Features
The Executive Presidency as JRJ saw it
(Excerpted from Men and Memories by JR Jayewardene)
(The elected Executive Presidency was adopted in Sri Lanka in 1978. The original idea was mine and there is controversy about it in Sri Lanka now. I explained the Constitution in this lecture delivered in July 1991.)
The first suggestion to introduce the Executive Presidency system of Government in Sri Lanka was made by me while I was a Minister in the Dudley Senanayake Government of 1965-1970, in a speech to the Science Students Association of the Colombo University in December 1966. Some of the remarks I made then were as follows:
In some countries, the executive is chosen directly by the people and is not dependent on the legislature during the period of its existence, for a specified number of years. The new French Constitution is a combination of the British and the American systems. Such an executive is a strong executive, seated in power for a fixed number of years, not subject to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature; not afraid to take correct but unpopular decision because of censure from its parliamentary party. This seems to me a very necessary requirement in a developing country faced with grave problems such as we are faced with today.
The next occasion I raised this questions was when I was in the Opposition. Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government was considering amending the Constitution, to introduce the Republican Constitution of 1972. I suggested to the United National Party Working Committee that we put forward our views supporting the Executive Presidential system at the Constituent Assembly. The Party did not agree. But Dudley Senanayake who did not support it, stated that we must remember that the most powerful country in the world today, America, has attained that stature under an Executive Presidential system.
On July 2, 1971, at the Meeting of the Constituent Assembly, I was permitted to propose that we adopt the Executive Presidential system in place of the Westminster model. R. Premadasa, who was in the Opposition with me, seconded the proposal. We received no support and the motion was defeated.
One reason for adopting the Presidential system was the instability that was attached to a government under the Westminster type of Constitution. Let us look at our own country since we attained independence in 1948.
At the General Election of 1947, no party obtained an overall majority. The UNP under D.S. Senanayake had the largest number of members and was invited by the Governor to form a government which he did. He was able to carry on his work through a parliamentary majority which had the support of 21 Independent members, who called the tune. The Independents could defeat the government at any time by voting against its proposals. The support of the Independents was obtained largely through the influence and stature that D.S. Senanayake wielded as “Father of the Nation” and one chiefly responsible for obtaining freedom from the British.
On his (D.S. Senanayake’s) death in March 1952, Dudley Senanayake, the new Prime Minister, called for a General Election within a month and he was returned with a two-thirds majority. However, there was much trouble within the Government Parliamentary Party. A few Cabinet Ministers combined together to make it difficult for Dudley Senanayake to govern.
As a result of the resignation of Dudley Senanayake in 1953, Sir John Kotelawala became the Prime Minister. He too, facing trouble from within the party, called for elections in February 1956, fifteen months before the life of the Parliament was over.
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike formed a government with the aid of other parties, after the 1956 elections. He found it difficult to maintain the government as several parties that had helped him to form a coalition government were pulling in various directions. Resort to a long prorogation did not help. His death in September 1959 deepened the crisis and Parliament was dissolved soon after his death by his successor W. Dahanayake, after a regime that lasted three and a half months.
As a result of this dissolution, a ‘Hung Parliament’ was elected in April 1960. Dudley Senanayake leading the UNP had the largest number of members in the House but did not have a majority in Parliament. Being defeated on the Throne Speech debate, he dissolved Parliament.
Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike’s Party had the largest number of members in the June 1960 elections and in December 1964, after a long prorogation which did not help, the government was defeated and she dissolved Parliament before her term was over in 1965.
The 1965 April elections put Dudley Senanayake in office with a majority in Parliament and he was able to govern the country,, for the full period from 1965 to 1970. It was the first occasion since independence in 1948 that a political party was able to govern the country for a full period of five years.
Mrs. Bandaranaike won the 1970 General Election, this too with the help of several other parties and she formed a coalition government. She extended her period of five years which ended in 1975 by another two years with the help of all the coalition members. As some of the coalition members left soon after, she also decided to go to the electorate and dissolved Parliament in 1977.
