Features
The Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs
by Leelananda de Silva
One day in late November 1970, I received a telephone call from Professor H.A.de.S Gunasekara who had been appointed Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Planning and Employment (MY/P&E) in July 1970. This was the same ministry of planning and economic affairs of Dr. Gamani Corea, but it changed its name for a couple of years until it reverted to the ministry of planning and economic affairs (MY/P&EA) after 1973.
I will relate that story later, and I shall describe my ministry as MY/P&EA throughout. H.A.de.S had been my lecturer at the university and knew me well. He offered me the newly created post of Senior Assistant Secretary (SAS) in the Ministry. He told me that I would be in charge of administration, and the management of cabinet affairs, this being an important task, as the ministry received almost all cabinet papers for observations.
I assumed duties at the MY/ P&EA in December 1970, and I was to hold the same position for the next seven years, until December 1977. From mid-1971, in addition to being SAS, I was to be the Director of the Division of Economic Affairs, which came about through the merger of the previous general economic affairs and private sector divisions. This division, over the next five years managed that part of Sri Lanka’s international economic relations which were dealt through the United Nations (UNCTAD, ECAFE, UN General Assembly, UNDP in New York, FAO, the Commonwealth and others) and North-South and Non Aligned matters, leading to the Non Aligned Summit in August 1976.
The Division also kept up its responsibilities for the private sector. To have reached the position of SAS in one of the leading ministries of government at the age of 34 was something to be pleased about.
At this point, let me briefly describe what the MY/ P&EA was. It had been established in 1965 by the then Prime Minister, Dudley Senanayake, with Dr. Gamani Corea as the permanent secretary, and it came directly under the Prime Minister. During the 1965 – 1970 period, it was the pre- eminent ministry, with the ministry of finance playing a subsidiary role.
Dudley Senanayake was fully engaged in domestic economic policy making, and the Minister of Finance, U.B. Wanninayake, was happy to go along with this arrangement. After 1970, the Prime Minister and Minister of Planning was Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and she was much less engaged in domestic economic policy making. She led a coalition government, sharing power with the LSSP and CP. The Minister of Finance was Dr. N.M. Perera, leader of the LSSP and a dominant political personality.
Between 1970 and 1977, the planning ministry was a partner with the ministry of finance in managing domestic economic affairs, and there was much tension in the relationship. H.A.de.S was not as close to the Prime Minister Mrs. Bandaranaike as Gamani Corea was to Dudley Senanayake. There was personal acrimony in his relationship with the finance minister Dr. N.M. Perera. Whatever the tensions the MY/ P&EA and the ministry of finance had to get on. The central bank’s role was relatively subsidiary. The MY/ P&EA had a particular task of managing the capital budget of the government, and dealing with foreign aid, apart from other domestic and foreign economic policy issues.
The seven years (1970 – 1977) I spent at the Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs were the best years of my career. The ministry was right at the centre of government. I had responsibilities, both in domestic and foreign affairs. The foreign and international component of my work evolved rapidly from 1973, as Sri Lanka became actively involved in non-aligned matters, leading to the Summit in Colombo in August 1976. The Prime Minister appointed me to be the Secretary of the Economic Committee of the Summit.
This period overlapped with the North-South dialogue taking place at the time in various UN bodies and elsewhere, and for which my division was responsible. From 1975, over the next three years, about three fourths of my time was spent on international economic relations. This work entailed travelling to many parts of the world for meetings and conferences, and many times accompanying the Prime Minister, starting with the Non-Aligned Summit in Algiers in 1973.
I worked closely with the ministry of foreign Affairs during this period. My division of economic affairs, handled almost all UN economic issues, and the division during this period was almost a part of the ministry of foreign affairs. That is how the Prime Minister wanted it. I was also engaged with the economic side of the Commonwealth, and attended two Commonwealth summits in Kingston, Jamaica in 1975 (accompanying the Prime Minister) and London in 1977.
At these summit meetings, and in the bilateral visits where I accompanied the Prime Minister, I had the opportunity to observe diplomacy at the highest levels. One special event in March, 1974 was the 30th annual sessions of the Economic Commission for the Asia and Far East (ECAFE) held in Colombo. (ECAFE changed its name to ESCAP at these annual sessions.) I was entrusted with the task of organizing the event, and I was the secretary-general of the conference. This was the first ever international conference held at the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH) and the largest in Sri Lanka.
Aside from foreign affairs, which became a dominant feature after 1973, 1 had many responsibilities on the domestic side. Relations with the cabinet for the ministry was my responsibility. I had to produce a note every week to the Prime Minister on the cabinet agenda. This provided in summary form the contents of the important cabinet papers, and the observations of the planning ministry on each of these cabinet papers. The Note never exceeded two pages.
