Features
Revisiting Newton Gunasinghe
By Uditha Devapriya
udakdev1@gmail.com
Newton Gunasinghe, easily one of the most brilliant minds of 20th century Sri Lanka, was the country’s first Marxist anthropologist. Gunasinghe’s contributions to the fields of social science and anthropology have not gone unacknowledged. Yet it took some time for his essays and scholarly works to be published: his doctoral thesis on Kandyan social relations came out in 1990, two years after his death, while a collection of his articles followed six years later. The Social Scientists’ Association, of which he had been a leading light and face, undertook the publication of both works. Together with Kumari Jayawardena and a handful of other scholars, he remains an authoritative name for social science students.
In his obituary for Gunasinghe, Jayadeva Uyangoda attempted to sum up his contributions to these fields. Uyangoda essentially argues that serious scholarship did not become a high point of local Marxist scholars until Gunasinghe’s time. Anthropology, considered for long a child of colonialism, had imbibed what he characterises as a “liberal” tradition.
In other words, the likes of Ralph Pieris and Gananath Obeyesekere could not be considered as part of a Marxist lineage. Accordingly, it was Gunasinghe who brought about a revolution, or shift, in the social sciences in Sri Lanka, overseeing a transformation that would define the course of the discipline throughout the years, and decades.
The length and breadth of Gunasinghe’s scholarship cannot be denied, or underrated. What he did was to bring about a synthesis of theory and research when studying the role of class and social relations in rural society. In his doctoral thesis, he attempted to chart no less than the evolution of those relations before, under, and after colonialism. This was perhaps the most groundbreaking piece of social science scholarship since Kumari Jayawardena’s studies of the labour movement. Not surprisingly, Gunasinghe shifted focus from urban elements to rural Sri Lanka, an area which, if we are to believe Uyangoda, had long remained the domain of “liberal” scholars, like Pieris, Obeyesekere, and Edmund Leach.
Obviously, one cannot assess such scholarly endeavours in isolation from the scholar’s own intellectual evolution. Before assessing and appraising that evolution, however, it would be apt to situate him within a specific historical context.
Gunasinghe’s development, as a leading anthropologist in the 1960s, mirrored a paradigm shift in the social sciences. Centring on and revolving around Peradeniya University, this shift followed a turnaround in historical scholarship from its empiricist roots in favour of more Marxist conception of the subject. Even though Marxist historiography never became a dominant strain at Peradeniya, or any other university in the country, it nevertheless spelt out important consequences for other disciplines, the social sciences in particular. That, in turn, mirrored a bigger shift in such domains across Western Europe.
Gunasinghe responded to these transformations as they unfolded. In the first phase of his career, he adopted a Marxist political-economic approach to the study of rural structures. Yet as much as the debates of the 1960s gave pride of place to Marxist scholarship, they also led to transformations, affecting the very basis of that scholarship. As Gunasinghe was to realise later on, he could not remain immune to them.
It was against that backdrop that he read and studied Gramsci and Althusser, from whom he came to appreciate the role of ideology in the formation of social structures. This would have a profound impact on him after he entered the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex, where he had moved to, after a stint at Manchester University. His conversion from political economy to Gramsci and Althusser mirrored this physical shift: from the hub of the industrial revolution, Manchester, which had provided Engels with material for his studies of the English working class, he had moved to development studies, far away from doctrinaire Marxism. That, at least, is what Uyangoda seems to imply in his tribute.
Uyangoda contends that three ideological strands influenced Gunasinghe, during the 1970s: Althusser’s notion of epistemological rupture and overdetermination, and Gramsci’s idea of hegemony. This was not unique to Gunasinghe, nor to Third World scholars: the 1970s, more or less, witnessed the globalisation of Gramscian and Althusserian theory. Indeed, one of the more seminal contributions to Gramscian theory came in the late 1970s, with Stuart Hall’s essays on Thatcherism. Though the likes of Hall and Perry Anderson were criticised and even ostracised for foregoing on classical Marxist theory and trying to apply a theory grounded in the historical experience of early 20th century Italy, the spread of Gramsci’s ideas could not be held back. Althusser’s run-ins with the French Communist Party, accordingly, symbolised a need to move away from the tenets of classical Marxism.
