Features

Paris and some of its habitues and JRJ, Cyril Mathew and their storm troops

Published

3 years ago

2023/04/2

Thilina Walpola

Excerpted from volume ii of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography

(Continued from last week)

As a member of the Sri Lankan delegation I began to attend the meetings of the Communications sector of UNESCO. International meetings of this group were held in Paris while regional meetings were held in Bangkok and New Delhi. As mentioned earlier the Paris meetings were the main driver of the global debate. Special attention was focused on the African countries which were lacking in both manpower and technical resources.

Increasingly what was highlighted was the imbalance in news flows between the developed and developing countries. The answer was to transfer technology and training opportunities to the developing countries through funding from multilateral and bilateral sources, basically coming from the industrialized countries. From this stance came the call for setting up a new institution in UNESCO for the promotion of Communication Development. It was to be called the International Programme for the Development of Communication [IPDC] with its own Governing Council, Director and Secretariat.

Our annual visits to Paris for UNESCO meetings which usually lasted about a week with a weekend in between was a good opportunity to savour the life of that beautiful city which has been called the ‘City of Light’. We were lodged in a hotel close to UNESCO in Place de Fontenot’ in Paris 16, which was the elite district or arondissement. It was close to the Eiffel Tower and Ecole Militaire which is the major military school for the elite officers of the French Army.

A stroll after meetings took us to the most ‘posh’ areas of the city including the Invalides – the Military Museum -mostly devoted to Napoleon. We could also walk in the numerous immaculately maintained parks close to the tower and the Invalides. A longer walk would take us to the famous `Pont de Paris’ or Paris bridges which spanned the river Seine and linked the right Bank with Left Bank [Rive Gauche].

One day while the meeting was going on we received news of the death of Jean Paul Satre and his funeral the following day at the cemetery at Montparnasse which was not too far from Place de Fontenot’. That afternoon I excused myself and with Navaz of our tourist office in Paris joined the thousands of mourners who assembled near the entrance to the cemetery to bid farewell to France’s best known intellectual.

Many who flocked to the cemetery were the young people of the sixties, now close to middle age, who had been inurrectionists against the De Gaulle regime. They came to pay homage to an older man who had taken their side and marched with them in the Quartier Latin. Though Satre was a thorn in his flesh, De Gaulle, in a typical Gallic gesture, had ordered the police not to touch the philosopher-hero. He remembered that Satre had encouraged ‘the resistance’ when France was under Hitler’s jackboot and Frenchmen looked to De Gaulle as their savior.

We had to push through the teeming crowds to follow the black hearse carrying Satre’s remains to his final resting place. At the last minute there was a hush and a famous film star Simone Signoret, came to place a bowl of roses on the coffin which was then slowly lowered into the open grave. Whenever I visit Paris I go to the Montparnasse cemetery to pay my respects and also rekindle my memories of a city I knew so well a long time ago.

At that time the Sri Lanka Embassy in Rue D’Astorg was our home away from home. The Ambassador was Vernon Mendis who was a very senior Foreign Service officer who had managed the administrative side of the Non-Aligned meeting in Colombo. But as soon as he reached retirement age he was hired by UNESCO to be their representative in Cairo. The Director-General of UNESCO M’Bow was well known for his patronage of Ambassadors who were loyal to him.

Mendis was succeeded by Balasubramanium who too was a senior in the service. But Bala too was at the end of his career and was ill with a terminal disease. Most of the relations with the French public was handled by Manu Ginige who was a fluent French speaker and a Francophile. Manu who became my very close friend was a legendary character among the Sri Lankans abroad. A graduate of Peradeniya he followed up on his fascination with international politics by joining Air Ceylon as their representative in Paris.

An ardent Trotskyite in Peradeniya he had a wide circle of leftist friends. Among them was Ratnasiri Wickremanayake who was a law student in London at that time. Ratnasiri had cut short his stay in the UK because he was summoned to contest the Horana seat in the 1960 General Election. His elder brother Munidasa, who had been Philip Gunawardene’s MEP candidate, had been killed a few months before the election. Ratnasiri won the seat, crossed over to the SLFP and later became the Prime Minister.

