Features
Independence, the first cabinet and Prime Minister DS Senanayake
PM held a tight leash and once threatened to resign if the ministers didn’t change their minds
(Excerpted from the Memoirs of a Cabinet Secretary by BP Peiris)
Cabinet Government was established with the promulgation of the new constitution. Sir Henry Monck-Mason Moore, Governor, who had been appointed Governor-General, called on D.S. Senanayake to form a Government. He formed a cabinet of 14 consisting of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, George E. De Silva, J. L. Kotelawala, J. R. Jayewardene, L. A. Rajapakse, R. S. S. Gunawardena, Dudley Senanayake, C. Suntharalingam, T. B. Jayah, E. A Nugawela, A. Ratnayake and C. Sittampalam.
The first meeting was held on October 8, 1947, in the Cabinet Room, said to be one of the most beautiful in the whole of the Commonwealth. The only door leading to the room was closely barred. Police officers kept guard at the entrances leading to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Senate to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the building.
At this meeting, the Ministers, the Secretary and the Assistant took an oath of secrecy, which was an adaptation of the Privy Councillor’s oath but which had no statutory force. This was considered necessary by D.S. as the decisions of the Board of Ministers in the days of the State Council reached in the morning, regularly appeared in the late editions of the evening newspapers the same day.
In the absence of the Secretary, I had no power to administer the oath and, on two occasions, Ministers had to suffer the indignity of having to be taken round by me before a Justice of the Peace. D.S. therefore had me appointed a Justice of the Peace for the Judicial District of Colombo ex officio while holding the post of Assistant Secretary.
The oath of secrecy, however, did not prevent the leakage of Cabinet news to the Press. The same thing probably happens in other countries. Ministers like to be on the good side of the Press and oblige pressmen with news now and then. Eric Linklater, in his novel ‘The Impregnable Women’ puts these words into the mouth of Lord Pippin, the Prime Minister:
“The Cabinet puts an unbreakable seal upon the mouths of its members, and no one, for any purpose whatsoever, may take private advantage of what he learns in the sanctitude of our joint deliberations. This rule is inviolable, and like all rules, it is violated quite frequently.”
Except on one occasion when he had to see his doctor, D.S. was never late for a meeting and he insisted on other Ministers being punctual. All the Ministers complied with this request except S.W.R.D. who was invariably more than one hour late and who, on arrival, would greet the Prime Minister with a “Good morning, D.S.,” when every other Minister addressed him as “Sir” and inquire what business the Cabinet had transacted in his absence. The ground had then to be gone over again for his benefit and D.S. resented the waste of time but seemed unable to remedy it.
In the Chair, D.S. was firm and would not allow a Minister to raise a matter which was not on the Agenda unless the circumstances were exceptional. When a Minister attempted to raise a matter orally, he would say he knew nothing about it and ask a Cabinet Paper be submitted.
After the first meeting, the Prime Minister entertained the Ministers and the Secretaries to lunch in the Senate. It is strange that his first meeting and his last should have ended with a Cabinet lunch in the Senate.
D.S. was not a scholar; he had not been to a university and had no academic degree. He was an agriculturist and a gentleman-farmer and loved the land. He told me that he had planted his coconut land, probably at Botale, with his own hands and was very proud of it. But he had also been brought up early in the school of politics and was a master of political strategy which was the result of experience. There was no hypocrisy about him. In fact, it might be said that his want of hypocrisy was his greatest liability.
He was able, with that experience of his, to seize the core of the matter under discussion and throw away the non-essential covering. Often, when a Minister was arguing a Cabinet paper and taking more time than he thought was necessary, he would say “But actually, as a matter of fact, isn’t this the point?” The matter would then be settled in a few minutes. In this way, he used, very often, to clear the entire agenda. Of D.S. it can be said, “I come not, friends, to steal your hearts away: I am no orator, as Brutus is, but as you know me all, a plain blunt man…”
There was an occasion where the Cabinet decided that the price of a certain article should be increased by two cents. The Minister concerned was reluctant to carry this decision into effect but was bound by the rule of collective responsibility. He went back to his office and increased the price by one and a half cents. D.S. was angry when I brought the matter to his notice. The Minister was angry with me for having brought the matter to the Prime Minister’s notice. The Minister was ordered to carry out the Cabinet decision. I was directed to inform all Ministers that, if they were unable to carry out a Cabinet decision, they should bring the matter again before the Cabinet instead of acting on their own.
It was clear that we were not experienced in the theory and technique of Government by collective responsibility. One Minister told the Cabinet, after a decision had been reached, that he had to put it to his constituents! D.S. was working hard at this time to establish certain traditions and conventions. Heads of Departments were asking for copies of Cabinet papers to which they were not entitled. The Legal Draftsman was being asked to draft Bills by individual Ministers before the policy involved in the Bill had been approved collectively.
D.S. consulted me and laid down a few rules for the guidance of Ministers. The Legal Draftsman was not to undertake the drafting of a Bill’ until he had been informed by the Cabinet Secretariat that the proposal had the approval of the Cabinet. No paper was to be placed on the Agenda unless it had been in the hands of Ministers for three clear days before the meeting. These might be considered to be matters of detail; but D.S. was convinced that it was only by setting the details and straightening things out that the Ministers could be made to function as a collective body. In this, I think he succeeded to a large extent. There were occasional lapses.
D.S. was keen on granting trade union rights to public servants and introducing Whitley Councils. He was of the view that public servants of all classes should be given the right to form associations without any official interference, supervision or control. An exception was made in the case of the Police Force, the Prisons staff and the Agricultural Corps. He also insisted that the office bearers of a trade union of public servants should be public servants who are members of that union, and that a union should not have the right to have a political object or to make political levy. He refused to give trade unions the right of affiliation. Most of our troubles today seem to arise from the fact that trade unions are headed and controlled by political leaders who are not public servants and are not in the ‘trade’.
Before the Government took over, there had been a strike among certain sections of public servants who had been interdicted and against whom charges had been framed. D.S. agreed to make a statement in Parliament that this matter, at no time, came within the purview of his Government, that any proceedings that were being taken were merely a continuation of disciplinary action originated prior to his assumption of office and that it would not be proper for his Government to interfere with the continuance of the proceedings by the duly constituted authorities.
D.S.’s first rub was with the Public Service Commission. The Government had imported from abroad an officer called Paget as it was assumed that he had no connection with Ceylon and could be trusted to act absolutely independently and impartially. Paget assumed office as Chairman of the Commission. It was then found that he was a brother-in-law of Lanktree, a member of the Civil Service.
Paget construed the Constitution very strictly. He would have no interference by the Ministers in regard to appointments. On the other hand, Ministers found that they were unable to work with some of the Heads of Departments foisted on them by Paget. D.S., with his horse sense sent for Paget and, with some plain speaking, arrived at a workable compromise.
After the promulgation of the new Constitution, D.S. was in constant communication with the United Kingdom regarding the grant of full Dominion Status to Ceylon. This meant the removal of the reserved powers vested in the Governor under the earlier Order in Council. He informed the Ministers that the Imperial Government was willing to accede to Ceylon’s request but that, before this could be done, it would be necessary to pass a Bill in the Imperial Parliament conferring fully responsible status on Ceylon within the British Commonwealth.
It was possible that this Bill would become law before the next session of the Ceylon Parliament. Before the Bill was introduced in the Imperial Parliament, it was necessary that Ceylon should sign certain agreements with the United Kingdom. These were accordingly signed. In the External Affairs Agreement, Ceylon agreed to adopt and follow the resolutions of past Imperial Conferences. Was it intended by this, Ministers asked, to impose on this Government, a higher obligation in respect of such resolutions than existed in the case of any one of the other Dominions?
The Prime Minister stated that was clearly not the intention. The Agreements were to continue in force only as long as the two Governments considered them to be of mutual benefit, and it was implied that the Government could denounce the Agreements, in whole or in part, if the need arose. The Prime Minister was authorized to sign the Agreements on behalf of the Government.
Five documents were necessary to confer Dominion status on Ceylon:
1. A Ceylon Independence Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to confer on the Ceylon Parliament full legislative powers, and to deprive the United Kingdom of responsibility for the Government of Ceylon.
2. An Order in Council to remove the limitations on self-government in the Ceylon Constitution,
3. An External Affairs Agreement to provide for certain matters relating to external affairs.
4. A Defence Agreement of such a nature that the necessary measures could be taken for the defence of Ceylon.
5. A Public Officers’ Agreement transferring to the Ceylon Government the responsibilities hitherto vested in the Government of the United Kingdom in relation to public officers.
The three Agreements were signed in Colombo on November 11, 1947, by the Governor-General, on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, and by the Prime Minister of behalf of the Government of Ceylon. The Ceylon Independence Act, passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, received the Royal Assent on December 10,1947. On December 19,1947 His Majesty approved the Ceylon Independence (Commencement) Order in Council and the Ceylon Independence Order in Council.
D.S. was a very happy man; his labours had succeeded, but they had to wait for official information that the documents had received Royal Approval. D.S. was waiting at Queen’s House for the news which was late. When it finally came on the ticker, he was so elated, he broke all his rules and opened a few bottles of champagne at his house “Woodlands.” The Cabinet approved the following resolution to be moved in Parliament : This House rejoices that after many years of subjection to foreign rule, the struggle of the people of Ceylon for freedom has culminated in the attainment of independence.
The first Parliament of Independent Ceylon was opened on February 10, 1948, by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. The Speech from the Throne was drafted by T. D. Perera. The Duke began:
“By a Royal Commission issued by His Majesty the King, I have been commanded to visit this Island, and on behalf of His Majesty, to declare the causes of opening a new session of the Parliament of Ceylon, the first session under her new status of Independence. It is a matter of considerable gratification to me that I have been chosen to convey to you His Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament of Ceylon which is as following.” (I need not here reproduce the entire speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament of Ceylon which is set out in other official documents.)
The first paragraph read: “I regret that it has not been possible for me to address you in person on this occasion which marks an event of the greatest importance in the history of this country. After a period of nearly a century and a half, during which the status of Ceylon was that of a Colony in My Empire, she now takes her place as a free and independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”
The Duke, though dressed in white uniform, was obviously in distress owing to the tropical heat. His uniform did not have any pockets and his handkerchief, neatly folded, wis carried by the Duchess. On the dais were Their Royal Highnesses and D. S. and Mrs Senanayake. Several times during the Speech, the Duke had to turn round to his wife for the loan of his handkerchief to mop his brow.
By the end of 1948, three Ministers had been replaced. Sir Oliver Goonetilleke had been appointed as our High Commissioner in London and was succeeded by E. A. P. Wijeratne. George E. de Silva’s portfolio had been taken over by C. Sittampalam and A. E. Goonesinha had joined the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio. G. G. Ponnambalam later took on the Ministry of Industries. H. W. Amarasuriya had become Minister of Commerce and Trade in place of C. Suntharalingam.
Suntharalingam had been consistently opposing, in Cabinet certain proposals relating to persons of Indian descent resident in Ceylon, a problem now known as the Indo-Ceylon problem. He was the sole dissentient, and, on the final decision, asked that his dissent be recorded in the minutes. In drafting the minutes I made no reference to the dissent. When the minutes came up for confirmation at the next meeting, he pointed out the omission and asked that the error be rectified.
I anticipated that he would raise this point, and was armed with the necessary books. I quoted authority to show that a dissent was not recorded in Cabinet minutes in view of the doctrine of collective responsibility.
That once a decision had been reached, a Minister’s duty was to support it, both in Parliament as well as on the public platforms, and that if he found himself unable to do so, his clear duty was to resign. Suntharalingam inquired what I was reading from and when he was told that it was “Jennings on Cabinet Government”, said that the authority was completely outdated. D.S. preferred to follow Jennings and the dissent was not recorded.
Shortly afterwards, this matter came up in the House of Representatives. I had taken no interest in the proceedings of the House. One evening, my telephone rang and when I inquired who was speaking, there was no answer.
All that the voice said was “I want you to look up your books and draft a strong letter dismissing my Minister. See me at Temple Trees tomorrow morning at eight.” I did not know what had happened or who the Minister was. I had to get this information from the Clerk to the House.
He said that when this question came for voting, Suntharalingam left the Chamber. The Prime Minister had thought that he had gone to the lavatory but was informed that during the time that the division was being taken, Suntharalingam was in the lobby. With the strongly worded draft and a stenographer, I saw the Prime Minister the next day at the appointed time. He was in his bath and apologized for his delay of ten minutes..
He was never known to have kept a public servant waiting. He read the letter very carefully and said that the wording was far too strong. He then signed an amended draft. “Sun”, as everybody called him, left the Cabinet shortly afterwards. He was amazing at any problem involving mathematics. On the China Rice-Rubber contract, for example, he would, like his colleague, Sittampalam, work out, without paper or pencil, the total cost of so many thousand tons at pounds sterling 71/2d per ton. He was a very intellectual man, and his departure from the Cabinet was a great loss.
The Cabinet was once discussing one of D.S.’s own Cabinet Papers and, during the discussion, it was found that nearly every Minister was opposed to his proposal. He was very annoyed. It was the first and the only time that a vote has been taken in Cabinet, and the voting in a Cabinet of fourteen was thirteen against, with the Prime Minister for. He pushed his heavy satinwood chair back, rose, and said that he would adjourn the meeting for the next day for further consideration; if the Ministers remained of the same view, he would hand in his resignation. On the next day, the thirteen Ministers were in complete agreement with the Prime Minister!
Features
The Ramadan War
A Strategic Assessment of a Conflict Still Unresolved
The Unites States of America and its ally, Israel attacked Iran on 28 February, or the 10th day of the month of Ramadan. More than a month of intense fighting has passed since, and the Ramadan War has settled into a grinding, attritional struggle that defies early declarations of victory. Despite sustained U.S. and Israeli air and naval bombardment, Iran remains standing, and continues to strike back with a level of resilience that has surprised many observers. The conflict has evolved into a contest of endurance, adaptation, and strategic innovation, with each side attempting to impose costs the other cannot bear.
Iran’s response to the overwhelming airpower of its adversaries has been both simple and devastatingly effective: saturate enemy defences with swarms of inexpensive drones and older ballistic missiles, forcing them to expend costly interceptors and reveal radar positions, and then follow up with salvos of its most advanced precisionguided missiles. This layered approach has inflicted severe physical damage on Israel and has shaken its national morale. The country has endured repeated missile barrages from Iran and rocket fire from Hezbollah, straining its airdefence network and pushing its civilian population to the limits of endurance.
The United States, meanwhile, has been forced to evacuate or reduce operations at several bases in the Gulf region due to persistent Iranian drone and missile attacks. For both the U.S. and Israel, the war has become a test of strategic credibility. For Iran, by contrast, victory is defined not by territorial gains or decisive battlefield outcomes, but by survival, and by continuing to impose costs on its adversaries.
The central strategic objective for the U.S. has now crystallised: reopening the Strait of Hormuz to secure global energy flows. Ironically, the Strait was open before the war began; it is the conflict itself that has rendered it effectively closed. Air and naval power alone cannot achieve this objective. The geography of the Strait, combined with Iran’s layered defences, means that any lasting solution will require ground forces, a reality that carries enormous risks.
U.S. Strategic Options
The United States faces five broad operational options, each with significant drawbacks.
1. Seizing Kharg Island
Kharg Island handles roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports, making it an attractive target. However, it lies only a short distance from the Iranian mainland, where entrenched Iranian forces maintain dense networks of missile batteries, drones, artillery, and coastal defences. Any attempt to seize Kharg would require first neutralising or capturing the adjacent coastline, a costly amphibious and ground operation.
Even if successful, this would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. It would merely deprive Iran of export capacity, which is not the primary U.S. objective. At least ostensibly not; there are those who argue that the U.S. simply wants to take over Iran’s petroleum (see below).
2. Forcing the Strait of Hormuz by Naval Power
Sending U.S. naval forces directly through the Strait is theoretically possible but operationally hazardous. Iran has mined all but a narrow channel hugging its own shoreline. That channel is covered by overlapping fields of antiship missiles, drones, artillery, and coastal radar. Clearing the mines would require prolonged operations under fire. Attempting to push through without clearing them would risk catastrophic losses.
3. Capturing Qeshm, Hengam, Larak, and Hormuz Islands
These islands dominate the Iranian side of the Strait and host radar, missile, and drone installations. Capturing them would degrade Iran’s ability to close the Strait, but the islands are heavily fortified, and the surrounding waters are mined. Amphibious assaults against defended islands are among the most difficult military operations. Even success would not guarantee the Strait’s longterm security unless the mainland launch sites were also neutralised.
4. Invading Southern Iraq and Crossing into Khuzestan
This option would involve U.S. forces advancing through southern Iraq, crossing the Shatt alArab waterway, and pushing into Iran’s Khuzestan province — home to most of Iran’s oilfields. The terrain is difficult: marshes, waterways, and narrow approaches. Iranian forces occupy the high ground overlooking the plains.
While this route would allow Saudi armoured forces to participate, it would also expose U.S. and allied logistics to attacks by Iraqi Shia militias, who have already demonstrated their willingness to target U.S. assets. The political and operational risks are immense.
5. Capturing Chabahar and Advancing Along the Coast
The most strategically promising — though still costly — option is seizing the port of Chabahar in southeastern Iran and advancing roughly 660 kilometres along the coast toward Bandar Abbas. This approach offers several advantages:
· Distance from Iran’s core population centres complicates Iranian logistics.
· Chabahar’s deepwater port (16m draught)
would provide a valuable logistics hub.
· U.S. carriers could remain at safer standoff distances
, supporting operations without entering the Strait.
· The coastal route allows naval gunfire and missile support
to assist advancing ground forces.
· Local Baluchi insurgents
could provide intelligence and limited support.
· Capturing Bandar Abbas would
outflank Iran’s island defences and effectively reopen the Strait.
This option is likely to form the backbone of any U.S. ground campaign, potentially supplemented by diversionary attacks by regional partners to stretch Iranian defences.
The Limits of U.S. Superiority
The United States retains overwhelming superiority in naval power and manned airpower. But whether this advantage translates into dominance in unmanned systems or ground combat is far from certain.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is often cited as a model of U.S. military prowess, but the comparison is misleading. Iraq in 2003 had been crippled by a decade of sanctions. Its forces lacked modern mines, antitank missiles, and effective air defences. Tank crews had little training; some could not hit targets at pointblank range. RPG teams were similarly unprepared. The U.S. enjoyed numerical superiority in the theatre and total control of the air, allowing it to isolate Iraqi units and prevent reinforcement.
Even under those favourable conditions, Iraqi forces managed to delay the U.S. advance. At one point, forward U.S. units nearly ran out of ammunition and supplies, forcing the diversion of forces intended for the assault on Baghdad to secure the lines of communication.
Iran is not Iraq in 2003. Its armed forces and industrial base have adapted to nearly half a century of sanctions. It produces its own drones, missiles, artillery, and armoured vehicles. It has built extensive underground facilities, hardened command posts, and redundant communication networks.
Moreover, the battlefield itself has changed. The RussoUkrainian war demonstrated that deep armoured penetrations – once the hallmark of U.S. doctrine – are now extremely vulnerable to drones, loitering munitions, and precision artillery. The result has been a return to attritional warfare reminiscent of the First World War, with front lines stabilising into trench networks.
Yet, as in the First World War, stalemate has been broken not by massed assaults but by small, highly trained teams infiltrating thinly held lines, identifying targets, and guiding drones and artillery onto enemy positions deep in the rear. Iran has studied these lessons closely.
Mosaic Defence and Transformational Warfare
Iran’s military doctrine has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Its “mosaic defence” decentralises command and control, ensuring that even if senior leadership is targeted, local units can continue operating autonomously. This structure proved resilient during the initial waves of U.S. and Israeli strikes.
Iran has also absorbed lessons from U.S. “shock and awe” operations. The botched U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 exposed weaknesses in joint operations, prompting the development of “effectsbased operations,” “rapid dominance” and the broader concept of “transformational warfare.” These doctrines (better known colloquially as “Shock and Awe”), influenced by Liddell Hart and Sun Tzu, emphasised simultaneous strikes on strategic targets to paralyse the enemy’s decisionmaking.
While the U.S. struggled to apply these concepts effectively in Iraq and Iran, Tehran has adapted them for asymmetric use. Its drone and missile campaigns have targeted not only military assets but also economic infrastructure and psychological resilience. Israel’s economy and morale have been severely tested, and the United States finds itself entangled in a conflict that offers no easy exit.
Iran has also pursued a broader strategic objective: undermining the petrodollar system that underpins U.S. financial dominance. By disrupting energy flows and encouraging alternative trading mechanisms, Iran seeks to weaken the economic foundations of U.S. power.
Will the USA Achieve Its War Aims?
The United States’ core objective appears to be securing control over global energy flows by reopening the Strait of Hormuz and limiting China’s access to Middle Eastern oil before it can transition to alternative energy sources. Whether this objective is achievable remains uncertain.
A ground campaign would be long, costly, and politically fraught. Iran’s defences are deep, layered, and adaptive. Its drone and missile capabilities have already demonstrated their ability to impose significant costs on technologically superior adversaries. Regional allies are cautious, and global support for a prolonged conflict is limited.
The United States retains overwhelming military power, but power alone does not guarantee strategic success. Iran’s strategy is simple: survive, adapt, and continue imposing costs. In asymmetric conflicts, survival itself can constitute victory.
In Frank Herbert’s Dune, the protagonist, Paul Muad’dib says “he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.” This is the essence of Iranian strategy – they have a stranglehold on petroleum supply, and can destroy the world economy. Trump has had to loosen sanctions on both Iran’s and Russia’s oil, simply to prevent economic collapse.
The Ramadan War has already reshaped regional dynamics. Whether it reshapes global power structures will depend on how the next phase unfolds, and whether the United States is willing to pay the price required to achieve its aims.
by Vinod Moonesinghe
Features
Nayanandaya:A literary autopsy of Sri Lanka’s Middle Class
“Nayanandaya,” meaning the enchantment of indebtedness, is Surath de Mel’s latest novel. True to his reputation as a maximalist writer, de Mel traverses the labyrinth of middle-class struggles; poverty, unemployment, the quest for education, through a father’s fragile dreams. The novel unfolds around Mahela, his son, his friendships, and the fragile relationships that keep him tethered to life.
“Happiness is not a destination; it is a journey. There are no shortcuts to it. At some point, the path you thought was right will be wrong. You have to make sacrifices for it.”
These words, uttered by the protagonist Mahela to his ten-year-old son, is the silent mantra of every middle-class parent. A common urban middle-class father’s yearning for his child to climb the ladder he himself could not ascend.
A Socio-Political Mirror
Sri Lanka’s middle class remains trapped in paradox. They are educated but underemployed, salaried but indebted, socially respected yet politically invisible. Structural inequalities, economic volatility and populist politics inclusively contribute to keep them “forever middle”.
Through protagonist Mahela, who is sometimes a graphic designer, sometimes a vendor and always a failure Surath de Mel sketches the deficiencies of an education system that does not nurture skills of the students. Sri Lanka boasts about high literacy rates, yet the economy cannot absorb the thousands of graduates produced into meaningful work. Underemployment becomes the inheritance of the middle class. With political connections often the stories can be transformed. De Mel pens it in dark humour to expose these truths:
“Some notorious writer once sneered in a newspaper, ‘Give your ass to the minister, and you’ll earn the right to keep it on a bigger chair.’ Countless people waiting in ministers’ offices, pressing
their backsides to seats, carrying the weight of their own lives.”
Childhood Trauma and Its Echoes
Surath de Mel frequently weaves psychoanalysis into his fiction. In Nayanandaya, he captures the lingering shadows of childhood trauma. Mahela, scarred by a loveless and fractured youth, suffers phobic anxiety and depression, apparently with a personality disorder as an adult. His confession at the psychologist reveals it out:
“Childhood? I didn’t have one. I was fifteen when I was born.”
Here, Mahela marks his true birth not at infancy, but at the death of his parents. This statement itself reveals the childhood trauma the protagonist had gone through and the reader can attribute his subsequent psychological struggles as the cause of it.
From a Lacanian perspective, trauma is not just something that happens to a child; it is a deep break in how the child understands the world, themselves, and others. Some experiences are too painful to be put into words. Lacan calls this the Real — what cannot be fully spoken or explained. This pain does not disappear but returns later in life as anxiety, fear, or obsessive compulsive disorder.
This trauma disturbs the child’s sense of self and their place in society. When language fails to make sense of loss, the mind creates fantasies to survive. These fantasies quietly shape adult desires, relationships, and choices.
In Nayanandaya, childhood trauma of the protagonist does not stay buried — it lives on, shaping the adulthood in unseen ways. In the narrative, Mahela’s struggles are not just personal failures but the result of a past that was never given words.
Tears of Fathers – Forgotten in Sri Lankan Literature
Sri Lankan literature has long been attentive to suffering — especially rural poverty, social injustice, and the silent endurance of women and single mothers. Countless novels, poems, and songs have given voice to maternal sacrifice, female resilience, and women’s oppression.
