by Prof. Gamini Keerawella
(From the publication The BCIS At Fifty –A Journey of Learning and Dialogue)

I can still vividly recall the striking image of the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH), deeply engraved in my memory from the very first day I laid eyes on it. It was in 1976, a few months after the historic Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit had been held there. As I was walking along Bauddhaloka Mawatha from the Kanatte Junction towards Thummulla, it suddenly appeared on my left. Though I had glimpsed its image in newspapers covering the NAM Summit, nothing could have prepared me for the breathtaking reality. There it stood—a pristine white colossus, gleaming in the sun—an architectural marvel that commanded both reverence and awe.

In that moment, a surge of emotion swept over me; reminiscent of how I felt when I first set foot on the University of Peradeniya as a novice undergraduate in 1968. The memory remains just as vivid—the way I stood, mesmerised by the grandeur of the university’s sprawling complexes, each a testament to human ingenuity and vision, seamlessly intertwined with the natural splendour of the Hantane mountain range and the winding beauty of the Mahaweli River valley. Both moments—Peradeniya and the BMICH—have left an indelible imprint on my life. When I was recruited to the academic staff of the University of Peradeniya in 1975, the environment of the university became an inseparable part of my life, shaping my experiences and outlook. I found myself deeply immersed in the beauty of the campus—where nature and architecture engage in a timeless, harmonious dialogue. In a similar vein, the octagonal BMICH stands as a true architectural marvel, unique in its form and scale within the country. The design is a masterpiece of modern Chinese architecture, its imposing pillars embracing the octagonal structure in a style reminiscent of a Roman Acropolis—where the ancient and the modern converge in breathtaking fusion.

In 1976, as I stood before the BCIS, it never crossed my mind that one day I would become the Executive Director of the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS), the educational arm of the Bandaranaike National Memorial Foundation (BMNF). Nor could I have imagined becoming a member of its Council of Management and Academic Affairs Board of BMICH.

In 1980, I took study leave and left Peradeniya for Canada to pursue my postgraduate studies. After earning my MA at the University of Windsor in 1982, I moved to the University of British Columbia (UBC) to pursue my doctorate. Having completed all the required coursework and on the verge of submitting my doctoral dissertation, I was called back to Peradeniya in May 1985 as my study leave had come to an end. Since I deeply loved my work at Peradeniya, I returned with the firm confidence that I would soon be able to return to UBC during one of the long vacations to defend my Ph.D. dissertation.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike

In 1986, while I was putting the final touches on my doctoral dissertation, I received an unexpected invitation to a regional conference at the BMICH, organised by BCIS. By then, several of my senior colleagues from the University of Peradeniya, such as Profs. S.U. Kodikara, Birty Gajameragedara, Vishwa Warnapala, K.H. Jayasinghe, P.V.J. Jayasekera, and Mahinda Werake, were already involved in BCIS’s academic programmes. I was both surprised and deeply honoured by the invitation. As a junior academic, it was an extraordinary privilege for me to engage with distinguished scholars from South Asia, including K. Subrahmanyam, K.P. Misra, K.R. Singh, and S.D. Muni from India, as well as Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema and Rasul Rais from Pakistan. I also noticed the presence of prominent journalists like Mervyn Silva and Gamini Weerakoon among the panelists, further underscoring the significance of the event. Participating in this seminar with such renowned scholars was a defining moment in my academic journey, and I believed that my senior colleagues played a role in arranging an invitation to me.

By that time, a new wing had been annexed to the main BMICH hall, and the conference was held in the adjoining building. To my surprise, Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Chairperson of the BMNF and a keen supporter of BCIS, was present and actively engaged in the proceedings, adding even more significance to the event. It was the first time I found myself in close proximity to the remarkable figure of Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the world’s first female Prime Minister. I was instantly struck by her commanding presence—an undeniable aura of magnanimity and charisma that left a lasting impression. Her dignified posture and quiet strength embodied the true essence of leadership and grace.