Gunasinghe’s shift from the Marxist political-economic approach he had opted for and the Gramscian-Althusserian approach he was now opting for worked out at the level of theory and practice. At the level of theory, he applied Althusser’s notion of overdetermination to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka: in effect, he contended, the class dimensions of the war had been or was being replaced by its ethnic character. What this necessitated, for him, was a strategy to prevent the conflict from losing its class character: for that, he argued in a piece in the May 1, 1984 edition of the Lanka Guardian, the Opposition had to combat all racialist-communalist elements within its ranks before fighting the government. Otherwise, the class struggle faced the dismal prospect of being subsumed by the ethnic conflict.
At the level of practice, Gunasinghe played a more prominent part in organisations and institutions set up to combat racialism and communalism, particularly the Movement for Inter-Racial Justice and Equality or MIRJE. His earlier preoccupations had been in working class and peasant movements. To note his shift is not to suggest that by moving from the one to the other, he forwent on his concerns for workers and peasants. But from the one to the other, there certainly came about an intellectual turnaround: from material issues, he was now involving himself heavily in identity politics and ethnic concerns. Fittingly enough, he wrote several essays on these matters to various newspapers and journals.
Yet it is a testament to Gunasinghe’s abiding concern for the country’s politics and people that even this phase did not last for long. Towards the end of his career and life, Uyangoda argues in his tribute, Gunasinghe seems to have been dissatisfied with the approach he had taken to, inter alia, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. In Uyangoda’s own words, “he came to the theoretical conclusion that it is the social structures that determine, in the final analysis, ideological formations and transformations.” Representing a turnaround from his earlier position, it epitomised his return to Marxist political economy. Uyangoda takes great pains to show that this was “not a mere moving back to the old master, Marx”, yet he argues that he considered whether ideology responds to “changes in the social structure”, which is an eminently classical Marxist approach in my book. In any case, Uyangoda himself admits that Gunasinghe “returned to Marx via Max Gluckman and Louis Dumont.”
To me, this is the most crucial volte-face that Gunasinghe underwent in his career. But it is that phase which writers do not touch upon in their appraisals of the man: perhaps because he did not really go through such a phase, given his passing away in 1988. Yet to me it shows clearly that he had grown a little disillusioned with his shifts to Gramsci and Althusser, and that he had perhaps come to realise that mere application of their theory would fail to draw up a comprehensive picture of the country’s political situation.
That is why I disagree with Uyangoda’s assertion or rather assumption that Marxist scholars from before his time did not engage properly with field research. True, our Marxist thinkers and theoreticians were attached to political organisations, and they were hardly mobilising rural and working class elements for Masters or PhD dissertations. Yet one has only to read the likes of Hector Abhayavardhana and P. Kandiah to realise that their contributions were insightful and nuanced. These doubtless provided Gunasinghe the theoretical grounding for his own work, a point Uyangoda does not, for some reason, explore or probe.
Indeed, the point can well be raised that for Marxist political activists, working and living among the peasantry and working class became their fieldwork. Their engagements with these social groups, during the Suriya Mal campaign, in the Sabaragamuwa Province, helped them understand agrarian issues from a grassroots and Marxist perspective. Their research and volunteer work, during the anti-Malaria campaigns of the 1930s, moreover, helped urban Marxist intellectuals grasp the dynamics of rural social stratifications, especially with regard to caste: hands-down the least understood social phenomenon in Sri Lanka.
For me, the insinuation that local Marxist scholars were not scholarly enough in their work underlies a condescending attitude to the pioneers of Marxist scholarship in the country. It implies that those pioneers were not rooted in the society they lived in, and that they rigidly applied classical Marxist theory to their surroundings. What is ironic about such arguments is that they are no different to the arguments Jathika Chintana ideologues propound with relentless passion: that Marxists in Sri Lanka worked within a Western framework.