He never went back to his studies and Europe but maintained his links with his London comrades. These friends formed a trio – Ratnasiri, Willa Wickremasinghe and Manu Ginige. After leaving Air Ceylon Manu joined UTA, the French airline that flew to Colombo, on the invitation of Minister Leslie Goonewardene of the LSSP who was the Cabinet Minister of Transport and Aviation.

Through Air Ceylon and UTA Manu became indispensable to any one with connections to Colombo and Paris because air travel was their lifeline. After the fall of the Bandaranaike regime in 1977 he left UTA and freelanced for a while and even spent some time in Cologne with his German wife and daughter. He came back to Paris as Hameed’s interpreter and confidante.

When our delegation comprising Esmond, Arthur Clarke and myself went to Paris for UNESCO meetings he was our liaison with the secretariat as he was fluent in French. He became indispensable to Esmond and with Hameed’s backing became a crucial member of our Embassy having lived in Paris for over 20 years. Chandrika Bandaranaike and her friends who had moved with him closely in Paris were angry with him for serving the UNP regime but Manu was a professional officer who gave his services to the country by working in the Embassy.

He maintained the friendships of his younger days and remained a close friend of Ratnasiri. Only a few close friends of Ratnasiri hailed him by his pet name ‘Danu’ and Manu was one of them. Very few know that when Dr. N.M. Perera visited Europe for the last time, after he was diagnosed with a cancer, he wished to make a sentimental visit to Paris with Dr. Dora Fonseka who was known to be his girlfriend.

It was Manu who arranged this visit and made his apartment available to them. To the last he retained his radical views. When I stayed in his apartment in Paris I requested him to arrange meetings with the Trotskyite leaders who were our icons in our University days. We met Michel Pablo. It was a secretive meeting which I will describe in the next volume of my autobiography.

Manu and I followed the cortege of Trotskyite ideologue Ernst Mandel in the Pere Lachaise cemetery in North Paris together with a dwindling gathering of old men of the Fourth International who soldiered on. Distancing themselves from these superannuated ideologues a new group of young Trotskyites emerged in the Universities and workplaces and one charismatic young leader even contested the Presidential election though he was only an ‘also ran’.

Violence

JRJ claimed to be a Gandhian who believed in ‘Non-Violence’. But as Clifford Geertz has written in his essay on Gandhi, ‘non-violence’ can only succeed if the Satyagrahi has the potential of unleashing violence as an alternative. Without that fear the opponent does not take the challenger seriously. Thus nonviolence becomes a part of the power game. As Geertz writes, “The argument that a sacred pledge to abstain from the use of force can have moral reality only with respect to people who have a genuine possibility of effectively using force is surely correct”.

JRJ was a Gandhian who always kept his ‘Powder dry’. Once in power he ceased to be a Satyagrahi. One highly disconcerting fact about the JRJ administration was its condoning of violence. When his plans met with organized resistance JRJ had no hesitation in bringing in his thuggish Trade Unionists under Mathew to attack his opponents. Though during the times of previous regimes there were incidents of violence directed at ethnic groups such as the 1958 riots, well described by Tarzie Vittachi, the state did not encourage it.

For instance the Government Agent of Polnnaruwa, Derrick Aluvihare, confronted the rioters, blocked their path with police and Army assistance and prevented a bloodbath. Lakshmi Naganathan, daughter of Federal Party leader E.M.V. Naganathan, told me that when her father and his comrades were bundled up from Galle Face green and incarcerated in Galle Face Hotel, Mrs. Bandaranaike on the PM’s instructions, had sent him food cooked in the Bandaranaike kitchen.

When Mrs. Bandaranaike lost the election only Lakshmi of all the Foreign Service officials went to her home to bid their former Minister and PM goodbye. I had personally seen Left firebrands like Philip and Colvin restraining their supporters from getting into fights. In fact it was the left that was set on by Goonesinha and Kotelawela’s goons. In fairness to the so-called LSSP and CP revolutionaries, not one of them encouraged workers to attack others in the workplace or outside.

NM was the quintessential patient and analytical trade union negotiator. Every year NM would spend a few months in the UK in the company of Dora Fonseka. Even Capitalist negotiators knew that he would skillfully wind up his bargaining just in time to catch his flight to London. Bandaranaike loved to give tongue lashings but except when he praised the ‘Imbulgoda Veeraya’ for obstructing JRJs march, was a peace-loving leader who tolerated the taunt of `Sevala Banda’ which was later adopted even by his murderers. In all his speeches he never accused the Tamil leaders of provoking the Sinhalese.

