Features

The ethnic factor inSri Lanka’s foreign policy, 1948-1956

Published

4 years ago

2022/12/23

By Uditha Devapriya

The linkages between domestic politics and foreign policy represent an interesting, if not intriguing, object of study. There may be convergences between the two, but more often one comes across significant differences as well. This is as it should be: the factors which determine a country’s domestic politics are clean different from those which determine its foreign relations. Not least among these factors is ethnicity: at home, it becomes a divisive issue, a tokenistic abstraction used to win votes and elections and entrench a certain group over all others, but abroad, internationally, it becomes a non-issue.

For obvious reasons, it makes sense to follow a progressive set of policies over these issues, at home and abroad. However repugnant it may be, to give one example, ethnic nationalism has become a playbook of populist politicians, even in the most “liberal” and “developed” countries. Yet ethnic politics can be, and is, a hindrance to a country’s image abroad. This is as true for Sri Lanka as it is for the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Sri Lanka’s inability to defend itself properly at international forums and organisations, over such themes as human rights and accountability, thus betrays a failure to manage these issues well. Today, local officials talk of revamping Sri Lanka’s foreign policy establishment, starting from the Foreign Service. They have tasked entire think-tanks and institutions with a review of the country’s external relations. Yet reformist rhetoric is hardly a substitute for actual reform. The truth is that no number of reforms will be effective unless the country takes stock of its fundamental weakness: its failure to balance domestic politics with foreign policies, particularly over issues like ethnicity. To do so, scholars need to examine the roots of this failure, which can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s.

Immediately following independence, Sri Lanka endeavoured to become a part of the international order through membership of multilateral bodies like the UN. Largely because of its Cold War alliances, however, it was deprived of these opportunities until a good 10 years later. In this, the country had only itself to blame. Its foreign policy choices during this period were guided less by pragmatism than by ideological affinities with a power bloc. Even in its more laudable achievements, such as its stance on the nationalist uprising in Dutch Indonesia, the regime of the day followed a certain line: “[i]n the course of discussions,” S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike later recounted, “it appeared to me that I was expected… to follow the line Great Britain adopted over the Indonesian issue.”

A state of affairs like this could only come about because of the non-modernising character of the country’s elite. D. S. Senanayake is constantly celebrated as the Father of the Nation, with not a few commentators comparing him to historical figures like Lincoln, Gandhi, and even Nehru. Yet the truth of the matter is that, going by his ideological predilections and his foreign policy postures, Senanayake resembled Hastings Banda, the pro-Western leader of independent Malawi, rather than those other historical personages. Moreover, the elite of which he was a member were deeply compradorist and unable to prioritise anything other than their property and privilege, be it in domestic politics or foreign policy. This, in the long run, led them to side with certain countries and antagonise all others.

The foreign policies adopted by the UNP had the effect of limiting the country to a Western bloc and preventing it from becoming a part of the international system. While the West had played a leading part in the establishment of multilateral institutions, especially the UN, these institutions were now quickly being dominated by the newly decolonised countries of Africa and Asia, and by the socialist bloc. This was only to be expected, and in refusing to recognise that reality, Sri Lanka could only limit its choices. The blame for this, of course, has to go to the colonial elite: as Dayan Jayatilleka has noted aptly, the crème de la crème of the country paradoxically failed to produce a Nehru.

It is my contention here that the Sri Lankan elite resorted to the most divisive politics at home to buttress its pro-Western foreign policy stances. To give one example, all three UNP regimes from 1948 to 1956 summoned and then played to Sinhalese fears of Indianisation, in tandem with its anti-Indian line abroad. A corollary of this was the Indian Tamil problem: D. S. Senanayake’s decision to deprive Indian Tamils of citizenship, an act that was as racist as it was classist, was linked to the UNP’s rather irrational and silly fears of a Leftist takeover of the country, given the Left’s impressive performance in the Estates.

