This was in April 23, mere weeks before the decisive battle of the UN HRC Special session on Sri Lanka which we won handsomely. The media release on his visit reads as follows:
A high-level delegation led by the Hon. Minister Douglas Devananda, Minister of Social Services and Social Welfare, which also included the Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Resettlement and Disaster Relief Services, H.E. Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, Ambassador/ Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, and Mr. Yasantha Kodagoda, Deputy Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Department, represented Sri Lanka at the Durban Review Conference.
“Organized by the United Nations, the Durban Review Conference provides an opportunity to assess and accelerate progress on implementation of measures adopted at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, including assessment of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. On the opening day of this conference, Hon. Douglas Devananda made a statement behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka.
“On the sidelines of the Durban Review Conference which is being held from 20th to 24th of April 2009, the Sri Lankan delegation met with senior UN officials, and a number of dignitaries from diverse countries and updated them on the current situation in Sri Lanka against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s fight against separatism and terrorism.
Hon. Devananda and Hon. Bathiudeen, along with the rest of the delegation, held meetings with Ms. Navanethem Pillai, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (and a former Prime Minister of Portugal) and Mr. Anders Johnsson, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.’
(https://live.lankamission.org/index.php/human-rights/676-minister-devananda-meets-un-high-commissioners-for-human-rights-and-refugees-2.html)
In contemporary world history, a leader from a minority community who defends the unity of his country against a separatist terrorist force deriving from that minority is hailed as a hero. A leader who takes the side of the democratic state, arms in hand, against a totalitarian fascistic foe, is hailed as a hero. Evidently, not so in current-day Sri Lanka.
[Dayan Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka’s former Ambassador to the UN Geneva; France, Spain, Portugal and UNESCO; and the Russian Federation, was a Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council and Chairman, ILO.]
by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka ✍️
Opinion
A national post-cyclone reflection period? – II
A call to transform schools from shelters of safety into sanctuaries of solidarity
(Part I of this article appeared on 10 Dec. 2025— https://island.lk/a-national-post-cyclone-reflection-period/)
What Could NPCRP Look Like in School?
In the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, Sri Lankan schools can play a crucial role in helping children process their experiences, rebuild their sense of safety, and find meaning in collective healing. To achieve this, schools can employ a period of at least two or three weeks of continuous reflection and creative processing, a rich set of classroom, school-wide, and community-level activities, tailored to the needs of students in the post-disaster landscape.
Classroom Level: Beyond morning assemblies and daily curricular learning, classrooms can engage in reflection-based group projects that deepen understanding and reconstruct a sense of narrative around the disaster. Students may create timelines of the cyclone, maps of affected areas, and “hero stories” honoring rescuers, first responders, volunteers, teachers, parents, and neighbours. They can also explore environmental dimensions by studying land management, erosion, and deforestation—connecting personal trauma with broader ecological lessons. Using ordinary mobile phones, groups may produce mini documentaries capturing their community’s stories, strengthening both empathy and agency.
One powerful approach could be to dedicate the first period of each school day to guided sharing circles facilitated by teachers. During these sessions, students can explore gentle prompts such as: What did I experience? What did I witness? What am I feeling now—and why? What do I need to feel safe? How can I help my family or community? What have I or haven’t I done that would have contributed to natural disasters? What am I or am I not doing to contribute to environmental preservation? What more could I or couldn’t I do to avoid further ecological harm? Children may express themselves through spoken reflection, creative writing, drawing, painting, journaling, storytelling, role-play, poetry, song, or even handicrafts made from safely cleaned, recycled flood debris.
School Level: At the school level, exhibitions of student expressions, multi-faith remembrance ceremonies, guest talks by mental-health professionals, environmental awareness workshops, tree-planting memorials, disaster drills, and student-led volunteer clubs can bring the whole school community together in collective learning and restoration. Peer-support groups and simple grounding exercises can help students process emotions gently and safely. Collaborative murals and wall paintings portraying hope and resilience can serve as both an emotional outlet and a communal act of rebuilding.
Community Level: Beyond the school walls, community-based initiatives—such as joint parent-student rebuilding projects, clean-up campaigns, home-visit systems for affected families, partnerships with clergy and village leaders, parental sharing groups, and collaborations with NGOs for counselling and disaster training—help weave stronger bonds between families, educators, and local institutions.
Throughout the NPCRP process, teachers and parents can play an essential psychosocial role by observing children with quiet attentiveness. Signs such as withdrawal, silence, unusual aggression, disturbed sleep routines, anxiety triggered by rain or thunder, sudden academic decline, or persistent sadness may indicate deeper distress. Those showing significant symptoms can be gently referred to school counsellors, psychosocial officers, or local mental-health teams for additional support. Early identification can be life-changing, especially for children who may otherwise suffer in silence.