JRJ on the other hand, for all his lip service to non-violence used violence as a political weapon. As an admirer of Napoleon’s tactics he must have thought that controlled violence was a useful tool for governance. Having I 1977 won a five sixths majority fair and square, be sought to preserve it with unacceptable means. His ‘Major Domo’ was Cyril Mathew who was also the boss of the UNP trade unions.

Mathew proceeded to staff his numerous Boards with his violence prone unionists who in turn packed them with party working class stalwarts. The big state Corporations were seething with tension because of the opposition of leftist workers who had earlier ruled the roost. The Left also made a mistake which they later acknowledged, of forcing a showdown with JRJ early by calling a general strike, with a demand for all-round higher wages. With Thondaman on his side JRJ was spoiling for a fight. He wanted to teach the leftist workers a lesson they will not forget.

JRJ was supported to the hilt by Premadasa who wanted to stuff the Government offices with his own fanatical supporters from Colombo Central. The Marxist theory and practice of the general strike is clear. It should only be a struggle of the last resort because there is no possibility of further escalation. It is a question of win or die for a workers’ party. Indeed the call for a strike by the Left leaders was designed to play themselves back into the game after the disastrous results of the 1977 election where they could not win a single seat.

I was in my office on the day of the general strike. Mathew’s goons led by the UNPs trade Union the JSS launched a murderous attack on the strikers near the Lake House roundabout. They had come armed with clubs, knives and knuckle dusters. One worker was killed and the others ran helter skelter to escape the killers. Alavi Moulana and Sarath Muttetuwegama ran into my room in the ministry on Sir Baron Jayatilaka mawatha as they were being pursued by murderous thugs. I immediately shut the door and got my two friends to sit down and drink a cup of tea while their tormentors on the street rushed past us.

Alavi’s shirt was drenched in blood, and I got my driver Fonseka to bring him a new shirt. Then I smuggled Alavi and Sarath into my official car and had them driven safely home. The Lake House roundabout was like a war zone with placards, shoes, slippers and files strewn all over. I must say that both Alavi and Sarath did not forget this adventure and when much later in the Mahinda Cabinet there were disagreements with Mahinda, Alavi and Dinesh took my side and resolved controversial issues.

Cyril Mathew’s goons did not stop there. They launched an unprovoked attack on distinguished cultural personalities who were critical of the open economy. Popular culture, especially with the coming of TV, that was growing after 1977 was a threat to their sensibility as well as social position. They launched a well-supported opposition to the open economy and its cultural effects. Even their moderate and sensible arguments irritated JRJ and Mathew who knew only too well that the debacle of 1956 started similarly with cultural and religious opposition to the UNP.

There is no doubt that JRJ was behind these attacks. The meeting held at the Buddhist Congress Hall under the leadership of Maduluwawe Sobhita and Sarachchandra was attacked and the two leaders were hospitalized. What was more disconcerting was that ministers, save my minister Anandatissa, were gloating about the discomfiture of the cultural icons. Ananda and I went to see Sarcthchandra who was not seriously hurt. But this jubilation about use of violence which seemed a way of currying favour with JRJ had grave consequences, particularly on the ethnic issue.

There is no doubt that JRJ was behind these attacks. The meeting held at the Buddhist Congress Hall under the leadership of Maduluwawe Sobhita and Sarathchandra was attacked and the two leaders were hospitalized. What was more disconcerting was that ministers, save my minister Anandatissa, were gloating about the discomfiture of the cultural icons. Ananda and I went to see Sarathchandra who was not seriously hurt. But this jubilation about use of violence which seemed a way of currying favour with JRJ had grave consequences, particularly on the ethnic issue.

(To be continued)

All News Advertisement

Features

Trump’s Venezuela gamble: Why markets yawned while the world order trembled

Published

21 hours ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

The world’s most powerful military swoops into Venezuela, in the dead of night, captures a sitting President, and spirits him away to face drug trafficking charges in New York. The entire operation, complete with at least 40 casualties, was announced by President Trump as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘brilliant.’ You’d think global financial markets would panic. Oil prices would spike. Stock markets would crash. Instead, something strange happened: almost nothing.

Oil prices barely budged, rising less than 2% before settling back. Stock markets actually rallied. The US dollar remained steady. It was as if the world’s financial markets collectively shrugged at what might be the most brazen American military intervention since the 1989 invasion of Panama.

But beneath this calm surface, something far more significant is unfolding, a fundamental reshaping of global power dynamics that could define the next several decades. The story of Trump’s Venezuela intervention isn’t really about Venezuela at all. It’s about oil, money, China, and the slow-motion collapse of the international order we’ve lived under since World War II. (Figure 1)

The Oil Paradox

Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves, more than Saudi Arabia, more than Russia. We’re talking about 303 billion barrels. This should be one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. Instead, it’s an economic catastrophe. Venezuela’s oil production has collapsed from 3.5 million barrels per day in the late 1990s to less than one million today, barely 1% of global supply (Figure 1). Years of corruption, mismanagement, and US sanctions have turned treasure into rubble. The infrastructure is so degraded that even if you handed the country to ExxonMobil tomorrow, it would take a decade and hundreds of billions of dollars to fix.

This explains why oil markets barely reacted. Traders looked at Venezuela’s production numbers and basically said: “What’s there to disrupt?” Meanwhile, the world is drowning in oil. The global market has a surplus of nearly four million barrels per day. American production alone hit record levels above 13.8 million barrels daily. Venezuela’s contribution simply doesn’t move the needle anymore (Figure 1).

But here’s where it gets interesting. Trump isn’t just removing a dictator. He’s explicitly taking control of Venezuela’s oil. In his own words, the country will “turn over” 30 to 50 million barrels, with proceeds controlled by him personally “to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.” American oil companies, he promised, would “spend billions of dollars” to rebuild the infrastructure.

This isn’t subtle. One energy policy expert put it bluntly: “Trump’s focus on Venezuelan oil grants credence to those who argue that US foreign policy has always been about resource extraction.”

The Real Winners: Defence and Energy

While oil markets stayed calm, defence stocks went wild. BAE Systems jumped 4.4%, Germany’s Rheinmetall surged 6.1%. These companies see what others might miss, this isn’t a one-off. If Trump launches military operations to remove leaders he doesn’t like, there will be more.

Energy stocks told a similar story. Chevron, the only U.S. oil major currently authorised to operate in Venezuela, surged 10% in pre-market trading. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and oil services companies posted solid gains. Investors are betting on lucrative reconstruction contracts. Think Iraq after 2003, but potentially bigger.

The catch? History suggests they might be overly optimistic. Iraq’s oil sector was supposed to bounce right back after Saddam Hussein fell. Twenty years later, it still hasn’t reached its potential. Afghanistan received hundreds of billions in reconstruction spending, most of which disappeared. Venezuela shares the same warning signs: destroyed infrastructure, unclear property rights, volatile security, and deep social divisions.

China’s Venezuela Problem

Here’s where the story gets geopolitically explosive. China has loaned Venezuela over $60 billion, since 2007, making Venezuela China’s biggest debtor in Latin America. How was Venezuela supposed to pay this back? With oil. About 80% of Venezuelan oil exports were going to China, often at discounted rates, to service this debt.

Now Trump controls those oil flows. Venezuelan oil will now go “through legitimate and authorised channels consistent with US law.” Translation: China’s oil supply just got cut off, and good luck getting repaid on those $60 billion in loans.

This isn’t just about one country’s debt. It’s a demonstration of American power that China cannot match. Despite decades of economic investment and diplomatic support, China couldn’t prevent the United States from taking over. For other countries considering Chinese loans and partnerships, the lesson is clear: when push comes to shove, Beijing can’t protect you from Washington.

But there’s a darker flip side. Every time the United States weaponizes the dollar system, using control over oil sales, bank transactions, and trade flows as a weapon, it gives countries like China more reason to build alternatives. China has been developing its own international payment system for years. Each American strong-arm tactic makes that project look smarter to countries that fear they might be next.

The Rules Are for Little People

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this episode isn’t economic, it’s legal and political. The United States launched a military operation, captured a President, and announced it would “run” that country indefinitely. There was no United Nations authorisation. No congressional vote. No meaningful consultation with allies.