In the 1977 July elections, the UNP was returned with a five sixths majority and I became the Prime Minister. With the consent of the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Group, we introduced the Executive Presidential system of government in the Constitution Bill of 1978, a few months after the government was formed in July-August 1977. The Bill was passed in Parliament by a two thirds majority, after a Parliamentary Committee of all parties considered the Draft Constitution Bill at public sittings.
In the Westminster form of government which we had followed from 1947 to 1972 and as a Republic from 1972 to 1977, the executive power lies in the Parliament and is exercised through the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. The Prime Minister is chosen only if he has a majority of members in the Legislature and can command their support. If he loses that support in the United Kingdom, the monarch can request him to resign and call upon another member to be the Prime Minister, or dissolve Parliament.
With slight amendments, this is the system adopted by most of the dependencies of the UK now free, and the self-governing dominions. We too had a similar Constitution though we became a Republic in 1972.
The Executive Presidency was followed in the USA and later in France, under President De Gaulle. The founders of the American Constitution, after they defeated the British, made the President elected by the whole country, the executive authority, and the Legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, both elected, the Legislative Authority. The President could choose his Cabinet from any American citizen, except a member of the Legislature.
An Independent Judiciary; the power of the Legislature vis-a-vis the President, which enabled it to act as a check on Presidential power, and an Independent Press, were the checks and balances which made the Constitution work democratically.
The French Constitution of De Gaulle followed the same pattern with a few differences. For example, the President had to choose his Cabinet from elected members of the Legislature and once they were chosen they had to resign their seats.
The Constitution maintained continuity while effecting change. Some countries had written constitutions, some were governed by conventions and some had none. The USA, France, Sri Lanka, India and many countries had written constitutions. The UK was an example of a country having no written constitution but governed by consent, conventions and ad hoc laws. Some had no constitutions. It was better that they did not have because they were governed by Dictators and under Military Authority.
Sri Lanka was a monarchy under Asian dynasties, Sinhalese and Dravidian, till 1815; and Western till 1972. It was till then one of the oldest monarchies in the world, having an unbroken history since 600 BC, from King Vijaya to Queen Elizabeth II, when we became a Republic in 1972.
From 1815 till 1931, all executive authority was exercised by the Governor on behalf of the monarch. In 1931, the Donoughmore Constitution created the Executive Committee system and the Legislature performed two functions-legislative functions as a State Council as it was called, and executive functions by the State Council through Executive Committees to which its Members were elected by the Council. The Ministers were the elected Chairmen of these Committees. The State Council and all its members were elected by universal franchise. The Sri Lankans were the first people in Asia to enjoy this privilege.
In 1947, under the Soulbury Constitution, the Westminster Constitution was introduced, where following the British pattern the British Minister who led the majority in the Legislature was appointed as such by the Governor General.
In February 1948, Sri Lanka was given the status of a Dominion by an Independence Act introduced in the British House of Commons and she became a Free and Independent Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In 1972, after the Constituent Assembly had met and deliberated and accepted a new Constitution, Ceylon was made a Republic, but the Westminster model was retained.
In February 1978, a complete change took place with the executive power vested in a President elected by the whole country with a 50 per cent majority and legislative power being vested in the elected Legislature.
The 1978 Constitution had been tailor-made for a democracy. Let us examine its provisions under the heading made famous by the American President Abraham Lincoln’s speech in 1863, opening the memorial to the dead, commemorating the decisive victory of the Federal forces at Gettysburg. He defined Democracy as “a government of the People; by the People; for the People”.
Chapter 1, Sec. 3, proclaims the sovereignty of the People and Sec. 4 states how it is exercised; (a) the legislative power by Parliament consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People at a Referendum; (b) the executive power by the President of the Republic elected by the People; (c) the judicial power by Parliament through Courts, etc. created and established or recognized by the Constitution or created and established by law. This Section also refers to fundamental rights and the franchise.
