The transformation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from a puritanical theocracy to an aspiring architect of global peace is one of the most paradoxical and politically engineered evolutions of the modern era. Far from the deserts where Wahhabism first struck its austere roots, the Kingdom now positions itself as a mediator between global powers, a patron of modernity, and a crucible of cross-cultural aspiration. Yet beneath the glistening architecture of NEOM and the diplomatic smiles of peace summits lies a stratified narrative—one obscured by revisionist theatre and gilded silence.

Saudi Arabia’s foundation in 1932 under King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud was not merely a unification of tribal territories; it was a theological consolidation. The strategic pact with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, brokered generations earlier, transformed Islam into an instrument of statecraft. As the CIA Handbook observed in 1972, “The Saudi Government is a monarchy based on a fusion of secular and religious authority, with the King at its apex.” The same report stated, “The royal family dominates both the political and economic life of the country,” a candid admission of dynastic monopolization. Governance was less institutional than charismatic, mediated through familial bonds, tribal allegiances, and theocratic endorsement.”

The Kingdom’s export of Wahhabism, particularly from the 1960s onward, became one of the most under-scrutinized forms of ideological colonization. Flushed with petrodollars after the 1973 oil embargo—an embargo that King Faisal declared in defence of Arab dignity, stating, “Our oil is our weapon, and we will use it to protect our Arab rights”—Saudi Arabia embarked on a global proselytisation project. Mosques, madrassas, and clerical scholarships were funded from Islamabad to Jakarta, Sarajevo to Khartoum, shaping generations in an image that often diametrically opposed indigenous Islamic traditions. A lesser-known revelation from a declassified 1981 US State Department cable noted: “Saudi financial support to Islamic institutions in Southeast Asia has significantly altered the religious landscape, prioritizing doctrinal rigidity over cultural synthesis.”

The domestic reality, too, remained draconian under the veneer of religiosity. The 1979 Grand Mosque seizure by a fundamentalist group paradoxically catalyzed a more regressive clampdown, as the royal family tightened its alliance with the religious establishment to legitimize its authority. It is telling that King Fahd, who in the 1980s declared, “We will build the future without abandoning our past,” presided over an era where ministries functioned as courtiers rather than administrators. As noted in a 1972 CIA internal report, “Much of the bureaucracy remains inefficient, with key decisions often bypassing formal channels and handled by royal intermediaries.”

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS)

The paradox deepens when juxtaposing Saudi Arabia’s financing of foreign conflicts with its self-portrayal as a stabilizer. The Kingdom, directly or through proxies, has been implicated in the fomentation of conflict zones including Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. In Yemen, particularly, its military intervention since 2015 has left an indelible humanitarian scar. UN estimates suggest over 375,000 deaths, mostly from indirect causes. Despite this, Riyadh now courts global opinion as a peace-broker, hosting summits that purport to end the very conflicts it helped perpetuate. This performative peacemaking is a diplomatic palimpsest, rewriting its culpability in real-time.

Yet perhaps nowhere is the ideological volte-face more pronounced than under the stewardship of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). A man who rose to prominence not through military conquest or scholarly erudition but via internal court calculus and the invocation of modernist necessity, MBS has become the emblem of Saudi Arabia’s Neo-nationalist re-branding. His statement in 2017 that, “We will not waste 30 years of our lives dealing with extremist ideologies. We will destroy them now and immediately” serves as both mea culpa and strategic distancing. It is a rhetorical exfoliation of the kingdom’s historical role in incubating the very ideologies it now condemns.

What makes this transformation most paradoxical is the simultaneous consolidation of autocracy. The same MBS who champions futuristic cities and cultural liberalization also orchestrated the arrest of dissenting clerics, feminists, and businessmen—a campaign sanitized by the euphemism of anti-corruption. The chilling assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul became a gruesome watermark of the state’s coercive architecture. This contradiction was prophetically foreshadowed by King Faisal decades earlier, who once mused, “Injustice cannot be concealed, and one day it will speak.”

