Features

SLFP – What fate awaits it

Published

5 years ago

2021/09/15

By Gunadasa Amarasekera

The reason for the SLFP leaders to celebrate its 70th birth Anniversary, I believe was promoted by a desire to make a comeback out of the depths to which it has sunk in recent times. Despite the desire to come back, has it the vitality, the elan left to do so? This is a question to be asked not only by the SLFPers themselves, but by the vast majority that happens to be the children of ’56 and also by all those who are interested in the well- being of the country-the nation. To answer this question, one needs at least a brief analysis of its genesis, its history and its past performance.

The biggest misfortune the SLFP has faced and is facing even today is its inability to identify itself, understand why it came into being. Except for a discerning few, most of the present generation including our so- called intellectuals and even those who have undertaken to lead the Party, lack this understanding.

For many, even today, it is a quirk of fate; for some elitist groups it’s the result of a demagogy spawned by a disgruntled few. Very few have addressed their minds to find an answer. GC Mendis was one among the few who sought to delve deep to seek an answer. He saw it as a lapse on the part of the main civilised political stream which allowed the barbaric tide languishing at the periphery to overtake it!

However, the die- hard SLFPers see it as nothing but the creation of its great leader-SWRD Bandaranaike – Bandaranaike with his slogan of ‘Sinhala in 24 hours’ was able to sway the masses, achieve victory and create history. Little do they realise that it is not the leaders that create history; instead it is history that creates leaders. Bandaranaike did not create a new party as such; he only delivered what was created by history, and played the role of the midwife or the obstetrician. This historical perspective has eluded those devotees of Bandaranaike.

The SLFP is a party that is different from all other parties that have emerged after Independence. The UNP was founded on the liberal ideology of the West, the Socialist parties were founded on Marxism, which once again was a product of the West. The SLFP, on the contrary, has its origins in the soil; it is rooted in the Sinhala Buddhist civilisation, which has nourished this nation over the centuries. This can be ascertained from the historical background that gave birth to this party.

After the Uva-Wellassa rebellion, the national liberation movement gave up the armed struggle and opted for a non-violent path. By then the renaissance movement initiated by Asarana Sarana Saranankara, during the Dutch period, had permeated to the rest of the country, especially to Ruhuna. It produced the intelligentsia, the educated Sangha community who were to spearhead the movement. Two great seats of learning – Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara were established by the pupils of Sarankara.it was this background that made Anagarika Dharmapala emerge by the end of the 19th century. It was he who took the message to the masses with a number of cultural movements. In his travels across the country, he realised that those villagers, the peasants, though living in poverty, had retained a civilisational consciousness inherited from a past; he also realised that this civilisational consciousness which lay dormant could be awakened in his fight against imperialist forces. By the beginning of the twentieth century the British ruler realised the threat imposed by Anagarika. The IGP said there was a likelihood of Anagarika surrounding Colombo one morning with ‘his barbaric hordes’. The rulers with the help of the comprador class and the deracinated members of the National Congress groomed by them were determined to take Anagarika off the stage, silence him and destroy his movement. They succeeded in doing so, but failed to destroy the seeds sown by him in the minds of the vast masses. Those seeds took root and flourished unnoticed with the passage of time, the nourishment needed was produced by the indigenous intelligentsia, the writers, novelists and poets of the time – sanga-veda-guru – the forces of ’56, came out of that milieu.