The UK’s Prime Minister emphasised “international law” while waiting for details. European leaders expressed discomfort. Latin American countries split along ideological lines, with Colombia’s President comparing Trump to Hitler. But nobody actually did anything. Russia and China condemned the action as illegal but couldn’t, or wouldn’t, help. The UN Security Council didn’t even meet, because everyone knows the US would just veto any resolution.

This is what scholars call the erosion of the “rules-based international order.” For decades after World War II, there was at least a pretense that international law mattered, that sovereignty meant something. Powerful nations bent those rules when convenient, but they tried to maintain appearances.

Trump isn’t even pretending. And that creates a problem: if the United States doesn’t follow international law, why should Russia in Ukraine? Why should China regarding Taiwan? Why should anyone?

What About the Venezuelan People?

Lost in all the analysis are the actual people of Venezuela. They’ve suffered immensely. Inflation is 682%, the highest in the world. Nearly eight million Venezuelans have fled. Those who remain often work multiple jobs just to survive, and their cupboards are still bare. The monthly minimum wage is literally 40 cents.

Many Venezuelans welcomed Maduro’s removal. He was a brutal dictator whose catastrophic policies destroyed the country. But they’re deeply uncertain about what comes next. As one Caracas resident put it: “What we don’t know is whether the change is for better or for worse. We’re in a state of uncertainty.”

Trump’s explicit focus on oil control, his decision to work with Maduro’s own Vice President, rather than democratic opposition leaders, and his promise that American companies will “spend billions”, all of this raises uncomfortable questions. Is this about helping Venezuelans, or helping American oil companies?

The Bigger Picture

Financial markets reacted calmly because the immediate economic impacts are limited. Venezuela’s oil production is already tiny. The country’s bonds were already in default. The direct market effects are manageable. But markets might miss the forest for the trees.

This intervention represents something bigger: a fundamental shift in how powerful nations behave. The post-Cold War era, with its optimistic talk of international cooperation and rules-based order, was definitively over. We’re entering a new age of imperial power politics.

In this new world, military force is back on the table. Economic leverage will be used more aggressively. Alliance relationships will become more transactional. Countries will increasingly have to choose sides between competing power blocs, because the middle ground is disappearing.

The United States might win in the short term, seizing control of Venezuela’s oil, demonstrating military reach, showing China the limits of its influence. But the long-term consequences remain uncertain. Every country watching is drawing conclusions about what it means for them. Some will decide they need to align more closely with Washington to stay safe. Others will conclude they need to build alternatives to American-dominated systems to stay independent.

History will judge whether Trump’s Venezuela gambit was brilliant strategy or reckless overreach. What we can say now is that the comfortable assumptions of the past three decades, that might not be right, that international law matters, that economic interdependence prevents conflict, no longer hold.

Financial markets may have yawned at Venezuela. But they might want to wake up. The world just changed, and the bill for that change hasn’t come due yet. When it does, it won’t be measured in oil barrels or bond prices. It will be measured in the kind of world we all have to live in, and whether it’s more stable and prosperous, or more dangerous and divided.

That’s a question worth losing sleep over.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

Features

Living among psychopaths

Published

21 hours ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

Bob (not his real name) who worked in a large business organisation was full of new ideas. He went out of his way to help his colleagues in difficulties. His work attracted the attention of his superiors and they gave him a free hand to do his work. After some time, Bob started harassing his female colleagues. He used to knock against them in order to kick up a row. Soon he became a nuisance to the entire staff. When the female colleagues made a complaint to the management a disciplinary inquiry was conducted. Bob put up a weak defence saying that he had no intention to cause any harm to the females on the staff. However, he was found guilty of harassing the female colleagues. Accordingly his services were terminated.

Those who conducted the disciplinary inquiry concluded that Bob was a psychopath. According to psychologists, a psychopath is a person who has a serious and permanent mental illness that makes him behave in a violent or criminal way. Psychologists believe that one per cent of the people are psychopaths who have no conscience. You may have come across such people in films and novels. The film The Silence of the Lambs portrayed a serial killer who enjoyed tormenting his innocent victims. Apart from such fictional characters, there are many psychopaths in big and small organisations and in society as well. In a reported case Dr Ahmad Suradji admitted to killing more than 40 innocent women and girls. There is something fascinating and also chilling about such people.