The Prime Minister saw the Ministry of Planning as assisting her in her relations with the cabinet. I worked closely with the cabinet secretariat, and I had the opportunity to be present at cabinet meetings, at the behest of the Prime Minister. I was in charge of the administration of the ministry, which expanded during these years. I was entrusted with the task of overseeing the Department of Census and Statistics, Water Resources Board, National Film Corporation, and the Export Promotion Secretariat, all of which came under the ministry.
I had responsibilities for the ministry’s relations with the private sector. I represented the ministry on many Boards and Corporations – the Sri Lanka Tea Board, Ceylon Shipping Corporation (CSC), Port Cargo Corporation, Colombo Dockyards Limited, Ceylon Freight Bureau, Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company (a private company, 40 percent of it owned by CSC), the United States Educational Foundation (now the Fulbright Commission). I was Alternate Director for Sri Lanka of the Asian Productivity Organization in Tokyo.
My tasks were not restricted by any job description. The Prime Minister and the Ministry Secretary assigned me other tasks from time to time. One of them was the organization of negotiations for the payment of compensation for Sterling Company Estates which were taken over. I was a Member and Secretary of the Committee which handled this question and negotiated with British interests. Another was the Cabinet Committee on the Brain Drain, which the Prime Minister appointed, largely at my suggestion, and eventually, published an agreed report on this question. I was assistant secretary of this Committee, and virtually the secretary.
Other key tasks were the international negotiations on tea, mostly in Rome, where I represented the government with others. I also handled for the ministry, the high-profile Seers Mission, which visited Sri Lanka in 1971 to advice the government on economic and social issues. There were numerous other activities I was engaged in, which I shall not describe here. There was nothing routine in the work of the Planning Ministry.
Let me try to remember those with whom I worked at the time, 40 years ago. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Planning and Economic Affairs, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was a constant presence in one’s working life. We did not make a distinction between her Prime Ministerial role and Ministerial role. It was all one. There was the clear impression that the MY/ P&EA was in effect part of the Prime Minister’s extended office.
Since the creation of MY/ P&EA, Prime Ministers tended to rely on it for substantive domestic economic policy management. The Prime Minister was the best Minister one could have. She was very responsive to the advice of her officials and she sought such advice. That did not mean that she always accepted the advice. She had other considerations, specially political, but I have never seen her belittle official advice.
Mrs Bandaranaike always kept a calm head and was consistently courteous to her officials. She was very rarely angry and had a tremendous sense of humour. I had contact with her at several levels. First, at the weekly meeting, the Prime Minister had with senior officials of the MY/ P&EA. I had contact with her on cabinet issues and many times on a Wednesday when the cabinet met. In the latter years, my contact with her increased on foreign economic policy issues, specially non-aligned and north South issues. I saw her when she was on her foreign travels as I accompanied her on these trips. My memory remains of a cordial relationship during these seven years when I worked for her.
I had almost daily contact with H.A.de.S, either on the telephone or at meetings. It was easy to get on with him and only on a very few occasions have I seen him really angry. By nature he was friendly, although he had a touch of insecurity, which was ingrained in his nature. Having been an academic, and a distinguished one at that, he developed a more political approach during his tenure at the ministry. He was not anxious to listen to theoretical economic advice. He was not interested in the economic discussions that were taking place in the United Nations and non aligned circles and he left all that to me.
When I suggested to him that he attend some of these conferences, he told me that what he wished was to avoid them. His major interest was in domestic economic policy and in taking planning and development to the regional and district levels. He travelled considerably more than Gamani Corea within the island. I remember one incident clearly. The then UN resident coordinator, C. Hart Schaf (must be in about 1972) had come to see H.A.de.S and was kept waiting for nearly an hour. I was passing by and Hart Schaf whom I knew well brought his situation to my notice.
I walked in to H.A.de.S ‘s office and suggested to him that he should see Hart Schaf. His response was that he was not looking for UN jobs and was not in the business of pleasing UN officials. Anyway, he saw Hart Schaf immediately. H.A.de.S had a dim view of UN activities in general. I was not in Sri Lanka when H.A.de.S passed away after his Ministry days and his last two years were not happy. I owe a lot to him and look back with pleasure and gratitude.upon a close friendship with him and his wife, Leela who was my contemporary and friend at the university,
During these seven years, I was in close touch with three senior officials from outside MY/P&EA. M.D.D. (Dharmasiri) Piers, who was Secretary to the Prime Minister, was one of the finest officials I have worked with. I had to be in close contact with him, as I had to be in touch with the Prime Minister. Most senior officials of the MY/P&EA had contacts with Dharmasiri. I would think the job of Secretary to the Prime Minister requires a very high level of administrative, diplomatic, and substantive skills, and Dharmasiri was possessed of all these qualities.
