Connect with us


Susil Sirivardena: an incomparable friend



It was in early 1966, as I worked in my office, a messenger came into announce a visitor. I did not expect anyone but unexpected visitors were not unusual in those times when telephones were not ubiquitous as now.

I got up to receive him. He was not only unexpected but also strikingly unusual. He wore an off-white cloth hanging from his waist about two inches short of his ankles and a collarless shirt with a split on the left shoulder tied together with two ribbons of the same colour. The shirt was of the same colour and material as the cloth he wore.

He wore a pair of simple sandals and carried a pan malla, or reed bag, from which one could see some papers peeping out. He was as dark as I was, open faced, ready with a smile and adorned with a sense of determination. We soon sat down to chat. He talked about a special issue of Samskrti they were planning and asked me whether I would consider contributing an article on universities. That isssue was very well received and ran out of print soon.

The 1960s was a time when economists were deeply immersed in studying education in relation to economic development. The Robbins Committee in Britain had issued its reports and there was a Commission sitting on university education in India. I was working on a paper on education for the Centenary Volume that was planned by the Ministry of Education and begged to be excused. However, I promised to take an interest in the work of Samskrti under his guidance. He suggested that we meet soon at leisure to talk and for the next 50 years and more we have been doing just that.

Susil was perhaps the last member of a line of young men from privileged homes who committed themselves early to the public good. They defined the public good in their own terms. The earliest was Solomon Dias Badaranaike, the son of a rich and powerful landowner and the young man went to St.Thomas’ College, Galkissa and to Oxford to read classics, entered the bar but committed himself to the public cause as it was understood then. About ten years later, a whole group of them emerged: Philip Gunawardena, Pieter Keuneman, N.M.Perera, Leslie Goonewardene (unrelated to Philip), Dudley Senanayake and T.B.Subasinghe. They were all from privileged homes and schools, went to universities in US and Britain and committed themselves to serve the public in the way they thought best.

Ranil Wickremesinghe was a late comer and he graduated from Colombo reading law. Susil was from a privileged home, went to St.Thomas’ and to Oxford, where he read English and defined his commitment to the public good. (A.T.Ariyaratne made in a different mould, defined the public good (outside politics) for himself and has served the public well.) Ranil and Susil were perhaps the last of that breed as privilege itself began to be newly defined and public service itself took on new shades.

Tragedy struck our society. A new set of political leaders emerged, who, uneducated, corrupted the public good to consist of their personal good and plundered the public purse without shame. An uncritical public sang hosannas to these criminals. The educated youth was not mature enough to define the public good for themselves and fitted into the machine or took to thoughtless violence.

Susil’s first job was as a teacher in a government school. When he asked for an appointment as a teacher in a government school and insisted that he be appointed to a school in a remote area, the officials were flummoxed. He had his say and went to teach English in Anuradhapura Central School. In this school he exhibited an unmistakable characteristic of his work: his passionate commitment to whatever he set out to do. He was no dilletante. It came forward in all his enterprises: as a civil servant, editor of journals and public speaking. There never was any halfhearted activity that he put his hand to. Besides the regular syllabus, he took the children to reading poetry and plays. He made lasting friendships in Anuradhapura: one that endured for long was with Sarath Wijesooriya, a mild mannered but steel willed colleague, who collaborated with him in editing Mavata, a journal committed to discussing cultural and social issues. Sarath later edited a bi-weekly sheet and wrote children’s books.

He joined the Ceylon Administrative Service having come first in the competitive examination to recruit young persons to eventual senior management jobs in the public service. His signature initiative was Janasaviya when he worked with President Premadasa. It has survived under various names and is now Samurdhi. It was designed and carried out as a poverty alleviation programme that called forth the fundamental urges in Susil to serve the public. He set about with passion, which is partly the reason that the programme was so successful. Yet one should note that it stagnated after him as a dole, bereft of its growth potential. The other area he worked in was housing, under the same president. He kept a long term interest in housing and helped government, whenever summoned. I missed almost the entirety of his career in CAS, as when he had been just promoted as the Director to ARTI, he was arrested and I left for New York a few days later.