After the NPCRP period, schools might organize a simple but meaningful internal exhibition showcasing student artwork, posters on resilience and disaster preparedness, documentary videos, and a “wall of gratitude” dedicated to rescue workers and volunteers. A remembrance corner honoring victims and survivors can provide a quiet space for communal reflection. Parents, guardians, religious leaders, and community members may be invited to witness the strength and vulnerability of their young people and to reaffirm a shared commitment to rebuilding lives and landscapes.
The reflection period may culminate in a closing ceremony of remembrance and resolve—an inclusive event that reflects Sri Lanka’s multicultural and multi-religious identity. The program could include a moment of silence, the lighting of oil lamps or candles, blessings from clergy of different faith traditions, and the felicitation of survivors and volunteer responders. Schools may also unveil a small, simple memorial—perhaps a stone, a tree, or a bench—created collaboratively by students, parents, and teachers, bearing a message such as: “From suffering, we rise — Cyclone Ditwah, 2025.” Even the simplest symbol can become a powerful reminder of shared endurance and collective hope.
Finally, schools could document this entire journey by gathering student photographs, stories, artwork, and personal reflections into a printed booklet or digital archive. Such a record would serve not only as a testimony of what the children endured, but also as a chronicle of resilience, solidarity, and renewal, something future generations can look back on as they continue the work of building a safer, more compassionate, and more environmentally conscious Sri Lanka.
Why Does NPCRP Matter?
Creating space for reflection and healing after Cyclone Ditwah should not be an optional exercise, but a national imperative. Emotional healing is essential because children recover best when they are encouraged to express what they have lived through; silence, on the other hand, often deepens fear, while shared storytelling strengthens resilience. This process, when adhered to within an established framework such as the Canadian sharing model or Jesuit spiritual conversation, is therefore therapeutic, nurturing respect and community-building through active listening and intentional speaking. As young people hear one another’s experiences, they develop empathy, and empathy in turn strengthens social cohesion—the foundation of a healthy democracy. Psychosocial activities that students engaged in during this period further facilitate opportunities to identify and support those students who show early signs of distress, while transforming schools into nurturing spaces that form whole persons, not just exam-takers.
Crucially, this period allows schools to integrate values that often remain outside the syllabus—emotional intelligence, ecological responsibility, national solidarity, and ethical reflection—contributing to strengthening national identity, as young people from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and social backgrounds discover a common narrative of suffering and survival. Also, fostering an understanding of environmental responsibility encourages sustainable behaviors that benefit the nation’s ecosystems for decades to come. Ultimately, these efforts strengthen the triangle of school–home–community relationships, building trust networks that not only support healing now but fortify the Sri Lankan nation against the uncertainties of the future. In that light, the cyclone, devastating as it was, offers a real-world context through which these values can be meaningfully taught and internalized.
Just as early psychosocial support leads to healthier long-term mental health outcomes, preventing deep-seated trauma from taking root, the long-term benefits of reflection extend well beyond the current disaster. Sri Lanka’s increasing vulnerability to monsoons and cyclones underscores the need to prepare the next generation for future disasters; children who learn to respond proactively, intelligently, and compassionately today will grow into adults who can lead communities safely through tomorrow’s crises. Children who are given tools to process trauma today will mature into resilient, compassionate, and confident adults capable of leadership in difficult times. A culture of solidarity can begin to take root when young people learn to care for “the other”, helping to soften and heal the country’s longstanding divisions. Improved disaster preparedness becomes a natural by-product of an educated and emotionally informed younger generation, reducing future loss of life and enhancing community responsiveness.
Conclusion
Cyclone Ditwah has forced Sri Lanka into a moment of profound reckoning—one that goes beyond the damaged infrastructure and broken landscapes. It has confronted us with the emotional and moral responsibility we hold toward our children, who have witnessed, endured, and responded to this disaster in countless ways. As the nation embarks on the long road to recovery, the reopening of schools becomes more than a logistical necessity; it becomes a national act of renewal, a declaration that our commitment to healing is as strong as our commitment to rebuilding.
If we are courageous enough to embrace this moment, schools can become powerful spaces of transformation. Not only can they restore stability and routine, but they should be the first places to cultivate empathy, resilience, ecological responsibility, and a shared sense of belonging, the qualities that Sri Lanka urgently needs as it confronts both old and emerging challenges. By creating structured opportunities for reflection, dialogue, creativity, and community engagement, we ensure that our children do not merely “move on” but move forward with understanding, resilience, educated solidarity, and purpose.
To that end, if the experiences carried by Sri Lankan children today are met with guided reflection and compassionate mentorship at school, they can become the seeds of a more humane and united nation. But if ignored, suppressed, or treated with less urgency and priority, they risk hardening into private wounds that isolate rather than connect. This is why the Ministry of Education’s choices in the coming weeks matter so profoundly. Like NPCRP, an intentional, well-structured reflective period within schools is not a delay in learning; it is learning in its highest form. It is the education that acknowledges life, loss, dignity, and responsibility, the kind of education that prepares children not only for examinations but for citizenship. Reopening schools without systematically addressing the emotional and moral dimensions of this tragedy, therefore, would be a missed opportunity
Hence, let us allow this disaster to teach us something enduring: that Sri Lanka rises strongest not when it focuses solely on rebuilding walls and bridges, but when it rebuilds its people, beginning with the youngest among us. Let us empower children to speak, share, create, question, and hope. Let us help them connect their experiences to a greater moral and ecological awareness. Let us show them that solidarity is not a distant ideal but a lived reality, learned through compassion and strengthened through community.
