Opinion
Monumental blunders paralysing Sri Lanka
The late JR Jayawardena: Accomplished a disastrous programme of attacking the basic principles of democracy
Sri Lanka was hailed as a potential paradise, at the time it gained independence from British rule, in 1948. Sadly, after 73 years of misrule by the homegrown leaders, we are languishing as one of the poorest countries, on the verge of bankruptcy. It is worth probing into the past to identify what went wrong, and see whether even belatedly a course correction can be attempted. I will confine myself to the post-independence era, being born a “free man” just an year after that landmark event, but now just one of over 22 million citizens fully in debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of rupees each. The leaders that guided us towards this sorry state should bear the blame.
We are a nation with a rich heritage, an incomparable mix of multi-ethnic and multicultural diversity, adding colour and variety to the societal landscape. Our natural resources are known to be enormous, in proportion to the relatively small land area. Unfortunately, it appears that these are the very virtues that make the nation languish without progress on all fronts. By boasting incessantly about the glories of the past, without basing our efforts on those achievements for future progress, the nation is in an unenviable position. Bad economic planning with no long-term policies, political brinkmanship, and communal disharmony, created by shortsighted actions of the leaders, have been mainly responsible for our sorry plight. Unlike many other developing countries we have not had long-term plans, like a five year or a ten-year plan. With change of government, every few years, an entirely new “development plan” is instituted, discontinuing all good that was done by the predecessors.
From the very beginning, Sri Lankans were unable to reach a consensus for peaceful coexistence with the minorities. It is true the majority community had to re-establish its rightful position, after prolonged discriminative policies, during colonial rule. It is also true that the minorities all over the world tend to ask for more than their fair share. Yet our leaders were not far sighted enough to control popular sentiments, giving into majority demands to the dismay of others. The Sinhala Only policy after 1956 turned out to be one of the most disastrous. It showed the minorities, in no uncertain terms, that they will forever be second class citizens in their land of birth. That can be singled out as the most harmful event that initiated ethnic disharmony.
Free education has failed to adapt to present day needs, producing graduates and others who are not suited for productive employment. Educational reforms, to keep pace with the ongoing technological advances, are slow to come by. The arts stream, taking in a large proportion of undergraduates, continues to produce graduates with little prospect of employment. Eventually, the government is compelled to employ them in pensionable posts with little in return for development.
Masses in poverty
Democracy is considered as one of the best forms of governance. This is so only with an electorate with high literacy, good quality of life, everyone if not the vast majority above poverty line, and future prospects for peaceful existence guided by leaders with foresight and without greed for self-aggrandizement. In the absence of these vital components, democracy could be a recipe for chaos. This unfortunately has been the curse of Sri Lankans. Successive governments have failed to improve the quality of life of the people. Instead, it appears that the leaders would prefer to keep the masses in poverty, allowing the politicians to rule forever exploiting their misery. Though called a paradise blessed with vast natural resources and a manageable population, the country situated in a strategically important position in the Indian Ocean, all features ideal for rapid development, is cursed with a corrupt self-seeking leadership over so many decades since gaining independence.
The attacks on democracy started seriously with the postponement of elections in 1975, for two years. However, it was the advent of JR Jayawardena, as President of the Republic, in 1978, that was a watershed in the politics of the country. Here was a man people looked up to as a great democrat, with maturity, education and an upbringing in a respectable and economically sound family background. He had long term experience in politics, had actively participated in the independence struggle, and could stand shoulder to shoulder with any world leader. He did not have to worry about perpetuating a family dynasty and had only about 10 years to fulfill the great expectations of his people. He was given a thumping majority at the elections so that he could usher in an era of prosperity, a free and just society — his slogan for the election campaign, without any significant hindrance from the emasculated opposition.
Paradoxically, what he accomplished was a disastrous programme of attacking the basic principles of democracy. Those changes laid the groundwork for ongoing corruption and fraud by the politicians to this day, which we find almost impossible to extricate ourselves from, nearly half a century later. A new constitution, concentrating power in the hands of a president who could function above the laws of the country with immunity, was instituted in 1978, with hardly any public consultation. Removing the civic rights of the respected and well-loved lady Prime Minister, was an act of unimaginable vengeance, which could be considered as one of his worst acts. Removing Tamil members from parliament on the pretext of them not honouring the constitution, thus denying them the forum to air their grievances, was a major step that led to the escalation of terrorist activity. Obtaining signed but undated letters of resignation from the people’s representatives made them dummies, with no chance of giving independent opinions. He amended the constitution at will to suit his immediate petty needs. The Parliament, elected on the first past the post system was treated as if it was on proportional representation. The highly questionable referendum in 1982, to extend the life of the Parliament for another term, remains as one of the biggest black marks in parliamentary history.