The Cabinet of Ministers shall consist of the President as the Head, and the Prime Minister and Ministers from among the Members of Parliament, (Chapter VIII, 5.43 and 5.44.) The Sections dealing with the sovereignty of the people and certain Fundamental Rights cannot be amended without a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a Referendum.
Similar approval is necessary for legislation to extend the term of office of the President or the duration of Parliament for over six years. This is a unique feature for even if the whole Parliament votes in favour of such an extension, unless approved by the people at a Referendum, it does not become law.
I think no democratic nation in the world has this unique power given to the people by its legislature. It was with this power that the people extended the period in office of the Parliament elected in 1977 by six years. All previous extensions for example in 1975, were by parliamentary approval only, or by an Order-in-Council before freedom.
The government is clearly based on an elected President, with executive powers, responsible to Parliament as Head of an elected Cabinet, chosen from Parliament; charged with the direction and control of the government; and collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament (Chapter VIll).
Many interesting questions for discussion can arise on an interpretation of the sections dealing with the Cabinet of Ministers and their executive powers. Do they derive them as agents of the Executive President or with power vested in them when they are charged under S.43(1) with the direction and control of the government? I leave this question for constitutional experts to decide.
To complete the part dealing with sovereignty of the People, the Independence of the Judiciary is vital. While the Judiciary is clearly stated as exercising the judicial power of the people, they do so through courts, tribunals and institutions that are created by Parliament. Their independence is secured in various ways spelled out from Sections 107 to 117.
Appointments to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are by the President by warrant under his hand. They shall not be removed unless the majority in Parliament so address the President to remove them. Their salaries, once determined by Parliament, shall not be reduced after appointment. Judges of the High Court are also appointed by the President and are subject to disciplinary control of the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.
All other judges are appointed by the Judicial Service Commission which consists of the Chief Justice and two other judges of the Supreme Court. Disciplinary action is also taken by them.
Under the previous Constitution of 1972, all the minor Judiciary appointments were made by the Cabinet of Ministers. This Constitution attempts as far as humanly possible to create conditions for the Judiciary to be independent; the rest is in the hands of the Judges themselves, “who must be men of courage, men of wisdom”.
There are other sections of the Constitution which deal with Buddhism (Chap. II), Language (Chap.IV), and Citizenship (Chap.V); also with Superior Courts (Chap.XVI), Parliamentary Commissioner (Chap. XIX), Emergency Laws S.15 & 16 and (Chap. XVIII).
A government of the people and by the people, is adequately provided for and protected. Only through approval by the people at a Referendum can these provisions be amended or taken away democratically.
It should be mentioned, however, that fundamental rights may be temporarily restricted in the interests of national security, racial and religious harmony, national economy and a few other reasons mentioned in Chapter III, Section 15.
The power to make regulations under the Public Security Ordinance which can overrule, amend or suspend the operation of the provisions of any law except the provisions of the Constitution, is dealt with in Chapter (XVIII). Within 14 days of the Proclamation of an Emergency, Parliament must be informed and approve it, see (Chapter XVIII, Section 155(6).
No earlier Constitution required the approval of Parliament for the Declaration of an Emergency or the operation of Emergency Laws.
The emergence of a multi-party system so essential for a democracy is made possible by the inclusion among the “Fundamental Rights” to every citizen of Freedom of Speech, Publication, Assembly, Trade Union rights, etc. In section 14(1). The part dealing with “for the people” is also not forgotten.
In Chapter VI-S.27 to 29, these are enumerated. I need cite’ only one Section S. 27(2). If it is possible to fully implement these economic and social policies, it must bring peace and prosperity, but terrorism and other forms of violence are a hindrance. Also it must be remembered that from June 1960 to 1964 and 1970 to 1977, we had governments following Communist principles which even the Soviet Union has now abandoned. Recovery from these policies had begun from 1977-1983 with the Free Market Policy and other policies laid-down in the Constitution when terrorism reared its head and hit us like a tornado from 1983 onward.