During the tea break after the inaugural session, refreshments were served in the adjoining vestibule. In one corner, a settee had been arranged, where Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike sat, choosing to remain with the conference participants rather than retreat to a private space. Senior academics and foreign delegates naturally gravitated toward her, drawn by her presence. It was then that Mr. Ray Forbes, then the Director of BCIS, approached me, his usual stern tone breaking through the crowd as he informed me that Madam Bandaranaike wished to speak with me. When Mr. Forbes introduced me, she indicated that she wished to speak with me privately. As I stood before her, I experienced both awe and anxiety. She gestured for me to sit across from her, and in her deep, resonant voice, inquired about my studies. There was motherly warmth in her tone, yet it was coupled with an unmistakable air of authority that commanded respect. As we conversed, my fears slowly subsided. To my surprise, she knew much about my background, and it was clear this was the reason she had sought me out.

In April 1971, while still in my third year of university, I was arrested by the security forces for my involvement in the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the 1971 uprising. After nearly three years of incarceration, I was released at the end of 1973 and returned to university at the beginning of 1974. Despite the interruption to my studies, I excelled in my final examinations in 1975, which led to my recruitment to the academic staff of the Department of History—initially on a temporary basis, and later as a probationary lecturer. On the verge of completing my doctorate at one of the world’s leading universities, I shared this journey with Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike during our conversation. She was genuinely pleased to hear about my academic progress and showed great interest in my doctoral dissertation, titled Superpower Naval Rivalry in the Indian Ocean Since 1945 and Sri Lanka’s Response. She encouraged me to actively engage in the academic programmes at BCIS. Her words of both support and expectation inspired me to contribute to the institution’s intellectual landscape.

In our brief conversation, she spoke with clarity and purpose, exhibiting the vision and decisiveness of a true leader and accomplished stateswoman. She sought to engage individuals like us in BCIS initiatives, determined to break the exclusivity surrounding the study of international affairs, which had long been confined to a small, elitist segment of society. As a public educational institution, the BCIS aspired to democratise the systematic study of International Relations, making it accessible to a broader audience. Sri Lanka, she noted, was in dire need of scholarly contributions to inform its policy-making process, particularly given the chaotic state of the country’s foreign policy at the time, with decisions being made in a haphazard manner. Recognizing the scarcity of academic research in International Relations, the BCIS aimed to become a hub for policy research, especially in areas relevant to Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. She concluded by emphasiaing the critical role the BCIS could play in fostering dialogue among scholars from across South Asia, addressing regional issues through collaboration and mutual understanding. I was deeply impressed by her vision for the BCIS, which was rooted in a spirit of social democracy, seeking to bridge divides and serve the public good.

My meeting with Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike that day remains one of the most memorable experiences of my life. The clarity with which she articulated the vision and mission of BCIS left a lasting impression on me. She spoke with conviction about the Centre’s purpose—not just as an academic institution but also as a beacon of public education, aimed at shaping informed citizens and influencing policy. Her emphasis on the core values of the BCIS struck a chord with me. She envisioned the BCIS as a platform where scholars, policymakers, and the public could engage in meaningful discourse on international relations and diplomacy, with a focus on Sri Lanka’s unique position in the global arena. These values were not abstract ideals but guiding principles that shaped the institution’s commitment to inclusivity, accessibility, and public service.

Madam Bandaranaike’s words still resonate in my mind, reminding me of the responsibility we have to promote these social democratic principles. Her vision for the BCIS was clear: it was to be a place where the study of international relations would be democratised, where knowledge would not be the privilege of the few but a resource for the many. She understood the power of education as a tool for both social and political transformation, and her leadership reflected a deep commitment to creating a more equitable and just society. Inspired by this vision, I was determined to support and uphold the values on which the BCIS was founded.

The winds are a-changing in civil aviation and at SriLankan Airlines. Our national airline is now under the Ministry of Finance, directly under the control of the President, instead of the Ministry of Aviation. We have to wait and see whether it will improve matters. It will certainly carry a few possible risks and pitfalls. Some say that the situation in SriLankan Airlines cannot fall any lower.