Dharmasiri was always pleasant to work with, with a great sense of humour and an inner calmness, which I have rarely come across in senior officials. I had the opportunity to travel with him abroad and that was enjoyable and productive. We have kept in touch even to this day, and he and his wife Chitra, have been close friends of ours. W.T. Jayasinghe, Secretary of Foreign Affairs was another fine gentleman. A highly able man, who was a workaholic, he never lost his sense of humour.
He had what might be called perspective in dealing with issues. He was always kind and generous to me and I remember travelling with him to Rome and Algiers, a trip I shall later describe. Rukmal and I were friends of W.T. and his wife Brenda and this friendship continued until W.T. and Brenda passed away a few years back. Arthur Basnayaka, Director General of Foreign Affairs is another official I had a close working relationship with. An unassuming, charming man, he had seen the diplomatic circuit in many incarnations and carried out his duties without any sense of self importance.
He always saw the funny side of things. Traveling with him was always a pleasure. His wife Damini and her family were friends of Rukmal’s family. I was lucky to have had these three senior officials to work with. There were no problems of demarcation as to whose task it was, with these three officials, when discussing subjects with the Prime Minister. One other person I should mention in this context is Dr. Mackie Ratwatte, the Prime Minister’s brother and private secretary, whom I saw frequently and traveled with on many occasions. He was a gentle and self effacing person who was always helpful.
In my own division of economic affairs there were several fine officials, W.S (Wilfred) Nanayakkara was deputy director of economic affairs. He was of great assistance to me in several of my tasks, specially in organizing the ECAFE annual sessions in Colombo in 1974, and also in the work with the United Nations in New York. Rukmal and I were friends with his wife Malkanthi. Lloyd Fernando, who became deputy director, was there for some time, before he proceeded abroad on post graduate work.
Hilary Codipilly was an assistant director before he proceeded to the World Bank. There were two bright ladies who were assistant directors- Chandra Wickramasinghe (later Rodrigo) and Indrani Sri Chandrasekara. They were particularly helpful in the run up to the ECAFE conference held in Colombo. Indrani left us after three years and she was later employed in Washington at the International Food and Policy Research Institute. Chandra Rodrigo was to later become professor of economics at Colombo university, and she was highly regarded in academic circles for her research into labour market issues. She was released to us from the university for two or three years.
H.A.de.S and I were very keen to get more young lecturers from the university for short spells at the ministry but university authorities were not keen on this. There were several outstanding clerical servants who worked with me in the division. I could leave a lot to them. Upali Gunawardane (whose untimely death in the 1980s was a great loss to me), M. Sally and Heather Schumacher deserve special mention.
Walvin Perera, who was the accountant in the ministry, relieved me of any worries in managing the financial and accounting side of the work. He was an excellent finance manager. Egerton Baptist, the well-known Buddhist scholar, was my stenographer, and he was outstanding and always out to point out to me my mistakes, as he had an excellent command of English. We kept him on even after the age of 60, as he was irreplaceable as a stenographer, and his type was fast vanishing from the public service scene.
Apart from these officials in and outside the ministry that I have referred to, there were others within the ministry with whom I had working relations. Several of them had come over from the Gamani Corea administration. Godfrey Gunatilaka was Director of Plan Implementation, and was soon to be Additional Secretary of the Ministry. Godfrey was an outstanding public servant who had made an enormous contribution in assisting Gamani Corea to establish the Ministry of Planning and embarking on a concerted effort to improve the systems of economic planning in the country.
He was soon to leave the ministry to establish the Marga Institute, one of the earliest development research instituted in Asia. I was to work with him later in the Third World Forum in Geneva. Godfrey was a close advisor to Gamani Corea in UNCTAD. I have known Godfrey and his wife Bella now for over 40 years and we are now family friends. He is now the Chairman of the Gamani Corea Foundation.
Godfrey, if he did not join the civil service, would have been the Professor of English at the university. Lal Jayawardane continued in the perspective planning division and later became an additional secretary for a brief period. Nihal Kappagoda, who was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, took over from David Loos as Director of External Resources. He had made an important contribution in developing the mechanism of the foreign exchange budget. He left to join the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC).
Tudor Kulatilake was director of regional development and he left to join the World Bank. All these officials left sometime between 1971 and 1973. A newcomer to the ministry was Dr. M.R.P Salgado, from the IMF and originally from the central bank (he was a brilliant mathematical economist from Cambridge), to be an additional secretary of the ministry. His stay was short, lasting only one year. Ranji Salgado and his wife Surangani are our family friends, and relations.
