Features
US lawmakers’ ignorance of civilian casualties in Lanka’s war on terrorism
by Daya Gamage
Foreign Service National Political Specialist (ret) US Department of State
Declaring that the government of Sri Lanka, while combating ‘Tamil Organizations’ which were fighting for a Tamil Homeland in the North-East, committed genocide against the Tamil people, a resolution was tabled in the US House of Representatives, on May 15, 2024, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the conclusion of the LTTE’s terrorist war; it states, “Recognizing the hundreds of thousands of lives lost during Sri Lanka’s almost 30-year armed conflict, which ended 15 years ago on May 18, 2009, and ensuring nonrecurrence of past violence, including the Tamil Genocide, by supporting the right to self-determination of Eelam Tamil people and their call for an independence referendum for a lasting peaceful resolution”.
The Resolution also quotes the then State Department Assistant Secretary Richard Boucher, during a visit to wartime Sri Lanka on June 1, 2006 as having said, “There are legitimate issues that are raised by the Tamil community, and they have a very legitimate desire, as anybody would, to be able to control their own lives, to rule their own destinies and to govern themselves in their homeland; in the areas they’ve traditionally inhabited.”
Ill-conceived use of Boucher’s pronouncement
It is ill-conceived to use Boucher’s 2006 pronouncement in the year 2024 when Government of Sri Lanka’s ‘Census of Population and Housing’ even in the Year 2012 – well acknowledged by official reports of the World Bank – that of the 11.14 percent of Sri Lankan Tamils (excluding the near 5 percent Tamils of Indian Origin living in the plantation areas in the centre of the country) only 7.81 percent is living in the North-East (Tamil Homeland) and 3.34 percent domiciled in the rest of the country in the Sinhalese-majority districts with gainful employment, access to housing, education and economic opportunities away from the so-called Tamil Homeland in the North-East. In 2012, the percentage of Sri Lanka Tamils living outside the North and the East is 42.76 percent, and in the Year 2024 it is closer to 50 percent.
If someone explained these demographic data to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives wouldn’t they entertain a second thought as to in what manner 50 percent of Tamils could claim a ‘Tamil Homeland’ when another (close to) 50 percent is left out? Let’s bring to the attention of American lawmakers and policymakers cogent facts related to ‘genocide’ and ‘civilian casualties’ and also ‘encourage’ ‘others’ that have ‘legitimate and moral authority’ to use their ‘diplomatic overtures’ to educate Washington. Since the military battle between the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) and the Tamil Tigers ended in May 2009, the issue of civilian casualties during the final months of the battle and the human shield associated with it emerged when Sri Lanka’s accountability and transparency were focused on the Office of Secretary-General of the United Nations, the US Department of State, the US Congress, global human rights organisations and in many Western administrations.
Human shields
Following the deaths of the Tamil Tigers, the issue of human shield – to which the non-state actor was solely responsible and well known to the international community – became a secondary issue while the civilian casualties were given much prominence. Insinuating that civilian casualties were largely due to GSL’s military offensive, accountability and transparency figured prominently in Resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva since 2012 and subsequently in 2015, 2016 and 2017; they called for a hybrid investigative mechanism to probe as to whether Sri Lanka violated international humanitarian law (IHL).
The prominence given to civilian casualty issue – leading to the allegation of genocide – eclipsed the issue of the use of human shields by the Tamil Tigers. The interconnection of both issues was ignored as they were not simultaneously discussed. It should be critically noted why those who demand accountability and transparency from Sri Lanka failed to include human shields used by the LTTE as a factor in the alleged excessive force analysis.
In a non-international armed conflict, it is appropriate to unearth the legal framework and mechanisms which are associated with the presence of civilians in a battlefield. Since the Eelam War IV (2006-2009) ended, Sri Lanka has been subjected to serious scrutiny of the manner in which it conducted the offensive during the final months. It is vital to note here in what form these allegations of international observers reached the UN and policy-framers/policy-makers of Western nations – in most cases Washington – leading to the accusation that Sri Lanka the IHL and committed war crimes leaving aside larger issues.
International observers rushing to judgment
In the case of Sri Lanka, the tendency of international observers to rush to judgment – and censure –is evident from the exaggerated civilian fatality figures cited extensively in their reports. The number of unarmed Tamils killed during the final stage of the war (January – May 2009) has been arbitrarily placed at 40,000. These deaths are blamed largely on the Sri Lankan military personnel who were accused of using excessive and indiscriminate force, and thereby committing war crimes.
The figure of 40,000 was arrived at by subtracting the number of internally displaced civilians from the UN’s estimate of the number of civilians caught up in the final offensive. According to a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in April 2009 to the State Department, the UN had estimated that from January 20 to April 6, civilian fatalities numbered 4, 164 and 10,002 others were wounded.