In the global diplomacy, Saudi Arabia is no longer content with petrodollar influence; it now seeks epistemic legitimacy. The launch of NEOM, a city touted as the world’s first cognitive metropolis, symbolizes this ambition—yet, emblematic of the new Saudi state, it is erected upon contested land and enforced silence. Beyond NEOM, the Kingdom’s financial outreach has extended to international media, sports, universities, and even Hollywood, buying not just partnerships but narratives. This is cultural laundering masquerading as soft power.

Saudi Arabia’s overtures toward mediating the Russia-Ukraine conflict, brokering rapprochement between Iran and Arab states, and its increasing engagement with China and Israel signify not merely regional aspiration, but a superpower mimicry. In February 2023, Riyadh hosted talks aimed at easing tensions in Sudan, while simultaneously continuing arms imports that fuel its own military-industrial complex. As a 2022 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted, “Saudi Arabia remains one of the top five global arms importers, despite its increasing involvement in peace dialogues.”

This dualism is not new but now consciously choreographed. The kingdom no longer hides its contradictions; it flaunts them as strengths. It wishes to be judged not by the tenets of liberal democracy, but by a self-fashioned rubric of efficacy, vision, and global brokerage. And in this, it has found unlikely endorsements. Elon Musk, after touring Saudi ventures, declared them “an exciting vision for civilization”. Goldman Sachs and SoftBank speak of “unprecedented opportunities”. Even skeptics are drawn to the economic gravity Riyadh exerts.

But can a state undergo ontological transformation without historical accountability? Can it broker peace while archives of complicity remain sealed? The Kingdom’s diplomatic epistles, such as the declassified 1973 letter from the US President to King Faisal praising him as “a voice of wisdom and reason,” read today as documents of strategic appeasement, not genuine admiration. The phrase, “Your personal efforts to bring moderation and stability to the region are of great significance,” thinly veils the realpolitik that underpinned Western support for autocracy.

Indeed, what Saudi Arabia seeks now is not reinvention but redemption. It seeks to transmute petrodollar moral hazard into soft power prestige. In doing so, it exploits the cognitive dissonance of the global order: that authoritarianism, when efficient and well-funded, can be tolerated, even admired. And perhaps this is the Kingdom’s most radical export yet—a model where ideological elasticity replaces democratic legitimacy.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

As a knowing friend pronounced, the usual way we judge parity of sexes in politics is percentage presence in Parliament which is definitely not an accurate judgment bar. After the recent general election in our country the number of women MPs increased to 10%. I googled and found that currently 263 female MPs in the House of Commons makes for 40% female representation and in the House of Lords 238 female members. Across the Atlantic, as of January 2025, Congress has 26 women, 16 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Some 125 women sit in the House of Representatives making 28.7% of the total.

Lately to be seen is an increase in women at the pinnacle of power, in the political sphere, globally. I have made my choice of those who appealed to me and are recently in power.

I start in Sri Lanka and of course top of the list is Prime Minster Dr Harini Amarasuriya. We boast a woman Chief Justice, more than one Vice Chancellor and ambassadors in considered to be vital foreign postings. Tried to get a recent popularity rating for our PM, but found only that Verete Research gave a rating in February of 62% to the government. Thus her personal rating would be above this figure and most significantly rising, I am sure.

Harini Nireka Amarasuriya

(b March 6,1970), is listed as sociologist, academic, activist and politician who serves as our country’s 17^th PM. She was engaged with academic associations and trade unions. Her personal victory in the elections was spectacular, receiving as she did the second highest ever majority of preferences obtained by a candidate in our general elections. She was nominated to Parliament as a national list member from the NPP in 2020.

Born in Galle to the prestigious Amarasuriya family of landowners and business managers, she is younger to two siblings. Schooling was at Bishop’s College and then, as an AFS Exchange Student, she spent a year in the US. Winning a scholarship she received her honours BA degree in sociology from the University of Delhi. On her return home she worked with tsunami affected children and five years later earned a Master of Arts in Applied and Development Anthropology from Macquarie University, Australia, and PhD in Social Anthropology from the University of Edinburgh (2011). She joined the teaching faculty as senior lecturer at the Open University. She completed research funded by the European Research Council in human rights and ethics in SL; and the influence of radical Christians on dissent in SL, funded by the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Edinburgh.