Yet, within this rich narratives, the quiet grief of the urban middle-class father remains mostly unseen. Rarely does fiction pause to examine the emotional lives of men who shoulder responsibility without language for their pain. These masculine tears are private, swallowed by routinely and masked by humour or silence. Definitely never granted literary space.
In Nayanandaya, Surath de Mel breaks this silence. Through Mahela, he lends voice to these overlooked men — fathers whose love is expressed through sacrifice rather than speech. However, de Mel does not romanticise the tears. Rather he humanises them. He allows their vulnerabilities, anxieties, and quiet despair to surface with honesty and compassion. In doing so, Nayanandaya fills a striking gap in Sri Lankan literature, reminding us that fathers, too, carry invisible wounds.
Literary value
With Nayanandaya, Surath de Mel reaches a new pinnacle in his literary craft. His language is dense yet lyrical, enriched with similes, metaphors, irony, and a full range of literary tools deployed with confidence and control.
One of the novel’s most touching narrative choices is the personification of Mahela’s son’s soft toy, Wonie. Through personified Wonie, de Mel captures the two most touching incidents in the entire novel . This simply reveals the author’s artistic maturity, transforming a simple object into a powerful emotional conduit that anchors the novel’s tenderness amidst its despair.
At a deeper symbolic level, Mahela himself can be read as more than an individual character, but a metaphor for Sri Lanka — a nation struggling under economic hardship, clinging to impractical dreams, witnessing the migration of its people, and drifting towards a slow, painful exhaustion. His personal failures could mirror the broader decay of social and economic structures. This symbolic reading lends Nayanandaya a haunting national resonance.
Today, many write and many publish, but only a few transform language into literature that lingers in the reader’s mind long after the final page. Surath de Mel belongs to that rare few. In a literary landscape crowded with voices, he remains devoted to art rather than popularity or trend. As a scholar of Sinhala language and literature, de Mel writes with intellectual depth, dark humour, and deep human empathy.
In conclusion, Nayanandaya is not merely a story; it is social commentary, psychoanalytic reflection, and tragic poetry woven into richly textured prose. With this novel — a masterful interlacing of love, debt, and fragile dreams — Surath de Mel engraves a distinctly Dostoevskian signature into Sinhala literature.
Reviewed by Dr. Charuni Kohombange
Features
Domestic Energy Saving
Around 40 percent of the annual energy we use is consumed in domestic activities. Energy is costly, and supply is not unlimited. Unfortunately, we realize the importance of energy – saving only during the time of a crisis.
If you adopt readily affordable energy-saving strategies, you will cut down your living expenditure substantially, relieving the energy burden of the nation. Here are some tips.
Cooking:
Cooking consumes a good portion of domestic energy demand and common practices, and negligence leads to 30 – 40 percent wastage. A simple experiment revealed that the energy expenditure in boiling an egg with the usual unnecessary excess water in an open pan is nearly 50 percent higher than boiling in a closed lid pan with the minimal amount of water. In an open pan, a large quantity of heat is lost via convection currents and expulsion of water vapor, carrying excessive amounts of heat energy (latent heat of vaporisation). Still, most of us boil potatoes for prolonged intervals of time in open receptacles, failing to realise that it is faster and more efficient to boil potatoes or any other food material in a closed pan. About 30 – 40 percent of domestic cooking energy requirements can be cut down by cooking in closed-lid pans. Furthermore, food cooked in closed pans is healthier because of less mixing with air that causes food oxidation. Fat oxidation generates toxic substances. In a closed- lid utensil (not tightly closed), food is covered with a blanket of water vapor at a positive pressure, preventing entry of air and therefore food oxidation.
Overcooking is another bad habit that not only wastes energy but also degrades the nutritional value of food.
Electric kettle:
For making morning or evening tea or preparing tea to serve a visitor. Do not pour an unnecessarily large quantity of water into the electric kettle. Note that the energy needed to make 10 cups of tea is ten times that of one cup.
Electric Ovens:
Avoid the use of electric ovens as far as possible. Remember that foods cooked at higher temperatures are generally unhealthy, and even carcinogens are formed when food is fried at higher temperatures in an oven. If ever you need to bake something in an oven, limit the number of times you open the door. Use smaller ovens adequate for the purpose and not larger ones just for fashion.
