Features
Effort to break logjam, Vijaya K, food drop and JR’s letter to Rajiv

(Excerpted from volume ii of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography)
In fact it was Rajiv who made an attempt to break the logjam The Parathasarathy proposals had insisted on the joinder of the North and East. This was a ‘shadow’ of the TULF concept of their ‘traditional homelands’. No Sinhala leader could accept this ‘imaginary nation’ to use the celebrated phrase of Benedict Anderson and hope to survive not only politically but even as a living human being.
‘Kill the old man’ later became a JVP slogan inscribed on city walls. The Sinhalese and Muslims. and even sections of the Eastern Tamils who had been earlier ostracized by the Jaffna Tamils as low caste, were not willing to play second fiddle to the northerners. By now JRJ had accepted the notion of devolution and a second tier of Government by way of Provincial Councils which were originally proposed only for the North and East.
In Bangalore Rajiv shifted the Indian position by suggesting two Provincial Councils – North and East – which as two entities could evolve a system of cooperation at the ground level. Then came the fatal shock for Rajiv. He wanted Prabhakaran who up to then was looked upon as a client of the Indians -whom RAW insisted could be whipped into line – brought to Bangalore to agree to this new formulation which had the consent of the other Tamil groups.
Let us listen to Bernard Tillekeratne, our High Commissioner in Delhi at that time. “It was reported that Prabhakaran, who was then resident in Madras, had initially refused to proceed to Bangalore as desired by Gandhi, to meet Jayewardene and himself, should the need arise during their discussions. However, he was forced to be in attendance in Bangalore but reportedly refused to meet the Sri Lankan President.
At this point Gandhi decided to impose some restrictions on LTTE movement in Tamil Nadu and even sought to prevent Prabhakaran from leaving India, but he slipped across to Jaffna to continue his fight from there.”
This was a historic encounter which had fatal consequences. Some years later both Rajiv and Prabhakaran had premature and violent deaths as a consequence of the Bangalore impasse. Only JRJ died in bed after retirement at a ripe old age.
Intensified Conflict
JRJ flew back to Colombo after establishing cordiality with Rajiv to find that Prabhakaran’s LTTE was adamant in sabotaging a peace deal which had been agreed to by the other Tamil parties. As Bhandari told me, India had invested much hope in a consensus emerging from an all-party conference. JRJ’s invitation had been accepted by the LSSP, CP, NLSSP and Vijaya’s party. Tamil parties, save the LTTE, were also represented.
After the opening session the meeting broke up into different committees to discuss problematic issues. Gamini Dissanayake headed the committee on land matters, and I was asked to assist him. We were able to find unanimity in assigning land alienation undue village expansion to the relevant district as it was the prevailing practice even then. The knotty issue was the development of land under the major schemes in the Eastern Province.
The expansion of the Mahaweli settlement was being held back because of the impasse. We decided that sixty percent of the allotments should be on a ratio of the population in the district and forty percent on national quotas. Regarding the sharing of water on a cross border basis we recommended the setting up of a Riverine Commission, like in India, which would adjudicate on the distribution of water.
This found general acceptance and was indeed used for land alienation subsequently. Similarly other committees too made their recommendations. However the value of these efforts were undermined by the refusal of the party now dominated by Anura, to attend or endorse the findings of the all party conference.
Though the Tamil parties agreed to these suggestions their position on the ground in the North and East was deteriorating rapidly and Prabhakaran, who boasted that he had outwitted the Indians, was launching attacks particularly on unarmed Sinhala and Muslim civilians, which made JRJ’s position extremely unpopular among the Sinhala majority. He was under pressure from Lalith Athulathmudali who had reorganized the army under his watch, to take the fight to the LTTE, which in JRJ’s vulnerable position with the electorate, appeared to be a good move.
Accordingly the Lankan armed forces launched `Operation Liberation’ targeting Vadamaradchi. This was led by Cyril Ranatunga – a smart Sandhurst trained leader, together with Denzil Kobbekaduwa, who was my collegemate, and Wijaya Wimalaratne – three of the ablest fighting generals in our army which up to then had seen many setbacks due to poor leadership.
It was much later in Sarath Fonseka, who was then a subaltern, that we produced a military leader who could take his soldiers to victory. He was ably supported by the then Secretary of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa who too had taken part in the Vadamaratchi operation. Much later in time I was a keynote speaker at the launch of a book by C.A. Chandraprema entitled `Gotas War’. I referred to the combination of persons and events which enabled the Government to successfully conclude the fratricidal war which had changed the trajectory of the country’s future.