Not surprisingly, the UNP’s upper echelons neglected to manage these tensions, which more or less followed from its failure to balance domestic political and foreign policy concerns. Its increasingly archaic policies also fuelled much discontent, especially among Sinhalese and Buddhist communities, who felt out of place in an administration manned by a colonial and colonised, un-Buddhist elite. This discontent, symbolised by the defection of the Buddhist clergy from the UNP to the SLFP, should have provoked a rational response from the party, but all it did was to force it to adopt even more archaic, divisive, and fundamentally flawed policies, personified rather fittingly in the character of John Kotelawala. It was a two-way process: the UNP was not above using race and religion to quash dissent, while the SLFP led Opposition and its front-guard deployed both in return.

The problem with the SLFP’s front-guard, particularly the Buddhist clergy, was that it did not possess, still less mobilise, the progressive, anti-imperialist ideology that its counterparts in the Left did and had. A great many of those who joined forces with the SLFP had themselves been part of the UNP; some of them would later return to the UNP. But the battle lines in the late 1950s were between the proverbial forces of light and darkness, and for better or worse, the former were represented by those who had once associated with the latter. In such a scheme progressive politics had no place: the Opposition mustered all it had to quash the government of the day. It did this, successfully, by depicting the UNP and its leadership as a historical anachronism, and by deploying populist, divisive rhetoric.

The clash between these parties produced two contradictory results. On the one hand, the SLFP broke away the UNP’s foreign policies, from the high-strung pro-Western posturing of the past to a more proactive approach, which won Sri Lanka the respect of the world and of the Global South in particular. On the other hand, having benefitted from an upsurge in nationalism, it kowtowed to forces that represented, at almost every level, the antithesis of its progressive foreign policy record. Thus, while S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike transformed into Nehru’s equivalent of Sri Lanka abroad, in his own country he became anything but a Nehru. The Indian Congress Party would have, as it did, put a stop to the racialist politics of the RSS, achieving a congruence between domestic politics and foreign policies. Neither the UNP nor the SLFP had the will or the power to put a stop to the Saffron Brigade.

I would contend that this was, and is, the biggest failure of the 1956 election. Instead of leading to a congruence of values between domestic politics and foreign policies, the election served to disfigure both, producing not one, but two Sri Lankas: a Sri Lanka that touted progressive policies abroad, and a Sri Lanka that practised populist, reactionary politics at home. A large part of the blame for this must, of course, go to the architect of that year’s election win, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. At the same time, the blame must also be placed on the UNP’s non-modernising, archconservative bourgeoisie. Their actions – and worse, their indecisiveness – served to draw a wedge between Sri Lanka’s aspirations in the world and its actual, less than laudable political record at home.

It is this gap, between domestic politics and foreign policy – as witness the government’s unforgivable record on COVID-19 burials, versus its laudable stance on issues concerning the Muslim world, such as Palestine – which has hindered the country from becoming what it should be in the world. For the country to develop, to go beyond where it is now, it thus has to take stock of the past, where it went wrong, and seek to adjust accordingly. If it is to be more Nehruvian, Nasserian, or more progressive abroad, it must deploy progressive politics at home. In other words, it must practice what it preaches, and preach what it practices. Unless it follows this strategy, it will continue to show one face to the world and another to its own citizens: a policy hardly conducive to the country’s image overseas.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.

All News Advertisement

Features

Complexities in global politics deepen as economic pressures intensify

Published

16 hours ago

2026/08/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham meets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv. (BBC)

The present offer by the UK to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities in the missile technology field in particular comes as ‘a stitch in time’ and the initiative is also likely to be appreciated considerably by democratic opinion world wide for the possible morale-boosting effect it would have on Ukraine. Besides continuous arms support, the conviction that the world’s frontline democracies are behind it would prove a huge plus in Ukraine’s eyes in its grinding fightback against the Russian invasion.

While continued US support for Ukraine could not be considered ‘a given’ any more, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s words during a recent visit to Kyiv that the UK would stand by Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ is the kind of assurance that Ukraine needs at present. For, the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a war of liberation conducted by the latter against an invader and deeply at issue here is the upholding of International Law and its foundational concepts, such as national sovereignty and a nation’s right to political self-determination. The world of democracy is of the firm view that the latter ideals cannot be compromised, come what may.