For Sinhala nationalists, Marxism failed to bond with the cultural roots of their country; for ex-Marxist academics, Marxism needs to move away from its engagement with material issues. That Newton Gunasinghe’s career shows the pitfalls of going down the latter path is something social scientists may not admit to. For me, though, the evidence is clear: having retreated a little from issues of relative advantage, none less than Sri Lanka’s finest Marxist anthropologist returned to them in his last few years. It is my belief that if social science in Sri Lanka is to return to its roots, it should follow a similar trajectory. This is a never ending debate, but one that is yet to actually begin over here.
Features
Science and diplomacy in a changing world
Today marks a truly historic and momentous occasion in the realm of transdisciplinary diplomacy in our country. We gather here with a twofold purpose of profound national and global significance: the establishment of the Science Diplomacy Forum, and the launch of the volume Science Diplomacy: National, Regional and Global Approaches in a Changing World.
This volume brings together valuable and timely contributions from internationally renowned experts representing all key regions of the world — North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, West Asia, South Asia, and Oceania. It reflects a rich diversity of perspectives, experiences, and insights that speak to the increasingly interconnected nature of science, policy, and diplomacy in our rapidly transforming world.
I am deeply heartened — and indeed humbled — by the presence of such a distinguished constellation of leaders, professionals, intellectuals, scholars, and luminaries from diverse domains, including international relations, science and technology, higher education, and governance. It is rare to witness such an extraordinary and diverse assembly of intellectual, professional, and academic excellence under one roof. Your presence affirms the importance of the cause we serve and the promise of the path we are charting together. Your support, encouragement, and engagement give life, purpose, and direction to this vital endeavour.
As Chief Editor of this volume, it is both a great honour and a profound responsibility to extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to all our distinguished guests and invitees. I am conscious that this august gathering is not assembled to listen to a lengthy welcome address, but rather to engage with the substantive proceedings of this event, enriched by five eminent personalities, four distinguished speakers, and an able and competent moderator — all of whom possess exceptional mastery of the subject. I shall therefore be brief.
Among us today are former and current Ministers and people’s representatives, members of the diplomatic corps, Secretaries to Ministries, distinguished panelists, valued contributors to the volume, Vice-Chancellors, Members of the Board of Management and Academic Affairs Board of the BCIS, Heads of institutions, professors, senior government officials, professionals, journalists, and many others — too numerous to acknowledge individually, yet each of you is most warmly welcomed. I receive you all, whether present in person or online, with the utmost warmth, respect, and appreciation.
The panel discussion constitutes the pièce de résistance of this event. We are deeply honoured to be joined by four eminent personalities:
Her Excellency Siri Walt, Ambassador of Switzerland to Sri Lanka;
Professor Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, former Chair of the EU Science Diplomacy Alliance; and former Ambassadors Mr. Bernard Goonatilleke and Dr. Palitha Kohona — all of whom bring exceptional depth of experience and insight to this important subject.
Their discussion will be guided by our distinguished moderator, Mr. Naushard Cader, a truly cosmopolitan personality, widely respected for his breadth of knowledge and his keen understanding of global affairs and science diplomacy. I extend to all our speakers and our moderator a very warm welcome and my sincere appreciation for their willingness to share their wisdom with us this evening.
Allow me, however, to place this event in perspective.
We gather this evening not merely to introduce a book, nor solely to inaugurate a forum, but to reflect together on an idea whose time has unquestionably arrived.
We meet at a moment of profound global transition and conflict. The international landscape is marked by turbulence, uncertainty, and rapid transformation. The world is shifting from a relatively stable post–Cold War configuration toward an increasingly multipolar order. While multipolarity carries the promise of greater balance and strategic autonomy, it also brings intensified competition among major powers, fluid alliances, and growing unpredictability.