Let us go back to Susil whom I saw that morning. I lived in an old house on Gregory’s Road. We had a broad varandah where I met visitors. I had some interest in education and P.K. Dissanayake (of the NCHE) and Susil both came there to talk about ideas pertaining to education, especially university education. Sometime then, he invited me to some discussions as a part of the attempt to encourage young scholars to think about change in society and culture and to contribute papers to Samskrti. We met on Saturday mornings in Dr.Ranjan Abeysenghe’s spatial house in Krillapone. Besides Susil, I recall Piyal Somaratne, who worked for Radio Ceylon and Mahinda Wijesekera who was a student at Vidyodaya and, in maturity, a politician. Susil went about on a light blue Vespa scooter and was a frequent visitor at our home. We mostly talked about books and articles and about writing for Samskrti. Sometime in May 1971 (it was perhaps a Saturday) he came to our place as usual and the next morning, we learnt that he had been arrested.

In June I left for New York City. After he came back from prison and whenever I came back to Colombo, we met infrequently as circumstances permitted. Susil never talked to me about the trial and imprisonment and I felt I would violate his wishes if I asked him about it. It was characteristic of him not to talk about himself. I knew his brother who lived in Manhattan and apart from that I knew nothing of his parents. It was from a note that Kusum Kumara passed to me a few days back that I learned that Susil’s family and Felix Dias Bandaranaike’s had had a feud (kontharyak). Felix Dias Bandaranaike was besides the prime minster the most powerful person in that government.

One of Susil’s major accomplishments, arguably the most vauable for posterity, was the publication of Mavata, a magazine devoted to discussing culture, especially fiction and poetry. It was ‘the small magazine’ that he often spoke about. What he attempted and that was new was an assessment of the cultural history of this society, from the point of view of the then dominant ideas about colonialism and neo-colonialism. In the first editorial in Mavata he periodized these developments and defined the development, in our society, of two streams of literature and literary criticism. The ‘majority school’ was better connected to the common people than the ‘minority school’ that developed in the university of Ceylon, especially at Peradeniya. The ‘colomba kavi’ was the main literary form of the majority school while the ‘Peradeniya school’ used fiction, poetry and literary criticism to dominate, via schools, the minds of young people in the years after 1950. Susil published a complete anthology of Vimalaratne Kumaragama’s poetry. Samskrti, (in which Susil played a major role both before and after Mavata) gave expression to the views of the Peradeniya school. Its first board of editors of five were all graduates of the University of Ceylon. It would be most instructive to study the first editorial of Amaradasa Virasinhge in Samskrti in 1953 and Susil’s in Mavata in 1976. They contrasted in many ways. The first issue came out in 1976 and the last in 1992, having issued 56 numbers in between. The editors were Susil, Piyal Somaratne, Kumudu Kusum Kumara, Sarath Vijesooriya, V.Arthur, Kirthi Ekanyake and several others, not all at the same time. Many young people who shone later contributed to it. Contributors included Kumudu Kusum Kumara, Sena Thoradeniya, Kumari Jayawardena, Parakrama Kodituvakku, S.G.Punchiheva, K.S.Sivakumaran, Mahagama Sekera, Premakirti de Alvis, and Abraham Kovoor. Mavata inspired may young men and women to examine their own culture.

Sometime in 2009, Amaradasa Virasighe asked me to join Samskrti. I did not know him and consulted two persons who had worked in Samskrti earlier. Both advised me against joining Samskrti. I talked to Susil and he thought I should go. In gratitude, I asked him to join me. Most of what we did in Samskrti were considered together, although we were each entirely responsible for our actions. In 2009 itself, Susil wrote out a manifesto for Samskrti ‘smaskrti sangarave jivodaya’ which was followed 2013, by a more elaborate programme. The Special Issue on universities had gone out of print and Susil and I put out a reprint with a new introduction. He was very keen to make special issues on both M.D.Ratnasuriya and Dharmasiri Ekanyake and that appeared in 2011. In 2013 appeared a special issue on Gitanjali and G.B.Senanayahe , edited by Susil. Dharmasiri Ekanayake was a regular contributor on literary criticism to Samskrti and I proposed that we collect them in a book with an introduction we would write jointly. When we went to ask Dharmasiri for permission to do that, he guffawed as usual and produced four ‘log ‘books’ of neat hand writing which contained book that we had planned. It was published 2012 as ‘sahityaya ha vicara kalava’.

Susil wrote outstanding film reviews for Samskrti beginning 1966 on Bimal Roy’s Bandini in 1966, ‘Satyajit Ray’s art of film making’ in 1968 and Siri Gunasinghe’s ‘ranavan karal’ in 1968 and ending with ‘valapatala’ in 2009 and ‘sri siddharta gautama’ in 2013. These last few years were spent understanding ‘nation building’ in our country in the 20th century. He sought guidance in Indian writings and spent several weeks in successive years at the Indian Cultural Centre in New Delhi. We discussed several drafts of an outline but got no further.

Susil and I set out, roughly about the same time, from different ports fitted out in very different vessels with sails of different material. Those vessels were carried forward by fair tail winds, generated by utterly different forces. En route, we put into different ports for victuals and other supplies and so enriched, we finally put into harbour where we went ashore and put up different camps, unbeknown to each other. Susil destroyed his boat and equipment; I preserved mine tethered in a cove for future use. Our forays inland, always new to each new generation, were in different directions. Some of them were into wastelands created by evil men whose designed destinations differed from those of Susil. We met up and carried on common campaigns, with the objective of public education. Susil left tall landmarks, which will guide many an intrepid adventurer in future. For all his labour and that plenitude, we are grateful to Susil.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Gem and Jewel of Pohottuva governance



What a gem of a minister he is!


Who else, State Minister Lohan Ratwatte, the gem and jewel of today.


He resigned from his Prison Portfolio, not having done anything wrong, as he says it. He has gone beyond the stuff of any politician. He truly deserves to be given the highest regard by the Saubhagya Strategists. Just think of any politician of today, especially from the Pohottuva Team, who will resign from a portfolio for not having done anything wrong, when those who have done so many blatant wrongs, keep glued to their portfolios?

What do you think should follow?

Surely, it is so simple. Get promoted to the Cabinet. Take the “State” off his ministerial title and swear him in as the Minister of Prison Reforms, etc,, and Gem and Jewellery Industry.

Do you think that is the strategy of the Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour of the Gotabaya Politics?

Why not? Promotion, elevation or unearned freedom is the very stuff of today’s Rajapaksa governance. We don’t forget the pardoning of former Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake, convicted with death sentence, for the murder of eight Tamil civilians inlcuding three children, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Come on. That is just one Saubhagya move.

OK. The next Saubhagya move was the pardoning and release of Duminda Silva, sentenced to death along with four others, over the murder of a rival politician and three others. He has also been appointed the Chairman, National Housing Development Authority.

Keeping with that trend of Saubhagya-Rajapaksa politics and governance, is it wrong to soon promote Lohan Ratwatte as a Cabinet Minister, giving him back the power over all prisons and prisoners, and the gem and jewellery industries, too.

But what about all these complaints about this Lohan man? Flying to the Anuradhapura Prison by helicopter, getting Tamil prisoners held there to kneel before him, holding this revolver against two of them ….

He says he has done nothing like that. He has visited the prison as the minister in charge, and never even touched a Tamil prisoner … Shouldn’t we believe such Ratwatte words? Should we not forget that the first public report on this came from a Tamil MP, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam. Should we forget how the Ponnambalams have opposed the Sinhala Only politics of Sri Lankan progress?

Then what about all this talk of this Lohan minister’s visit to the Welikada Prison?

 C’mon, why must you believe such gallery nonsense, when there is no report from the Prison authorities?

It is not gallery nonsense, but the Stuff of the Gallows, with a beauty queen or cosmetics queen in his company.

Just remember that he went there too as the Minister of Prisons. As he says, he could go there at any time. That is the power of even a State Minister. The man who stopped the prison from burning, as he says it!

But, what about the gallows, of wanting to show it to his beauty/cosmetics queen?

I’m sure that Lohan R would have seen the opportunity to use the Welikada Gallows as a new tourist attraction.

What tourist attraction?

We are now in the process of reviving tourism, especially from Ukraine and Russia. They may like to see real gallows, and how it functions too. He may have been thinking of adding the Welikada Gallows as a special tourist attraction – where persons sentenced to death could be really hanged. There are many who applied to be hangmen when President Sirisena wanted the gallows to function again. They remain unemployed. Shouldn’t the gallows be revived to give more employment to future hangmen?