Except the young Bandaranaike, who had returned from UK, no other leader was aware of the silent revolution initiated by Anagarika. It was that awareness that made Bandaranaike establish the Sinhala Maha Sabha in 1934.The Sinhala Maha Sabha produced the blue print needed for the formation of the SLFP in 1951. The Sinhala Maha Sabha has suffered great injustice being labelled a chauvinistic Sinhala caucus. The truth is far from it. The SMS envisaged a political organisation that would not only look after the economic needs but also the cultural aspirations of the people who had suffered at the hands of the colonials. It addressed its mind to the unity of different communities and as a prerequisite to that unity it emphasised the need to unite the Sinhalese who were divided by political affiliations, by religion, caste and creed. It maintained that; it is only then, that other groups could be brought in as stake holders, participating in a common civilisation. This is possible when there is a non- antagonistic symbiotic relationship between these cultures and civilisations. (I think this a point that Huntington missed when he considered /assumed culture and civilization as one and the same.) This, I believe was the state of affairs in this country prior to the advent of the foreigner. This is so, even today at the village peasantry level, and this is what prompted President DB Wijetunge, a great villager himself, to make that most misunderstood statement -comparing the Sinhala nation to a tree around which the other ethnic groups should wind themselves for their survival. I believe this vision of the Sinhala Maha Sabha is more relevant today when the so -called reconciliation at the expense of the major community has failed miserably. It was a mistake on the part of Bandaranaike to have dissolved the Sinhala Maha Sabha when he joined the UNP; ironically what made Bandaranaike form the SLFP was the rejection of the proposals of the Sinhala Maha Sabha at the Madampe sessions by the UNP.

The great victory achieved by the SLFP in ’56 was not one that was anticipated by many. I don’t think that even Bandaranaike anticipated it; his close friend and founder member of the Party, Bernard Aluwihare left the party on the eve of the elections saying that he was not prepared to carry the coffin. There is a story I have heard from a reliable source that is symbolic of the situation and the quandary faced by the great leader and the nation. Bandaranaike, after a hectic election campaign had retired early to bed, the night, the election results were to be announced. He had told the family members, not to put him up; the family members though overjoyed by the results, had remained silent till the following morning. When they heard his footsteps coming down the stairs they rushed to announce the victory- Bandaranaike had stopped coming down and sat on the steps, silent, wrapped in deep thought for a long period.

I think this premature victory had its ill-effects on the party; it had the vision, but lacked the political structures, institutions, and the economic policies that were needed to translate the vision into praxis. Though it spoke of a nebulous middle path, a socialism of its own, there were no concrete plans to achieve those ends. I believe Bandaranaike had the vision, the intellect, to translate that vision. His death––a result of a conspiracy still unraveled––denied him that opportunity.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike was able to implement some of the policies that were envisaged by her husband. But she had no holistic agenda. The Marxists who were with her, were partly responsible for it; they were interested not in a nationalist plan but a Marxist agenda. Some of the results were horrendous, such as taking away the lands of the locals; indiscriminate nationalisation followed by corruption, discouraging local entrepreneurship, austere measures –hal polu. miris polu and bread queues that made life impossible for the middle class, and the poor.

The situation was seized by the old fox JR to present the coalition as an adharmista evil force. What was ironical is that he was able to use the same lingo, the same terms dharmista which formed the core moral and ethical values of the SLFP. But this debacle suffered by the SLFP was temporary, it was no threat to its survival.

However, it was Chandrika Kumaratunga who assumed the leadership of the Party who was capable of thwarting) its survival.

It was Chandrika Kumaratunga who was able to destroy for the first time, the Sinhala Buddhist cultural foundation on which the SLFP was built. It was no longer the Party of the Sinhala majority-the backbone of the SLFP. It was turned into a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multireligious, multi-cultural party. Having transformed it, she was prepared to hand over North and East to Mr Prabhakaran for 10 years; invited the Norwegians to divide the country in the name of reconciliation, and was ready to execute the P-Toms together with Prabhakaran. She confessed later that the decision she made to dissolve Parliament was a mistake, which action was what allowed the war to be continued.

In all these, Chandrika Kumaratunga was ably supported by Mangala Samaraweera, with his thavalam and sudu nelum campaigns. I do not wish to believe that she extended her blessings to Samaraweera to co-sponsor the traitorous resolution by the US against our country.

The greatest harm inflicted on the SLFP was the derailing and destroying the economic policies followed by it from its inception. Though they may have not been clearly defined, they were always anti-imperialist, pro nationalist and pro socialist. Sirimavo Bandaranaike was always guided by her civilisational consciousness, she never allowed imperialist powers to exploit this country, she was fearless and bold enough to nationalise the American oil companies in spite of the threats of that super power. Her government cleared all the debts we had accumulated, JR Jayewardene reversed all this with his open economy -a euphuism for neo colonialism.

Chandrika never tried to get back to the economic policies of the SLFP, she was happy with the neo liberal policies of JRJ. Under the pretext of giving a human face, she embraced them gladly. However, what is most disappointing and damaging was that Mahinda Rajapakse who followed her als o continued with the same policies when he had the opportunity to change them.

The result of these contradictory, harmful trends, was the loss of vision, direction and loss of ideology, resulting ultimately in the loss of confidence of the people. The SLFP became a headless body-a kawandaya. No attempt was made to recover the lost head; what was attempted was to graft the heads of liberal donkeys and heads of Marxist horses, adding insult to injury. ( In my address at the Bandaranaike Commemoration I pointed this out.)

It was left to President Sirisena to complete the task and finish off the Party. He did so by doing the very opposite of what the founder of the Party did 70 years ago, by making the SLFP an appendage of the UNP, and taking it back to the folds of the UNP. The last supper (of hoppers) at the Temple Trees was followed by the crucification of the kawandaya.

This was the fate of the SLFP; the fate that awaits it today, cannot be much different.

What is really worrying is not so much the demise of the kawandaya, but its repercussions. Ranil Wickremasinghe may have thought that it was a superb strategy on his part to embrace Sirisena. He would have thought embracing Sirisena means destroying his opponent the SLFP for good. Little did he realize that it was the embrace of death, that it would kill his party as well as himself. He had ultimately secured a dishonorable grave for his grand old party after 75 years. In spite of all these repercussions, one would say that not everything is lost. The two main parties in their death throes have thrown up two saplings; the Pohottuwa and the Telephone which would carry on their mission. It would be extremely naive to believe in such a fantasy. The Pohottuwa will wither away before it blossoms, and the telephone will be dead before it answers the call.

Ultimately, we are left with a political dessert, a wasteland with no hope and nothing in sight as visualised by the poet – “What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow out of this this stony rubbish,”. All signs are there, that we are fast approaching that stage. (On the other hand the poet may be wrong where this resplendent isle of ours is concerned… that stony rubbish can produce heroes out of clowns and comedians as well as politicians to lead us.)

However, let me not end what I have to say only with this dismal picture to the children of ‘56, who had pinned their faith on this party and now feel betrayed and let down. There is no need to lose faith. The SLFP as a party may be dead, but not the ideology that gave it birth, it’s alive. It’s that ideology that made 6,900,000 of you to vote Gotabaya to power. That ideology founded on our centuries old civilisation as old as the Chinese civilisation will die only with the death of our civilisation. That it has not suffered such an untimely death is proved beyond all doubt by the victory of Gotabaya.

In 1959, three years after ’56, I wrote an article to that prestigious- now obsolete -journal Sanskrithi; I made the observation — that you the children of ’56 are the ones who would come to power and redeem this country. As you know that has not come to pass, it has remained a dream. The blame lies with you. You, living through dark times, especially after ’77, did not realise that what is needed is an enlightened dialogue, an intellectual engagement to prepare you for such a task. As a matter of fact, there had not been such a dialogue since Independence for you to get ‘connected to it’. What was there, was the despicable politics of power-hungry politicians to which you too became a prey. You thought the answer was in the barrel of the gun which wiped out a whole generation of you -that should have been a lesson to you.

I hope this present discussion on ‘the role of the children of ‘56’ would open your eyes to the need for such an intellectual engagement and an enlightened dialogue based on the civilisational ideology and the civilisational consciousness that it has generated, which you have not lost. It is only then, and then only that you can claim to seek power.

(Based on the contribution made on zoom seminar ‘On the role of the Children of 56.)

All News Advertisement

Features

Science and diplomacy in a changing world

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/20

Thilina Walpola

Two editors: Dr. Palitha Kohona (L) and Prof. Ranjith Senaratne

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!

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/20

Thilina Walpola

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

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Land earmarked for the project

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.