Features
From the missing to the missing truth and beyond
by Jehan Perera
The government is preparing to meet the challenge of the UN Human Rights Council next month. A Sri Lankan delegation led by Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath is expected to attend the 63rd session of the UNHRC in Geneva, where the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a written update on Sri Lanka. The government has already submitted its response to the advance version of the report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Foreign Minister, accompanied by officials from Colombo and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission in Geneva, is expected to explain the progress made on reconciliation, accountability and human rights. This is therefore an important moment for the government. It is an opportunity not merely to defend its record but to make new commitments.
The government has been criticised, as were its predecessors, for the manner in which it has dealt with past human rights violations, especially those connected with the thirty year war. The vexed issue of thousands of missing persons remains at the centre of this criticism. The government has sought to strengthen the Office on Missing Persons by providing it with additional staff and resources. It has also given support to the excavations at the Chemmani mass grave. Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has told Parliament that the government has allocated Rs. 57 million for the excavations and related legal work, though that figure has not been set against the cost of comparable forensic operations elsewhere.
The government also took the significant step of holding a national event in Jaffna to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances. Minister Harshana Nanayakkara attended the event together with the Chairman of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), Mahesh Katulanda, and other senior officials and political representatives. Their presence was meant to demonstrate the government’s commitment to addressing the issue. But on the victims’ side there is continuing dissatisfaction. The commemoration in Jaffna was met by a protest outside the District Secretariat, organised by families of the disappeared, who demanded to know what happened to relatives who, according to their accounts, surrendered to or were taken away by the military and were never heard from again.
Jaffna Protests
The protests in Jaffna are a reminder of the gap that remains between what the government is trying to do and what the victims expect. For these families, compensation and death certificates are not substitutes for knowing what actually happened to those they lost. The protests, and the police action taken against some of those who demonstrated, were reported by the international and Tamil media and by international human rights organisations, and overshadowed much of what the government had hoped to showcase at the Jaffna event. The OMP’s mandate is to establish the fate and whereabouts of missing persons, clarify the circumstances in which they went missing, and provide redress and assistance to their families. Accordingly, it has sought to verify complaints, remove duplicate entries, encourage people who have not yet made complaints to come forward, and facilitate compensation and other forms of assistance. The families of victims expect the OMP to do more to clarify the circumstances in which their loved ones went missing. An example would be the disappearance of 158 displaced Tamil persons from the Eastern University campus in Vantharumoolai, Batticaloa District, who were rounded up and forcibly removed in front of thousands of other similarly displaced persons, including the officer in charge Prof T Jayasingam.
The government has also increased the support available to families of the missing, and says it is accelerating the OMP’s investigations. But the scale of what remains undone is stark. There are around 11,000 complaints remaining to be investigated, according to the Justice Minister, while the OMP has reported that final information has been established in only 31 cases, communicated privately to the families concerned. On the government’s own figures, that puts the clearance rate for establishing fate and whereabouts at well under one percent of the outstanding caseload. There is a limit to what the OMP can do even with more resources and time. Its mandate is primarily to establish the fate and whereabouts of individual missing persons. It was not intended to produce the comprehensive, public account of the past that victims and the country as a whole require.
In 2015, the government headed by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe committed itself to establishing such a commission as part of a comprehensive approach to dealing with Sri Lanka’s past. Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1, which the government co-sponsored, specifically welcomed the proposed establishment of a “commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence”, together with an Office on Missing Persons and an Office for Reparations. However, the commitment to a truth-seeking mechanism was never fulfilled. The government should consider setting one up now. There is a growing feeling among Tamil people in the North and East that the government is failing to deliver on promises that are important to them. On issues important to them, they feel this is once again a Sinhala-dominated government like all the ones that came before.
Establish Truth
For the past two years the government has been concentrating on problems that it deems are important to the country as a whole such as the economy, development, poverty alleviation and corruption and criminality. However, the government needs to demonstrate that national unity means addressing the concerns of all communities, including those whose wounds from the war remain unhealed. Some of its own institutions have begun to act on this. The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation recently staged a drama entitled From Yakaweva to Nandikadal, depicting relationships between people that transcend the destruction caused by war. The drama portrayed the sufferings as well as the prejudices on both sides of the divide, from the Kebithigollewa bus bombing to the final days of the war around the Nandikadal lagoon. Its central message is that without forgiveness there cannot be reconciliation.