Just see the Saubhagya opportunity if the Welikada Gallows is promoted as a tourist attraction. How much would a ticket cost in dollars? Think how this would help Ajith Nivard Cabraal in his new plans to bring in more foreign exchange. This surely is the stuff of Lohan Ratwatte, apart from his continued interest in gems and jewellery.

But, surely didn’t he know that the UNHRC is now in session in Geneva. Has he not known anything about Michelle Bachelet, who is raising questions about Human Rights violations in Sri Lanka?

Now, now, don’t move into unwanted terrain. Human Rights and the Prevention of Terrorism Act are all being handled by Foreign Minister GL Peiris, with punditry of increasing question. You mustn’t try to put Lohan Ratwatte to the same rank of political and diplomatic punditry.

Just remember that Lohan Ratwatte is an elected SLPP – Pohottuva – politician. He is certainly one who likes both Gems and Jewellery. He was ready and fast in giving up Prisons and Prison Reforms, with no charges framed against him. There were only allegations about him, made by a Tamil and other Opposition MPs and such persons. Our system of governance and justice is far removed from what is known as the Rule of Law. It is the Rule of Power.

Let’s forget detainees in prisons (for many years), the so-called reports of a drunken minister with friends and beauty/cosmetic queen, just think of the Rule of Power – just now it is the Power of Lohan and Gotabaya.

When the President received Lohan’s letter of resignation from the Prison Sector, he was not asked to leave the Gem and Jewellery Sector too. He could look after and promote Gems and Jewellery, and remain the stuff of Pohottuva.

This is the Gem and Jewellery line of Rajapaksa Governance. Lohan Ratwatte has displayed his love for gems and jewellery. With his promotion to Cabinet status, will he be known as the “Muthu-menik Lohan Amathi, Sir”?  The true Gem of Pohottuva Politics and Governance!

Continue Reading


The wonder of youth



By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

The wonder of youth was best on display in the evening of 11 Sept., when two hugely talented teenagers, both unseeded, gave an amazing display of tennis in vying for the US Open title. Of course, I wanted Emma Raducanu, who represented GB, to win but had lingering doubts as her opponent, Leylah Fernandez was more experienced and had defeated players ranked 3, 16, 5 and 2, to reach the final. This was only the second Grand Slam Emma has played in, having to withdraw during the fourth-round match in Wimbledon due to breathing difficulties which made some wonder whether she had the mental grit to stand the rigours of tough competitions. She proved them wrong in a spectacular manner, reaching the final in an unprecedented way. She had to win three rounds to get into the tournament as a qualifier, and won the next six rounds, reaching the finals without dropping a set in any of the matches. By then, she had missed the return flight to the UK which she had booked as she never expected to be in the competition so long!

Sports are so commercialised that many Brits without Amazon Prime subscription were going to miss seeing the first British woman to play in a Grand Slam final after 44 years. Fortunately, in one of its rare good deeds, Channel 4 paid for screening rights and we could join over 9 million Brits on the edge of their seats for two hours. It was well worth it, as Emma won the final again in straight sets, creating yet another record by being the first qualifier ever to win a Grand Slam! In another rare gesture, Amazon had agreed to donate the fee for advancement of tennis for girls.

Emma Raducanu’s spectacular win was witnessed by Virginia Wade, the first winner of the US Women’s title in the open era in 1968, Arthur Ashe winning the Men’s. She was also the last British woman before Emma to win a Grand Slam; Wimbledon in 1977. Fortunately, Sir Andy Murray was able to break the even longer drought in Male Tennis by winning the US Open in 2012, 76 years after Fred Perry’s 1936 Wimbledon win.

It was very sad that Emma’s parents could not be there in person at the proudest moment of their lives due to quarantine regulations. Whilst shedding a tear of joy for Emma Raducanu’s ‘impossible’ victory, I was saddened to think of the wasted youth in Sri Lanka. How things changed for the worse in my lifetime continues to puzzle me.

