Features
The ethnic factor inSri Lanka’s foreign policy, 1948-1956
By Uditha Devapriya
The linkages between domestic politics and foreign policy represent an interesting, if not intriguing, object of study. There may be convergences between the two, but more often one comes across significant differences as well. This is as it should be: the factors which determine a country’s domestic politics are clean different from those which determine its foreign relations. Not least among these factors is ethnicity: at home, it becomes a divisive issue, a tokenistic abstraction used to win votes and elections and entrench a certain group over all others, but abroad, internationally, it becomes a non-issue.
For obvious reasons, it makes sense to follow a progressive set of policies over these issues, at home and abroad. However repugnant it may be, to give one example, ethnic nationalism has become a playbook of populist politicians, even in the most “liberal” and “developed” countries. Yet ethnic politics can be, and is, a hindrance to a country’s image abroad. This is as true for Sri Lanka as it is for the United States, Europe, and Japan.
Sri Lanka’s inability to defend itself properly at international forums and organisations, over such themes as human rights and accountability, thus betrays a failure to manage these issues well. Today, local officials talk of revamping Sri Lanka’s foreign policy establishment, starting from the Foreign Service. They have tasked entire think-tanks and institutions with a review of the country’s external relations. Yet reformist rhetoric is hardly a substitute for actual reform. The truth is that no number of reforms will be effective unless the country takes stock of its fundamental weakness: its failure to balance domestic politics with foreign policies, particularly over issues like ethnicity. To do so, scholars need to examine the roots of this failure, which can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s.
Immediately following independence, Sri Lanka endeavoured to become a part of the international order through membership of multilateral bodies like the UN. Largely because of its Cold War alliances, however, it was deprived of these opportunities until a good 10 years later. In this, the country had only itself to blame. Its foreign policy choices during this period were guided less by pragmatism than by ideological affinities with a power bloc. Even in its more laudable achievements, such as its stance on the nationalist uprising in Dutch Indonesia, the regime of the day followed a certain line: “[i]n the course of discussions,” S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike later recounted, “it appeared to me that I was expected… to follow the line Great Britain adopted over the Indonesian issue.”
A state of affairs like this could only come about because of the non-modernising character of the country’s elite. D. S. Senanayake is constantly celebrated as the Father of the Nation, with not a few commentators comparing him to historical figures like Lincoln, Gandhi, and even Nehru. Yet the truth of the matter is that, going by his ideological predilections and his foreign policy postures, Senanayake resembled Hastings Banda, the pro-Western leader of independent Malawi, rather than those other historical personages. Moreover, the elite of which he was a member were deeply compradorist and unable to prioritise anything other than their property and privilege, be it in domestic politics or foreign policy. This, in the long run, led them to side with certain countries and antagonise all others.
The foreign policies adopted by the UNP had the effect of limiting the country to a Western bloc and preventing it from becoming a part of the international system. While the West had played a leading part in the establishment of multilateral institutions, especially the UN, these institutions were now quickly being dominated by the newly decolonised countries of Africa and Asia, and by the socialist bloc. This was only to be expected, and in refusing to recognise that reality, Sri Lanka could only limit its choices. The blame for this, of course, has to go to the colonial elite: as Dayan Jayatilleka has noted aptly, the crème de la crème of the country paradoxically failed to produce a Nehru.
It is my contention here that the Sri Lankan elite resorted to the most divisive politics at home to buttress its pro-Western foreign policy stances. To give one example, all three UNP regimes from 1948 to 1956 summoned and then played to Sinhalese fears of Indianisation, in tandem with its anti-Indian line abroad. A corollary of this was the Indian Tamil problem: D. S. Senanayake’s decision to deprive Indian Tamils of citizenship, an act that was as racist as it was classist, was linked to the UNP’s rather irrational and silly fears of a Leftist takeover of the country, given the Left’s impressive performance in the Estates.
Not surprisingly, the UNP’s upper echelons neglected to manage these tensions, which more or less followed from its failure to balance domestic political and foreign policy concerns. Its increasingly archaic policies also fuelled much discontent, especially among Sinhalese and Buddhist communities, who felt out of place in an administration manned by a colonial and colonised, un-Buddhist elite. This discontent, symbolised by the defection of the Buddhist clergy from the UNP to the SLFP, should have provoked a rational response from the party, but all it did was to force it to adopt even more archaic, divisive, and fundamentally flawed policies, personified rather fittingly in the character of John Kotelawala. It was a two-way process: the UNP was not above using race and religion to quash dissent, while the SLFP led Opposition and its front-guard deployed both in return.