She comes across as dignified and friendly with no airs about her at all. She is a true academic and intellectual, but with not a trace of condescension, she seems to be free and easy with the hoi polloi and her image is certainly is not put on, nor a veneer worn for political popularity. She feels for people, more so the disadvantaged. Her appeal to people was obvious in a meeting she had in Mannar (or Batticaloa) on April 12 where she spoke with (not to) the vast mixed-race crowd. Their happy faces showed appreciation, approval and belief in her.

We move overseas since other women in the island in positions of power are known.

Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo,

born June 24, 1962 to a chemist father and biologist mother, was elected in 2024 as the 66^th President of Mexico – first woman over there to rise to the top. Forbes has ranked her the fourth most powerful woman in the world. She is an academic, scientist and politician. She came to world prominence after a letter she wrote to Prez Trump went viral. In it she reminded Trump that he builds walls to keep out Mexicans and other immigrants but he also keeps out millions of would-be consumers of American goods.

She received her Doctor of Philosophy in energy engineering from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. She has written articles and books on the environment, energy and sustainable development; and was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2018, Claudia Sheinbaum was named one of BBCs 100 Women.

Her political career spanned being a mayor of a Borough from 2015 and elected head of the government of Mexico City in the 2018 election. She was elected President in 2024.”With her calm demeanor and academic background, she has quickly become one of the most talked about political figures worldwide.” She has impressed all Mexicans and much of the world population that she knows how to deal with Trump and now his tariffs, so much so her political style has been dubbed the ‘Sheinbaum method’ by Mexican media. She has strongly contested Trump’s substitution of Mexico by the name America in the name of the gulf that lies between the two countries and condemns Israel’s genocide in Gaza. It is known that Trump is wary of her; recognizes her strength and diplomatic finesses; and surprised there is a woman to reckon with.

She has national difficulties to cope with: disappearances, violence, the economy. “Through her social media presence, she offers a personal glimpse into her daily life, fostering a sense of connection with her followers.” One act she undertook to ease congestion on roads was to pave each large one with a lane for bicycles, gifted many and encouraged others to buy two wheelers.

Rachel Jane Reeves (b Feb 13, 1979) has been in the international news recently as she presented the budget for the Labour government in Britain and justified its policies. She is the second highest official in the UK government, positioned just below the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and even lives next to him in No 11, Downing Street, London. She is very young at 46 to hold the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer from June 2024. She held various shadow ministerial and cabinet portfolios since 2010.

Born in Lewisham to parents who were teachers, she and her sister were influenced in politics, particularly democratic politics, by their father. Her parents divorced when she was seven. Reeves attended Cator Park School for Girls in Beckonham and studied politics, philosophy and economics at the University of Oxford, and got her BA in 2000. Three years later, she obtained a master’s degree in economics from the LSE.

She joined the Labour Part at age 16, and we suppose no one called it precocious! Later she worked in the Bank of England. After two unsuccessful attempts at winning a general election, she was elected to the House of Commons as MP for Leeds West at the 2010 general election. She endorsed Ed Miliband in the 2010 Labour Leadership election in 2010 and was selected to be shadow Pensions Minister. Re-elected again in 2015, she left the shadow cabinet and returned to the backbenches, but served in various committees. In 2020, under Keir Starmer, she was elected to his shadow cabinet as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. She was promoted to be shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in a shadow cabinet reshuffle in 2021. Labour won the general election in 2024 and thus she shed the shadow part in her official title, becoming the first woman to hold that prestigious position in the 800 year history of Britain. Also remarkable is that she is so comparatively young to hold such a high post,

I remember listening to BBC which gave news she did not sail through the budget she presented, nor thereafter, at its debating. “Reeves established the National Wealth Fund, scrapped certain winter fuel payments, cancelled several infrastructure projects and announced numerous public sector pay rises. In her October 2024 budget she introduced the largest tax rises since 1993, which is forecast to set the tax burden to its highest level in recorded history.” Her Prime Minister stands by her.

We move to the international arena for my fourth recent internationally powerful woman. She was elected 10^th President of the International Olympic Committee in March 2025. Thus the first woman and African to be so honoured. I think it is an accepted fact that if a woman is elected/selected to hold the highest position wherever, she has to be extra smart; extra noteworthy. Competition from men is strong and unfairly slanted too.