Vijayas Call
At about this time I got a call from Vijaya Kumaratunga who played a vital role in the All-Party Conference. It was his bold leadership that helped in the positive outcome of the meeting. By this time he was recognized as the leader of the left and their obvious common candidate at the next Presidential poll. He was adored by his party loyalists as well as film fans who made him the most popular actor on our silver screen.
While many political leaders were ambivalent about devolution and a settlement with the Tamils, it was Vijaya who boldly spoke out on the need for a second tier administration – Provincial Councils – which were closer to the grass roots. Vijaya first told me that Denzil was leading a successful march to the heart of LTTE country in Vadamarachchi. He thought this offensive would change the tide and the All Party Conference conclusions were significant for the next steps in resolving the ethnic crisis.
Of all the leaders it was Vijaya and Chandrika who were winning the confidence of the non LTTE Tamils. Then he dropped a bombshell. He said that JRJ was going to make me the Minister of Information as Anandatissa de Alwis was ill and in hospital. He urged me to accept the offer and on no account have second thoughts. I told him that JRJ had made no such offer and anyway the younger Ministers would be unhappy to see an intruder complicating their well-planned ascent to power.
I heard later that this idea was shot down by them as I expected. But it was true that at that stage I was close to the President, and he would contact me regularly by telephone and also summon me to ‘Braemar’ to discuss the rapidly changing scenario. The only result of this little cameo was that Anandatissa who was very close to me became distant – the wonderful relationship we had could not be recreated due to his jealousy.
After retirement Ananda sent many messages to make up but I felt that I had been badly misunderstood and did not respond with the earlier warmth. One of my characteristics is that once a close friendship is broken it becomes for me to ‘forgive and forget’. On the other hand, this episode highlighted the natural generosity of Vijaya Kumaratunga that could reach out across barriers of politics at a personal level and encourage his friends without petty considerations of advantage
He had good relations with the non LTTE Tamil militants. the LTTE cadres had a regard for him and in typical bold ‘film’ style Vijaya undertook a visit to LTTE held Jaffna to free soldiers who were held hostage by Prabhakaran. His LTTE host was Kangaratnam, an old Trinitian, a fluent Sinhala speaker. Vijaya’s visit was facilitated by Colonel Kotelawela, a strapping six-footer of the army who was the official army liaison in Jaffna with Kanagaratnam who had assumed the ‘nom de guerre’ of Colonel Rahim.
No other Sinhala politician would dare to follow Vijaya’s bold venture. His political enemies circulated a video of Vijaya shooting at a target provided by the LTTE. But he not only returned unscathed but also retained his popularity though earning the hatred of the Sinhala ultras, particularly of the JVP. They marked him as their chief challenge and made plans to eliminate him from the political scene. Vijaya received many warnings from his friends but with typical bravado he chose to ignore them. He even challenged the JVP to harm him.
Nadir of Indo-Lanka Relations
Though JR and Rajiv had established a rapport in Bangalore despite Prabhakaran’s intransigence, the immediate aftermath led to a period when the two countries were on the verge of open conflict. There were four main reasons for the breakdown. The first was the reaction of the LTTE now led on the ground by Prabhakaran, which went on the rampage against unarmed Sinhalese villagers. In Vavuniya they stopped a passenger bus and slaughtered all 140 travelers. The pressure was building on JRJ to act decisively as the Sinhalese looked on him to give a fitting response.
He was conscious of the fact that he was fast losing popularity, which awakened his atavistic fear of losing everything as he did in 1956. The second was the success of ‘Operation Liberation’. The Sri Lankan army was on the verge of defeating the LTTE militarily when the Indian government represented by their ‘gung-ho’. High Commissioner Dixit forced JRJ to call off the offensive much to the anger of the military and Lalith Athulathmudali who gave leadership to the armed services. The Indian Government was giving in to the pressures exerted on it by the Tamil Nadu administration.
The third was the blockade on the North which was enforced on the orders of the President. He had been reading the memoirs of the Secretary of the British Cabinet during the world war, which referred to Churchill’s blockade of Northern Ireland to prevent its support to Hitler. The blockade and its images of starvation that was evoked by the Tamil Nadu administration of M.G. Ramachandran forced the hand of Rajiv whom advisors like Chidambaram believed was being manipulated by the ‘Old Fox’ from Sri Lanka.