The UK has its work cut out in this connection. It would find it difficult to convince the Trump administration that it should staunchly stand by Ukraine but it could campaign vigorously with the rest of the West and the EU fold in particular to unflaggingly support the embattled and over-run country.

Ukraine has shown an impressive adeptness in using drone technology in particular against her enemy and has even manufactured her own hardware in this respect but using the relevant blueprints handed over by the UK for the manufacture of more sophisticated cruise missiles, for instance, may prove financially difficult, going forward. It is left to be seen whether the UK and the rest of the West who are with Ukraine will continue to be with her, considering their own rising financial constraints.

The latter impediments could only multiply in the future. Oil, gas and energy prices are on the rise and the latter costs are glaringly reflected in kitchens and meal tables the world over. As we go along consumer discontent would steadily intensify and governments, East and West, would need to figure out with considerable rigour and foresight how such disaffection could be ably managed. Failing which, in most democratic societies, the chances are that publics would be out on the streets demanding that their grievances be redressed forthwith.

These rising concerns are reflected in a recent move by some EU governments to consider imposing what is described as ‘a windfall tax’ on the profits specified major oil companies operating within their shores have made in the wake of the US-Israel war on Iran. The rationale apparently is to use such tax earnings to cushion the rising cost of living of their publics and bolster the respective countries’ social expenditure.

In a recent letter to the president of the EU Council the EU governments referred to said, among other things, while drawing attention to the ‘discontent that is growing over the rising cost of living’: ‘A common approach’ is needed that ‘ensures those who profit from the crisis contribute their share to reducing the burden on the general population.’ Meanwhile, Oxfam with reference to the above development is on record as calling for a ‘permanent windfall tax of at least 50% on profits exceeding a 10% return on investment.’

Such are the rising economic pressures on the majority of Western governments. The question to be posed is how consistent they would be in their assistance to Ukraine if they decide consensually to stand by her. The soaring cost of living in the West compels the conclusion that there could be no guarantee that Western assistance to Ukraine, particularly in the defense and security fields, would be of a longstanding kind.

Of particular concern would be the fact that the weapons systems on offer from the UK to Ukraine could be increasingly costly to manufacture going forward. Besides they would need to be manufactured and put into action without delay.

However, these considerations should in no way deflect Ukraine’s supporters from the principled policy stance of defending her to the extent possible. Because at issue is the defense of International Law and the democratic system of government from their enemies; fascism and authoritarian rule.

While during World Wars 1 and 2 the US was with the major democracies of the West, this time around with regard to Ukraine, the US has chosen to be at cross-purposes with them. For instance, in relation to tariff matters and defense expenditure, in the NATO context, the US is pursuing a hard line which puts it at polar opposites with the West. Thus it is no longer possible to talk unreservedly of a ‘Western democratic alliance’. Put plainly, the cause of democratic development has been weakened.

A measure of relief for the supporters of Ukraine in the West could come by way of the upcoming mid-term polls in the US. If the Democratic Party fares well in them the pressure would be on the Trump administration to defer to opposition opinion at home, accommodate the best interests of Ukraine in its West European policy and perhaps even work towards a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis in cooperation with Russia. Accordingly, the Democratic Party would need to put the Trump administration on the defensive, so to speak.

Until such time Ukraine’s Western supporters have no choice but to remain committed to it, ensure its steadfast defense against the invasion and work judiciously towards keeping the economic pressures at home in check.

Interestingly, at the present juncture in international politics the US could be said to be more weak than strong. For example, it has to some extent been militarily humbled by Iran; so much so it is resorting to economic means to keep Iran in check.

In keeping with this strategy, the US has launched ‘a new big wave of anti-Iran economic sanctions’ at the time of writing, aimed at cutting Iran away from all its major income sources. Some of these relate to digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping. The hoped for result is the complete severance of Iran from the US dollar system.