Perks and priviges
Members of Parliament were given all perks and privileges to ensure that they were kept happy without hindering or questioning the President’s programme. Luxury duty free vehicles, residences in Colombo, even to those with private residences in the city, were among them. They themselves decide what their emoluments should be. The palatial official residences given to ministers, in the most fashionable areas in the city, makes one wonder whether we are living in a highly developed first world country. It is unimaginable that a life-long pension is granted after just five years of “service” (rather self-service) in Parliament, when an ordinary citizen has to toil for at least 20 years to earn a paltry pension.
The ex-presidents are given the choice of any residence in any part of Colombo for them and their spouses to live in retirement, until death. It is shameful that at least two of them still enjoy that facility even after they have returned to active politics. Why the government is obliged to provide office facilities and security details to even the widows of ex-presidents is beyond reason.
These measures have burdened our economy to such an extent that is impossible for a debt-ridden country like ours to bear. It is not possible to relieve ourselves from this burden, as current or future incumbents, are unlikely to be patriotic or generous enough to give them up. Opening the economy without any safeguards led to perpetuation of bribery and corruption. Whatever economic benefits from the Accelerated Mahaweli Programme, free trade zones and the like are far outweighed by the ongoing overbearing financial burdens described above. One wonders whether the main function of the Sri Lankan state is to maintain in comfort the past and present politicians and their families.
Interference with the judiciary, while professing a just and free society all the time, was most despicable. Residences of judges who gave adverse verdicts were stoned by their goons. This was taken to new low levels decades later, when a chief justice who gave a verdict unfavourable to the government was removed unconstitutionally, and more or less physically thrown out of her official residence. The one who replaced her was arbitrarily removed later. More recently, the amendment to the constitution that enabled the President to handpick the judges, will turn out to be the last nail in the coffin of an independent judiciary.
Youth unrest was simmering for some time. It was JRJ’s policies that created situations that led to the eruption of armed rebellions, both in the North and the South. The immense damage these did to the nation, on all fronts, domestically and internationally, is too well known to be dealt with in detail here, and is bound to plague the nation for a very long time. JRJ can be labeled as the leader who initiated the downfall of our democracy, despite having the full knowledge of how unbridled powers could derail the nation’s path to progress. The most unfortunate situation is that the leaders who followed, every one of them of a lesser predisposition, intellectually, have had no hesitation in using him as the benchmark to judge their own performance, and giving that as an excuse to justify their own antidemocratic and corrupt activities.
Unfortunate events
The unfortunate events of July 1983 were the beginning of the darkest period in the post independence era of this country. The cost in human and material terms of the ensuing civil war over nearly three decades is unimaginable. The Diaspora, that established themselves abroad as a consequence, continues to be an ever worsening international headache for the country. While winning the war in 2009 was a remarkable achievement, successive governments have failed to capitalize on that, and counter the international fallout regarding alleged human rights violations. Lack of a coherent policy in tackling this issue, compounded by very poor amateurish diplomatic efforts, is making the nation a “wanted criminal”. Political expediency blaming each other to remain in power is a continuing destructive saga.
With the entire country giving a sigh of relief by eliminating the terrorists in 2009, immediate action should have been taken to alleviate the suffering of the people in the North and East. A firm policy should have been developed to address whatever grievances that led to the rebellion in the first place. With the overwhelming popularity of the leadership, the Southern populace would have accepted whatever was offered by a hand of friendship to minorities. Most unfortunately, the war-winning political leadership was more interested in making use of the “victory” to perpetuate their dynasty in power forever. Towards this end the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists were encouraged in their divisive activities, further alienating the minorities. A golden opportunity for reconciliation was thus buried in political expediency.
Billions of dollars obtained as loans at commercial rates of interest, have been used for extravagant projects which do not bring in returns that would go towards paying them back. Now more loans are being taken, purely to service what has been obtained already. Caught in this vicious cycle, the nation goes down an abysmal path towards financial bankruptcy in the near future.