An unpublished report by the United Nations country team in Sri Lanka stated that from August 2008 to May 13, 2009 (six days before the war ended), the number of civilians killed was 7,721. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the only outside agency, which was present in the war zone during the final phase, used various statistical indicators to conclude that the total number of noncombatants killed was around 7,000. On 09 March, the UN Country Team, for the first and only time, briefed diplomats in Colombo on the civilian casualty figures it had collected from the Humanitarian Convoy 11 (they were allowed in the battle zone).
According to this briefing, 2,683 civilians died between 20 January and 7 March, and 7,241 persons were injured. But the UN Country Team did not indicate to the diplomats that the vast majority of the civilian casualties were due to government shelling. (United Nations, “Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on UN Actions in Sri Lanka” 2012 Page 11). The British military attaché in Colombo reported that about a quarter of those killed were possibly Tamil Tigers who had discarded their uniforms. Despite all these contradictory fatality figures, a commission appointed by the UN Secretary General deemed the figure of 40,000 definitive, and all western governments have since accepted it unquestioningly.
Battlefield reality
Quite apart from the numbers killed and wounded is the question of Sri Lankan behaviour in prosecuting the offensive and how it is to be judged in terms of the law of war. Critics claim that the Sri Lankan forces used excessive force, and especially artillery, indiscriminately; some even claim that civilians were targeted intentionally. In fact, the reason that so many Tamil civilians were interspersed with Tiger combatants in the battle zone is that the latter forced large numbers of civilians to accompany them as they retreated towards the coast, and used them as human shields as government forces closed in.
There are well documented reports of Tigers shooting civilians who tried to save themselves by swimming away across the lagoon. Given the Tigers’ ruthless treatment of civilians throughout the war, there is even a prima facie case to be made that the LTTE leadership welcomed civilian fatalities as a way of galvanising foreign powers to bring Colombo under international pressure to declare a ceasefire.
The LTTE political commissar Puleedevan told some friends in Europe, “just as in Kosovo if enough civilians died the world would be forced to step in”, (Quoted in Frances Harrison’s Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War – London: Portobello, 2012)
International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law (IHL) provides the legal framework for those who are fighting for one of the parties to an armed conflict, and for those affected by the effects of hostilities. IHL aims to protect those who are not taking part in the hostilities. However, IHL acknowledges that civilians and civilian objects may legitimately be affected by warfare and the existence of collateral damage. Even though civilians and civilian objects may not be directly targeted, the IHL principle of proportionality allows civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects, under the restriction that these are not excessive to the military advantage anticipated.
The IHL principle of proportionality is commonly understood to be stipulated in article 51 (5) (b) of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions: “[Prohibited are attacks] … which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
During the final phases of the Eelam War IV – February through May 2009 – the GSL military had gained the upper hand, and the retreating Tigers in a desperate bid to prevent the Army from advancing, stepped up the forcible conscription and used civilians as human shields. The American lawmakers who tabled the Resolution this month either turned a blind eye to these facts or the pro-LTTE groups pulled the wool over their eyes.
The LTTE political commissar Puleedevan outlined his outfit’s strategy when he stated “just as in Kosovo if enough civilians died the world would be forced to step in”. The LTTE wanted a pause in fighting for its top leadership to flee to the North African state of Eritrea. According to the 15 December 2006 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigative report the African nation was providing military assistance to the LTTE.
The GSL was under severe pressure during this final state from the International Community (IC) to agree to a ceasefire to protect the civilians shield as harm to civilians could be interpreted as proof of the use of force excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage and thus disproportionate and prohibited under IHL.
Parity of status for LTTE
It may be recalled that IC, through the Norwegian facilitators, gave parity of status to the LTTE by bringing it to the negotiating table (2002-2004) with the GSL in 2002-2004 although the LTTE had been designated a terrorist organisation in many EU countries and the US. As Ambassador Robert Blake noted in a diplomatic cable “(the) Army has a generally good track record of taking care to minimize civilian casualties during its advances…”, if the GSL military forces, which were under legal constraints, had not refrained from attacking there would have been many more thousands of civilian casualties at the time of the conclusion of the war, as remarked by the ICRC Asia Head to a State Department official. These legal and moral constraints exercised by the GSL military were highlighted by Jacques de Maio, the ICRC’ Head of Operation for South Asia when he met US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issue – John Clint Williamson for a classified briefing – on July 9, 2009 along with several INGO heads in Geneva, Switzerland. The ICRC was the only international organization the GSL allowed in the northern battle field for humanitarian work.
The diplomatic cable sent by Ambassador Williamson to Washington – https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09GENEVA584_a.html on the issue of potential violations of IHL, quoted Maio as saying that “the Sri Lankan military was somewhat responsive to accusations of violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and was open to adapting its actions to reduce casualties […] He could cite examples of where the Army had stopped shelling when ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the Army could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths ….”
Continued tomorrow
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 News6 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 News6 days agoHeat Index at Caution level’ in the Northern, North-central, North-western, Western and Southern provinces and in Trincomalee district.
-
Latest News6 days agoSalt and Patidar power RCB past Mumbai Indians
-
Latest News5 days agoUS blockade of Iran would worsen global energy crisis, analysts say
-
News1 day agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract

