Gnana Moonesinghe, who passed away recently had a multi-faceted life although never a career. A woman of many interests – in literature, politics, diplomacy, journalism – she spanned these divides with great felicity and charm.

Gnana Coomaraswamy was born into a well-known Jaffna family. Her father was educated at Cambridge University in England and was a barrister. He pursued a career in education being principal of a leading Jaffna school. Gnana herself had an education in Colombo, and she entered the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya, from Ladies College, in 1955.

Her sister had married Dr. Kumaran Ratnam, who was once a Mayor of Colombo. Gnana married Mangala Moonesinghe, a lawyer and politician who was a descendent of Anagarika Dharmapala. Mangala Moonesinghe was MP for Bulathsinhala in 1965-1977. During that period, Gnana was heavily engaged in looking after that electorate and developed a close relationship with many of his constituents. She enjoyed being a politician’ s wife.

When Mangala was appointed High Commissioner in New Delhi in the 1980s, Gnana found another congenial and productive occupation. She was the perfect wife of a diplomat, and the couple enjoyed the diplomatic life in New Delhi and the high profile among the New Delhi circles. Mangala and Gnana developed a close relationship with Prime Minister, Gujaral of India. While in Delhi, Gnana produced a book – “Footprints of the Buddha”. After New Delhi, Mangala and Gnana had a couple of years in London as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner. On return to Sri Lanka, Gnana was engaged in domestic, political and civil society issues. She and Mangala had a particular interest in the ethnic issue. She was a regular contributor to the newspapers and particularly concerned with the politics of the time. She edited a book on Sri Lankan government structures some time during this period. She was a member of the Disputes Resolution Council of the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka.

It is 70 years since I first met Gnana. We both entered university at Peradeniya in 1955. From 1956-1959, Gnana and I read for a special degree in Economics. There were three young women and over 20 men reading for this course. Gnana specialised in political science. Only a very few of us are still around. It is a pleasure to have known Gnana all these long years. She leaves a son, Sanath who lives in the United States, and daughter Avanti ,who is married to Murtaza Esufally.

Leelananda De Silva

by Christopher White Vatican Correspondent

Pope Francis has written a sweeping letter to the U.S. bishops decrying the “major crisis” triggered by President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans and explicitly rejecting Vice President JD Vance’s attempts to use Catholic theology to justify the administration’s immigration crackdown.

“The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defencelessness,” reads the pope’s Feb. 11 letter.

Since taking office on Jan. 20, the Republican president has taken more than 20 executive actions aimed at overhauling the U.S. immigration system, including plans to ratchet up the deportations of undocumented migrants and halt the processing of asylum seekers.

The pope’s letter, published by the Vatican in both English and Spanish, offered his solidarity with U.S. bishops who are engaged in migration advocacy and draws a parallel between Jesus’ own experience as a migrant and the current geopolitical situation.

“Jesus Christ … did not live apart from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own land because of an imminent risk to his life, and from the experience of having to take refuge in a society and a culture foreign to his own,” writes Francis.

While the letter acknowledges the right of every country to enact necessary policies to defend itself and promote public safety, the pope said that all laws must be enacted “in the light of the dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights, not vice versa.”

The pontiff also goes on to clearly reject efforts to characterise the migrants as criminals, a frequent rhetorical device used by Trump administration officials.

“The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality,” the pope writes.

Soon after Trump took office, Vice President JD Vance — a recent convert to Roman Catholicism — attempted to defend the administration’s migration crackdown by appealing to St. Thomas Aquinas’ concept of ordo amoris.

“Just google ‘ordo amoris,’ ” Vance posted on social media on Jan. 30 in response to criticism he received following a Fox News interview.

During that interview, Vance said: “You love your family, and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world.”

While not mentioning Vance directly by name, Francis used his Feb. 11 letter to directly reject that interpretation of Catholic theology.

“The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan,’ that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception,” wrote the pope.

Since his election in 2013, Francis has become one of the world’s most vocal champions. His latest letter, however, marks a rare moment when the pontiff has directly waded into a country’s policy debates.

In the letter, however, he states that this is a “decisive moment in history” that requires reaffirming “not only our faith in a God who is always close, incarnate, migrant and refugee, but also the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person.”

“What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly,” the pope warned.

In a brief post on social media, the U.S. bishops’ conference shared the pope’s letter with its online followers.

“We are grateful for the support, moral encouragement, and prayers of the Holy Father, to the Bishops in affirmation of their work upholding the God-given dignity of the human person,” read the statement.

(The National Catholic Reporter)

For decades, three-wheelers—commonly known as tuk-tuks—have been a vital part of Sri Lanka’s transportation system. They provide an affordable and convenient way for people to get around, especially in areas where public transport is unreliable. However, successive governments have repeatedly discouraged their use without offering a viable alternative. While concerns about traffic congestion, safety, and regulations are valid, cracking down on three-wheelers without a proper replacement is unfair to both commuters and drivers.

For millions of Sri Lankans, three-wheelers are not just a convenience but a necessity. They serve as the primary mode of transport for those who cannot afford a private vehicle and as the only reliable last-mile option when buses and trains are not accessible. Senior citizens, people with disabilities, and those carrying groceries or luggage rely on tuk-tuks for their ease and accessibility. Unlike buses, which often require long walks to and from stops, three-wheelers offer door-to-door service, making them indispensable for those with mobility challenges.

In rural areas, where public transport is scarce, three-wheelers are even more critical. Many villages lack frequent bus services, and trains do not serve short-distance travel needs. Tuk-tuks fill this gap, ensuring people can reach markets, hospitals, and workplaces without difficulty. In urban areas, they provide a quick and affordable alternative to taxis and private vehicles, especially for short trips.

Despite their importance, three-wheelers have increasingly come under government scrutiny. Restrictions on new registrations, negative rhetoric about their role in traffic congestion, and limits on their operation in cities suggest that policymakers view them as a problem rather than a necessity. Authorities often cite traffic congestion, safety concerns, and lack of regulation as reasons for discouraging tuk-tuks. While these issues are valid, banning or restricting them without addressing the underlying transport challenges is not the solution.

The biggest flaw in the government’s approach is the absence of a proper alternative. Sri Lanka’s public transport system remains unreliable, overcrowded, and often inaccessible for many. Buses and trains do not provide efficient coverage across all areas, and ride-hailing services like Uber and PickMe, while convenient, are often too expensive for daily use. Without a suitable replacement, discouraging three-wheelers only makes commuting more difficult for those who rely on them the most.

Beyond the inconvenience to passengers, the economic impact of limiting three-wheelers is significant. Thousands of drivers depend on tuk-tuks for their livelihoods, and with rising fuel prices and economic instability, they are already struggling to make ends meet. Further restrictions will push many into financial hardship, increasing unemployment and poverty. For passengers, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds, losing three-wheelers as an option means higher transport costs and fewer choices.

Instead of discouraging tuk-tuks, the government should focus on improving and regulating them. Many countries have successfully integrated three-wheelers into their transport systems through proper policies. Sri Lanka could do the same by enforcing proper licensing and training for drivers, introducing digital fare meters to prevent disputes, ensuring better vehicle maintenance for safety, and designating tuk-tuk lanes in high-traffic areas to reduce congestion. These measures would make three-wheelers safer and more efficient rather than eliminating them without a backup plan.

The government’s push to restrict three-wheelers without providing a suitable alternative is both unfair and impractical. Tuk-tuks remain the only viable transport option for many Sri Lankans, particularly senior citizens, low-income commuters, and those in rural areas. Instead of treating them as a nuisance, authorities should recognise their importance and focus on making them safer and more efficient. Until a proper substitute is in place, discouraging three-wheelers will only create more problems for the very people who need them the most.

P. Uyangoda

Director-Education (retired)

Nedimala