People without a conscience are not a new breed. Even ancient Greek philosophers spoke of ‘men without moral reason.’ Later medical professionals said people without conscience were suffering from moral insanity. However, all serial killers and rapists are not psychopaths. Sometimes a man would kill another person under grave and sudden provocation. If you see your wife sleeping with another man, you will kill one or both of them. A world-renowned psychopathy authority Dr Robert Hare says, “Psychopaths can be found everywhere in society.” He developed a method to define and diagnose psychopathy. Today it is used as the international gold standard for the assessment of psychopathy.

No conscience

According to modern research, even normal people are likely to commit murder or rape in certain circumstances. However, unlike normal people, psychopaths have no conscience when they commit serious crimes. In fact, they tend to enjoy such brutal activities. There is no general consensus whether there are degrees of psychopathy. According to Harvard University Professor Martha Stout, conscience is like a left arm, either you have one or you don’t. Anyway psychopathy may exist in degrees varying from very mild to severe. If you feel remorse after committing a crime, you are not a psychopath. Generally psychopaths are indifferent to, or even enjoy, the torment they cause to others.

In modern society it is very difficult to identify psychopaths because most of them are good workers. They also show signs of empathy and know how to win friends and influence people. The sheen may rub off at any given moment. They know how to get away with what they do. What they are really doing is sizing up their prey. Sometimes a person may become a psychopath when he does not get parental love. Those who live alone are also likely to end up as psychopaths.

Recent studies show that genetics matters in producing a psychopath. Adele Forth, a psychology professor at Carleton University in Canada, says callousness is at least partly inherited. Some psychopaths torture innocent people for the thrill of doing so. Even cruelty to animals is an act indulged in by psychopaths. You have to be aware of the fact that there are people without conscience in society. Sometimes, with patience, you might be able to change their behaviour. But on most occasions they tend to stay that way forever.

Charming people

We still do not know whether science has developed an antidote to psychopathy. Therefore remember that you might meet a psychopath at some point in your life. For now, beware of charming people who seem to be more interesting than others. Sometimes they look charismatic and sexy. Be wary of people who flatter you excessively. The more you get to know a psychopath, the more you will understand their motives. They are capable of telling you white lies about their age, education, profession or wealth. Psychopaths enjoy dramatic lying for its own sake. If your alarm bells ring, keep away from them.

According to the Psychiatric Diagnostic Manual, the behaviour of a psychopath is termed as antisocial personality disorder. Today it is also known as sociopath. No matter the name, its hallmarks are deceit and a reckless disregard for others. A psychopath’s consistent irresponsibility begets no remorse – only indifference to the emotional pain others may suffer. For a psychopath other people are always ‘things’ to be duped, used and discarded.

Psychopathy, the incapacity to feel empathy or compassion of any sort or the least twinge of conscience, is one of the more perplexing of emotional defects. The heart of the psychopath’s coldness seems to lie in their inability to make anything more than the shallowest of emotional connections.

Absence of empathy is found in husbands who beat up their wives or threaten them with violence. Such men are far more likely to be violent outside the marriage as well. They get into bar fights and battling with co-workers. The danger is that psychopaths lack concern about future punishment for what they do. As they themselves do not feel fear, they have no empathy or compassion for the fear and pain of their victims.

karunaratners@gmail.com

By R.S. Karunaratne

Features

Rebuilding the country requires consultation

Published

2 days ago

2026/01/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

A positive feature of the government that is emerging is its responsiveness to public opinion. The manner in which it has been responding to the furore over the Grade 6 English Reader, in which a weblink to a gay dating site was inserted, has been constructive. Government leaders have taken pains to explain the mishap and reassure everyone concerned that it was not meant to be there and would be removed. They have been meeting religious prelates, educationists and community leaders. In a context where public trust in institutions has been badly eroded over many years, such responsiveness matters. It signals that the government sees itself as accountable to society, including to parents, teachers, and those concerned about the values transmitted through the school system.

This incident also appears to have strengthened unity within the government. The attempt by some opposition politicians and gender misogynists to pin responsibility for this lapse on Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, has prompted other senior members of the government to come to her defence. This is contrary to speculation that the powerful JVP component of the government is unhappy with the prime minister. More importantly, it demonstrates an understanding within the government that individual ministers should not be scapegoated for systemic shortcomings. Effective governance depends on collective responsibility and solidarity within the leadership, especially during moments of public controversy.