Kirsty Leigh Coventry Seward,

born September 16, 1983, is a Zimbabwean politician, sports administrator and former competitive swimmer and holder of world records. She is also the most decorated Olympian from Africa. She was in the Cabinet of Zimbabwe from 2018 to March 2025 as Minister of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation.

Kirsty Coventry was born in Harare and introduced to swimming by her mother and grandfather at age two. She joined a swimming club at age six. She was an all-round sports woman, but after a knee injury while playing hockey, she decided to concentrate on swimming. Watching an early Olympic Games on TV she vowed to win golds in swimming.

As a high school-goer she was selected when 16-years old to participate in the Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000. Won no medals; her greatest joy was seeing Cassius Clay. She attended and swam for Auburn University in Alabama, USA. Her breakthrough was in Athens in 2004 when she won three medals; in Beijing – 2008 – four. Honours were showered on her on her triumphant return to Harare: the Head of the country’s Olympic Committee dubbed her ‘Our national treasure ‘ and President Robert Mugabe called her ‘A golden girl’ and gifted her US$100,000. Success followed in the London and Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games in 2012 and 2016. Retiring from competitive swimming she moved to administration and was elected Chairperson of the IOC Athletes’ Commission, the body representing all Olympic athletes. Next as a committee member of the IOC and now, its President.

Two women of Christ’s time

We are in the Easter Weekend. Our thoughts are with our Christian friends. My mind goes back to Scripture classes in the Methodist Missionary School I attended. Two women were the most important persons in Jesus Christ’s life: his mother Mary and a good friend – Mary Magdalene – whose brother Lazarus he raised from the dead. These two simple, yet wonderful women kept vigil as he suffered on the cross. One disciple had betrayed him; another denied him, others of the 12 were not present. These two Marys suffered with him. On the Sunday following, Mary Magdalene rushed to where he had been entombed. She found the boulder at its entrance pushed aside. And then the resurrected Jesus appeared unto her.

A blessing in disguise

The disharmony that exists between the ruling party and the opposition within Sri Lanka’s parliament, provincial councils and local government authorities at any given time is evident to those familiar with Sri Lankan politics. The cause for this animosity is perhaps the competition and the deep-rooted distrust between the two groups. This often results in the opposition working actively to disrupt all projects and programs proposed by the government, while in turn more often than not promptly dismisses almost all positive proposals brought forward by the opposition.

During his 18-month tenure as Mayor of Colombo, Karu Jayasuriya adopted a vastly different attitude to the opposition. He not only paid attention to the proposals made by members of the opposition, but he also took great effort to implement all the positive ideas put forward by the opposition. Due to this attitude, clashes between him and his opponents at the Colombo Municipal Council were few and far between.

Following the Western Provincial Council election of 1999, Ranil Wickremesinghe also appointed Jayasuriya as a deputy leader of the UNP. Karu says as the opposition leader of the Western Provincial Council he decided to adopt a similarly positive attitude (as he did as Mayor) towards the ruling party. There existed a mutual cooperation between him, and the ruling party led by the Western Province Chief Minister. Karu says he always extended his fullest support to certain beneficial projects proposed, setting aside all differences and political party affiliations.

“I proposed that each member of the provincial council be given Rs 2.5 million for public work. This proposal was readily accepted by Chief Minister Susil Premajayantha and was implemented thereafter…” Karu says. Utilizing these funds, members were able to fulfil the various needs of the public in their respective electorates.

Sri Lanka’s next presidential election was to follow the provincial council elections and was scheduled to be held in the year 2000. But in October 1999, when Chandrika Kumaratunga was in the fifth year of her first six-year term, she called for an early presidential poll. It was believed Kumaratunga was propelled by the belief that the United National Party (UNP) had weakened after several of its MPs including Sarath Amunugama, Nanda Mathew, Wijayapala Mendis, Ronnie de Mel, Susil Moonesinghe, Harindra Corea and Sarath Kongahage had defected to the government.

Karu recalls how the UNP defectors had appeared on various media outlets slamming both their previous political party and its leader.