At the same time, the rules-based international order — which for decades provided smaller nations with a measure of predictability and protection — is under visible strain and threat. Institutions are contested. Norms are challenged. Economic interdependence deepens even as geopolitical fragmentation intensifies. Supply and value chains now account for nearly seventy percent of global trade, binding nations in complex webs of mutual dependence. Yet such interdependence has not prevented trade wars, sanctions regimes, technological decoupling, and regional conflicts.
For small and economically vulnerable states, this evolving environment is especially daunting. When global rules weaken, asymmetries of power become more pronounced. Bilateral negotiations between unequal partners can leave smaller nations disadvantaged. Without adequate legal, geological, scientific, technological, and diplomatic expertise, such states may struggle to safeguard their long-term national interests and sovereignty. Vulnerability, in the absence of knowledge and capacity, risks translating into marginalisation.
Overlaying this geopolitical transformation is a constellation of interconnected global challenges. Climate change is no longer a distant projection; it is a lived reality. Sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events are intensifying. Food, water, and energy security remain fragile. Pandemics have exposed vulnerabilities in global health systems. Cyber threats transcend borders. Environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and marine pollution threaten livelihoods and ecosystems alike.
These challenges are systemic and transboundary. Almost every major issue — whether global, regional, or national in scale — involves science and technology, either in understanding root causes or in devising effective solutions.
Traditional diplomacy, while indispensable, is no longer sufficient on its own. The defining issues of our time are not purely political or military; they are scientific, technological, environmental, and societal. They demand evidence-based policymaking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and sustained transnational cooperation.
It is within this context that science diplomacy emerges — not as an academic abstraction, but as a strategic necessity.
Nowhere are these realities more visible than in the Indian Ocean.
Unlike the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, which possess longstanding institutional architectures and extensive scientific mapping, the Indian Ocean remains comparatively underexplored and under-institutionalised. Covering roughly one-fifth of the world’s oceanic expanse, it carries a substantial share of global energy shipments and maritime trade. Its seabed resources — including critical and rare-earth minerals — remain only partially surveyed. Many of its coastal and island nations are developing economies with limited scientific and technological capacity to explore, monitor, and sustainably manage these resources.
The Indian Ocean is unique. It is bordered predominantly by developing and emerging states. It hosts remarkable cultural, religious, and political diversity. It is home to some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable communities. Increasingly, it has become a central theatre of global strategic competition, viewed by some nations through distinct geostrategic lenses.
This maritime space is simultaneously a lifeline and a fault line. It sustains global commerce and local livelihoods. Yet it is also a theatre where geopolitical interests intersect — sometimes converge, sometimes collide.
At the heart of this ocean lies Sri Lanka.
Geographically, our island sits astride one of the busiest East–West shipping routes in the world. Historically, Sri Lanka has been a hub of commercial, cultural, and intellectual exchange. Today, that strategic location presents both opportunity and responsibility.
Sri Lanka’s history, enriched by iconic figures such as Dr. Gamini Corea, Hon.
Lakshman Kadirgamar, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Dr. Neville Kanakaratne and Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala, stands as a powerful testament to our long-standing contributions to global diplomacy and international governance. Our nation provided leadership within the Non-Aligned Movement, positioning itself as a bridge between civilizations at a time of deep ideological division. We also made history by producing the world’s first woman Prime Minister, affirming our commitment to political progress and inclusive governance.
Today, we are called upon once again to build upon this distinguished legacy — by championing regional unity, promoting sustainable development, and addressing critical contemporary challenges such as climate change, maritime security, and environmental sustainability.
We must navigate complex geopolitical currents while safeguarding sovereignty and strengthening economic resilience. We face vulnerabilities common to island and littoral states: climate change, coastal erosion, marine pollution, and supply chain disruptions. Our development aspirations must be balanced with environmental stewardship and maritime security considerations.
Yet within these challenges lies profound opportunity.
Sri Lanka can position itself as a regional convener — a hub for ocean science, climate research, marine biodiversity studies, disaster risk reduction, and blue economy innovation. Through platforms such as BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, and SAARC, we can advance cooperative marine research, harmonise environmental standards, strengthen early warning systems, and promote sustainable maritime governance grounded in international law.
But to do so effectively, we must invest in knowledge — and in the diplomacy of knowledge.
Science diplomacy operates along three mutually reinforcing dimensions:
First, science in diplomacy — where scientific evidence informs foreign policy decisions.
Second, diplomacy for science — where diplomatic engagement enables international research collaboration and shared infrastructure.
Third, science for diplomacy — where scientific cooperation itself becomes a bridge for confidence-building, even when political relations are strained.
Importantly, science diplomacy extends beyond the natural sciences. The humanities and social sciences are equally vital. Technology must be guided by ethics. Data must be interpreted within cultural contexts. Policy must consider equity and justice. Diplomats of the future must be fluent not only in international law and negotiation, but also in scientific literacy and interdisciplinary thinking.
In a fragmented world, science offers a neutral vocabulary. It encourages transparency, peer review, and open data. It shifts discourse from rhetoric to evidence. It fosters long-term thinking in political environments often dominated by short-term calculations.
For small and vulnerable nations, science diplomacy is empowerment. It strengthens capacity. It enhances credibility. It enables engagement with larger powers on firmer ground — armed not merely with moral argument, but with data, research, and technical expertise.
The book we launch today reflects a diversity of experience and insight. It is intentionally transdisciplinary because the problems we face are transdisciplinary. It is intentionally global because no region can address these challenges in isolation.
In Sri Lanka, science diplomacy remains at a formative stage. The establishment of the Science Diplomacy Forum signals our determination to move beyond dialogue toward sustained institutional engagement. It envisions training programmes for diplomats and scientists, embedding scientific advisory mechanisms within governance structures, and building networks among universities, research institutes, industry, and policymakers. It seeks to cultivate a new generation equipped to navigate the interface between knowledge and negotiation.
We aspire for the Science Diplomacy Forum to be transformative — a true game changer.
Excellences, Ladies and Gentlemen,
We live in an era of mounting uncertainty — but also of extraordinary human ingenuity. The same interconnectedness that transmits crises also enables collaboration. The same technologies that disrupt can also heal and transform.
Change is inevitable. The deeper question is whether we will shape that change cooperatively, constructively, and inclusively.
For Sri Lanka, for the Indian Ocean region, and for the broader global community, science diplomacy offers a pathway beyond zero-sum thinking. It channels competition into collaboration around shared public goods. It aligns national interest with regional stability. It transforms vulnerability into resilience through knowledge.
Let this book be not merely a publication, but a platform for sustained reflection and action.
Let the Science Diplomacy Forum be not merely an institution, but a living bridge between evidence and policy, between research and responsibility, between nations and neighbours.
Let Sri Lanka reaffirm its role as a bridge — not a battleground — in the Indian Ocean.
In a world where rules may falter, let evidence guide us.
In a world where tensions may rise, let dialogue endure.
In a world of turbulence, let science diplomacy be our compass — guiding us toward peace, stability, dignity, and shared prosperity.
Welcome Address and Opening Remarks made by Emeritus Prof. Ranjith Senaratne
Former General President,
Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science recently on the occasion of the Founding of the Science Diplomacy Forum and the Launch of the Book Science Diplomacy:
National, Regional and Global Approaches in a Changing World
Features
Be a woman who re-designs life!
From one day of celebration to 364 days of transformation
The international women’s day was just celebrated all over the world. I saw many organiations share their slogans, and organize panel discussions, presentations, and exhibitions to support women empowerment. Slogans, themes, colors play vivid and vociferous role across the world, commemorating the international women’s day.
Alas, the colors are faded, slogans are weaned, themes are forgotten, over the next 364 days, pushing UN Chapter on Women’s Rights come up with more illustrious themes and slogans.
From Bread and Peace to Rights and Action
According to the recorded history, the Women’s day first introduced on 28th February 1909 in America, raising a voice of women against poor working conditions and poor pay in garment factories. This took a more revolutionary form in 1917 in Russia against World War I, where a mass of women protested under the theme of “Bread and Peace”.
Starting from basic needs such as bread and peace, the International Women’s Day theme has evolved towards freedom and independence, justice and inclusion.
Over the years, the rise of feminism brought cultural refinements and highlighted women’s rights. Looking back the historical evolution of women’s role, we see that matrimony has faded and patriarchy evolved with religious and geopolitical forces intertwined with the social expectation. The importance and respect for women, given in the ancient civilisations, diminished with medieval civilization, and subsequent colonisation. The rise of patriarchy domesticated women as homemakers, at the same time prompting their voices to rise for dignity and equitable treatment.
Rise of Feminism
In a typical Western-household of 20th century, husband was the bread winner of the family and the wife managed household affairs. In this era, women’s affairs were restricted to daily chores, creating a boundary wall restricting their access to corporate jobs, free voices. Betty Friedman was a remarkable lady who observed the domestic suffering of women and challenged ‘feminine mystique’ through her 1963 book. She disclosed the feminine mystique, which celebrated women as good housewives, and the belief that women could find satisfaction from domestic chores, home making, marriage, raising children, cooking, washing and taking care of husband’s needs. Betty disclosed that the unhappiness and boredom experienced by the domesticized women, and their inability to live up to the feminist mystique defined by the male dominant society had no name and difficult to express in words. Betty’s claim was supported by the theories of Abraham Maslow, who introduced motivation to grow along the hierarchy of needs. Betty, declared that feminine mystique denies basic growth needs of women, where their desires limited to shelter, food, safety and love only.
In this era women’s jobs were confined preeminently to teaching, and caregiving. STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and medicine were dominated by males, leaving less space for women. As you may have heard in the medieval era women who practiced medicine were branded as ‘witches’ and many were burned alive rooting out the knowledge and courage of women. Women who practiced and taught science and astronomy, were also branded for witch craft and condemned to death. The social pressure suppressed women confining them to domestic chores. In the industrial era women were hired for factory work under low wages and less facilities. In this period Women’s organisations were gathered demanding freedom and justice for women, calling for equal opportunities and rights enjoy their male counterparts. The evolution of women’s movements culminated in 1975, where the first International Women’s Day was commemorated on 8th March 1975.
Celebration and Contradiction
Since 1975, women were celebrated for a day in every year across the globe, with various themes and color codes to showcase the world that all women have rights and demanding fair treatment. The theme colors of International Women’s day are Purple, Green and White.
Purple stands for justice, dignity, and loyalty to the cause.
Green for hope and growth.
White for purity and unity.
In 1996, the International Women’s Day declared a theme to embrace, which is; “Celebrating the Past, Planning for the Future.” In the year 2023, the theme was ‘Embrace Equity’, which evolved to ‘Inspire inclusion’ in 2024, and the year 2025 theme was ‘Accelerate Action’. In 2026, there are three themes; 1. Give to Gain, 2. Balance the Scales, 3. Rights. Justice. Action.
Fragmented Focus Diminishes Values
Multiple themes and competing messages can unintentionally dilute momentum. Unity is not uniformity, but coherence matters; shared direction makes shared progress possible. Emerging three themes to celebrate international women’s day in 2026, implicate lack of solidarity, and unity among women’s organizations to share a common theme. Inclusion, equity and accelerated action have not yet achieved by the women globally, neither locally, nor in small communities. We are bound to question whether the women stay true to the meanings of theme colors that represent womanhood.
Thus, isn’t it vital to explore what goes wrong with our themes and slogans on this Women’s day, before setting foot without solid foundation for what we claim for? Or is it only a day that dawn women’s organisations to gather women in elite society, or identified group of women to enjoy a cup of tea over futuristic speeches of identical society, which treat women with high respect and equity?
One thing we must understand is the world is evolving, so does the roles, rights, and actions of women. Although, women shouted and pleaded for opportunities to enter male dominate world of work, today in many countries including Sri Lanka, women occupies majority of administrative positions and clerical level jobs. Even, the labour positions, dominated by males, are now occupied by the females in many sectors. However, women still bear the traditional homemaker role as well, while juggling with work, and studies to sustain jobs and promotions. This modern day scenario has made women more prone to chronic stress related deceases. The break of rest, too rigid demands coming from work and family, their own desires to move up the corporate ladder, outsmart neighbourers, and craving to make their children better than the others have made women’s lives miserable and breaching the themes and slogans that cater to the women’s prosperity.