However, while the UK and EU have no choice but to adhere to their policy of backing Ukraine, going forward they would need to dialogue more closely with the US and ensure that it cooperates with them on outstanding questions, such as Ukraine and the strengthening of democracy. The well being of the world is served when the latter aim is pursued.

Features

“Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery”

Published

16 hours ago

2026/08/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya opening the event

OPA 39th Annual Conference calls for Sri Lanka to move Beyond Recovery towards Sustainable Transformation

The Orgnisation of Professional Associations (OPA) successfully concluded its 39th Annual Conference, held recently at the Cinnamon Grand Colombo, under the theme “Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery”.

Held under the patronage of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA, with the leadership and guidance of Tisara De Silva, President-Elect and Chairman of the 39th Annual Conference, the Conference brought together leading professionals, academics, business leaders and representatives of the public and private sectors to deliberate on Sri Lanka’s next phase of national development.

The Inaugural Session, on August 2026, was graced by Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, as the Chief Guest; Andrew Patrick, British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, as the Guest of Honour; and Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of the Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka, as the Keynote Speaker.

In her address, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya emphasised that overcoming the economic crisis alone should not be Sri Lanka’s ultimate objective, stressing that recovery must serve as the foundation for a broader economic and institutional transformation necessary for sustainable national progress. Reflecting on the difficult period experienced by the country, the Prime Minister noted that Sri Lanka had faced significant economic, social and institutional challenges, which had weakened public confidence and created uncertainty about the country’s future.

She stressed that “recovery only provides the foundation” and that Sri Lanka can move forward sustainably only by using that foundation to bring about meaningful transformation.

The Prime Minister observed that the theme of the OPA’s 39th Annual Conference, “Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery,” aptly encapsulated these national aspirations. She emphasised that Sri Lanka’s objective should not merely be to return to the conditions that existed before the crisis, but to forge a stronger national foundation characterised by robust institutions, a resilient economy, high-quality public services and an enabling environment in which every citizen has the opportunity to thrive.

She further underscored that Sri Lanka’s future development cannot be secured through economic growth and physical development alone. She emphasised that the effective mobilisation of the country’s knowledge, skills and professional expertise, is equally essential to achieving sustainable and inclusive national progress

The Technical Sessions held on 12 August 2026 brought together 19 distinguished experts and professionals representing academia, industry, banking and finance, public health, technology, management and business leadership. Their diverse expertise provided a multidisciplinary platform to examine the critical challenges, emerging opportunities and strategic choices that will shape Sri Lanka’s next phase of development, with particular emphasis on economic transformation, institutional strengthening, digitalisation, private-sector growth, human capital and sustainable development.

The deliberations were structured around four principal sub-themes: “Resilient Recovery and Sustainable Economic Development”; “Future Readiness: Innovation & Transformation”; “Policy for Impact: Advancing Equity, Sustainable Living, and National Well-Being”; and “Leadership, Governance and National Responsibility.”

Across these thematic areas, the sessions explored the structural reforms, institutional requirements and policy choices necessary to move Sri Lanka beyond economic stabilisation towards a more productive, competitive, resilient and inclusive economy. The discussions brought together diverse professional perspectives, enabling participants to examine national priorities through economic, technological, industrial, financial, social and governance lenses.

Particular emphasis was placed on the need to move beyond the diagnosis of problems towards pragmatic, evidence-based and implementable solutions. The deliberations recognised that sustainable national progress requires not only sound policies, but also effective institutions, professional competence, innovation, responsible leadership and the capacity to translate policy into tangible outcomes.

The sessions further underscored the importance of collaboration across sectors, recognising that Sri Lanka’s complex development challenges cannot be addressed in isolation. Stronger engagement among Government, private sector, professional associations, academia and civil society was identified as essential to fostering a coherent national response and ensuring that professional knowledge and expertise are effectively translated into policy and action.

Collectively, the Technical Sessions provided a substantive platform for knowledge exchange, critical reflection and forward-looking dialogue, reinforcing the OPA’s commitment to bringing the country’s professional expertise to bear on the task of building a resilient, innovative, equitable and prosperous Sri Lanka.