The problem with the SLFP’s front-guard, particularly the Buddhist clergy, was that it did not possess, still less mobilise, the progressive, anti-imperialist ideology that its counterparts in the Left did and had. A great many of those who joined forces with the SLFP had themselves been part of the UNP; some of them would later return to the UNP. But the battle lines in the late 1950s were between the proverbial forces of light and darkness, and for better or worse, the former were represented by those who had once associated with the latter. In such a scheme progressive politics had no place: the Opposition mustered all it had to quash the government of the day. It did this, successfully, by depicting the UNP and its leadership as a historical anachronism, and by deploying populist, divisive rhetoric.
The clash between these parties produced two contradictory results. On the one hand, the SLFP broke away the UNP’s foreign policies, from the high-strung pro-Western posturing of the past to a more proactive approach, which won Sri Lanka the respect of the world and of the Global South in particular. On the other hand, having benefitted from an upsurge in nationalism, it kowtowed to forces that represented, at almost every level, the antithesis of its progressive foreign policy record. Thus, while S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike transformed into Nehru’s equivalent of Sri Lanka abroad, in his own country he became anything but a Nehru. The Indian Congress Party would have, as it did, put a stop to the racialist politics of the RSS, achieving a congruence between domestic politics and foreign policies. Neither the UNP nor the SLFP had the will or the power to put a stop to the Saffron Brigade.
I would contend that this was, and is, the biggest failure of the 1956 election. Instead of leading to a congruence of values between domestic politics and foreign policies, the election served to disfigure both, producing not one, but two Sri Lankas: a Sri Lanka that touted progressive policies abroad, and a Sri Lanka that practised populist, reactionary politics at home. A large part of the blame for this must, of course, go to the architect of that year’s election win, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. At the same time, the blame must also be placed on the UNP’s non-modernising, archconservative bourgeoisie. Their actions – and worse, their indecisiveness – served to draw a wedge between Sri Lanka’s aspirations in the world and its actual, less than laudable political record at home.
It is this gap, between domestic politics and foreign policy – as witness the government’s unforgivable record on COVID-19 burials, versus its laudable stance on issues concerning the Muslim world, such as Palestine – which has hindered the country from becoming what it should be in the world. For the country to develop, to go beyond where it is now, it thus has to take stock of the past, where it went wrong, and seek to adjust accordingly. If it is to be more Nehruvian, Nasserian, or more progressive abroad, it must deploy progressive politics at home. In other words, it must practice what it preaches, and preach what it practices. Unless it follows this strategy, it will continue to show one face to the world and another to its own citizens: a policy hardly conducive to the country’s image overseas.
The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Many of the international pronouncements on the current dangerously escalating Israel-Iran hostilities could be seen as lacking in adequate balance and comprehensiveness. The majority of these reactions could be said to be failing in addressing the aspects of the conflict that matter most.
For example, there is the recent UN General Assembly resolution on the crisis which calls for an ‘immediate, unconditional and lasting ceasefire in the Gaza’ and which goes on to urge ‘Member States to take necessary steps to ensure Israel complies with its international legal obligations.’ An immediate and durable ceasefire is indeed the number one requirement in the Middle East today but could it be ‘unconditional’? Could it ignore the principal requirement of Israel’s security? These posers need to be addressed as well.
Besides, it is not only Israel that should be compelled to meet its ‘international legal obligations.’ All the states and actors that feature in the conflict need to be alerted to their ‘international legal obligations’. While it goes without saying that Israel must meet its international legal obligations fully, the same goes for Iran and all other Middle Eastern countries that enjoy UN membership and who are currently at odds with Israel. For instance, Israel is a UN member state that enjoys equal sovereignty with other states within the UN fold. No such state could seek to ‘bomb Israel out of existence’ for example.
As a significant ‘aside’ it needs to be mentioned that we in Sri Lanka should consider it appropriate to speak the truth in these matters rather than dabble in what is ‘politically correct’. It has been seen as ‘politically correct’ for Sri Lankan governments in particular to take up the cause of only the Palestinians over the decades without considering the legitimate needs of the Israelis. However, a lasting solution to the Middle East imbroglio is impossible to arrive at without taking into account the legitimate requirements of both sides to the conflict.
The G7, meanwhile, is right in stating that ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, besides ‘reiterating our support for the security of Israel’ but it urges only ‘a de-escalation’ of hostilities and does not call for a ceasefire, which is of prime importance.
It is only an enduring ceasefire that could lay the basis for a cessation of hostilities which could in turn pave the way for the provision of UN humanitarian assistance to the people of the Gaza uninterruptedly for the foreseeable future. There is no getting away from the need for a durable downing of arms which could engender the environment required for negotiations between the warring parties.
Meanwhile, some 22 Muslim majority countries have ‘warned that continued escalation threatens to ignite a broader regional conflict that could destabilize the Middle East’ and called ‘for a return to negotiations as the only solution regarding Iran’s nuclear program.’ This statement addresses some important issues in the crisis but one hopes that the pronouncement went on to call for negotiations that would take up the root causes for the conflict as well and pointed to ways that could address them. For instance, there is no getting away from the ‘Two State Solution’ that envisages peaceful coexistence between the principal warring parties.
The ‘Two State Solution’ has been discredited by sections of the world community but it outlines the most sensible solution to the conflict. As matters stand, the current escalating hostilities, if left unchecked, could not only lead to a wider regional war of attrition but bring about the annihilation of entire populations. There is no alternative to comprehensive negotiations that take on the issues head on.
Besides, all who matter in the current discourse on the crisis need to alert themselves to the dangers of appealing to the religious identities of communities and social groups. When such appeals are made religious passions are stirred, which in turn activate extremist religious outfits that operate outside the bounds of the law and prove difficult to rein-in. This was essentially how ‘9/11’ came about. Accordingly, speaking with a sense of responsibility proves crucial.
In fact, it could be argued that a continuation of the present hostilities would only benefit the above outfits with a destructive mindset. Therefore, comprehensive and constructive negotiations are of the first importance.
The above conditions should ideally be observed by both parties to the conflict. Israel, no less than the Islamic and Arab world, needs to adhere to them. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has no choice but to say ‘No’ to extremists within his cabinet and to ‘show them the door’, inasmuch as hot-headed extremists in the Islamic and Arab world need to be opposed and alienated by the relevant governments.
Meanwhile, the US is on a duplicitous course in the Middle East. Whereas it has no choice but to rein-in Israel and convince it of the need to negotiate an end to the conflict, it is choosing to turn a blind eye to Israel’s military excesses and other irregularities that are blighting the Gazans and the ordinary people of Iran. It ought to be plain to the Trump administration that it is promoting a barbaric war of attrition by continuing to provide Israel with the most lethal weaponry. Currently, it is anybody’s guess as to what the US policy on the Middle East is.
The Islamic and Arab world, on the other hand, should come to understand the imperatives for a defusing of tensions in the region. Decades of conflict and war ought to have made it clear that the suffering of the populations concerned would not draw to a close minus a negotiated peace that ensures the wellbeing of all sections concerned.
As pointed out, the security of Israel needs to be guaranteed by those quarters opposing it. This will require the adoption of a conciliatory attitude towards Israel by state and non-state actors who have thus far been hostile towards it. There needs to be a steady build-up of goodwill on both sides of the divide. If this is fully realized by the Arab world a negotiated solution will be a realistic proposition in the Middle East.
We had no luck coming our way at the Miss World 2025 contest – not even our immediate neighbour, India – but I’m glad that Miss Thailand was crowned Miss World 2025 as Thailand happens to be my second home … been to Amazing Thailand many times, courtesy of the Tourism Authority of Thailand.
In fact, even before the Miss World 2025 grand finale, which was held at the beautiful venue of the HITEX Exhibition Centre, in Hyderabad, Telangana, India, my colleagues at office all predicted that Miss Thailand, Opal Suchata Chuangsri, would emerge as the winner.
Yes, indeed, Miss Thailand not only won the hearts of millions but also became the first ever Thai to claim this much sought-after title.
Prior to winning the title of Miss World 2025, Opal Suchata was Thailand’s representative at Miss Universe 2024 and took home the third runner-up title.
Her Miss Universe crown, unfortunately, was subsequently forfeited, due to a contract breach, but she did not let that demotivate her, though, and went on to compete and win the title of Miss World Thailand 2025.
Coming from a family that was in the hospitality industry, her upbringing, in this kind of environment, made her aware of her culture and helped her with her communication skills at a very young age. They say she is very fluent in Thai, English, and Chinese.