Ramachandran unilaterally announced a donation of two million dollars to the LTTE, which brought relations between the two countries to near breaking point. JRj was also afraid of the reaction of the army which had borne the brunt of the fight with the LTTE. Cyril Ranatunga was a loyalist, but he too was under pressure to talk back to the President. As Esmond constantly reminded us, JRJ was afraid of a military coup.
Food Drop
We now come to the lowest Point in Indo-Lanka relations when India decided to unilaterally intervene through a physical violation of a neighboring country’s boundaries. It was an unprecedented violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty and a crossing of the Rubicon which has Permanently affected the relations between the two countries. At the personal level it was a bitter humiliation of a leader whom even his opponents regarded as the best defender of national interests by hook or by crook.
At first the Indians sent a flotilla of ships carrying food supplies. But on JRJ’s personal orders the navy was made ready to intercept them. The Indians then withdrew to base and got ready to airdrop the food supplies in spite of JRJ’s personal entreaty which is reproduced below. Indian Airforce transport planes carrying food cargoes were given an escort of fighter jets. It was touch and go but since we were badly outnumbered the President ordered non retaliation and the food was air dropped unhindered and the planes flew back without a mishap.
It is burnished in the Sinhala psyche as the ‘parippu drop’ on Sri Lankan soil, the first infringement of our airspace after the bombing of Colombo and Trincomalee by the Japanese during the Second World War. This was a sad moment in JRJ’s presidency. The sense of anguish is seen in the draft of a letter to Rajiv that JRJ himself penned and is now in my possession. A photograph of the draft, mostly in JRJs own handwriting, is included in this book. My recollection is that this final version was sent to Rajiv Gandhi. An offer to send Hameed as a personal envoy of the President was turned down by the Indians.
Letter to Rajiv Gandhi
I am reproducing JRJ’s letter to Rajiv Gandhi here not only because it is a historic document but also since it shows the sense of despair and frustration of a man who had always looked to India for inspiration when all his contemporaries either turned to the West or the Soviet Union. There is a legend that when the LSSP leaders in the forties sought to gather him to their fold (As a young lawyer he appeared for Bracegirdle of the LSSP in their challenge to the Colonial Governor’s order of deportation) he responded that he could not join them as he was ‘a follower of the Buddha and a lover of India’. Now he was forced to eat humble pie by a grandson of Nehru whom he had admired throughout his life. He wrote as follows:
“The Cabinet of Ministers has studied very carefully the representations made to his Excellency the President by his Excellency the Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajiv Gandhi. It is apparent that the Prime Minister is both incorrectly informed and wrongly advised.
“Firstly the attempts made over a period of 10 years by the President and his Government to find a political solution to the so called ethnic problem in Sri Lanka are well known to the Government of India, for they too have taken part in discussions since 1983. These steps have been outlined in detail in the President’s addresses to Parliament in 1984,1985 and 1986 and will be summarized again in his address of February 19th with complete documentation. There is nothing more any Sri Lankan Government can offer, now or in the future, without violating the independence, integrity and unity of Sri Lanka’s constitution.
“The Indian Government has stated publicly to the Tamil groups that it does not support the joinder of the northern and eastern provinces, the concept of a Tamil homeland and the creation of a separate state. It is these three issues that supposedly keep these groups from accepting the proposals.
“During these 10 years, except the TULF, the other groups have unleashed a violent, terrorist campaign in which more than 4,000 security personnel, civilians, men, women and children of all races have been killed, many more injured, rendered homeless and suffered immeasurable losses. The latest atrocity has been the killing of several Sinhala women and children, without provocation in the darkness of the night by the cutting of their throats.
As far as we know no terrorist group in the world has been guilty of such inhumane behavior. India has experience of terrorism in several states and particularly in the Punjab where a separatist movement is using violence to achieve its goal.
“The Sri Lanka Government, both politically and militarily has done nothing more nor less than the Indian Government has done and is doing in the Punjab to arrive at a solution. A speech in India made by Prime Minister Gandhi is available. If the proper names are used to indicate Sri Lanka and what is happening here, the speech will apply to Sri Lanka in its entirety.
“And what has the state of Tamil Nadu been doing during these .ten years? It has given refuge to Tamil groups, including those using violence. The leader of the LTTE group Prabhakaran who publicly says he murdered the Tamil Mayor of Jaffna, Mr. Duraiappah, and many others is entertained as a guest by the Chief Minister. He as well as others who direct violence in Sri Lanka, against a lawfully elected democratic government and self-governing local institutions are permitted to buy, possess arms and wireless sets, and train in military exercises. They are permitted to some over to Sri Lanka with men and military material to wage war on an independent, democratic Government.