We belong to a fortunate generation. We had excellent free education which we made full use of. We had good teachers, not ‘private tuition masters’! We could plan our future as we knew we could get a place for higher education as long as we got the required grades. Our progress in universities was not hampered by student’s unions controlled by unscrupulous politicians with warped thinking. I started my practice of medicine a few months after I turned 23 and was a fully qualified specialist by the time I turned 30. I was not one for sports but did writing and broadcasting. Therefore, I can look back at my youth with a sense of satisfaction.

Unfortunately, we lacked a political class with a vision. Perhaps, this happened because most of the politicians except those at the time of independence took to politics by exclusion than by choice. Lucky politicians got ministries, not because of competence or education, but on the basis of caste, creed, religion, etc. There were no shadow ministers in the Opposition and with the change of government another set of misfits became ministers. For some time, the status quo was maintained by senior administrators who were trained for the job after being selected following a highly competitive examination.

Anti-elite campaigners succeeded. Permanent Secretaries became secretaries and Ministers became permanent as long as they did not upset their bosses! No proper planning was done and the slippery slope started. Then came the terrorists; the JVP destroyed a generation of Sinhala youth and the LTTE destroyed a generation of Tamil youth. Now, there is a greater danger affecting some youth the world over––Islamic extremism.

When I started training postgraduate trainees from Sri Lanka in Grantham Hospital, the first thing I noted was their age and started diplomatically finding out why it had taken them so long to get into PG training. I was shocked at the unwarranted delays they faced which were not due to any fault of theirs. All of them were brilliant but the system had failed them. We need to reinstall discipline so that we have schools and universities functioning properly, ensuring valuable years in life are not wasted.

Perhaps, we need to get out of our insular attitudes. There may be some lessons to learn from studying the background of these two talented players. Leyla Fernandez, born in September 2002 in Quebec, Canada has an Ecuadorian father and a Filipino mother. Emma Raducanu was born in November 2002 in Toronto, Canada but moved to the UK when she was two years, with her Romanian father and Chinese mother. Three months before winning the US Open, she got an A star in Mathematics and A in Economics, in the A level examination whilst attending a state school.

These two teenagers, 23 years old Naomi Osaka, whose father is Haitian and mother is Japanese and 25-years-old Ashleigh Barty, whose father is of indigenous Australian descent and mother is of English descent, joined to form a ‘fab-four in women’s tennis, dawning a new era in tennis as the era dominated by the fab-four; Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic of the men’s game is drawing to an end. Considering their dexterity, women’s tennis may become more popular than men’s. Who knows!

It is well known that mixing of genes has an enhancing effect. It is also well established that inbreeding leads to many genetic defects. Perhaps, this is another reason why we should get rid of artificial divisions like caste. Although one would have expected that we would have a more enlightened attitude, the matrimonial columns of any newspaper give enough evidence that archaic institutions are still strong.

It is high time we stopped protecting archaic systems and moved forward. This will give an opportunity for the talents of our youth to be displayed and it is our duty to harness the wonder of youth for the advancement of the country.

Continue Reading


A neutral foreign policy in current context



By Neville Ladduwahetty

During a recent TV interview, the Host asked the Guest whether Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy is in “shambles”. The reason for the question was perhaps because of the lack of consistency between the statement made by the President and the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry relating to Foreign Policy. For instance, the first clear and unambiguous statement made by the newly elected President during his acceptance speech delivered in Sinhala in the holy city of Anuradhapura in which the only comment in English was that his Foreign Policy would be Neutral. This was followed during his address to Parliament titled: The Policy statement made by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka at the inauguration of the Fourth Session of the 8th Parliament of Sri Lanka on January 3, 2020, in which he stated: “We follow a neutral foreign policy”.

However, the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry has on different occasions stated that Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy is “Neutral and Non-Aligned”. Perhaps, his view may have been influenced by the President’s Manifesto, “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour”, that stated that out of 10 key policies the second was “Friendly, Non-Aligned, Foreign Policy”

The question that needs to be addressed is whether both Neutrality and Non-Alignment could realistically coexist as policies to guide Sri Lanka in the conduct of its relations with other Nation-States. Since neutrality is a defined policy that has a legal basis and has a history that precedes Non-Alignment, there is a need for the Neutral State to conduct its relations with other States according to recognised codified norms with reciprocity. On the other hand, Non-Alignment was essentially a commitment to a set of principles by a group of countries that had emerged from colonial rule and wanted to protect their newly won independence and sovereignty in the context of a bi-polar world. The policy of Non-Alignment therefore, should apply ONLY to the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Thus, Non-Alignment, being only a set of principles adopted by a group of like-minded sovereign States to protect and preserve their common self-interests, its conduct in respect of States outside the Non-Aligned Movement becomes unstated and therefore undefined. Neutrality instead is a clear policy that defines how a neutral country such as Sri Lanka conducts its relations with other countries, and how other countries relate with Sri Lanka primarily in respect of the inviolability of its territory.