The North is languishing in a multitude of social problems which need political will, much planning and financial investment to be sorted out. Along with high rates of poverty, unemployment and landlessness is the added burden of drug addiction and resultant antisocial activities of the youth. The locals are under the impression that the police or the armed forces do not take any action to control the drug menace or may even actively promote that. While dealing with the civil society should be a function of the police, it is accepted that the armed forces should remain in the North and East at a sufficient scale to ensure the non-resurgence of terrorist activity. It should be kept in mind that the latter objective is best achieved by winning the hearts of the people. As the Northern and Eastern population is an integral part of the Sri Lankan citizenry, one cannot go on ill-treating them as the vanquished in a battle. However, many of the activities of the law enforcement authorities have caused suspicion with the local populace that could defeat the very purpose they are supposed to serve.
The role of the Army along with the Buddhist priests in establishing new places of worship or reviving temples that have remained dormant for many decades in areas with hardly any Buddhist residents is being treated with suspicion. Buddhist monks from elsewhere are being “planted” in these temples. As there are hardly any Buddhists in the vicinity, they are being serviced and provided with security by the Army. It appears that the local non-Buddhist population is coerced by the forces into participating in various religious functions. These activities may give the impression that there could be a sinister long- term plan to colonise the area with Sinhala Buddhists.
Rebels in the North
It is known that thousands of Sinhalese and Muslim long-term residents were driven out of the North by rebels at the very beginning of the conflict. They may be allowed to return if they so wish, although such voluntary return seems unlikely in the present circumstances. Although the concept of a Tamil homeland may not be recognized, the fact that Tamil Hindus were the vast majority in the North for hundreds of years should be accepted and respected. Any seemingly state-sponsored attempts to upset that demography will undoubtedly arouse much hostility. It is disappointing that the committee appointed recently to preserve the cultural heritage in the North and East has no representation of the minorities.
The local Tamil population naturally is thoroughly disgusted with all these infringements in their neighbourhood. It will not be possible to go on alienating the minorities any more, making them keep their dream of an Ealam alive. It is inevitable that they seek the help of like minded people in India or the influential Diaspora in the West as the Sri Lankan authorities are turning a blind eye to their grievances. As a result the allegations of human rights violations against the Sri Lankan state would be a continuing problem to deal with at the international forums, like the UNHRC.
The situation in the Eastern Province with demography of sizable proportions of all three ethnicities, poses a different set of problems to be sorted out. The sensitive issue of alleged intrusion by a culture foreign to what we have known so far, has to be solved with much foresight and care.
The way all the warnings about the possible Easter bombing were ignored is inexplicable. The resultant catastrophe should be fully blamed on the leaders in government and intelligence services at the time. Political games played without finding out the actual culprits who planned the massacre, would guarantee another attack in the foreseeable future. It is frightening to note that those close to the current leadership are being blamed, though without proof so far, as the masterminds of the mass murder.
Ignoring the lessons learned by giving overwhelming powers to one party in the past, the electorate has given two-thirds majority to the present government. To make matters worse the 20th Amendment to the constitution has concentrated immense authority on the President. All that was achieved by the 19th Amendment, despite a few shortcomings, by ensuring parliamentary control of presidential action has been reversed. Removal of independent Commissions dealing with the judiciary, public service, police etc has installed an autocratic President, who is not accountable to the Parliament, and hence to the people. With his military background and hardly any experience in politics, the President is increasingly showing faith in the armed forces, and a small group of unscrupulous businessmen loyal to him to rule the country. How even the obvious civilian function of controlling the Covid epidemic is under the leadership of the Army commander is a glaring example. It becomes evident with every passing day that civilian rule in a democracy and international diplomacy, cannot be left in the hands of the armed forces. The details of allegations of many corrupt activities of the leaders and their cronies are already in the public domain. How democratically elected autocrats turned out to be ruthless dictators in many countries in the world is lost on the electorate.
Dismal situation
Having detailed all the blunders Sri Lanka as a nation has committed, is there a way out of this dismal situation? The electorate tired of the corrupt leadership chose to elect “non political” professionals at the last election. Their naivety in politics, with poor knowledge of the suffering of the masses is now fully exposed, making a mockery of governance. The periodic changing of the governing party at successive elections has been an exercise in futility. The civil society, along with well meaning religious leaders of all faiths without any political leanings, should take immediate steps to educate the people on the need to change this way of life. The press and electronic media should shed their political affiliations and work openly towards long term peace and prosperity of the nation. Social media should be fully mobilized and properly regulated, to keep people informed of the need for a radical change in their attitudes. All justifiable grievances of the minorities should be addressed with no further delay, so that they can be taken fully on board to forge peaceful coexistence and progress. The leaders should set an example to the people by being patriotic and truthful. It was exactly such a path that enabled Sri Lanka (and India) to overcome the might of the British Empire and gain independence. No doubt it is going to be an onerous task at a time when our own leaders are subjugating us.
A FREE THINKING
SINHALA BUDDHIST
Opinion
Hidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
This article presents a quantitative and critical analysis of the volume, composition, and utilization of public debt in Sri Lanka during the period 2024–2026. In general discourse, attention is primarily focused on the size of debt alone. However, this article reveals a broader economic reality by examining the interconnections among debt sources, patterns of utilisation, and repayment capacity.
In particular, when factors such as high debt-to-national-income ratios, limited revenue-generating capacity, and a heavy reliance on recurrent expenditure are considered together, Sri Lanka’s debt problem appears not merely as a numerical issue, but as the outcome of a systemic imbalance. Furthermore, the article highlights that external factors—such as geopolitical instability in the Middle East—are likely to further intensify these challenges.
1. Introduction
During the period from September 2024 to March 2026, a multi-layered discourse has emerged regarding the volume of debt obtained by the Government of Sri Lanka and the manner in which it has been utilised. Within these discussions, particular attention has been given to the increase in debt levels. While this is a valid and necessary concern, it is essential not to accept the issue at face value, but rather to analyze it critically within a broader economic context.
The primary focus should not be limited to the narrow question of “how much debt has the government borrowed?” but should instead extend to a broader set of questions: “from where has this debt been obtained, for what purposes has it been used, and what is the country’s capacity to repay it?” In other words, a complete and accurate understanding of the economic picture can only be achieved by analysing the interconnections among debt volume, utilization, and revenue-generating capacity.
Within this context, it is estimated that by the end of 2023, Sri Lanka’s total public debt stood between LKR 27–30 trillion (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2023; IMF, 2024). At the same time, the debt-to-GDP ratio is observed to be in the range of 110%–128%, while the burden of debt servicing relative to government revenue remains at a high level of approximately 60%–70%. In addition, the revenue-to-GDP ratio stands at only around 8%–10%, which is considered a structural fiscal weakness (World Bank, 2023).
Against this backdrop, it becomes evident that during the period 2024–2026, Sri Lanka is not on a path of deleveraging, but rather in a transitional phase centered on debt restructuring and economic stabilisation. Therefore, this article seeks to provide a deeper and more comprehensive understanding by analyzing not only the size of debt, but also its utilisation, structure, and policy implications.
2. Total Public Debt as at End-2023
As at the end of 2023, Sri Lanka’s total public debt is estimated to be between LKR 27–30 trillion. The debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the commonly accepted safe threshold of 70% and remains within the range of 110%–128% (CBSL, 2023; IMF, 2024). In addition, the burden of debt servicing relative to government revenue is at a very high level, in some instances reaching approximately 60%–70% of revenue. At the same time, government revenue as a percentage of GDP stands at only around 8%–10%, which is below the required level for emerging economies.
When these indicators are considered together, a clear imbalance emerges between the rising debt burden and the country’s limited revenue-generating capacity.
Furthermore, the composition of debt and external economic linkages intensify this vulnerability. It is estimated that approximately 40%–45% of total debt is external, making the country highly sensitive to exchange rate fluctuations. Moreover, imports account for around 25%–35% of GDP, while exports remain at only about 20%–22%, resulting in a trade deficit and increasing the demand for foreign exchange (World Bank, 2023).
Consequently, external debt repayments depend heavily on export earnings and foreign employment income. Under these conditions, new borrowing often appears to be used for servicing existing debt, thereby creating a debt cycle that does not contribute to long-term economic growth.
Therefore, Sri Lanka’s debt problem should not be understood merely as a numerical issue, but rather as a manifestation of a deep structural imbalance among revenue capacity, economic structure, and patterns of debt utilisation.
3. Debt Situation During the 2024–2026 Period
An analysis of Sri Lanka’s debt utilisation patterns during the period 2024–2026 clearly indicates that new borrowing has been used primarily not to generate economic growth, but to manage existing debt and support short-term stabilisation.
Under the International Monetary Fund program, a significant portion of the funds obtained has been directed toward debt servicing, interest payments, and requirements related to debt restructuring (IMF, 2024). In addition, based on the composition of government expenditure, a high proportion is allocated to recurrent expenditure, while capital expenditure remains relatively limited. Typically, nearly 70% of total government expenditure is directed toward recurrent expenditure, while capital expenditure accounts for around 20%–30% (CBSL, 2023).
This pattern of utilisation demonstrates that borrowing is being used to sustain existing fiscal pressures rather than to enhance revenue-generating capacity. In particular, the use of new borrowing to repay existing debt (debt rollover) further reinforces a debt cycle, thereby constraining long-term economic growth. Moreover, the import-dependent economic structure and shortages in foreign exchange further reduce the efficiency of debt utilisation.
Accordingly, during the period 2024–2026, Sri Lanka’s borrowing can be characterized not as growth-oriented borrowing, but rather as survival-oriented borrowing. This clearly represents a significant challenge to long-term economic stability.
4. Future Challenges
An analysis of Sri Lanka’s current economic condition clearly indicates that the country has not yet fully emerged from the crisis. It is not in a phase of debt reduction, but rather has entered a stage of debt restructuring and stabilisation. Total public debt remains at a high level, and a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 100% raises serious concerns regarding debt sustainability.
Although debt restructuring has been implemented under the International Monetary Fund program, it primarily serves as a short-term relief measure, and a comprehensive long-term solution has yet to be achieved. Furthermore, the fact that new borrowing is largely used for debt rollovers and short-term economic stabilization indicates that the country remains in a debt stabilisation stage.
Moreover, the current pattern of debt utilization and the overall economic structure further deepen future challenges. A significant portion of borrowed funds is directed toward servicing existing debt, financing recurrent government expenditure, and maintaining short-term stability, thereby limiting productive investment. At the same time, despite efforts to increase government revenue, the high burden of debt servicing and expenditure levels constrain fiscal space.
In terms of foreign exchange, reliance on export earnings and foreign employment income, combined with an import-dependent economic structure, continues to expose the country to external economic risks.
Within this context, ongoing geopolitical instability in the Middle East represents an additional source of pressure for an import-dependent economy such as Sri Lanka. In particular, volatility in fuel prices, security risks along key maritime routes, and potential impacts on foreign employment income could weaken the country’s foreign exchange position and overall economic stabilisation process.
In effect, the interaction between internal economic imbalances and external instability creates a condition of double vulnerability for Sri Lanka.
Despite positive signals such as declining inflation, exchange rate stabilization, and support from the International Monetary Fund, economic growth remains weak, private investment is low, and cost-of-living pressures persist. These conditions confirm that significant and complex policy challenges lie ahead.
The interaction of internal imbalances and external instability creates a condition of double vulnerability for Sri Lanka.
5. Conclusion Remarks
This analysis demonstrates that Sri Lanka’s current debt situation is not merely a numerical issue, but the outcome of a deep systemic imbalance among economic structure, public financial management, and policy decisions. During the period 2024–2026, the country is not on a path of debt reduction, but rather in a stabilisation phase based on debt management and restructuring.
New borrowing is largely used not to generate economic growth, but to manage existing fiscal pressures. This further intensifies the imbalance between the quality of debt utilisation and the country’s revenue-generating capacity.
However, when one reads between the lines of these figures and reports, many unspoken realities become evident. Decisions related to borrowing and its utilisation are closely linked to policy priorities, political objectives, and the quality of governance. Therefore, analysing numbers alone is insufficient; it is essential to critically examine the decisions, priorities, and responsibilities that lie behind them.
Accordingly, moving forward requires not only controlling the volume of debt, but also transforming the manner in which it is utilised and the policy decision-making framework that underpins it. Only through productive investment, revenue growth, and strong public financial management can Sri Lanka transition from a debt-dependent economy to one characterised by stable and sustainable long-term growth.
In conclusion, Sri Lanka’s debt narrative is not merely a story of numbers—it is a comprehensive reflection of the country’s economic decisions, patterns of utilisation, and often unspoken priorities.
References
Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) (2023) Annual Report 2023. Colombo: Central Bank of Sri Lanka.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2024) Sri Lanka: Debt Sustainability Analysis and Program Review. Washington, DC: IMF.
Ministry of Finance (2026) Sri Lanka Government Debt Report: September 2024 – March 2026. Colombo: Ministry of Finance, Sri Lanka.
World Bank (2023) Sri Lanka Development Update: Restoring Stability and Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023) Sri Lanka Energy Profile. Paris: IEA.
by Professor Ranjith Bandara
Opinion
Eulogy to a supremely gifted son of Lanka
Vidya Jyothi Professor Rezvi Sheriff
We do mourn the passing away of Vidya Jothi Emeritus Professor Rezvi Sheriff on the 30th of March 2026. He was a man who was one of the finest doctors who served the health service of our beloved country and several other nations as well.
I was most fortunate to be selected to formulate and present the citation for Professor Rezvi Sheriff just last year, for the award of the coveted Fellowship of the Sri Lanka Medical Association during the Inauguration Ceremony of the Annual Congress of the Sri Lanka Medical Association on the 23rd of July 2025.
That narrative is reproduced here as the final tribute to a superlative medical scientist, a humane carer, teacher par excellence, an academic of profound scholastic stature and a very close friend.
Our Chief Guest tonight, Guest of Honour, Special Guests, the President, Council, Fellows, and Members of the Sri Lanka Medical Association, and Distinguished Invitees…….
I am delighted to present to you, Vidyajyothi Professor Rezvi Sheriff, MBBS Ceylon), MD(Ceylon), MRCP(UK), FRCP(London), FRCP(Edinburgh), FRACP, FCCP, Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka, and Emeritus Professor of Medicine for the superlative award of the Fellowship of the Sri Lanka Medical Association.
In fact, the man is so very well-known, and formulating a citation for him was a veritable Herculean task, similar only to one trying to sell ice to Eskimos. In such a context, I will attempt only to portray some strategic vantage points of a career that clearly defies an adequate description in the time allotted to me. One could write reams about the man and still leave quite a lot unsaid.
Following a spectacular school career, Rezvi entered the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, in 1966, just one year after me, and we have been close friends ever since. The man went through his undergraduate career, securing many distinctions and gold medals, and qualified in 1971 as the first in class valedictorian, topmost performer of the batch, and the first in the combined order of merit of the two Medical Schools of Colombo and Peradeniya.
From then onwards, there was no looking back. It was a steady, persistent, and exponential climb in the academic ladder to finally reach the pinnacle of the Chair Professorship of the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Colombo. He is a great researcher and has a monumental plethora of scientific papers published in peer-reviewed, indexed, high-impact medical journals. He has delivered several orations, many plenary lectures, guest lectures, and taken part in numerous academic symposia as a resource person. He has been internationally recognised through fellowships and memberships from prestigious colleges and academic institutions. He has lectured in many centres worldwide, inclusive of a considerable number of universities in the United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, Norway, Japan and Pakistan.
As an Educator, he has mentored thousands of undergraduate and postgraduate students and allied health professionals. He is acclaimed for his quality clinical teaching, integrity, kindness and compassion. His medical journey, culminating in the Chair Professorship of Medicine, has inspired many a generation. He retired from the University of Colombo in 2014 and then worked at the Kotelawala Defence University for another 10 years. Altogether, he has had 60 years of university service and been a professor for 41 years. He was awarded Emeritus status by the University of Colombo, following his retirement.
He is known as the Pioneer Godfather of Nephrology and Transplant Medicine in Sri Lanka. He initiated the country’s first Dialysis Unit and Kidney Transplant Programme, a vision that forever transformed renal care and paved the way for other organ transplantations in Sri Lanka as well.
He has served for six years as the only Sri Lankan Council Member in the International Society of Nephrology. Incidentally, he and I were in the UK around the same time during our postgraduate training. He was in nephrology in the South of England, and I was doing nephrology in Nottingham in the Midlands. He continued in nephrology while I changed track and went in a different direction.
Professor Sheriff’s influence extended beyond the lecture rooms, wards and clinics. He was a member of the First National Health Policy Formulation Team, the University Reforms Committee, the National Education Commission and the Sri Lanka Medical Council. He was the Director of the Postgraduate Institute of Medicine from 2006 to 2011. All these assignments were conferred directly by the Executive President of Sri Lanka.
Professor Sheriff founded major nationally important bodies such as the Sri Lanka Society of Nephrology, the Health Informatics Society of Sri Lanka and the Hypertension Society of Sri Lanka. He was also instrumental in building critical medical infrastructure, such as the CLINMARC building at NHSL, the National Institute of Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation Centre in Maligawatta, the Ceylon College of Physicians Building in Rajagiriya, and the first Kidney Transplant Unit at NHSL. He also set up the most advanced Dialysis Unit in Sri Lanka at the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University Hospital.