“Though promises have been made that all this will be stopped these promises have not been fulfilled. Because of open warfare between nine groups a large quantity of arms and equipment was confiscated. The wireless sets that were confiscated were returned.

President JR Jayewardene and Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi signing the historical Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution facilitated by India through Indo-Lanka Treaty
:They are used to direct the war in Sri Lanka. The Central government of India is aware of these facts. The Government Sri Lanka will not cease its activities to defend democratic institutions and to restore law and order to free its citizens from attacks of a bunch of terrorists, just as much as it will not cease its attempts to arrive at a political solution. While following this two-pronged policy it is entitled to use its powers to persuade its opponents that their efforts cannot succeed but will only cause hardships to inhabitants living in the areas they control, namely the Jaffna Peninsula.
“During the Indian movement for freedom Mahatma Gandhi initiated a boycott of the use of foreign cloth. This hurt the workers in the Lancashire mills in England causing unemployment and severe hardships to hundreds of thousands. During a visit to England in 1931 for the Round Table Conference Mahatma Gandhi visited the Lancashire Mills and saw the hardships caused by his boycott. His reply was ‘Lord Irwin suggested that I give up the boycott for three months as a gesture. I said I could not give it up for three minutes’. [See Gandhi; ‘Essential Writings’, p 309].
“During the 1939 War the United Kingdom enforced a boycott on goods going to and coming from the Ports of Ireland because that Government was sympathetic to the Nazi Government. What we are doing is a legitimate method of non–violent tactics against a deadly foe, and instead of abandoning it, we should intensify it, rather than use more and more violence.
“Summing up we should state that our Government is committed to non-violence. If the terrorist groups give up violence and lay down their arms, the Government will immediately direct the security services to stay in their barracks. We will then implement the Provincial Councils scheme and hold elections so that together with the other seven provinces the people of the northern and eastern provinces may elect their councils, members, Chief Ministers and govern themselves in all the subjects and functions devolved on those councils as discussed and decided with the TULF and the Indian Government. The Tamil groups can take part in these elections for they will be pardoned under an amnesty if they abandon violence.
“All we ask of the Indian Government is, not to permit the soil of India to be used for violent activity against a friendly neighbor and not to permit such activities to be brought to Sri Lanka in the form of men and arms. This Government’s sole aim is to permit democracy and the rule of law flourish once again in the northern and eastern provinces, as in other provinces, under the administration of the elected representatives of the people living in them.
“May the Government of India help us to achieve this goal and may they persuade the Government of Tamil Nadu to do the same for the immortal heritage of India is that “We must not appease evil ….we must remember that evil is not surmounted by using methods that themselves produce more evil….means should not be subordinated to ends”.
“These quotations are from K. Natwar Singh’s book ‘The legacy of Nehru’. All we ask is be true to your heritage, fulfill the legacy of Nehru, refuse to compromise with violence, support the Government of Sri Lanka in its call to terrorists to lay down their arms and discuss your aims and solutions peacefully as we are always prepared to do”.
The Aftermath
The clear violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty came as shock to JRJ and the Government. The anguish is clear in JRJ’s heartfelt letter quoted above. But what was even more disconcerting was the silence of our friends on whom the President had banked heavily to restrain India. While Pakistan made some noises it was counterproductive in that it led to India being more intransigent. But what was disappointing to JRJ was the silence of the western countries which had been wooed assiduously by him.
He was particularly disappointed by the US reaction which relied on backroom warnings to India and not much else. There was no public condemnation by the West, SAARC or the ASEAN. To make the humiliation complete they advocated the hiring of mercenaries to supplement the local armed forces. They were willing to recommend private trainers but were reluctant to `Put boots on the ground’ which would have meant a clash with the Indian armed forces who were strenghtened with Indian weaponry under Rajiv.
Only Fidel Castro, as head of the Non-Aligned Movement, offered to call Rajiv urging caution. It was in this background when the only o[tion seemed to move to serious negotiation which our erstwhile western friends also recommended. With this shift JRJ began to turn to Gamini Dissanayake as his aide, while Lalith, angry that his ‘Operation Liberation’ had been aborted was consigned to the sidelines where he adopted a hawkish approach to India with many tragic consequences as we shall see later.
Features
Removing obstacles to development

Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.
There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.
More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.
RENEWED GROWTH
The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.
Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.
The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.