These risks must be properly managed and mitigated, because in civil aviation there is always a fine balance between safety and profitability.

Below are views of some experts on possible risks, with which I tend to agree.

Risk No 1. Financial Prioritisation over Operational Concerns/Focus on Profitability (i.e. the bottom line only): The Ministry of Finance may prioritise financial performance, cost-cutting measures, and profitability over operational concerns, safety, or customer service, which are typically managed by the Ministry of Aviation.

Short-Term Financial Goals

: Decisions might be driven by short-term financial results (e.g. quarterly profits) rather than long-term sustainability, growth, or innovation in aviation. Cutting corners purely for economic benefit costs lives. The DC-10 accident in Chicago in 1979 and the recent Boeing 737 MAX accidents come to mind,

Risk No 2. Increased Focus on Budget Management/Public Funding and Subsidies: The airline may be more heavily scrutinised for its financial efficiency, with increased pressure to effectively manage subsidies, loans, or public funds.

Budget Constraints

: In times of financial strain, the Ministry of Finance might push for austerity measures, potentially affecting fleet maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or employee welfare.

Risk No 3. Reduced Focus on Regulatory Oversight: Operational Oversight: The Ministry of Aviation typically ensures regulatory compliance, safety standards, air traffic management, and aviation policy. Under the Ministry of Finance, these may be deprioritised, potentially affecting overall safety and operational efficiency.

(Arguably, Sri Lankan Airlines, in common with its predecessors Air Lanka and Air Ceylon, has the best air safety record in the world.)

Policy Alignment

: The airline may have less direct input into the development of aviation-specific policies, such as airspace management, environmental impact, or consumer protection laws.

Note 1: The last aviation policy was passed by the Sri Lankan Parliament in 2017.

Note 2: The product Sri Lankan Airlines is meant to deliver is “Safe and On Time”. The airline’s priorities operationally are safety first, passenger comfort second, schedule third and profitability last, when working in real time.

Risk No 4. Potential for Privatisation or Market Liberalisation/Privatisation Push: When the push comes to a shove, the Ministry of Finance may pursue privatisation or public-private partnerships to reduce the government’s financial burden, potentially leading to less public control over airline operations.

Market Competitiveness:

 Financially driven decisions might encourage liberalisation or deregulation in an effort to promote competition, which could lead to lower fares but potentially reduced service quality and compromising of air safety.

Risk No 5. Risk to National Interest Goals/National Carrier Strategy: Airlines often serve strategic national interests (e.g. connecting remote regions, supporting tourism, or facilitating diplomatic efforts). The Ministry of Finance might be less focused on these broader geopolitical objectives, potentially leading to reduced emphasis on these goals.

National Security

: Certain aviation assets and services may be closely tied to national security interests. The Ministry of Finance may not prioritise this aspect in the same way the Ministry of Aviation would.

Note: One example is the Talangama Transmitters site formerly owned by the Ceylon Civil Aviation Department, situated a mere 4.4 nautical miles from the runway end on final approach to Colombo International Airport – Ratmalana, being acquired by the military and now classified as a ‘no fly zone’, thus compromising air safety. When millions were invested in Akuregoda, the Civil Aviation Authority Sri Lanka (CAASL) remained silent anyway!

Risk No 6. Impact on Labour and Workforce Concerns/Labour Relations: The focus of the Ministry of Finance on financial performance might lead to cost-cutting measures that could negatively affect employees, such as layoffs, wage reductions, or reduced benefits, leading to possible labour unrest.

Staffing Efficiency

: While the Ministry of Aviation might focus on maintaining a skilled workforce for safe operations, the Ministry of Finance may see staffing as an area for financial optimisation, potentially impacting operational readiness.

Risk No 7. Impact on Innovation and Environmental Goals/Technology and Sustainability: The Ministry of Finance might be tempted to prioritise immediate financial returns over long-term investments in sustainability, such as the development of greener technologies or new aircraft, potentially delaying efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the airline.