A statement dated August 22, 2012 by the External Affairs Ministry of the Government of India on the historical evolution of the Non-Alignment Movement states:

“The principles that would govern relations among large and small nations, known as the “Ten Principles of Bandung”, were proclaimed at that Conference (1955). Such principles were adopted later as the main goals and objectives of the policy of non-alignment. The fulfillment of those principles became the essential criterion for Non-Aligned Movement membership; it is what was known as “quintessence of the Movement until early 1990s” (Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “History and Evolution of Non-Aligned Movement, August 22, 2012).

“Thus, the primary objectives of the non-aligned countries focused on the support of self-determination, national independence and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States; opposition to apartheid; non-adherence to multilateral military pacts and the independence of non-aligned countries from great power or block influences and rivalries; the struggle against imperialism in all its forms and manifestations; the struggle against colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, foreign occupation and domination; disarmament; non-interference into the internal affairs of States and peaceful coexistence among all nations; rejection of the use or threat of use of force in international relations; the strengthening of the United Nations; the democratization of international relations; socioeconomic development and the restructuring of the international economic system; as well as international cooperation on an equal footing” (Ibid).

These commitments did not deter countries such as India from violating the very principles India committed to in Bandung. To start with, India undermined the security of Sri Lanka by nurturing and supporting the training of non-state actors in late 1970s. Having made Sri Lanka vulnerable, India proceeded to coerce Sri Lanka to accept the Indo-Lanka Accord under which India was committed to disarm the militants. Having failed much to its shame, India violated the principle of the right of self-determination when it compelled Sri Lanka to devolve power to a merged North-East Province. All these actions amounted to a complete disregard and the mockery of the lofty principles of NAM undertaken to protect India’s self-interest. What is clear from India’s actions with regard to Sri Lanka is that when push comes to shove, self-interest overrides multi-lateral commitments.

In a similar vein Sri Lanka too, driven by self-interest, voted in support of UK’s intervention in the Falklands because of the debt owed by Sri Lanka to the UK for the outright grant given to construct the Victoria Hydro Power Scheme, although conscious of the fact that by doing so Sri Lanka was discrediting itself for not supporting the resolution initiated by NAM to oppose UK’s actions. These instances demonstrate that Non-Alignment as a Foreign Policy is subservient to self-interest thereby underscoring the fact that it cannot be a clear policy to guide how a State conducts itself in relation to other States.

Commenting on the issues of limitations imposed by being a Member of NAM Shelton E. Kodikara states: “For Sri Lanka as indeed for many of the smaller states among the non-aligned community, membership of the Non-Aligned Movement and commitment to its consensual decisions implied a widening of the institutional area of foreign policy decision-making, and collective decision-making also implied a limitation of the area of choice among foreign policy options…” (Foreign Policy of Sri Lanka, 1982, p. 151).

Therefore, arrangements with common interests such as those by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or any other group of countries with common interests, are mechanisms whose support and solidarity could be sought when needed to advance causes, as for instance when Sri Lanka advanced the concept of making the Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace, and later in 2009 did so in Geneva. Notwithstanding such advantages, the hard reality is that Non-Alignment does not represent a clear statement as to how a State conducts its relations with Nation-States outside the Non-Aligned Movement. Therefore, it follows that Non-Alignment cannot be considered a statement of Foreign Policy by a State.


The statement by the Foreign Affairs Ministry of India cited above that the “quintessence” of the principles of the Non-Alignment lasted until early 1990s, was because the bi-polar world that was the cause for the formation of NAM had ceased to exist with the territorial break-up of one of the power blocks – the USSR. Consequently, the USSR lost its influence as a global power. In this vacuum what exists currently is one recognized global power with other powers aspiring to be part of a multi polar world. In the absence of recognized power blocks the need to align or not to align does not arise because Nation-States are free to evolve their own arrangements as to how they conduct their relations with each other. Consequently, the concept of Non-Alignment individually or collectively is a matter of choice depending on the particularity of circumstance, but not as a general Foreign Policy to address current challenges.