Refrigerators:
Refrigerators consume lots of energy. Do not use over-capacity refrigerators just for fashion. Every time you open the fridge, more electricity is used to reset the cooling temperature. Plan your access to the appliance accordingly. Check whether the doors are properly secured and there are no leakages. Keep the fridge in a cooler location, not hit by direct sunlight and away from warmer places in the kitchen. Remember that turning off the fridge frequently will not save energy, instead it draws more energy.
Use of gas burners:
Do not use oversized utensils. Keep the lid closed as far as possible to prevent the escape of heat. Remember that excessive amounts of heat energy are carried away by a large surface-area conducting utensil. Do not open the gas vent to allow the flame to flash outside the vessel. A flame not impinging on the pan would not heat it, and gas is wasted. Ensure that the flame is blue. Frequently check whether gas vents are clogged with rust and carbon. Frequently, cooking material in the pan drops into the gas vents, and salt there corrodes the gas vents. Cleaning and washing would be necessary. Do not prolong cooking, taking time to prepare ingredients and adding them to the pan intermittently. Add ingredients at once and before switching the burner. If the preparation of a dish is prolonged to slow the cooking, use earthenware pots rather than metallic ones. An earthenware pot, being thermally less conducting retain heat.
Firewood for cooking:
Do not attempt to eliminate the use of firewood in cooking. If you are living in a village area, the exclusive use of LPG gas is an unnecessary expenditure. Large smoke-free, efficient oven designs are now available. If you are compelled to use gas, keep the option of firewood ovens, especially for prolonged cooking. Admittedly, there are locations, especially in cities, where the use of firewood is unsuited.
Hot water showers:
Before installing hot water showers, reconsider whether they are really necessary in a hot tropical climate. Go for solar water heaters, although the installation cost is high. Instant water heaters consume much less electricity compared to geysers with water tanks. Now, cheap and safe instant water heaters are available.
Lighting:
Arrange and design your residence to optimise daytime illumination until late evening. If you are constructing a new house, take this issue into account. Use LED lamps, which provide the same illumination for 85 percent less energy. In study rooms and areas that require prolonged illumination, paint the walls white. Angle – poised LED lamps with very low voltage are available. Use them for reading and studies. Routinely clean the surfaces of all lamps. Dust deposition cuts off light.
Air conditioning and ventilation:
Air conditioning consumes prohibitively large quantities of electrical energy. You can avoid air conditioning by optimising ventilation. The principle is to have air entry points (windows) in the house near the ground level and exit points (vents or windows) near the roof. Ground level is cooler, and the region near the roof is warmer. Thus, a cool air current enters the house near the ground level and hot air is drawn by the vents near the roof. The region near the ground can be rendered cooler by planting trees. Architectural designs are available to optimise this effect. You can sense the direction of air motion by holding a thin strip of paper near the windows at the ground and near the roof level. In addition to ceiling fan, install exhaust fans in the upper points of the house to remove hot air and draw cooler air through windows near the ground. Reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the roof by shading with trees. There are techniques for increasing the reflectance of the roof with paints and other designs.
Transportation:
A good portion of your budget is drained by transportation. Irrespective of who you are, use public transport if convenient and available. As much as possible, use the telephone and email to get your things done. If the officers do not comply for no valid reason, complain. Plan your trips to the town to do several things at the same time. Whenever possible, plan to share transport. Buy energy – efficient small vehicles. Routinely examine your vehicle for energy efficiency, i.e. correct tire pressure etc.
Charge electric vehicles off peak hours. Slow charging reduces heat generation in the circuit, reducing energy loss.
Energy is costly and limited in supply. Everything you do consumes energy. Be energy conscious in all your deeds. That attitude will reduce your expenditure, lessen the environmental degradation and financial burden of the nation in importing fuel.
Educating the general public is the most effective way of implementing energy-saving strategies.
By Prof. Kirthi Tennakone
(kenna@yahoo.co.uk)
-
News4 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
News2 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News5 days agoInquiry into female employee’s complaint: Retired HC Judge’s recommendations ignored
-
Features6 days agoWhen seabed goes dark: The Persian Gulf, cable sabotage, and race for space-based monopoly
-
Features5 days agoNew arithmetic of conflict: How the drone revolution is inverting economics of war
-
Business3 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial2 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Sports5 days agoSri Lanka’s 1996 World Cup heroes to play exhibition match in Kuala Lumpur