The OPA expressed its sincere appreciation to Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, the Chief Guest; Andrew Patrick, British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Guest of Honour; and Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of the Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka and Keynote Speaker, for their distinguished contributions to the Conference.

Much of what the 39th Annual Conference achieved would not have been possible without the leadership, commitment and generous contributions of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA; Tisara De Silva, President-Elect and Chairman of the 39th Annual Conference; Eng. Ravi Rupasinghe, General Secretary; Dharshana Wijemanne, Treasurer; Bhanu Wijayaratne, Convener & the Chairman of the Session Planning Committee of the 39th Annual Conference Committee, Past Presidents and Office Bearers; Presidents and representatives of Member Associations; members of the Executive Councils and General Forum; and the distinguished Session Chairmen, Resource Persons and professionals who shared their time, expertise and insights in pursuit of the Conference’s shared vision. The OPA remains immensely grateful to all those whose collective contributions enriched the 39th Annual Conference and strengthened its role as a meaningful platform for professional exchange, informed dialogue and national reflection.

Features

Nostalgia for Lankans in Toronto …

Published

16 hours ago

2026/08/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Avurudu Musical Show 2027,’ a uniquely styled musical Avurudu celebration … Ceymphony Band style.

For Sri Lankans living 14,000 kilometres from home, the sound of home has never felt closer — and that’s thanks to one man and his band.

Since stepping into the spotlight, Gamini Hemalal and the Ceymphony Band have turned into the heartbeat of the Sri Lankan community in Toronto.

Their mission is simple: bring the music, bring the memories, bring the people together. And it’s working.

What turned out to be the talk-of-the-town was their intimate musical evening with Sri Lanka’s legendary crooner Sohan Weerasinghe.

Sohan Weerasinghe: Had
everyone on their feet at the
Angus Glen Golf Club, in
Toronto, Canada

It was a ‘full house’ long before the big date. Tickets vanished within days — demand was that overwhelming.

According to those who were there, it was a truly amazing evening. The hall was packed, the energy electric. Sohan didn’t just sing — he owned the stage.

With his velvet vocals, his charm, and that signature style, he had everyone on their feet. The ladies, especially, couldn’t get enough. No wonder they call him “The Ladies’ Man!”

One attendee summed it up perfectly:

“We had so much fun. It is truly a blessing to have our kids around us, enjoying these beautiful moments together. Thank you, Gamini Hemalal, for such a wonderful evening, with an amazing crowd and an incredible atmosphere. Your hard work and dedication truly made it a special night.

“We also need to say a big thank you to the Ceymphony Band for delivering such an outstanding performance. You all were absolutely amazing! Our entire family had a fantastic time, and we truly enjoyed every moment.

Ceymphony Band: Extremely popular in the scene in Toronto

“Wishing you all continued success. Keep up the amazing work, we can’t wait for the next.”

And the next is already on the cards: ‘Halloween Pissu Baila Party 2026,’ on Friday, 30th October, at the famous Angus Glen Golf Club.

Gamini promises a crazy night of baila, music, dancing and Halloween vibes with the Ceymphony Band. Action runs from 8:00 PM to 12:00 midnight, with plenty of prizes to be won.

Gamini Hemalal: Amazing work for the Sri Lankan community,
in Toronto, Canada

Gamini is also putting together a special event, connected with the 2027 Avurudu celebrations — ‘Avurudu Musical Show 2027,’ a uniquely styled musical Avurudu celebration … Ceymphony Band style.

It’s scheduled to be held on Saturday, 10th April, 2027, also at the Angus Glen Golf Club.

Through music, Gamini Hemalal and Ceymphony are doing what diaspora bands do best — they’re shrinking the distance between two worlds.

One baila beat at a time, one full house at a time, they’re making sure that even in Canada, Sri Lankans feel like home.

Yes, there is plenty of action, indeed, for the Sri Lankan community in Toronto, Canada.