Incentive for Innovation

: A more finance-oriented leadership could discourage investment in innovation, focusing on minimising costs rather than exploring advancements in aviation technology, customer experience, or safety enhancements.

In summary, moving an airline to oversight by the Ministry of Finance could lead to a stronger emphasis on financial sustainability and cost management, but it may also reduce attention to safety, innovation, and long-term strategic goals associated with the aviation sector.

Being forewarned is forearmed … or is it?

Capt. G.A. Fernando

MBA (UK)

gafplane@sltnet.lk

Retired Airline Pilot.

President UL Club.

Immediate past President, Aircraft Owners’ and Operators’ Association. (AOAOA)

Representative for ‘Aviation’ in the Organisation of Professional Associations (OPA)

Former Member Air Accident/ Incident Investigation Team CAASL

Former Facilitator in Crew Resource Management (CRM) SIA

RCyAF/SLAF, Air Ceylon, Air Lanka, Singapore Airlines, SriLankan Airlines

Apropos Dr. Geewananda Gunawardena’s (GG) excellent article titled “Agnotology and Ethnic Relations” (The Island – 04,11.2024) I would like to say that his timely attempt to show that differences and conflicts, based on ethnicity, has no relevance in today’s world, is laudable to say the least. Further his view that veneration of the elite and rulers must stop is also praise-worthy and one can’t agree more with him. The fact that these two phenomena, racism and adulation of the elite, have plagued the country and brought us to the present sad straits cannot be overemphasized. However, I have to make a few observations of dissent that wouldn’t in any way take anything away from what he has said, purely for academic and scientific reasons and with no racial connotations whatsoever.

His contention is that there are no genetic differences between Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils as shown in a study he quotes as “Ranaweera, 2014” which is based on a mitochondrial DNA analysis. This study may not have found any difference for there may not be such difference in mitochondrial DNA of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils. However, a different test on some other aspect of genetics may find a difference. A more recent study by three Sri Lankan researchers has reported a difference which they consider as evidence that support the theory of ancient linguistic origin of Sri Lankan ethnicities — Indo-Aryan origin of Sinhalese and Dravidian origin of Tamil populations (KLN Perera, Gayani Galhena & Gaya Ranawake, June 2021). This study is titled “X-chromosomal STR based genetic polymorphisms and demographic history of Sri Lankan ethnicities and their relationship with global populations”. Here STR stands for Short Tandem Repeat which is a DNA sequence where a short sequence of nucleotides is repeated multiple times in a row. STRs are found throughout the genome and are characterized by their length polymorphism, meaning the number of repeated sequences varies between individuals. I do not claim that this method is superior to mitochondrial DNA analysis that GG has mentioned. What I want to emphasise is that it is unnecessary to find how close ethnic groups are related if the intention is to promote ethnic harmony, but for academic purposes and historical interest certainly by all means it must be done. Suffice it to say that we are all humans and have the same origin in East Africa and therefore must get on harmoniously despite ethnic differences. Because whether we like it or not there are ethnic differences between the ethnic groups in Sri Lanka and conflicts are more common between closely related groups than distant groups. We must look for other means of bringing peace and cordiality among communities.

Ethnicity is a social heritage and may be based on, not genes, but one or more of the following characteristics; language, religion and geographic location. Different ethnic groups may have very similar genomes. Similarly, there may be genetic differences within the same ethnic group. For example, genetic composition of Israelis and Palestinians are very much similar, dating back to the Stone Age, but today they are arch enemies. No useful purpose would be served by harping on their common ancestry except perhaps for academic interest.

As GG correctly mentions it is the politicians who exploit these differences to gain popularity among their communities and remain in political power. Such politicians should be exposed and weeded out of the political arena. This process has already started if one is to go by the outcome of the recently concluded general election. One hopes this was not a “flash in the pan” and one-off political phenomenon but a more permanent change in the attitude of voters of all communities. If it means that the Sri Lankan voter has matured it bodes well for future communal harmony and development of the nation.

N.A.DE S. AMARATUNGA