Obviously, her achievements at the Miss World 2025 contest is going to bring the 22-year-old beauty immense happiness but I couldn’t believe that this lovely girl, at 16, had surgery to remove a benign breast lump, and that made her launch the ‘Opal For Her’ campaign to promote breast health awareness and early detection of breast cancer, which also became the topic of her ‘Beauty with Purpose’ at the Miss World 2025 contest.
Opal Suchata intends to leverage her Miss World title to advocate for other women’s health issues, as well, and sponsor a number of charitable causes, specifically in women’s health.
Her victory, she says, is not just a personal achievement but a reflection of the dreams and aspirations of young girls around the world who want to be seen, heard, and create change.
What’s more, with interests in psychology and anthropology, Opal Suchata aspires to become an ambassador for Thailand, aiming to represent her country on international platforms and contribute to peace-building efforts.
She believes that regardless of age or title, everyone has a role to play in inspiring others and making a positive impact.
And, what’s more, beyond pageantry, Opal Suchata is an animal lover, caring for 16 cats and five dogs, making her a certified “fur mom.”
She also possesses a special musical ability—she can play the ukulele backwards.
Opal Suchata is already a star with many expressing admiration for her grace, leadership, and passion for making a difference in the world.
And there is also a possibility of this head-turner, from Thailand, entering the Bollywood film industry, after completing her reign as Miss World, as she has also expressed interest in this field.
She says she would love the opportunity and praised the Indian film indstry.
She akso shared her positive experience during her visit to India and her appreciation for the Telangana government.
Congratulations Opal Suchata Chuangsri from Amazing Thailand. You certainly deserve the title Miss World 2025.
What is important is that the Miss World event is among the four globally recognised beauty pageants … yes, the four major international beauty pageants for woment. The other three are Miss Universe, Miss Earth and Miss International.
Unfortunately, in our scene, you get beauty pageants popping up like mushrooms and, I would say, most of them are a waste of money and time for the participants.
This week I thought of working on some beauty tips, using coconut oil, which is freely available, and quite affordable, as well.
Let’s start with Coconut Oil as a Moisturiser…
First, make sure your skin is clean and dry before applying the coconut oil. This will allow the oil to penetrate the skin more effectively.
Next, take a small amount of coconut oil and warm it up in your hands by rubbing them together. This will help to melt the oil and make it easier to apply.
Gently massage the oil onto your face and body, focusing on dry areas or areas that need extra hydration.
Allow the oil to absorb into your skin for a few minutes before getting dressed.
Start with a small amount and add more if needed.
* Acne and Blemishes:
Apply a small amount to the affected area and gently massage it in. Leave it on overnight and rinse off in the morning. Remember to patch test before applying it to your entire face to ensure you don’t have any adverse reactions.
* Skin Irritations:
If you’re dealing with skin irritations, coconut oil may be just what you need to find relief. Coconut oil has natural anti-inflammatory properties that can help soothe and calm irritated skin.
Simply apply a thin layer of coconut oil to the affected area and gently massage it in. You can repeat this process as needed throughout the day to keep your skin calm and comfortable.
* Makeup Remover:
To use coconut oil as a makeup remover, simply apply a small amount onto a cotton pad or your fingertips and gently massage it onto your face, in circular motions. The oil will break down the makeup, including waterproof mascara and long-wearing foundation, making it easy to wipe away.
Not only does coconut oil remove makeup, but it also nourishes and hydrates the skin, leaving it feeling soft and smooth. Plus, its antibacterial properties can help prevent breakouts and soothe any existing skin irritations, so give coconut oil a try and experience its natural makeup removing abilities, and also say goodbye to acne and blemishes!
Turkish Naval Ship TCG BÜYÜKADA departs island concluding her visit
Nissanka leads SL’s strong start in response to Bangladesh’s 495
Students of Nittambuwa Sanghabodhi National School visit President’s House
-
Features7 days agoThey came, they won, they returned to Jaffna isles
-
Features5 days agoAs I remember, from 50 years ago: the 75-80 Katubedda Engineering Batch
-
News7 days agoITAK candidate elected B’caloa Mayor as NPP seeks alliance with Pillayan
-
Opinion7 days agoWhen life becomes more painful than death
-
Features5 days agoWriting History on Paris Clay – French Open 2025
-
Life style5 days agoMiss World from Thailand!
-
Editorial7 days ago‘Abaran goes to prison’
-
Features4 days agoWhen the water rises: Climate change and the future of Yala’s Mugger Crocodiles