Today’s environment has resulted many women to abandon dignity, purity, and hope, overlook unity and justice. If you see social media contents shared by women, you may not be surprised by my statements. The dignity, purity and hope for betterment of women is vanishing on screen. Young girls’ addiction to drugs, liquor and tobacco, sexual misbehaviour, and rising school-aged pregnancies are critical concerns that women’s movements must pay attention today.
What We Must Demand Now: Right Education and Just Acts
Women’s day slogans need a shift. Rather than demanding equal rights as men, we must demand right education for women and girls. We shall not stop at demanding justice as given to the men, but shout and make women and girls aware of ‘Just Acts’, and encourage them to act justly, for themselves, without exposing them to be victims of social media, and ill temptations.
Digital lives of women and girls can amplify comparison, quick outrage, and performative ideals. For girls and women, this can mean unrealistic bodies, curated success, and unsafe online spaces. What we need isn’t more judgment; it’s digital literacy, psychological safety, reproductive health awareness, and robust support systems, so women can flourish on and off‑line. We must educate women and nourish and foster the moral values among women and girls to stay pure in thoughts and actions, we must empower women and girls to keep hope and grow continuously. We must share a culture of inclusion among women to enhance solidarity and stay true to unified action for the betterment of women, and the society.
Women as Creators and Modifiers of the World
The history of International Women’s Day is a call for rights and justice. Today, the next horizon is to build cultures at home, at work, and society. Women are the creators and modifiers of the world. They are to add color to lives of those around them. In fact, WOMEN, do not need to call for justice, rights and action. WOMEN, need to call the hidden power, strength and courage within them and create a world that assures every being in it receives justice, and enjoys rights.
Thus, whether themes multiply or fade, the test is not in the rally or the ribbon, it is in the 364 days after. The colours may be vivid on stage, yet the colors are faded in practice if we do not live them. Let us re‑design life with dignity, unity, courage, and continuous growth. Let us educate, include, and act justly. Let us awaken strength within, so that every woman, every girl, and every community can thrive by being a Woman Who Re‑designs Life!
(The author is a senior education administrator, researcher,
management consultant and a lecturer.)
By Dr. Chani Imbulgoda
cv5imbulgoda@gmail.com)
Features
Illegal solar push ravages Hambantota elephant habitat: Environmentalist warns of deepening crisis
A large-scale move to establish solar power plants in Hambantota has triggered a major environmental and social crisis, with more than 1,000 acres of forest—identified as critical elephant habitat—cleared in violation of the law, environmental activist Sajeewa Chamikara said.
Chamikara, speaking on behalf of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform, said that 17 companies have already begun clearing forest land along the boundaries of the Hambantota Elephant Management Reserve. The affected areas include Sanakku Gala, Orukemgala and Kapapu Wewa, which are known to be key elephant habitats and long-used movement corridors.
He said that what is taking place cannot be described as development, but rather as a large-scale destruction of natural ecosystems carried out under the cover of renewable energy expansion.
According to Chamikara, the clearing of forests has been carried out using heavy machinery, while large sections have also been deliberately set on fire to prepare the land for solar installations. He said that electric fences have been erected across wide stretches of land, effectively blocking elephant movement and fragmenting their natural habitat.

“These forests are not empty lands. They are part of a living system that supports wildlife and nearby communities. Once destroyed, they cannot be easily restored,” he said.
The projects in question include a 50 megawatt solar development undertaken by five companies and a larger 150 megawatt project implemented by 12 companies. The larger project is reported to be valued at around 150 million US dollars.
Chamikara stressed that these projects are being carried out in a coordinated manner and involve extensive land clearing on a scale that raises serious environmental concerns.