COMMITTED GOVERNMENT
The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.
There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.
By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Revisiting Non-Alignment and Multi-Alignment in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy

Former Minister Ali Sabry’s recent op-ed, “Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy,” published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry’s articulation of a “non-aligned yet multi-aligned” approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics. However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka’s role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry’s arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.
Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:
- No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.
- Economic engagement with all, dependency on none
: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.
* Diplomatic balancing
: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.
- Leveraging multilateralism
: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.
- Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty
: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.
While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry’s emphasis on “diplomatic balancing” and “leveraging multilateralism” raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.
Dangers of over-compartmentalisation
Sabry’s suggestion that Sri Lanka should engage with China for infrastructure, India for regional security and trade, the US and Europe for technology and education, and Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. However, this compartmentalisation of partnerships risks reducing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy to a transactional exercise, undermining the principles of non-alignment.
Sabry’s framework, curiously, excludes China from areas like technology, education, and regional security, despite China’s growing capabilities in these domains. For instance, China is a global leader in renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, making it a natural partner for Sri Lanka’s technological advancement. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers significant opportunities for economic development and regional connectivity. By limiting China’s role to infrastructure, Sabry’s approach risks underutilising a key strategic partner.
Moreover, Sabry’s emphasis on India for regional security overlooks the broader geopolitical context. While India is undoubtedly a critical partner for Sri Lanka, regional security cannot be addressed in isolation from China’s role in South Asia. The Chinese autonomous region of Xizang (Tibet) is indeed part of South Asia, and China’s presence in the region is a reality that Sri Lanka must navigate. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would seek to balance relationships with both India and China, rather than assigning fixed roles to each.
Sabry’s compartmentalisation of partnerships risks creating silos in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, limiting its flexibility and strategic depth. For instance, by relying solely on the US and Europe for technology and education, Sri Lanka may miss out on opportunities for South-South cooperation with members of BRICS.
Similarly, by excluding China from regional security discussions, Sri Lanka may inadvertently align itself with India’s strategic interests, undermining its commitment to non-alignment.
Limited multilateralism?
Sabry’s call for Sri Lanka to remain active in organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC is laudable. However, his omission of the BRI, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is striking. These platforms represent emerging alternatives to the Western-dominated global order and offer Sri Lanka opportunities to diversify its partnerships and enhance its strategic autonomy.
The BRI is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects in history, involving over 140 countries. For Sri Lanka, the BRI offers opportunities for infrastructure development, trade connectivity, and economic growth. By participating in the BRI, Sri Lanka can induce Chinese investment to address its infrastructure deficit and integrate into global supply chains. Excluding the BRI from Sri Lanka’s foreign policy framework would be a missed opportunity.
BRICS and the SCO represent platforms for South-South cooperation and multipolarity. BRICS, in particular, has emerged as a counterweight to such Western-dominated institutions as the IMF and World Bank, advocating for a more equitable global economic order. The SCO, on the other hand, focuses on regional security and counterterrorism, offering Sri Lanka a platform to address its security concerns in collaboration with major powers like China, Russia, and India. By engaging with these organisations, Sri Lanka can strengthen its commitment to multipolarity and enhance its strategic autonomy.
Non-alignment is not neutrality
Sabry’s assertion that Sri Lanka must avoid taking sides in major power conflicts reflects a misunderstanding of non-alignment. Non-alignment is not about neutrality; it is about taking a principled stand on issues of global importance. During the Cold War, non-aligned countries, like Sri Lanka, opposed colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism, even as they avoided alignment with either the US or the Soviet Union.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, under leaders like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was characterised by a commitment to anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, opposing racial segregation and discrimination in both its Apartheid and Zionist forms. Sri Lanka, the first Asian country to recognise revolutionary Cuba, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, supported liberation struggles in Africa, and opposed the US military base in Diego Garcia. These actions were not neutral; they were rooted in a principled commitment to justice and equality.
Today, Sri Lanka faces new challenges, including great power competition, economic coercion, and climate change. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would require Sri Lanka to take a stand on issues like the genocide in Gaza, the colonisation of the West Bank, the continued denial of the right to return of ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and Chagossians, the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific, the use of economic sanctions as a tool of coercion, and the need for climate justice. By avoiding these issues, Sri Lanka risks becoming the imperialist powers’ cringing, whingeing client state.