Dr Ananda Meegama, formerly of the University at Peradeniya, and a distinguished demographer and statistician, came as Director General of Planning and later became an additional secretary. Later Ananda was to hold the office of Director of the UN Statistical Institute for Asia and the Pacific in Tokyo for 10 years. He was one of the influential figures during the latter period of the ministry. Ananda and wife Indrani have been our close friends since that time. Indrani is the author of a superb history of her old school Mahamaya College, Kandy.
Another newcomer was Mervyn (MA) De Silva who had been a former editor of the Dinamina to take over the new function of director of information. Mervyn was great fun and had vast knowledge of the local political and media scene. He was a friend of Esmond Wickremesinghe (father of Ranil Wickremesinghe) and I got to know him through Mervyn. Esmond was to visit us in Geneva many times later on.
One other person with whom I had a cordial relationship in the ministry, was the Deputy Minister, Ratne Deshapriya Senanayaka, Member of Parliament for Minneriya. He had a close political relationship with the Prime Minister, but as a Deputy Minister, there were no dealings with his Minister and Prime Minister. He was not involved with the work of the ministry and he hardly had any meetings with officials of the ministry. Once in a way he met with HAdeS and with me. The Prime Minister did not expect her deputy minister to be active within the ministry. She had asked him at some point to take the message of planning to the people, and he was active in the country at a political level and addressing meetings.
He worked closely with Mervyn de Silva, the director of information. Ratne Deshapriya was a fine man and was a good friend. He once told me that if there are any political problems, I should contact him and he would sort them out. Once after the ECAFE annual sessions in 1974 at the BMICH, there was some displeasure among one or two ministers as to their seating arrangements at the ceremonial opening and they were making some complaints. Ratne Deshapriya told them that the Prime Minister was pleased with the conference and that they should not be critical of some slight they might have felt, which was totally unintended. That ended the matter.
Once the coalition government broke up in 1975, the MYP&EA for the next two years regained its old importance. With Felix Dias Bandaranaiake as the new Minister of Finance, H.A.de.S established a close relationship with him. It was H.A.de.S who mooted the idea of a revaluation of the currency and the Minister of Finance agreed to it. This was politically necessary, as the government had lost its majority in parliament and was finding it difficult to raise domestic rupee resources for its expenditures.
The central bank initially opposed the idea of revaluation. It was more a personal confrontation between the governor and H.A.de.S, rather than a difference on policy. The Prime Minister was receiving contrary advice from the central bank and from the ministries of planning and finance. The Prime Minister called me at home one morning and asked me what I thought about this. I suggested to her that she should call Herbert Tennakoon, the Governor of the Bank to see her privately, and then request him to agree to what the ministries of finance and planning are proposing. That is what she did and the matter was resolved.
Also in 1975, the Minister of Finance amended the Monetary Law Act to include the Secretary of the Planning Ministry on the Monetary Board of the Central Bank, although the Governor of the Bank opposed it.
(Excerpted from Leelananda De Silva’s autobiography, The Long Littleness of Life. A member of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service, from 1960-78, he was Senior Assistant Secretary and Director of Economic Affairs at the Ministry o Planning and Economic Affairs in the 1970s working closely with Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike. He thereafter worked for many years as a senior international consultant for several UN and non-UN bodies.)
Features
Reconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
From the time the search for reconciliation began after the end of the war in 2009 and before the NPP’s victories at the presidential election and the parliamentary election in 2024, there have been four presidents and four governments who variously engaged with the task of reconciliation. From last to first, they were Ranil Wickremesinghe, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa. They had nothing in common between them except they were all different from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his approach to reconciliation.
The four former presidents approached the problem in the top-down direction, whereas AKD is championing the building-up approach – starting from the grassroots and spreading the message and the marches more laterally across communities. Mahinda Rajapaksa had his ‘agents’ among the Tamils and other minorities. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was the dummy agent for busybodies among the Sinhalese. Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe operated through the so called accredited representatives of the Tamils, the Muslims and the Malaiayaka (Indian) Tamils. But their operations did nothing for the strengthening of institutions at the provincial and the local levels. No did they bother about reaching out to the people.
As I recounted last week, the first and the only Northern Provincial Council election was held during the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency. That nothing worthwhile came out of that Council was not mainly the fault of Mahinda Rajapaksa. His successors, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister, with the TNA acceding as a partner of their government, cancelled not only the NPC but also all PC elections and indefinitely suspended the functioning of the country’s nine elected provincial councils. Now there are no elected councils, only colonial-style governors and their secretaries.
Hold PC Elections Now
And the PC election can, like so many other inherited rotten cans, is before the NPP government. Is the NPP government going to play footsie with these elections or call them and be done with it? That is the question. Here are the cons and pros as I see them.
By delaying or postponing the PC elections President AKD and the NPP government are setting themselves up to be justifiably seen as following the cynical playbook of the former interim President Ranil Wickremesinghe. What is the point, it will be asked, in subjecting Ranil Wickremesinghe to police harassment over travel expenses while following his playbook in postponing elections?
Come to think of it, no VVIP anywhere can now whine of unfair police arrest after what happened to the disgraced former prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in England on Thursday. Good for the land where habeas corpus and due process were born. The King did not know what was happening to his kid brother, and he was wise enough to pronounce that “the law must take its course.” There is no course for the law in Trump’s America where Epstein spun his webs around rich and famous men and helpless teenage girls. Only cover up. Thanks to his Supreme Court, Trump can claim covering up to be a core function of his presidency, and therefore absolutely immune from prosecution. That is by the way.
Back to Sri Lanka, meddling with elections timing and process was the method of operations of previous governments. The NPP is supposed to change from the old ways and project a new way towards a Clean Sri Lanka built on social and ethical pillars. How does postponing elections square with the project of Clean Sri Lanka? That is the question that the government must be asking itself. The decision to hold PC elections should not be influenced by whether India is not asking for it or if Canada is requesting it.
Apart from it is the right thing do, it is also politically the smart thing to do.
The pros are aplenty for holding PC elections as soon it is practically possible for the Election Commission to hold them. Parliament can and must act to fill any legal loophole. The NPP’s political mojo is in the hustle and bustle of campaigning rather than in the sedentary business of governing. An election campaign will motivate the government to re-energize itself and reconnect with the people to regain momentum for the remainder of its term.
While it will not be possible to repeat the landslide miracle of the 2024 parliamentary election, the government can certainly hope and strive to either maintain or improve on its performance in the local government elections. The government is in a better position to test its chances now, before reaching the halfway mark of its first term in office than where it might be once past that mark.
The NPP can and must draw electoral confidence from the latest (February 2026) results of the Mood of the Nation poll conducted by Verité Research. The government should rate its chances higher than what any and all of the opposition parties would do with theirs. The Mood of the Nation is very positive not only for the NPP government but also about the way the people are thinking about the state of the country and its economy. The government’s approval rating is impressively high at 65% – up from 62% in February 2025 and way up from the lowly 24% that people thought of the Ranil-Rajapaksa government in July 2024. People’s mood is also encouragingly positive about the State of the Economy (57%, up from 35% and 28%); Economic Outlook (64%, up from 55% and 30%); the level of Satisfaction with the direction of the country( 59%, up from 46% and 17%).
These are positively encouraging numbers. Anyone familiar with North America will know that the general level of satisfaction has been abysmally low since the Iraq war and the great economic recession. The sour mood that invariably led to the election of Trump. Now the mood is sourer because of Trump and people in ever increasing numbers are looking for the light at the end of the Trump tunnel. As for Sri Lanka, the country has just come out of the 20-year long Rajapaksa-Ranil tunnel. The NPP represents the post Rajapaksa-Ranil era, and the people seem to be feeling damn good about it.
Of course, the pundits have pooh-poohed the opinion poll results. What else would you expect? You can imagine which twisted way the editorial keypads would have been pounded if the government’s approval rating had come under 50%, even 49.5%. There may have even been calls for the government to step down and get out. But the government has its approval rating at 65% – a level any government anywhere in the Trump-twisted world would be happy to exchange without tariffs. The political mood of the people is not unpalpable. Skeptical pundits and elites will have to only ask their drivers, gardeners and their retinue of domestics as to what they think of AKD, Sajith or Namal. Or they can ride a bus or take the train and check out the mood of fellow passengers. They will find Verité’s numbers are not at all far-fetched.
Confab Threats
The government’s plausible popularity and the opposition’s obvious weaknesses should be good enough reason for the government to have the PC elections sooner than later. A new election campaign will also provide the opportunity not only for the government but also for the opposition parties to push back on the looming threat of bad old communalism making a comeback. As reported last week, a “massive Sangha confab” is to be held at 2:00 PM on Friday, February 20th, at the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress Headquarters in Colombo, purportedly “to address alleged injustices among monks.”
According to a warning quote attributed to one of the organizers, Dambara Amila Thero, “never in the history of Sri Lanka has there been a government—elected by our own votes and the votes of the people—that has targeted and launched such systematic attacks against the entire Sasana as this one.” That is quite a mouthful and worthier practitioners of Buddhism have already criticized this unconvincing claim and its being the premise for a gathering of spuriously disaffected monks. It is not difficult to see the political impetus behind this confab.