“Perhaps certain opinions expressed by them had some validity. But they should have given it more thought before so publicly criticizing the political party they were once part of…” Karu says, failing to hide his displeasure at their actions. He believed the government hoped to gain political advantage at the 1999 Presidential election when they welcomed the UNP defectors rather than theircreased numbers in parliament.

Despite the various opinions expressed by these MPs, the UNP had no doubts about who it would field as its Presidential candidate in the upcoming election. Therefore the name of UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was put forward to the party’s working committee as its presidential candidate by Karu himself. This proposal was unanimously approved by the party. Meanwhile, Karu was named as the party’s prime ministerial candidate.

“During the 1999 elections, I travelled across the country and took part in every major political rally. Even though I was not a talented orator, my speeches were received favourably by the people…” Karu says. He also notes that state media organizations acted in an extremely biased manner in favour of the government during the election period.

“On certain days while the state-owned Dinamina newspaper featured five government rallies, it only featured one UNP rally or not at all in comparison. Later we complained to the Election Commissioner regarding this unacceptable behaviour. But as expected it was to no avail…” he says laughingly.

During the pre-election period, parties linked to the government launched a derogatory poster campaign across the island against Wickremesinghe. The posters even poked fun at the election promises given by the UNP leader to the country’s youth. “They portrayed these promises as infantile and claimed they would not solve the burning issues faced by the people…” Karu recalls.

“Politicians aligned with the People’s Alliance (PA) also ridiculed him at election rallies. They said he dressed like Bill Clinton. The PA used a breakaway group from the UNP to carry out such verbal attacks and take cheap shots at the party and Wickremesinghe…” Karu says.

“It was the politicians of the PA who spread the notion that the country’s youth would receive bracelets and chewing gum if Wickremesinghe emerged victorious at the election…” Karu says while recalling the mudslinging campaign the government had launched against the UNP ahead of the 1999 election.

The grassroots level cadres of the UNP felt the party’s presidential election operations committee at Sirikotha was failing to address this islandwide propaganda campaign launched by the PA’s media unit. But according to Karu, this was not a result of the UNP committee’s incompetence. “They were unable to counter this anti-Wickremesinghe campaign due to the actions of biased state and private media organizations that were favourable to the government…” he opined.

Although the state media outlets were completely under the control of the government, and some private media organizations were extremely biased, the majority of the populace who were disillusioned with the government were gradually turning to the UNP. Accordingly, some impartial election monitoring agencies believed that the will of the people was constantly oscillating and therefore the outcome of the presidential election could not be predicted.

Meanwhile, both leading presidential candidates were under constant threat from the Tamil Tigers. As a result of this Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe were provided with special security teams from the Police Special Task Force (STF) and the Sri Lanka Army’s Commando regiment. But no such protection was accorded to Karu, who travelled extensively with Wickremesinghe on the campaign trail. Karu’s only protection was the two police personnel from the Ministers’ Security Division provided to all provincial council members.

“Fortunately no serious incident was reported until the final day of campaigning…” Karu says. But this was to change following a devastating suicide bomb attack on the night of December 18, 1999. The final election rally of the PA attended by President Chandrika Kumaratunga and party stalwarts was held in Town Hall, Colombo on the day.

Kumaratunga was about to get into her car after addressing the meeting when a rocking blast ripped through the venue. While Kumaratunga miraculously survived the assassination attempt she lost vision in her right eye. Twenty-six persons lost their lives including Colombo’s Deputy Inspector General of Police T.N. de Silva while scores of rally goers including three senior cabinet ministers also suffered serious injuries.

Minutes later, another bomb exploded at a UNP election rally held in Wattala. Ten people including Karu’s schoolmate. Major General Lucky Algama, were killed in this explosion. Algama had become a UNP activist following his retirement from the Sri Lanka Army. Karu had also been in attendance at the UNP rally on that fateful day.

“Anura Bandaranaike addressed the meeting and left. Next, it was my turn. After addressing the crowd I decided to head to the UNP’s final rally being held in Maradana. It was on the way that I got the devastating news…” Karu recalls. Karu had escaped the terror attack by just nine minutes. Had he remained at the venue for longer, Karu says it is likely he too would have lost his life at the hands of the LTTE that day.