He further alleged that certain companies had paid about Rs. 14 million to secure support and move ahead with the projects. He said this points to a troubling failure of oversight by state institutions that are expected to protect forests and wildlife habitats.
“This is not only an environmental issue. It is also a serious governance issue. The institutions responsible for protecting these lands have failed in their duty,” he said.
Chamikara pointed out that under the National Environmental Act, any project of this scale must receive prior approval through a proper Environmental Impact Assessment process.
He said that clearing forest land before obtaining such approval is a direct violation of the law.
He added that legal requirements relating to archaeological assessments had also been ignored. Under existing regulations, large-scale land clearing requires prior evaluation to ensure that sites of historical or cultural value are not damaged.

“The law is very clear. You cannot go ahead with projects of this nature without proper approval. What we are seeing is a complete disregard for legal procedure,” Chamikara said.
The environmental impact of these activities is already becoming visible. With their natural habitats destroyed, elephants are increasingly moving into nearby villages in search of food and shelter. This has led to a sharp rise in human-elephant conflict in several areas.
Areas such as Mayurapura, Gonnooruwa, Meegahajandura and Thanamalvila have reported increasing encounters between humans and elephants. According to Chamikara, more than 5,000 farming families in these areas are now facing growing threats to their safety and livelihoods.
He warned that farmers are being forced to abandon their lands due to repeated elephant intrusions, while incidents involving damage to crops and property are rising. There have also been increasing reports of injuries and deaths among both humans and elephants.
“This is turning into a serious social and economic problem. When farmers cannot cultivate their lands, it affects food production, income and rural stability,” he said.
Chamikara also raised concerns about the broader environmental consequences of clearing forests for solar power projects. While renewable energy is promoted as a solution to reduce carbon emissions, he said that destroying forests undermines that goal.
“Forests play a key role in absorbing carbon dioxide. When you clear and burn them, you are increasing emissions, not reducing them. That defeats the purpose of promoting solar energy,” he explained.
He added that large-scale deforestation in dry zone areas such as Hambantota could also affect local weather patterns and reduce rainfall, which would have further negative impacts on agriculture and water resources.

Chamikara called for a shift in policy, urging authorities to focus on more sustainable approaches to solar power development. He said that rooftop solar systems on homes, public buildings and commercial establishments should be given priority, as they do not require clearing large areas of land.
He also recommended that solar projects be located on degraded or abandoned lands, such as areas affected by past mining or other low-value lands, rather than forests or productive agricultural areas.
“Renewable energy development must be done in a way that does not destroy the environment. There are better options available if there is proper planning,” he said.
Chamikara urged the Central Environmental Authority and the Department of Wildlife Conservation to take immediate action to stop ongoing land clearing and investigate the projects. He stressed that all activities carried out without proper approval should be halted until legal requirements are met.
He warned that failure to act now would lead to long-term environmental damage that could not be reversed.
“If this continues, we will lose not only forests and wildlife, but also the balance between people and nature that supports rural life. The consequences will be felt for generations,” he said.
The situation in Hambantota is fast emerging as a critical test of whether development goals can be balanced with environmental protection. As pressure grows, the response of authorities in the coming weeks is likely to determine whether the damage can still be contained or whether it will continue to spread unchecked.

By Ifham Nizam
-
Business5 days agoBrowns EV launches fast-charging BAW E7 Pro at Rs. 5.8 million
-
Life style5 days agoFrom culture to empowerment: Indonesia’s vision for Sri Lanka
-
News2 days agoCIABOC questions Ex-President GR on house for CJ’s maid
-
Business7 days agoSri Lanka Institute of Information Technology raises the bar for academic excellence
-
Life style5 days agoRanjith Fernando celebrates cricketing journey with Hob Nails to Spikes
-
Latest News5 days agoQR code system will be implemented for fuel with effect from 06.00 a.m. today (15th)
-
News3 days agoSri Lankan marine scientist Asha de Vos honoured at UNGA opening
-
Features4 days agoAchievements of the Hunduwa!