In a kind of nostalgic rumination, Rezvi and I used to be on the opposing teams in the Annual Physicians Versus the Paediatricians Cricket Match. If I remember right, and in a lighter vein, that is perhaps the only time anyone has been able to beat this great man.
Ladies and Gentlemen, legends are found not only in the movies. They are there in real life, too. Role models are remembered, not just for what they achieve, but for the lives they inspire, the opportunities they create, and the kindness they perpetually exhibit. Despite his vast achievements, Professor Rezvi Sheriff remains an extremely humble, deeply religious, superlatively kind, service-oriented person. Today, as we honour him, we celebrate not just a brilliant academic and a superb clinician, but a man who has lived a life of purpose and integrity: a life devoted to service to the community. Some years ago, in recognition of his services to our Motherland, the Government of Sri Lanka conferred on him the National Titular Award Vidya Jyothi, the highest national honour that can be bestowed on a scientist.
Mr President, I am ever so pleased to present Professor Rezvi Sheriff, a superlative clinician and a healer, a fine researcher, a brilliant teacher, a visionary, and a true servant of humanity, for the award of the legendary Fellowship of the Sri Lanka Medical Association.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please be kind enough to rise and applaud this great son of Mother Lanka.
***
With the demise of Professor Rezvi Sheriff, we have lost a superlative son of our hallowed Motherland, and I have lost a very dear friend.
Goodbye, our friend…, May the turf of our Motherland rest ever so gently on you.
May he rest in eternal bliss as we acknowledge the words in the Holy Qaran 𝗜 i𝗜𝗹𝗮i𝗵 𝗻!
(Verily to Allāh we belong, and verily to Him, we shall return)
By Dr B. J. C. Perera
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician
Opinion
Is there hope for Palestine?
Since the creation of Israel, in 1948, Palestine has lost so much that it is a wonder that it is still a part of the world map. Since 1948, Palestinians have lost approximately 85% of the land that made up historic British Mandate Palestine. This loss occurred in several major stages, beginning with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and continuing through the 1967 Six-Day War and ongoing settlement expansion.
It is necessary to outline the relevant historical facts about the state of Palestine. Palestine was among former Ottoman territories, placed under UK administration, by the League of Nations, in 1922. All of these territories eventually became fully independent States, except Palestine, where, in addition to “the rendering of administrative assistance and advice,” the British Mandate incorporated the “Balfour Declaration” of 1917, expressing support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. During the Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration, mainly from Eastern Europe, took place, with the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the Nazi persecution. Arab demands for independence and resistance to immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides. The UK considered various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, the UK turned the Palestine problem over to the UN.
After looking at alternatives, the UN proposed terminating the Mandate and partitioning Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalised (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). Records indicate that Jewish individuals, or organisations, only owned between 5.8% and 7% of the land in Palestine, prior to the 1947 Partition Plan. The remainder was either privately owned by Palestinians (94.2% according to some fiscal records) or classified as state/public land by the British authorities. The vast majority (90%) of the population was Palestinians. The Partition Plan did not take these demographic facts into consideration and this led to the war in 1948 with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia joining forces against Israel. The war was a major loss for the Arab countries as Israel was backed by the west and, following the war, Israel established control over 77% to 78% of the land. The remaining 22%—consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip—came under Jordanian and Egyptian administration, respectively.
The Arab countries were very much concerned about this situation and were very sympathetic towards the Palestinians. In a desperate attempt, in 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israel, which by now, with huge western support, was militarily far superior to the collective strength of these countries and could capture Sinai Peninsula, Gaza strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. Again, in 1973, Egypt attacked Israel in a surprise move and inflicted much damage, though finally losing the war. This led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the return of Sinai. The outcome of all these wars was that today the Palestinians have lost administrative and sovereign control over approximately 85% of historic Palestine, since 1948, with current autonomous Palestinian areas (Gaza and parts of the West Bank) making up less than 15% of the total original territory.
Palestine gradually lost its major military allies; Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Libya, due mainly to the machinations and direct invasions by western forces and Israel. There were internal disputes and betrayals, as well, with Hamas falling out with Fatah and Palestinian Authority colluding with Israel to undermine Palestinians. All this shows the pathetic tragedy that has befallen the historical inheritors of the land of Palestine. Today, they are subjected to the most inhuman harassment and genocide, with daily killings, and their land is being grabbed by Israel. And there is, apparently, no one to help them; the UN can only pay lip service and if this continues Palestine will soon be obliterated from the world map.
However, there may be a glimmer of hope for this beleaguered country if the war between Iran and Israel ends in the way people like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Prof. John Mearsheimer, Col. Douglas Macgregor, Prof. Richard Wolf, Miko Peled, etc., predict. These people have made comments like “Iran has the upper hand”, “The US has already lost the war”, “Iran will be the graveyard of American hegemony”, “This will be the end of Israel”.
It was Miko Peled, a Jew by birth, and a Palestinian activist by conviction, who said “This will be the end of Israel” in a recent podcast interview, and he was hoping that it would eventually solve the Palestine problem. Peled’s grandfather, Avraham Katznelson, was one of the founders of Israel who signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Peled’s father, Mattityahu Peled, had fought in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and served as a general in the Six-Day War of 1967.
In 1997, Peled’s 13-year-old niece Smadar, daughter of his sister Nurit Peled-Elhanan, was murdered in a Palestinian suicide terror attack in Jerusalem. After her funeral Peled had said, “Why not tell the truth… That this, and similar tragedies, are taking place because we are occupying another nation and that, in order to save lives, the right thing to do is to end the occupation and negotiate a just peace with our Palestinian partners?” Today Miko Peled is fighting for the liberation of Palestine. He asserted that the raid by Hamas into Israel, in October, 2023, was not terrorism but a heroic act.
Col. Douglas Macgregor, a retired US Army officer, who had faught in the Iraq war, and who was nominated by President Trump as the Ambassador to Germany, and also appointed to the board of the US Military Academy, has said “Iran holds the upper hand”. He has several reasons to support his claim; Iranian missiles outnumber the interceptors of Israel and Gulf states, and already Israel is running out of weapons, the economic fallout in the US, Gulf countries and Europe would be catastrophic if the war drags on, ground forces option would be disastrous as landing them would be a suicidal process given the advance surveillance methods that Iran possess, courtesy China and Russia. Further, he says, several such US campaigns in the past have failed, pointing out that Iraq, which was ‘conqured,’ is now asking the US to leave. The Syrian leader – another country ‘conqured’ – is visiting Russia. A Minister, in Qatar, has told the US to leave her country alone.
Prof John Mearsheimer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. In his 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer argues that the Israel lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East. Mearsheimer asserts that Benjamin Netanyahu is driving the push for conflict, rather than US interests. He describes Israel as an “albatross around our neck” regarding this war. He claims the U.S. and Israel initiated this war against Iran, which he does not believe the US can win.
Mearsheimer has argued that “Iran holds all the cards” in the war of attrition, suggesting that Iran is not losing and that the US is facing a strategic defeat. He argues that Iran does not represent a threat massive enough to justify American involvement in the conflict and that the US is fighting ‘somebody else’s war’.
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is a professor at Columbia University, where he was formerly Director of The Earth Institute, and is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at the University. He had been a tenured professor of Economics at Harvard. From 2002 to 2018, Sachs was special adviser to the UN Secretary-General. Regarding the war, he has said that the US and Israel had underestimated Iran and that Iran would be the Graveyard of American hegemony. Further Sachs has called Israel ” a reckless country” and a joint military campaign with it is not in the US interests. He has made a special appeal to the leaders of China, Russia and India to pressure Donald Trump to stop the war, which he says would be very effective.
Prof Richard Wolf, leading economist, says the US is at present heavily in debt and the defence budget for 2026/27 has been increased from 900 bn to 1.5 tr which could affect health, education and welfare programmes. People in the US are on the streets protesting against the war.
What could be gleaned from all these opinions and views of people, who know what they speak of, is that, whatever the outcome of the war, the world will not be the same for all of us. Beginning from Trump and the people of the US, European leaders, China, Russia and India, Iran and the Middle East, particularly the Gulf States, the Global South and finally Israel, would learn that war cannot solve problems, that hegemony is hated, imperialism has to end and, last but not least, if the world wants peace the Palestine problem must be solved.
(Some of the information in this article was derived from Wikipedia)
By N. A. de S. Amaratunga
-
News4 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
News7 days agoMinister Jayakody indicted in Colombo High Court over alleged corruption
-
News5 days agoInquiry into female employee’s complaint: Retired HC Judge’s recommendations ignored
-
News2 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
Features5 days agoNew arithmetic of conflict: How the drone revolution is inverting economics of war
-
Features6 days agoWhen seabed goes dark: The Persian Gulf, cable sabotage, and race for space-based monopoly
-
Business3 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial2 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