Particularly moving was the fact that the actors themselves came from families touched by the violence on both sides. The son of an LTTE Black Tiger leader and the daughter of an Army officer were among those who performed, alongside others who had experienced and survived some of the sites of carnage. The fact that a state institution is taking this message of reconciliation forward is itself a testament to the government’s openness to dealing with the past. A government institution can reach a population far larger than any civil society campaign could reach on its own, simply because the machinery of the state is so much more extensive. It is in this context that the government needs to give serious thought to setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the next step in the truth-seeking process. Special care will need to be taken to ensure that those who are appointed are not only politically non-partisan, but are acceptable to all the communities.
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission cannot by itself resolve all the wounds of the past. Nor can it replace criminal investigations or judicial proceedings where these are necessary. But it can provide something that existing institutions cannot provide on their own. This would be a comprehensive national process through which victims can be heard and the truth can be established. The general population needs to understand what happened, so that the country can begin to acknowledge its past without passing it on indefinitely to future generations. The government has already taken several steps. It is supporting the search for the truth at Chemmani. It has begun reaching out to families of the disappeared. Its own institutions are producing messages of reconciliation. But these are still not delivering the results that the victims and their families want. The next step should be to bring these efforts together to begin the journey from the missing to the missing truth, and from there to comprehensive justice.
Features
The long road to educating Sri Lanka’s Bhikkhunis
A robe without recognition:
by Anushka Kahandagamage
Education is the right of every child. Yet somewhere between childhood and the robe, that right becomes precarious for many Buddhist women in Sri Lanka, threatening not only their social standing, but their fundamental access to learning and the institutional discrimination they face. This piece is not about Buddhist disciplinary rules, which discriminates women, rather about how the state’s refusal to fully recognise bhikkhunis as bhikkhunis quietly determines what they are, and are not, permitted to learn.
Unlike dasasil mathas, who occupy a distinct and unofficial category within Buddhist renunciation, bhikkhunis belong to a formally ordained order recognised within Buddhist monastic tradition itself. Dasa sil mata means ‘ten-precept mother.’ They are women who observe the ten precepts (rather than the fuller Vinaya) and live a renunciant, celibate life, often in robes, but formal ordination has not translated into formal recognition by the state. Even after a Supreme Court ruling affirmed their right to be identified as bhikkhunis on their National Identity Cards, many still do not hold one. This stems from the hesitation of the male-dominated Buddhist hierarchy to recognise these women as part of the Theravada tradition, specifically refusing to validate their higher ordination. The identity card lists her title as Dasa Sil Mata. The ruling exists on paper, but they are still waiting for their identity cards. This is not a small bureaucratic oversight. It is the first link in a longer chain, one that reaches, eventually, into the classroom.
A Name Withheld
In Sri Lanka, there are 827 pirivenas, traditional monastic colleges that have, for centuries, served as the primary institutions of Buddhist education. Of these, only 12 are dedicated to female renunciants at all, and of those 12, just five serve fully ordained nuns specifically. The imbalance is stark on its face: 827 institutions for monks, five for fully ordained nuns. But the discrimination here is not only a matter of numbers, but it is also written into the very language used to name these institutions. Monks’ schools are called pirivena, a term carrying centuries of institutional weight, historical continuity, and state recognition under Sri Lanka’s education laws. Bhikkhunis’ schools, by contrast, are not called pirivenas at all. They are designated Buddha Sravika Meheni Adhyapana Ayathanaya (Institute for the Education of Buddha’s Female Disciples), a separate, parallel term that, however similar in function, withholds from bhikkhuni institutions the same legal and institutional status that the word ‘pirivena’ confers. Since there are ten-precept mothers, the institutes have not given the same name as the pirivena and lack the official as well as social recognition they deserve.