The impetus obviously comes from washed up politicians who have tried every slogan from – L-board-economists, to constitutional dictatorship, to save-our children from sex-education fear mongering – to attack the NPP government and its credibility. They have not been able to stick any of that mud on the government. So, the old bandicoots are now trying to bring back the even older bogey of communalism on the pretext that the NPP government has somewhere, somehow, “targeted and launched such systematic attacks against the entire Sasana …”
By using a new election campaign to take on this threat, the government can turn the campaign into a positively educational outreach. That would be consistent with the President’s and the government’s commitment to “rebuild Sri Lanka” on the strength of national unity without allowing “division, racism, or extremism” to undermine unity. A potential election campaign that takes on the confab of extremists will also provide a forum and an opportunity for the opposition parties to let their positions known. There will of course be supporters of the confab monks, but hopefully they will be underwhelming and not overwhelming.
For all their shortcomings, Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa belong to the same younger generation as Anura Kumara Dissanayake and they are unlikely to follow the footsteps of their fathers and fan the flames of communalism and extremism all over again. Campaigning against extremism need not and should not take the form of disparaging and deriding those who might be harbouring extremist views. Instead, the fight against extremism should be inclusive and not exclusive, should be positively educational and appeal to the broadest cross-section of people. That is the only sustainable way to fight extremism and weaken its impacts.
Provincial Councils and Reconciliation
In the framework of grand hopes and simple steps of reconciliation, provincial councils fall somewhere in between. They are part of the grand structure of the constitution but they are also usable instruments for achieving simple and practical goals. Obviously, the Northern Provincial Council assumes special significance in undertaking tasks associated with reconciliation. It is the only jurisdiction in the country where the Sri Lankan Tamils are able to mind their own business through their own representatives. All within an indivisibly united island country.
But people in the north will not be able to do anything unless there is a provincial council election and a newly elected council is established. If the NPP were to win a majority of seats in the next Northern Provincial Council that would be a historic achievement and a validation of its approach to national reconciliation. On the other hand, if the NPP fails to win a majority in the north, it will have the opportunity to demonstrate that it has the maturity to positively collaborate from the centre with a different provincial government in the north.
The Eastern Province is now home to all three ethnic groups and almost in equal proportions. Managing the Eastern Province will an experiential microcosm for managing the rest of the country. The NPP will have the opportunity to prove its mettle here – either as a governing party or as a responsible opposition party. The Central Province and the Badulla District in the Uva Province are where Malaiyaka Tamils have been able to reconstitute their citizenship credentials and exercise their voting rights with some meaningful consequence. For decades, the Malaiyaka Tamils were without voting rights. Now they can vote but there is no Council to vote for in the only province and district they predominantly leave. Is that fair?
In all the other six provinces, with the exception of the Greater Colombo Area in the Western Province and pockets of Muslim concentrations in the South, the Sinhalese predominate, and national politics is seamless with provincial politics. The overlap often leads to questions about the duplication in the PC system. Political duplication between national and provincial party organizations is real but can be avoided. But what is more important to avoid is the functional duplication between the central government in Colombo and the provincial councils. The NPP governments needs to develop a different a toolbox for dealing with the six provincial councils.
Indeed, each province regardless of the ethnic composition, has its own unique characteristics. They have long been ignored and smothered by the central bureaucracy. The provincial council system provides the framework for fostering the unique local characteristics and synthesizing them for national development. There is another dimension that could be of special relevance to the purpose of reconciliation.
And that is in the fostering of institutional partnerships and people to-people contacts between those in the North and East and those in the other Provinces. Linkages could be between schools, and between people in specific activities – such as farming, fishing and factory work. Such connections could be materialized through periodical visits, sharing of occupational challenges and experiences, and sports tournaments and ‘educational modules’ between schools. These interactions could become two-way secular pilgrimages supplementing the age old religious pilgrimages.
Historically, as Benedict Anderson discovered, secular pilgrimages have been an important part of nation building in many societies across the world. Read nation building as reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The NPP government with its grassroots prowess is well positioned to facilitate impactful secular pilgrimages. But for all that, there must be provincial councils elections first.
by Rajan Philips
Features
Barking up the wrong tree
The idiom “Barking up the wrong tree” means pursuing a mistaken line of thought, accusing the wrong person, or looking for solutions in the wrong place. It refers to hounds barking at a tree that their prey has already escaped from. This aptly describes the current misplaced blame for young people’s declining interest in religion, especially Buddhism.
It is a global phenomenon that young people are increasingly disengaged from organized religion, but this shift does not equate to total abandonment, many Gen Z and Millennials opt for individual, non-institutional spirituality over traditional structures. However, the circumstances surrounding Buddhism in Sri Lanka is an oddity compared to what goes on with religions in other countries. For example, the interest in Buddha Dhamma in the Western countries is growing, especially among the educated young. The outpouring of emotions along the 3,700 Km Peace March done by 16 Buddhist monks in USA is only one example.