Karu believes that Wickremesinghe was leading the race right up till the terrorist attack on President Kumaratunga. “This completely changed following the Town Hall bombing…” he says. An emotional but formidable Kumaratunga, with a plaster covering her injured eye, appeared on national television and addressed the nation following the attack.

“There was a wave of sympathy towards the president after this. Even the wives of staunch UNP activists were moved to tears and cast their vote for her at the elections….” he recalls. According to him, even though any form of election campaigning is not allowed during the election silence period, Bandaranaike’s supporters held Bodhi Pooja and Seth Kavi – poems of good wishes chanting programs at Temples across the country.

“Party supporters in villages went from house to house distributing election propaganda leaflets…” he says, adding that however, the laws barred UNP supporters from engaging in similar acts. “This is how the public was influenced to vote for Kumaratunga instead of Wickremesinghe at the eleventh hour…” he claims.

The result of this was that People Alliance candidate Chandrika Kumaratunga emerged victorious at the presidential election held on December 1999, by securing 4,312,157 votes. In comparison, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe received 3,602,748. Kumaratunga had received 51.12 per cent of all the votes cast. “Had it not been for an edge of just 1.12 per cent to take her over the 50 per cent mark, the preferential votes would have had to be counted and could have possibly challenged the result…” Karu opined. But Kumaratunga was fortunate and her reelection as Sri Lankan’s fifth President went unchallenged.

Following the election, Kumaratunga held a swearing-in ceremony to mark the commencement of her second term. The President had done so on legal advice received even though she still had a year left to complete her first six-year term. Right after the ceremony, Kumaratunga left for London to receive treatment for the injuries sustained in the attack, and returned to Sri Lanka several weeks later.

All opposition parties including the UNP had anticipated Kumaratunga would call for a general election hot on the trails of the 1999 presidential election in a bid to capitalize on her win. Karu says at the time he too predicted a parliamentary election would be imminent. Despite Wickremesinghe’s loss in the recent presidential election, Karu also estimated the UNP led by Wickremesinghe could easily secure a win at a general election.

The UNP’s working committee and the executive committee had also taken note of this possibility. Therefore the party decided it should begin its preparations to face a possible parliamentary election in the near future. At the time Karu had been appointed as the party’s chief organizer for Colombo East and Colombo West by the party leadership in addition to his position as the UNP’s deputy leader. This entailed Karu would contest as a candidate from the Colombo district at any upcoming election.

Karu had already estimated he would be able to secure close to 265,000 votes as he had received a similar number of votes at the recently held Western Provincial Council elections. But this was not to be. The UNP’s working committee had decided it would be unfavourable for both the party’s leader and deputy leader to contest from the same district. It was UNP stalwart John Amaratunga who had suggested that Karu contest from the neighbouring Gampaha district instead.

“It would be a great strength to the party…’ Amaratunga had said. Karu was forced to leave Colombo East and Colombo West behind to contest from Gampaha instead. The next matter in question was appointing Karu as the UNP organizer for the Gampaha district.

A number of UNP stalwarts including Joseph Michael Perera, John Amaratunga, Anura Bandaranaike and Dr Jayalath Jayawardena were already serving as UNP organizers for the Gampaha district. “The party asked me to pick an electoral seat of my preference The choices given were Attanagalla, Gampaha, Divulapitiya and Minuwangoda…” Karu says.

But he was now faced with a serious problem. “No matter which seat I opted for, it would have given rise to a conflict. It was clear no organizer would like to give up their electoral seat to another,” Karu says. Declining a party organizer post, Karu informed the party he would however accept the party’s request and contest from the Gampaha district.

Despite Karu’s refusal to accept an organizer post the party still decided to appoint him as an organizer for the Gampaha electorate. Renting out a house on Church road in Gampaha, Karu commenced his election campaign in the district. Karu says surprisingly, UNP activists and youth in the area extended their fullest support to him. I received the support of my relatives living in the area as as my hometown of Mirigama which is also located in Gampaha district.”

In October 2000, for the first time in his politics. career, Karu Jayasuriya was elected to Parliament from Gampaha District. He had received a remarkable 237,387 preferential votes at the election.

(Excerpted from the biography of Karu Jayasuriya by Nihal Jagathchandra)