A Pattern a Century in the Making
Following the decline of the Buddhist nun (bhikkhuni) order after the Polonnaruwa period, the first woman to be robed again was ordained in 1905 as a dasasil matha. Although dasasil mathas have long served important religious and societal roles, they have historically lacked access to formal education. Unfortunately, today also, this pattern continuous to exist. Education, in this context, is never just about literacy or dhamma study. It is the currency of religious authority. A bhikkhuni denied equivalent education or educated in an institution the state refuses to name a pirivena, is denied that religious authority. She may know the Tipitaka as well as any monk yet will lack the institutional stamp that would make a lay community trust her reading of it. It was not indifference from the public; it was the accumulated effect of a system that has spent centuries teaching devotees, implicitly, that a woman’s robe does not carry the same weight as a man.
The female renunciants, both dasasil mathas and bhikkunis, although they wear robes, have not been regarded as individuals capable of comprehending or preaching dhamma, simply because they are women. This is most visible in education, the pirivena system, developed historically to train bhikkhus, offered dasasil mathas and bhikkunis no equivalent institutional pathway, no comparable curriculum, certification, or state recognition. This exclusion is notable because it runs counter to Sri Lanka’s broader educational trends, where women have historically outnumbered men in general university enrolment, the gap here is specific to monastic/religious education rather than a reflection of wider societal restrictions on women’s schooling. The country’s National Education Commission Policy has a section on Pirivena education. However, it does not address the education of Buddhist nuns, nor does it mention nuns within the policy. I recently learned that the policy was being reviewed, with a committee appointed by the Ministry of Education, scheduled to begin the review on the 1st of September. This presents an important opportunity to raise the issue of nuns’ education and advocate for its inclusion in the revised policy.
The monks and nuns’ education institutes are funded by the government, which allocates only 5,000–6,000 LKR per student for the entire year. This sum is grossly inadequate to cover even basic institutional needs, accommodation, food, learning materials, and the maintenance of the physical premises, let alone to support any meaningful expansion of the curriculum. With this level of funding, these education institutes are struggling to sustain themselves, and many are forced to rely almost entirely on external support simply to remain operational. This is where the disparity becomes most visible. As female renunciants have historically not been taken seriously, regarded neither as authoritative teachers of dhamma nor as figures worthy of the same reverence extended to their male counterparts, their education centres receive far fewer lay offerings than those for male renunciants. The result is a widening resource gap that mirrors and reinforces the very discrimination that caused it. Underfunded institutions produce fewer well-trained female scholars, which in turn reinforces the perception that female renunciants are less capable, a perception that then justifies continued underinvestment. Without deliberate intervention, either through equitable government allocation or targeted lay support, this cycle is likely to persist rather than resolve on its own.
Sitting Alone at the Bo Tree
I was at Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi in Anuradhapura, where a few monks sat preaching in the shade of the Bo Tree, each surrounded by small clusters of lay devotees. Nearby, I noticed a few female Buddhist renunciants, though I could not immediately tell whether they were bhikkhunîs or dasasil mathas, since visually, in their robes and demeanour, they appeared indistinguishable to an outside observer. Most of them sat alone, without the small crowds of devotees gathered around the monks nearby. This, too, is not incidental. Because women cannot enter the sâsana through the same pathway to ordination, available to men, many Buddhist female renunciants remain dasasil mathas, a status that carries the appearance of monastic life without its legitamised spiritual standing. They observe the 10 precepts, wear robes, and live in renunciation, yet occupy a lower, unofficial rung in the religious hierarchy, one that grants them neither the ordination lineage nor the institutional recognition given to monks. However, in June last year, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka delivered a landmark majority ruling in SC/FR/218/2013, affirming that fully ordained Buddhist nuns have the fundamental right to use the title ‘Bhikkhuni’ on their National Identity Cards, legally recognising the de facto existence of the Bhikkhuni Sanga.