The path forward
Sabry’s use of the term “multi-alignment” reflects a growing trend in Indian foreign policy, particularly under the BJP Government. However, multi-alignment is not the same as multipolarity. Multi-alignment implies a transactional approach to foreign policy, where a country seeks to extract maximum benefits from multiple partners without a coherent strategic vision. Multipolarity, on the other hand, envisions a world order where power is distributed among multiple centres, reducing the dominance of any single power.
Sri Lanka should advocate for a multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of the global South. This would involve strengthening platforms like BRICS, the SCO, and the NAM, while also engaging with Western institutions like the UN and the WTO. By promoting multipolarity, Sri Lanka can contribute to a more equitable and just global order, in line with the principles of non-alignment.
Ali Sabry’s call for a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy falls short of articulating a coherent vision for Sri Lanka’s role in a multipolar world. To truly uphold the principles of non-alignment, Sri Lanka must:
* Reject compartmentalisation
: Engage with all partners across all domains, including technology, education, and regional security.
* Embrace emerging platforms
: Participate in the BRI, BRICS, and SCO to diversify partnerships and enhance strategic autonomy.
* Take principled stands
: Advocate for justice, equality, and multipolarity in global affairs.
* Promote South-South cooperation
: Strengthen ties with other Global South countries to address shared challenges, like climate change and economic inequality.
By adopting this approach, Sri Lanka can reclaim its historical legacy as a leader of the non-aligned movement and chart a course toward a sovereign, secure, and successful future.
(Vinod Moonesinghe read mechanical engineering at the University of Westminster, and worked in Sri Lanka in the tea machinery and motor spares industries, as well as the railways. He later turned to journalism and writing history. He served as chair of the Board of Governors of the Ceylon German Technical Training Institute. He is a convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com.)
by Vinod Moonesinghe
Features
Nick Carter …‘Who I Am’ too strenuous?

Cancellation of shows has turned out to be a regular happening where former Backstreet Boys Nick Carter is concerned. In the past, it has happened several times.
If Nick Carter is not 100 percent fit, he should not undertake these strenuous world tours, ultimately disappointing his fans.
It’s not a healthy scene to be cancelling shows on a regular basis.
In May 2024, a few days before his scheduled visit to the Philippines, Carter cancelled his two shows due to “unforeseen circumstances.”
The promoter concerned announced the development and apologised to fans who bought tickets to Carter’s shows in Cebu, on May 23, and in Manila, on May 24.
The dates were supposed to be part of the Asian leg of his ‘Who I Am’ 2024 tour.
Carter previously cancelled a series of solo concerts in Asia, including Jakarta, Mumbai, Singapore, and Taipei. And this is what the organisers had to say:
“Due to unexpected matters related to Nick Carter’s schedule, we regret to announce that Nick’s show in Asia, including Jakarta on May 26 (2024), has been cancelled.
His ‘Who I Am’ Japan tour 2024 was also cancelled, with the following announcement:

Explaining, on video, about the
cancelled ‘Who I Am’ shows
“We regret to announce that the NICK CARTER Japan Tour, planned for June 4th at Toyosu PIT (Tokyo) and June 6th at Namba Hatch (Osaka), will no longer be proceeding due to ‘unforeseen circumstances.’ We apologise for any disappointment.
Believe me, I had a strange feeling that his Colombo show would not materialise and I did mention, in a subtle way, in my article about Nick Carter’s Colombo concert, in ‘StarTrack’ of 14th January, 2025 … my only worry (at that point in time) is the HMPV virus which is reported to be spreading in China and has cropped up in Malaysia, and India, as well.
Although no HMPV virus has cropped up, Carter has cancelled his scheduled performance in Sri Lanka, and in a number of other countries, as well, to return home, quoting, once again, “unforeseen circumstances.”
“Unforeseen circumstances” seems to be his tagline!
There is talk that low ticket sales is the reason for some of his concerts to be cancelled.
Yes, elaborate arrangements were put in place for Nick Carter’s trip to Sri Lanka – Meet & Greet, Q&A, selfies, etc., but all at a price!
Wonder if there will be the same excitement and enthusiasm if Nick Carter decides to come up with new dates for what has been cancelled?
-
Business4 days ago
Cargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
Features2 days ago
The US, Israel, Palestine, and Mahmoud Khalil
-
News2 days ago
Scholarships for children of estate workers now open
-
News2 days ago
Seniors welcome three percent increase in deposit rates
-
Business4 days ago
Sri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
News3 days ago
Defence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Features4 days ago
The Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News2 days ago
Japanese Defence Delegation visits Pathfinder