The continuing important role of the prime minister in the government is evident in her meetings with international dignitaries and also in addressing the general public. Last week she chaired the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah. The composition of the task force once again reflects the responsiveness of the government to public opinion. Unlike previous mechanisms set up by governments, which were either all male or without ethnic minority representation, this one includes both, and also includes civil society representation. Decision-making bodies in which there is diversity are more likely to command public legitimacy.

Task Force

The Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka overlooks eight committees to manage different aspects of the recovery, each headed by a sector minister. These committees will focus on Needs Assessment, Restoration of Public Infrastructure, Housing, Local Economies and Livelihoods, Social Infrastructure, Finance and Funding, Data and Information Systems, and Public Communication. This structure appears comprehensive and well designed. However, experience from post-disaster reconstruction in countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami suggests that institutional design alone does not guarantee success. What matters equally is how far these committees engage with those on the ground and remain open to feedback that may complicate, slow down, or even challenge initial plans.

An option that the task force might wish to consider is to develop a linkage with civil society groups with expertise in the areas that the task force is expected to work. The CSO Collective for Emergency Relief has set up several committees that could be linked to the committees supervised by the task force. Such linkages would not weaken the government’s authority but strengthen it by grounding policy in lived realities. Recent findings emphasise the idea of “co-production”, where state and society jointly shape solutions in which sustainable outcomes often emerge when communities are treated not as passive beneficiaries but as partners in problem-solving.

Cyclone Ditwah destroyed more than physical infrastructure. It also destroyed communities. Some were swallowed by landslides and floods, while many others will need to be moved from their homes as they live in areas vulnerable to future disasters. The trauma of displacement is not merely material but social and psychological. Moving communities to new locations requires careful planning. It is not simply a matter of providing people with houses. They need to be relocated to locations and in a manner that permits communities to live together and to have livelihoods. This will require consultation with those who are displaced. Post-disaster evaluations have acknowledged that relocation schemes imposed without community consent often fail, leading to abandonment of new settlements or the emergence of new forms of marginalisation. Even today, abandoned tsunami housing is to be seen in various places that were affected by the 2004 tsunami.

Malaiyaha Tamils

The large-scale reconstruction that needs to take place in parts of the country most severely affected by Cyclone Ditwah also brings an opportunity to deal with the special problems of the Malaiyaha Tamil population. These are people of recent Indian origin who were unjustly treated at the time of Independence and denied rights of citizenship such as land ownership and the vote. This has been a festering problem and a blot on the conscience of the country. The need to resettle people living in those parts of the hill country which are vulnerable to landslides is an opportunity to do justice by the Malaiyaha Tamil community. Technocratic solutions such as high-rise apartments or English-style townhouses that have or are being contemplated may be cost-effective, but may also be culturally inappropriate and socially disruptive. The task is not simply to build houses but to rebuild communities.

The resettlement of people who have lost their homes and communities requires consultation with them. In the same manner, the education reform programme, of which the textbook controversy is only a small part, too needs to be discussed with concerned stakeholders including school teachers and university faculty. Opening up for discussion does not mean giving up one’s own position or values. Rather, it means recognising that better solutions emerge when different perspectives are heard and negotiated. Consultation takes time and can be frustrating, particularly in contexts of crisis where pressure for quick results is intense. However, solutions developed with stakeholder participation are more resilient and less costly in the long run.

Rebuilding after Cyclone Ditwah, addressing historical injustices faced by the Malaiyaha Tamil community, advancing education reform, changing the electoral system to hold provincial elections without further delay and other challenges facing the government, including national reconciliation, all require dialogue across differences and patience with disagreement. Opening up for discussion is not to give up on one’s own position or values, but to listen, to learn, and to arrive at solutions that have wider acceptance. Consultation needs to be treated as an investment in sustainability and legitimacy and not as an obstacle to rapid decisionmaking. Addressing the problems together, especially engagement with affected parties and those who work with them, offers the best chance of rebuilding not only physical infrastructure but also trust between the government and people in the year ahead.

by Jehan Perera