There are good reasons for Gen Z and Millennials in Sri Lanka to be disinterested in Buddhism, but it is not an easy task for Baby Boomer or Baby Bust generations, those born before 1980, to grasp these bitter truths that cast doubt on tradition. The two most important reasons are: a) Sri Lankan Buddhism has drifted away from what the Buddha taught, and b) The Gen Z and Millennials tend to be more informed and better rational thinkers compared to older generations.
This is truly a tragic situation: what the Buddha taught is an advanced view of reality that is supremely suited for rational analyses, but historical circumstances have deprived the younger generations over centuries from knowing that truth. Those who are concerned about the future of Buddhism must endeavor to understand how we got here and take measures to bridge that information gap instead of trying to find fault with others. Both laity and clergy are victims of historical circumstances; but they have the power to shape the future.
First, it pays to understand how what the Buddha taught, or Dhamma, transformed into 13 plus schools of Buddhism found today. Based on eternal truths he discovered, the Buddha initiated a profound ethical and intellectual movement that fundamentally challenged the established religious, intellectual, and social structures of sixth-century BCE India. His movement represented a shift away from ritualistic, dogmatic, and hierarchical systems (Brahmanism) toward an empirical, self-reliant path focused on ethics, compassion, and liberation from suffering. When Buddhism spread to other countries, it transformed into different forms by absorbing and adopting the beliefs, rituals, and customs indigenous to such land; Buddha did not teach different truths, he taught one truth.
Sri Lankan Buddhism is not any different. There was resistance to the Buddha’s movement from Brahmins during his lifetime, but it intensified after his passing, which was responsible in part for the disappearance of Buddhism from its birthplace. Brahminism existed in Sri Lanka before the arrival of Buddhism, and the transformation of Buddhism under Brahminic influences is undeniable and it continues to date.
This transformation was additionally enabled by the significant challenges encountered by Buddhism during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Wachissara 1961, Mirando 1985). It is sad and difficult to accept, but Buddhism nearly disappeared from the land that committed the Teaching into writing for the first time. During these tough times, with no senior monks to perform ‘upasampada,’ quasi monks who had not been admitted to the order – Ganninanses, maintained the temples. Lacking any understanding of the doctrinal aspects of Buddha’s teaching, they started performing various rituals that Buddha himself rejected (Rahula 1956, Marasinghe 1974, Gombrich 1988, 1997, Obeyesekere 2018).
The agrarian population had no way of knowing or understanding the teachings of the Buddha to realize the difference. They wanted an easy path to salvation, some power to help overcome an illness, protect crops from pests or elements; as a result, the rituals including praying and giving offerings to various deities and spirits, a Brahminic practice that Buddha rejected in no uncertain terms, became established as part of Buddhism.
This incorporation of Brahminic practices was further strengthened by the ascent of Nayakkar princes to the throne of Kandy (1739–1815) who came from the Madurai Nayak dynasty in South India. Even though they converted to Buddhism, they did not have any understanding of the Teaching; they were educated and groomed by Brahminic gurus who opposed Buddhism. However, they had no trouble promoting the beliefs and rituals that were of Brahminic origin and supporting the institution that performed them. By the time British took over, nobody had any doubts that the beliefs, myths, and rituals of the Sinhala people were genuine aspects of Buddha’s teaching. The result is that today, Sri Lankan Buddhists dare doubt the status quo.
The inclusion of Buddhist literary work as historical facts in public education during the late nineteenth century Buddhist revival did not help either. Officially compelling generations of students to believe poetic embellishments as facts gave the impression that Buddhism is a ritualistic practice based on beliefs.
This did not create any conflict in the minds of 19th agrarian society; to them, having any doubts about the tradition was an unthinkable, unforgiving act. However, modernization of society, increased access to information, and promotion of rational thinking changed things. Younger generations have begun to see the futility of current practices and distance themselves from the traditional institution. In fact, they may have never heard of it, but they are following Buddha’s advice to Kalamas, instinctively. They cannot be blamed, instead, their rational thinking must be appreciated and promoted. It is the way the Buddha’s teaching, the eternal truth, is taught and practiced that needs adjustment.
The truths that Buddha discovered are eternal, but they have been interpreted in different ways over two and a half millennia to suit the prevailing status of the society. In this age, when science is considered the standard, the truth must be viewed from that angle. There is nothing wrong or to be afraid of about it for what the Buddha taught is not only highly scientific, but it is also ahead of science in dealing with human mind. It is time to think out of the box, instead of regurgitating exegesis meant for a bygone era.