A Closed Loop
Social discrimination and educational discrimination feed each other in a closed loop. Because bhikkhunis have fewer, less recognised institutions, fewer are formally trained to a standard the public recognises. Because fewer are recognised as authoritative teachers, fewer devotees seek them out or support them. Because they attract fewer devotees, the education institutions of female renunciants remain under-resourced and easy to overlook in state budgets and in popular imagination alike. A dasasil matha or bhikkhuni without an active following also lacks the economic support that following brings, since in Sri Lanka’s monastic economy, devotees are patrons as much as students. The precarity is not only spiritual or bureaucratic; it is material, and it compounds across a lifetime spent in robes.
Until bhikkhunis’ education is named, funded, and recognised on the same terms as that of bhikkhus, this will remain a story not only about missing ID cards or under-resourced schools, but about an education system that continues to decide, quietly and continuously, which students are worth investing in. Education was supposed to be the one place where the women can speak for themselves, instead, for these women, it has become just another place where women have to ask permission to be heard.
(Anushka is a Sociologist who is working on contemporary Buddhist movements. She was formerly attached to the University of Colombo)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Features
‘Memories of Milton – Live in Concert’ to enchant Dubai
Sri Lankan music knows no borders. Wherever our people go, our melodies follow — and our musicians make sure of it.
From Qatar’s Exit, to Melbourne’s EBONY, to Toronto’s Ceymphony, and Dubai’s Seven Notes, Sri Lankan bands abroad continue to keep the community connected to home, through song.
In July, Rajiv Sebastian set the Dubai stage alight with the band Seven Notes, creating an unforgettable night for Sri Lankans in the UAE. And the live-wire behind that magic? Niluk Uswaththa of Seven Notes.
Well, Niluk says he isn’t stopping there.
Now, Dubai is preparing for something truly special — ‘Memories of Milton – Live in Concert’, a grand musical tribute to one of Sri Lanka’s most beloved voices: Milton Mallawarachchi.
For more than a decade, Milton Mallawarachchi was a trending force in Sri Lankan music. With nearly 850 songs and over 35 albums to his name, he gave us melodies that became the soundtrack to our lives — songs of love, longing, and life itself.
On Saturday, 26th September 2026, from 8:00 PM to 3:00 AM, the Mercure Hotel, Al Barsha Heights, Dubai, will transform into a space of nostalgia.

Ranil Mallawarachchi; Carrying forward his father’s legacy / Yenuli Neriah
With the spotlight on Ranil Mallawarachchi — Milton’s eldest son, carrying forward his father’s legacy — along with Yenuli Neriah and Tharaka, the evening will certainly bring Milton’s timeless classics back to life … on one stage.
Seven Notes will do the needful, providing the live music that made Dubai dance before.
According to Niluk, this isn’t just a concert.
“It’s designed as a nostalgic musical journey — to bring cherished memories and beloved songs back to life,” he says.
And he promises: 26th September will be a night to remember.
In fact, Niluk Uswaththa has become a driving force for Sri Lankan entertainment in Dubai.
Through Seven Notes, he ensures the community always has something special to look forward to — especially when it comes to music that feels like home.
The success of these overseas shows naturally raises one big question back in Sri Lanka.
Yes, music lovers, in Sri Lanka, are keen to know whether the Seven Notes band will pop up in Colombo, sometime soon, for a live performance?
Music lovers, island-wide, will be watching … and waiting!
-
News5 days agoEight politicians in drug kingpin probe
-
Features3 days ago“Wrap Me Up in My Blazer”— A Gentlemanly Bradby Reminiscence
-
Business5 days agoSri Lanka opens up: A new season of direct connectivity
-
Features7 days agoInsights from Chieftains of Uva: Genealogy of two Kandyan Families – Part II
-
Features5 days agoRedefining ageing in Sri Lanka
-
Latest News6 days agoNepal-Tibet floods: What happened, what caused them and who is missing?
-
Editorial7 days agoWarning of power cuts: El Niño and corruption
-
Features7 days agoExport diversification: Missing the wood for the trees – Part I