In the months and years to come, a new story will be told about how Sri Lanka responded to Cyclone Ditwah. Let that story be one of unity, vision, and courage. Let it be said that we refused to let our children carry their fears alone. Let it be remembered that our schools became sanctuaries of healing and hubs of civic renewal. And let it be known that from the grief of 2025 emerged a generation—educated, empathetic, and resilient—capable of guiding Sri Lanka toward a more just, prepared, and environmentally conscious future. As the legendary image of the Phoenix reminds us, from mud, we rise, and from learning, we (re)build the Sri Lanka she was always meant to be. (Concluded)
Dr. Rashmi M. Fernando, S.J., is a Jesuit priest, educator, and special assistant to the provost at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, USA.
by Dr. Rashmi M. Fernando, S.J. ✍️
Opinion
Lakshman Balasuriya – Not just my boss but a father and a brother
It is with profound sadness that we received the shocking news of untimely passing of our dear leader Lakshman Balasuriya.
I first met Lakshman Balasuriya in 1988 while working at John Keells, which had been awarded an IT contract to computerise Senkadagala Finance. Thereafter, in 1992, I joined the E. W. Balasuriya Group of Companies and Senkadagala Finance when the organisation decided to bring its computerisation in-house.
Lakshman Balasuriya obtained his BSc from the University of London and his MSc from the University of Lancaster. He was not only intellectually brilliant, but also a highly practical and pragmatic individual, often sitting beside me to share instructions and ideas, which I would then translate directly into the software through code.
My first major assignment was to computerise the printing press. At the time, the systems in place were outdated, and modernisation was a challenging task. However, with the guidance, strong support, and decisive leadership of our boss, we were able to successfully transform the printing press into a modern, state-of-the-art operation.
He was a farsighted visionary who understood the value and impact of information technology well ahead of his time. He possessed a deep knowledge of the subject, which was rare during those early years. For instance, in the 1990s, Balasuriya engaged a Canadian consultant to conduct a cybersecurity audit—an extraordinary initiative at a time when cybersecurity was scarcely spoken of and far from mainstream.
During that period, Senkadagala Finance’s head office was based in Kandy, with no branch network. When the decision was made to open the first branch in Colombo, our IT team faced the challenge of adapting the software to support branch operations. It was him who proposed the innovative idea of creating logical branches—a concept well ahead of its time in IT thinking. This simple yet powerful idea enabled the company to expand rapidly, allowing branches to be added seamlessly to the system. Today, after many upgrades and continuous modernisation, Senkadagala Finance operates over 400 locations across the country with real-time online connectivity—a testament to his original vision.
In September 2013, we faced a critical challenge with a key system that required the development of an entirely new solution. A proof of concept was prepared and reviewed by Lakshman Balasuriya, who gave the green light to proceed. During the development phase, he remained deeply involved, offering ideas, insights, and constructive feedback. Within just four months, the system was successfully developed and went live—another example of his hands-on leadership and unwavering support for innovation.
These are only a few examples among many of the IT initiatives that were encouraged, supported, and championed by him. Information technology has played a pivotal role in the growth and success of the E. W. Balasuriya Group of Companies, including Senkadagala Finance PLC, and much of that credit goes to his foresight, trust, and leadership.
On a deeply personal note, I was not only a witness to, but also a recipient of, the kindness, humility, and humanity of Lakshman Balasuriya. There were occasions when I lost my temper and made unreasonable demands, yet he always responded with firmness tempered by gentleness. He never lost his own composure, nor did he ever harbour grudges. He had the rare ability to recognise people’s shortcomings and genuinely tried to guide them toward self-improvement.
He was not merely our boss. To many of us, he was like a father and a brother.
I will miss him immensely. His passing has left a void that can never be filled. Of all the people I have known in my life, Mr. Lakshman Balasuriya stands apart as one of the finest human beings.
He leaves behind his beloved wife, Janine, his children Amanthi and Keshav, and the four grandchildren.
May he rest in eternal peace!
Timothy De Silva
(Information Systems Officer at Senkadagala Finance.)
-
News6 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Sports3 days agoGurusinha’s Boxing Day hundred celebrated in Melbourne
-
News6 days agoLankan aircrew fly daring UN Medevac in hostile conditions in Africa
-
News1 day agoLeading the Nation’s Connectivity Recovery Amid Unprecedented Challenges
-
Sports4 days agoTime to close the Dickwella chapter
-
Features6 days agoRethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya
-
Features2 days agoIt’s all over for Maxi Rozairo
-
Opinion6 days agoAre we reading the sky wrong?