For example, the Buddhist model of human cognition presented in the formula of Five Aggregates (pancakkhanda) provides solutions to the puzzles that modern neuroscience and philosophers are grappling with. It must be recognized that this formula deals with the way in which human mind gathers and analyzes information, which is the foundation of AI revolution. If the Gen Z and Millennial were introduced to these empirical aspects of Dhamma, they would develop a genuine interest in it. They thrive in that environment. Furthermore, knowing Buddha’s teaching this way has other benefits; they would find solutions to many problems they face today.
Buddha’s teaching is a way to understand nature and the humans place in it. One who understands this can lead a happy and prosperous life. As the Dhammapada verse number 160 states – “One, indeed, is one’s own refuge. Who else could be one’s own refuge?” – such a person does not depend on praying or offering to idols or unknown higher powers for salvation, the Brahminic practice. Therefore, it is time that all involved, clergy and laity, look inwards, and have the crucial discussion on how to educate the next generation if they wish to avoid Sri Lankan Buddhism suffer the same fate it did in India.
by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.
Features
Why does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
The Feminist Collective for Economic Justice (FCEJ) is outraged at the scheme of law proposed by the government titled “Protection of the State from Terrorism Act” (PSTA). The draft law seeks to replace the existing repressive provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 (PTA) with another law of extraordinary powers. We oppose the PSTA for the reason that we stand against repressive laws, normalization of extraordinary executive power and continued militarization. Ruling by fear destroys our societies. It drives inequality, marginalization and corruption.
Our analysis of the draft PSTA is that it is worse than the PTA. It fails to justify why it is necessary in today’s context. The PSTA continues the broad and vague definition of acts of terrorism. It also dangerously expands as threatening activities of ‘encouragement’, ‘publication’ and ‘training’. The draft law proposes broad powers of arrest for the police, introduces powers of arrest to the armed forces and coast guards, and continues to recognize administrative detention. Extremely disappointing is the unjustifiable empowering of the President to make curfew order and to proscribe organizations for indefinite periods of time, the power of the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to declare prohibited places and police officers in the rank of Deputy Inspector Generals are given the power to secure restriction orders affecting movement of citizens. The draft also introduces, knowing full well the context of laws delays, the legal perversion of empowering the Attorney General to suspend prosecution for 20 years on the condition that a suspect agrees to a form of punishment such as public apology, payment of compensation, community service, and rehabilitation. Sri Lanka does not need a law normalizing extraordinary power.
We take this moment to remind our country of the devastation caused to minoritized populations under laws such as the PTA and the continued militarization, surveillance and oppression aided by rapidly growing security legislation. There is very limited space for recovery and reconciliation post war and also barely space for low income working people to aspire to physical, emotional and financial security. The threat posed by even proposing such an oppressive law as the PSTA is an affront to feminist conceptions of human security. Security must be recognized at an individual and community level to have any meaning.
The urgent human security needs in Sri Lanka are undeniable – over 50% of households in the country are in debt, a quarter of the population are living in poverty, over 30% of households experience moderate/severe food insecurity issues, the police receive over 100,000 complaints of domestic violence each year. We are experiencing deepening inequality, growing poverty, assaults on the education and health systems of the country, tightening of the noose of austerity, the continued failure to breathe confidence and trust towards reconciliation, recovery, restitution post war, and a failure to recognize and respond to structural discrimination based on gender, race and class, religion. State security cannot be conceived or discussed without people first being safe, secure, and can hope for paths towards developing their lives without threat, violence and discrimination. One year into power and there has been no significant legislative or policy moves on addressing austerity, rolling back of repressive laws, addressing domestic and other forms of violence against women, violence associated with household debt, equality in the family, equality of representation at all levels, and the continued discrimination of the Malaiyah people.
The draft PSTA tells us that no lessons have been learnt. It tells us that this government intends to continue state tools of repression and maintain militarization. It is hard to lose hope within just a year of a new government coming into power with a significant mandate from the people to change the system, and yet we are here. For women, young people, children and working class citizens in this country everyday is a struggle, everyday is a minefield of threats and discrimination. We do not need another threat in the form of the PSTA. Withdraw the PSTA now!
The Feminist Collective for Economic Justice is a collective of feminist economists, scholars, feminist activists, university students and lawyers that came together in April 2022 to understand, analyze and give voice to policy recommendations based on lived realities in the current economic crisis in Sri Lanka.
Please send your comments to – feministcollectiveforjustice@gmail.com
-
Features21 hours agoWhy does the state threaten Its people with yet another anti-terror law?
-
Business7 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features21 hours agoVictor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
-
Features21 hours agoReconciliation, Mood of the Nation and the NPP Government
-
Latest News2 days agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Features21 hours agoVictor, the Friend of the Foreign Press
-
Latest News2 days agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News2 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction

