Features
Tissa Wijeyaratne at the foreign office and briefing on the KGB in London
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister)
The Prime Minister had brought in Mr. Tissa Wijeyaratne, a lawyer, and one who had long antecedents in the Communist Party as the Additional Secretary Foreign Affairs, in the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs. Tissa had a good mind and was a witty speaker. I remember once. when I was an undergraduate at Peradeniya University, Tissa addressing a packed “Room A”, the largest hall in the University on some political topic.
Most of the undergraduates were almost equally divided between Communists and Trotskyites during this time, so that Tissa was well aware that his audience consisted of a large number of Trotskyites. His opening sentence was “Trotskyites of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your brains!” This was of course an invitation to pandemonium, which duly reigned for quite sometime, until a harassed presiding officer restored some degree of order and silence. That was Tissa.
I was wondering how he was going to fit into a bureaucracy. He was brought in partly due to the coalition politics of the day, but partly also to give a complacent Foreign Ministry a bit of a shake up. Tissa started in characteristic style. He told a meeting of officers of the Foreign Service that the Ministry was Foreign because the behaviour and attitudes of members of the diplomatic service were foreign to Sri Lanka. He went on to add that he would initiate a scheme whereby those returning to the country, particularly after an assignment in a Western country would be posted to a Kachcheri where he or she would be exposed to a dose of grass-roots District Administration.
He went further and said that he intends to make posts in the Foreign Service and the domestic Administrative Service interchangeable. All this was stirring stuff and it certainly created the stir that Tissa probably intended and without doubt enjoyed. Tissa was voluble and ebullient. WT Jayasinghe the Foreign Secretary was his complete opposite. He was taciturn and laconic. It was a most interesting mix, but a mix that the Prime Minister thought after some time to be unsustainable. She developed a fear that Tissa would bulldoze WT, and craft his own agenda which could possibly lead to our having two foreign policies!
She thereupon told me that she was going to institute a Committee on Foreign Affairs consisting of W.T, Tissa, Alif, the Secretary to the Cabinet, and myself. The Committee was to clear any important foreign policy issue before it reached her, and also to engage in a considerable degree of formal planning and forward thinking. She wanted me to Chair this Committee. Long before the concept of a neutral umpire evolved in the game of cricket, my role was to be a neutral umpire in the overall management of foreign policy.
I had serious doubts about the practical working of this Committee. I was of the view that many of the problems that the Foreign Ministry should deal with in the course of their ordinary work, would be shunted to this Committee. Given the busy nature of the duties of the members and their already heavy responsibilities, I felt that the Committee could become a bottleneck; and most importantly I was of the view that the Foreign Secretary’s position should not be devalued.
I discussed all these matters with the Prime Minister. It led to her modifying the role of the Committee to being more of a think-tank, and she agreed that WT should Chair it. But WT strongly proposed that I should Chair it. He was sensitive to Tissa’s presence, and he was quite certain that I, with the weight of the Prime Minister’s office behind me should be the best person to Chair the Committee. I reluctantly acquiesced. The Foreign Service supported me fully. They also felt that in the context of things, the Secretary to the Prime Minister was the best person to Chair this group. They also paid me the further compliment of stating that my personal qualities also ideally suited me to the task.
I got on well with Tissa. I was never put off by the surface noise. I always looked for underlying meaning. Tissa appreciated this. Alif as usual was very balanced and helpful. Together, we were able to restore the kind of balance that the Prime Minister wanted. I was especially careful to encourage Tissa to speak out. Our mandate from the Prime Minister was to restore balance, not to establish a dead conformity or to prevent the articulation of differing views.
Amidst all this, I was invited by the United States Embassy in Colombo to Chair the Joint Committee of Sri Lankans and Americans to select a person for the Eisenhower Award. This was a prestigious award which takes the awardee to the United States for a period of some months, and an opportunity for him or her to engage in high level intellectual and social activities. This meant meetings of the Committee leading to the final selection by interview.
The candidates were finally pared down to two, Mr. K.H.J. Wijayadasa of the Administrative Service and formerly of the Civil Service, and Mr. Mangala Moonesinghe a Member of Parliament. After interviewing both candidates, the Committee was of the view that it was virtually a dead heat. But Mr. Moonesinghe was finally selected, because no member from the legislature had gone on this award previously, and it was thought that with such a good candidate, it was time this happened. We also identified an appropriate award for Mr. Wijayadasa to go on, later.
Senior Security Administrator’s Course – London
In June 1974, I had to leave for London to attend the “Senior Security Administrators’ Course” organized by the British authorities. The Inspector General of Police Mr. Stanley Senanayake strongly advocated that I should attend this course. I certainly did not wish to stand in the way of someone from the police going for this, and I suggested to the IGP that he select one of his senior officers. But the IGP said that this course was more tailored towards high officials from Prime Minister’s offices; Cabinet offices etc, and the course content dealt substantially with matters such as security of documents; security of information flows; issues pertaining to electronic surveillance, etc. I therefore went.
It was certainly very useful. During a week, I learned so many aspects that I was not aware of before, and refined my thinking on some of those which I thought I already knew. The preponderance of attendance encompassed senior civilian officials from the Prime Minister’s offices; Cabinet offices; and Ministries of Defence. There were many participants from African countries. Some of them irritated the course directors, because of their habitually late attendance, and visible drowsiness after lunch. The British were as usual polite, but in the case of one recurring offender they resorted to understated sarcasm, about his constant late attendance.
The rapier in this instance was met with a club. The gentleman concerned stated with a note of surprised indignation, that the course started too early in the morning (9 a.m.); that the course hours were too long; that this did not provide any time for shopping! And that in any case when they came out to London, his government expected him to do other work as well. This statement also received sympathy in some quarters of the room.
The British course directors were speechless. Apparently, no previous experience had prepared them for such a confident assertion of chaos as far as their course was concerned. But they had to patiently deal with the problem. As far as I was concerned, as I have mentioned previously, I was schooled in a tradition that underlined that when you go abroad you represent your country, and that you must do nothing to bring discredit upon it. I was therefore always punctual, and temperamentally since I didn’t much care for visiting Soho by night, managed to get sufficient sleep, and was therefore fairly alert during the day.
This did not go unnoticed and resulted in the development of considerable rapport between the course hierarchy and myself. I was introduced by them to an intelligence operative, who was working on South Asia, and whose responsibilities seemed to include keeping track of Soviet KGB operations in the region. In the course of conversations, he gave me details of a senior KGB agent working under cover in the Soviet Embassy in Sri Lanka. This was quite important. Sri Lanka as a non-aligned country having good relations with all did receive sensitive information from diverse sources. The Soviets would tell us about CIA and other Western agents, and the West would periodically tell us about Soviet agents.
Although I had nothing to do with this particular field, I was aware it was happening. I thanked the British for the information and said I would take it up when I got back. In the meantime, our interesting course continued. Being a British course, naturally almost the sole emphasis was on KGB activity, KGB penetration and KGB methods. On one occasion we were put into different syndicate groups and each group was told to identify the security threats to the countries of group members.
We had members from Asia and Africa in most groups, and my group also had the Cabinet Secretary of the Bahamas, an intelligent and articulate gentleman. In the confidentiality of group discussion, he said that the biggest security threat to his country was from the CIA! He was certainly not going to come out with it however, on a British course. Most of us had similar difficulties, for we were aware that we were subject to intelligence surveillance and action including funding of local groups by agencies of both East and West. The British may not have been so naive as to expect candor from us. Perhaps, they were just testing our reactions.
Features
Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century
In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.
Ceasefire Hopes
Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.
Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.
Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.
In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”
Subversion from the Right
The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.
The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.
In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.
Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.
In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.
Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.
The rise and fall of Viktor Orban
Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.
At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.
To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.
Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.
During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.
Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.
The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.
Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.
For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.
The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.
EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.
by Rajan Philips
Features
ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries
Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.
ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.
At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.
By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.
Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.
Exhibition Details:
Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5
Features
Our Teardrop
BOOK REVIEW
Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)
Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3
The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.
On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.
Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.
Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.
However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.
There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.
There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.
L S M Pillai
-
Latest News7 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT arrive in Colombo
-
Latest News6 days agoPrasidh, Buttler set up comfortable win for Gujarat Titans
-
News4 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
Latest News5 days ago“I extend my heartfelt wishes to all Sri Lankans for a peaceful and joyous Sinhala and Tamil New Year!” – President
-
Latest News7 days agoHeat Index at Caution level’ in the Northern, North-central, North-western, Western and Southern provinces and in Trincomalee district.
-
Business2 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
News2 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News5 days agoUS blockade of Iran would worsen global energy crisis, analysts say