With China attempting to regain its lost territory and glory as a civilizational State following its century of shame, the geopolitical matrix has changed dramatically. The economic gains of China the likes of which are unprecedented alarmed the Western world to the point that the US deemed it necessary to adopt a policy of Pivot to Asia thereby making the Indian and Pacific Oceans the focus for great power engagement. This shift of focus has caused new strategic security alliances such as the Quad to emerge to contain the growing influence of China among the States in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. With the Maldives joining India as the latest members of Quad, Sri Lanka has become isolated; a development that has brought Sri Lanka’s location in the Indian Ocean into sharp focus as being of pivotal strategic interest to great and emerging powers.

It is in this newly formed geopolitical context that Sri Lanka has to formulate its Foreign Policy that necessarily must be fresh if Sri Lanka is to equip itself to meet the new challenges created by a coalition of States to contain the rise of China. One option is to join the Quad. This could mean Sri Lanka distancing itself from engaging with China. The other option is to engage with China to the exclusion of the Quad. Either of these options would cause Sri Lanka to lose its independence and the freedom to protect its core values and interests. Therefore, the choice is not to settle for either option.

These unprecedented circumstances and challenges cannot be countered by harking back to the glory days of Non-Alignment, because major influences of the movement (NAM) such as India, have recently abandoned the original principles it subscribed to when it became a part of Quad. Therefore, although NAM still represents a body of likeminded interests with the ability to influence causes limited only to resolutions that further the interests of its members, it is not in a position to ensure the inviolability of the territory and the freedom of a State to make its

A neutral

own hard choices. It is only if a Nation-State proclaims that its relations with other Nation-States is Neutral that provisions codified under the Hague Conventions of 1907 that would entitle Sri Lanka to use the inviolability of its territory to underpin its relations with other Nation-States. Therefore, the Foreign Policy statement as made by the President to Parliament should guide Sri Lanka in its relations with States because it is relevant and appropriate in the geopolitical context that currently exists.


The Foreign Policy of a State is greatly influenced by its History and Geography. Historically Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy has been one of Non-Alignment. Furthermore, Sri Lanka participated in the Conference in Bandung in 1955; a date recognized as the beginning of the Non-Aligned Movement. Thus, although the geographic location of a State is well defined, the significance of its location could dramatically be transformed by geopolitical developments. The staggering economic revival of China from early seventies under the leadership of President Deng Xiaoping whose philosophy was to hide capacity, bide time and never claim leadership, was perhaps the reason for China’s tremendous transformations both economic and social, to proceed relatively unnoticed.

It was only with the announcement of President Xi Jinping’s policy of the Belt and Road Initiative announced in 2013, that the world came to realize that the power and influence of China was unstoppable. This policy resulted in China establishing its footprint in strategically located countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans by funding and constructing infrastructure projects. Sri Lanka happened to be one such country. The need for the U.S along with India, Australia and Japan to form a security alliance to contain the growing power and influence of China in the Indian and Pacific Oceans was inevitable.

India’s alliance with the US has shifted the balance in Asia causing China to be the stand alone great power in Asia. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned this new dynamic compels Sri Lanka to make one of four choices. One is to align and develop relations with the US and its allies. Second is to align and develop relations with China. The third is be Non-Aligned with either. The fourth and preferred option is to be Neutral not only with the Quad and China, but also with all other States, and develop friendly relations individually with all States.

The policy of Non-Alignment by a State is an external declaration of intent that a nation would not align itself with either a collective or individual center of power such as the Quad or China, in the conduct of its relations. Neutrality by a State, instead, means not only a statement that it would be Neutral when conducting relations with collective or individual centers of power and other States, but also how such a State expects all States to respect its Neutrality; a policy that would be in keeping with Sri Lanka’s unique strategic location in South Asia. Thus, while the former works outwards the latter works both ways. More importantly, how Neutrality works is governed by internationally codified laws that are in place to guide reciprocal relations.

Continue Reading