Features

The JRJ Personal and how he ran the show

Published

4 years ago

2022/09/18

by Sarath Amunugama

In the early Ceylon National Congress of which he and Dudley became joint Secretaries, JRJ was a committed rationalist while Dudley was typically less sure and a person who sometimes succumbed to his father’s admonitions. Largely to target Bandaranaike and his vacillating members of the Sinhala Maha Sabha which included Dudley and Sir John, JRJ sponsored a motion in the Ceylon National Congress that its members could not concurrently be members of other political formations.

This was opposed not only by Bandaranaike but also DS. Of all the young politicians it was only JRJ who categorically refused to join the Sinhla Maha Sabha. JRJ believed in the superiority of rationality and unflinching will. His heroes were Napoleon and Disraeli, both of whom rose to leadership because of their tactical skills and tenacity. He and his brother Harry would boast that they had read every book written about these two personalities.

Of all our Presidents it was JRJ who had a scholar’s interest in history. He had read widely and was well informed of the history of Buddhism and Sri Lanka. He once told me that he used to visit historical sites with Archeological Commissioner Senerat Paranavitana. His speeches were full of allusions to Buddhist and Sinhalese history. It is my interpretation that he looked on the Executive Presidency not only through western eyes but also as a form of leadership which had evolved through Sinhala kingship.

To him the President was the equivalent of the Sinhala ruler in his powers as well as benevolence and concern for the public good. Like the Sinhala ruler he wanted to be ‘A father to his people’ He told his listeners, including President Ronald Reagan, that he came from a long line of Sinhala rulers who wielded power for 2,500 years. It must be stated here however that this was exactly what the opposition was worried about. As NM Perera and Colvin R de Silva had said on many occasions, they could not agree to a concept of an omnipotent President, just as much as they had criticized the pre-modern social structures of feudalism and kingship.

Not surprisingly this was the same criticism levelled by French critics of the Gaullist constitution as creating “Le roi De Gaulle” – De Gaulle the King. In many ways De Gaulle and JRJ shared common characteristics. The sense of history, the idea that previous attempts at governance had failed, the need for a strong leader who was tried and tested who put the national interest above all, a leader who distanced himself from the ‘hoi poloi’ and instilled fear in his own ranks were common to both leaders.

They were both thought to be aloof but committed to the glory of a nation with a sublime history. Both said “trust me and not the institutions” which have failed. Ironically both men ran into organized oppositions which were ruthless and unsparing and had to unhappily retire to their personal homes and away from the hurly burly of politics which had been their fifes mission.

Nayaka Thuma

Political parties have evolved modes of addressing their leaders. The left called their leaders ‘comrades’ which was translated into Sinhala as `sahodarayas’ [brothers]. It led to cultural misunderstandings when sons and daughters of leaders began to address their parents as `sahodarayas’ at public meetings leading to peals of laughter of disbelief from the party faithful. Both DS and Bandaranaike were called ‘Lokka’ by their followers, usually out of their hearing. Mrs. B was universally and respectfully addressed as `Methiniya’.

But JRJ preferred to be addressed as ‘Nayaka Thuma’ which is the closest approximation to undisputed leader or ‘Der Fuhrer’. In his watch there could be only one leader and `Nayaka Thuma’ made sure that all, including the ambitious Premadasa who was a great wordsmith himself, got the message. After JRJ other UNP leaders used the same appellation but with less and less acceptance by the rank and file till under Ranil it became a word of abuse.

It was with supreme confidence that JRJ adapted Napoleon’s phrase to say that he ‘had rolled up the electoral map of Sri Lanka’. Even when he addressed President Reagan and his guests at a White House dinner, JRJ claimed that as Head of State he was in a line with an uninterrupted leadership of over 2,500 years. He did not say that USA had only just celebrated its bi-centennial.

JRJ always crafted his speeches. They were short and full of memorable phrases. He was the earliest to end his speeches with quotations from the Buddha’s teachings. Bandaranaike, like JRJ a convert to Buddhism from Anglican Christianity, never resorted to the use of Buddhist stanzas and imagery. He was at home with Western classics. Once JRJ told me that if you cannot convey your message in ten minutes, even an hour of speech time would be of no use.

He had no time for the Bandaranaike type of oratory. On several occasions when he addressed small groups, like corporation workers, he would effortlessly speak in English and I would translate it to Sinhala. He was a much better speaker in English than in Sinhala, though with his usual thoroughness he had taken Sinhala lessons early in his political career. We were amused when he continued to use Sinhala phrases of the thirties but were now out of vogue.

JRJ believed that the leader should be exemplary. Whether he believed in the concept of the Nietzschean superman or not, he elevated the role of the National leader who in his life style and political acumen dominates society He was an admirer of Gandhi and in his heroic period as Leader of the Opposition he tried to use Gandhian tactics such as Satyagraha, long marches and pujas in Temples and Kovils. But, also like Gandhi, he did not encourage obscurantism.

While accommodating political forays into religion he had contempt for superstition and rituals. One of his oft related stories was about how he was sworn in as President. In 1977, he said, he took oaths as Prime Minister as soon as possible as he did not want any disruption by SLFPers and leftists. He had no time to consult astrologers. In 1983 it was different. Menikdiwela had consulted the best astrologers and he took his oaths at the appointed time. The first term was trouble free, he said, but the astrologically ordained second term was a disaster.

So much for astrology. His Buddhism, which he studied diligently, was of the intellectual type based on the translations of the Pali Text Society which some social anthropologists have called ‘Euro Buddhism’. But he is the only leader I know who had donated extensive personal properties to the Sangha [an exception is Wijepala Mendis who donated his lands to the Sangha in memory of his son who committed suicide.]

Under JR’s watch no priest was allowed to contest for seats from the UNP. When senior monks came to discuss ethnic relations with him, he asked them to mind their own business just as he did not advise them on Sangha matters. It was the concept of ‘the national leader’ that animated his drive to abolish the 1972 Constitution and establish a new Constitution with wide powers of the Executive President. The Executive Presidency had flourished ever since, in spite of the monotonous pledge of every Presidential aspirant to abolish it. The ‘Chintanaya’ introduced by him facilitating an Open Economy remains the same under different catchy phrases in the manifestos of all would be Executive Presidents. The Executive Presidency itself still remains with added powers.

Two years after his death a newspaper asked me to reminisce about JRJ’s personality. I wrote the following article entitled `Thinking of JRJ’:

“Before 1983, even the casual caller at ‘Braemar’ in Ward Place was likely to find the door being opened for him by President Jayewardene himself. Then calling his big black dog to heel he would lead you with that characteristic shuffle of his feet to a little front office with a ‘swing door’.

“The first things that struck you about JRJ was his simplicity and neatness. Everything about him was unpretentious but neatly and methodically arranged. It stood in stark contrast to the vulgar displays of many of his ‘nouveau riche’ parliamentary colleagues. There is a saying that ‘old money never shows’. This was very true of JRJ. Visitors were taken aback when JRJ after politely inquiring whether you wanted tea or a cool drink would a little later shuffle towards you to serve the drink himself From time to time he would take his confidantes out onto his spacious garden where they would be served a choice whisky or a brandy.

“As President he would invite his close friends for dinner at his table in Queen’s House and linger over brandy and cigars reminiscing about great political figures. He admired D.S. Senanayake and would regale his young devotees with stories about the Old Man’s political acumen. One of his favourite stories was about how he and the young Turks of the Ceylon National Congress including Dudley, went to issue an ultimatum to Sir Don Baron Jayatillake at his residence and was so moved by the kindly old leader and his fatherly advice that they hastily aborted their plans.

“The ‘Wap Magula’ was one of JRJ’s brain waves which he drew from his readings of the ancient lore of Sri Lanka — another of his intellectual pursuits. During Dudley Senanayake’s first premiership, he arranged a ‘Wap Magula’ at which Sir Oliver Goonetillake, who was usually dressed in Saville Row clothes, was forced to step into a paddy field with a China silk sarong tucked between his legs. This naturally caused much mirth among the poor village farmers of Akmeemana where the ceremony was held. Sir Oliver had to endure the barbs of satirists like Tarzie Vittachi for the rest of his life for his unfamiliar sartorial transformation.

“The JRJ sponsored Wap Magula’ at Panduwasnuwara in 1978 was not much better. The Agriculture Minister EL Senanayake turned up in a sarong, banian, Nike tennis shoes and Gucci sunglasses. As soon as he set foot in the paddy field he sank up to his knees. There was pandemonium as ministers jostled to appear with JRJ in the news photos. They did not have a clue about ploughing and were thrashing about. The President however confidently handled the plough even though he was warned that the buffaloes might bolt because of the huge klieg lights flashed on them by the Government Film Unit.

“A week later a documentary film made of that ceremony was screened at ‘Braemar’ for the President’s friends. JRJ was mightily pleased when all agreed that he, at 73, had the best figure among the politicians who had stripped down to their loin cloths for the ‘Wap Magula’.

“One of JRJ’s great characteristics was that he was never excited or overawed by anything. Once he made up his mind he would go to the bitter end, come what may. He used to relate how an inner clique had tried to isolate him in the Dudley Senanayake cabinet. This group would meet beforehand and plan to humiliate him at Cabinet meetings. He was stripped of some of the departments in his ministry – particularly control of the media, as someone had carried tales that he was trying to build himself up in the public eye.

“Unperturbed JRJ had taken the ‘Time’ magazine to cabinet and was busy reading it while his ministerial colleagues waited in vain for him to speak, to begin their attack. When Lalith and Gamini left the Premadasa Cabinet he recalled this episode and advised them to remain within the government. They ignored his advice and faced many difficulties later.

“After the historic signing of the Indo – Sri Lanka Accord JRJ shuffled up to the microphone and looking Rajiv Gandhi straight in the eye said “We can forgive but we cannot forget”. But the trust that was soon built up between the two leaders was so strong that Rajiv threw caution to the winds and came to JRJ’s rescue by inducting Indian troops to the North and East thereby releasing Sri Lankan security forces to fight the JVP in the South.

“It is one of the supreme ironies of modern times in our country that had Rajiv not come to Sri Lanka and had he not been subjected to an attack by a JVP indoctrinated naval rating, India may not have intervened, and certainly not so swiftly, and thereby caught the JVP on the wrong foot. The JVP rating made a costly mistake. The JVP by turning to violence opened the door to Indian intervention which JRJ meant to be only an action of the last resort. A section of the UNP that stabbed JRJ in the back, after the Indo-lanka agreement was signed were also responsible for encouraging the JVP. During those days the President was at his stubborn best resolutely refusing to yield to communalism and going back on a pledge given to a neighboring country.

“Coming from a distinguished legal family one of his failings was that he looked on most problems in legal terms. This is a common failing of lawyers in Parliaments all over the world. Since they spend a lifetime preparing, presenting, and defending bits and pieces of legislation they think that changes and additions to the statute book solves all problems.

“Life is rarely like that. But the over dependence on the law and cynical interpretations of legal provisions led JRJ and his supporters to many undemocratic acts and to violations of human rights. Amendments to the constitution to solve parochial political issues led to the debasement of the Constitution and the Presidency. The cynical manipulation of power to harass Vijaya Kumaratunga and his hypocritical persecution of the left, including the JVP after the April disturbances, were examples of the abuse of executive authority. He also condoned the abuses of the army under ‘Bull’ Weeratunga in the north against the Tamil youth which hastened the militarization of the conflict and added to the bitterness of the combatants.

“One always sensed that ‘Papa knows best’ type of feeling when JRJ discussed constitutional issues. He knew that so called legal eagles and human rights activists who confronted him were his intellectual inferiors. ‘This was one aspect of his ego which was assiduously massaged by acolytes like Lalith and Gamini. This legal ambience in the cabinet was galling to Premadasa who was a realist brought up in the school of hard knocks. He too then went about saying “I also know the law”, since he was brought up in Hulftsdorp. Later he gave free rein to the military and para-military formations who battled the LTTE and the JVP.

“President Jayewardene’s death removes from the scene a dominant personality of post-independence Sri Lanka. He was a political giant in every way”.

Cabinet

It would be fair to say that JRJ had the most competent Cabinet of Ministers of modern times. As usual the new Prime Minster had been very thorough in his decision making. He first accommodated all the seniors who were Cabinet ministers in previous UNP governments. Premadasa, M.D.H. Jayawardene, Monty Jayawickreme, E.L. Senanayake, Mohamed and Hurulle were all thus accommodated. He also brought in party seniors who had helped him like Mathew, Hameed, Festus Perera, Jayasuriya and Wijetunga.

Having secured that flank he chose two technocrats Ronnie de Mel and Nissanka Wijeratne, both ex-CCS, to man key ministries-Finance for de Mel and Education for Wijeyaratne. Last, he inducted two young stars of the party, Gamini Dissanayake and Lalith Athulathmudali. They too were given plum portfolios. Everybody could see the logic of the leader’s decisions and there was little of the heartburn that usually follows the selection of cabinet ministers.

Another key factor was that JRJ was clearly ‘Primus inter pares’. While he acknowledged that the victory was a combined effort, ministers knew that he was supreme, having brought the UNP to a historic and unprecedented win which would have been unthinkable under the Senanayakes. He also made it known that he would not brook any underhand maneuvering which had been a regular feature of Sri Lankan party politics.

Later on, we will see that there was some dissatisfaction among his senior colleagues -M.D.H. Jayawardana, Gamini Jayasuriya and E.L. Senanayake. JRJ showed no mercy to them in asking for their resignation from their ministerial positions when disagreements came to the surface. But both sides stuck to the rules and the transitions took place in a civilized manner with JRJ writing to them to thank them for services rendered.

While the cabinet ministers were able and willing, several of them were highly ambitious and had no doubts about their fitness to succeed the Old Man who in his own words had “climbed to the top of the greasy pole” at the ripe age of 72. He was fighting fit and unfailingly followed every morning, a rigorous exercise regime tailored for the Canadian Air Force, but that did not prevent several of his Ministers nursing ambitions of succeeding him one day.

Their hopes were raised even before the 1977 election when JRJ, with no warning, held a straw poll to form a 10-man committee to manage the election campaign. Premadasa came first by a small margin. The surprise was Gamini Dissanayake’s performance coming a strong second, thus fueling his already vaulting ambition. Ronnie de Mel and Lalith Athulathmudali also made it to the group. It sent a clear signal to Premadasa and the party seniors that they would not have a cakewalk to the top. It also created a sense of competition among the front runners which simmered right through JRJ’s two terms and blew the party apart after Premadasa donned the mantle.

While this competition helped in running an efficient administration it must be recognized that it exacerbated tensions among the front runners. JRJ gave ear to them all and while not discouraging them did not overtly back any one of them either. He was a master at giving each of them hope, while not showing his hand in any way. To complicate matters there were two others outside this ring who believed that they had JRJ’s blessings to go to the top. One was Anandatissa de Alwis, a party grandee who managed both the political and personal entanglements of Sir John Kotelawala.

He was the kingpin of the UNP youth league in the early days and had been recruited by JRJ as his Permanent Secretary in the 1965 Dudley led administration. They were close friends and the leader’s unilateral decision to make him Speaker of the House did not please Ananda who wanted to be a Minister, preferably in charge of the old ministry in which he was Permanent Secretary. The other was Upali Wijewardene, JRJ’s cousin who had emerged as a clever and ambitious business magnate.

He wrapped himself in the mantle of a hero of the south because his mother and the source of his wealth came from a prominent family in the southern heartland. This was a direct affront to Ronnie de Mel, who also was burnishing his southern credentials as the representative for Devinuwara, the abode of Vishnu- the guardian god of the South. Vishnu is believed to be the only god who did not run away when the Buddha was threatened-by Mara.

All News Advertisement

Features

The Great AI Schism: When the Titans of Tech tell us to slow down

Published

21 hours ago

2026/10/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Prof. C. A. Saliya

Something extraordinary happened in September 2026. The very people who have spent the last decade pouring tens of billions of dollars into building artificial intelligence, the visionaries, the investors, the CEOs, suddenly started telling the world to hit the brakes. It’s a bit like the captain of a speeding train leaning out of the window and shouting, “Actually, maybe we should slow down a bit!” The public, understandably, is confused. We’ve been told AI will cure cancer, solve climate change, and give us all free time. Now we’re being told it might kill us all. Welcome to the great AI schism.

To understand what’s happening, you have to listen to the people in the room. These are not wild-eyed doomsayers on the internet. They are the titans of the industry. And they are starting to argue with each other.

Dario Amodei: The Insider Who Wants to Hit Pause

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic (Claude AI), is the man who kicked the hornet’s nest. In a 3,800-word essay, posted on his website in mid-September 2026, he didn’t just suggest caution, he demanded a slowdown. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” he wrote. His reasoning is simple and terrifying: the technology is moving faster than our ability to control it. He warned that AI could be misused for cyberattacks, bioterrorism, and serious economic disruption.

What makes Amodei’s warning so chilling is that it comes from a man whose company, Anthropic, builds one of the most powerful AI models in the world, Claude. He’s not a critic on the sidelines. He’s in the driver’s seat, and he’s telling us the car might not have brakes. In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, he said he agreed with a departing Anthropic researcher who claimed AI could “kill us all” by the end of the decade. That researcher, 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, resigned in protest, saying the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all”. When the people building the technology start resigning because they’re afraid of it, you should pay attention.

Bill Gates: The Elder Statesman with a Warning

Bill Gates has been around long enough to know a paradigm shift when he sees one. The Microsoft co-founder, who spent decades warning the world about pandemics and climate change, has now turned his attention to AI. And he’s not mincing words. In September 2026, Gates warned that AI is “powerful enough to drive events that, you know, cause a billion deaths”.

Gates is not worried about Terminator-style robots. He’s worried about people. “There’s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest AI tools,” he said. His solution is simple: regulation. “No one thinks self-regulation is enough,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. He even offered to be the man to convince President Trump to regulate AI. Gates is a pragmatist. He knows the technology is coming. He just wants to make sure it doesn’t get us first.

Sam Altman: The Showman with a Conscience (Maybe)

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI (Chat GPT), has always been the industry’s greatest showman. He’s the man who told us AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is “just around the corner” and that AI will soon be a “genie that can grant any wish”. But even Altman is now singing a different tune. In September 2026, he ruled out an OpenAI IPO in 2026, citing safety concerns. He called even a 10% risk of AI causing human extinction “unacceptable”.

“I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier,” Altman posted on X. This is a remarkable shift. Altman has spent years being criticised for moving too fast, for prioritising profit over safety. Now, facing mounting evidence that AI models can cause real harm, from cyberattacks to mental health crises, he’s suddenly the voice of caution. Is it genuine? Or is it a PR move? The cynics will tell you it’s the latter. But the fact remains: when Sam Altman says we need to slow down, the world listens.

Elon Musk: The Provocateur Who Saw It Coming

Elon Musk has been warning about AI for over a decade. He’s the man who called AI “more dangerous than nuclear weapons” long before it was fashionable. So it’s no surprise that he joined the chorus of slowdown calls in September 2026. But Musk being Musk, he couldn’t resist a bit of dark humour. When asked if we’re all going to die within 10 years, he replied, “I don’t want to disappoint you, but we’re all going to die someday anyway”.

But behind the joke is a serious point. Musk believes AI models could escape their constraints, take control of military systems, and even launch nuclear weapons. His solution is mutual oversight: leading AI companies should test each other’s systems for safety before release, and he even suggested a deal with China to make it happen. Musk is a provocateur, but he’s also a visionary. And his vision is one where AI is a weapon that we might not be able to control.

Satya Nadella: The Quiet Strategist

While the others are shouting about doom, Satya Nadella is quietly building an empire. The Microsoft CEO doesn’t talk about extinction risks. He talks about “agentic AI”, AI that can act autonomously, which he calls “a new paradigm”. Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform, which powers these AI agents, grew 43% in the last quarter, surpassing $100 billion in annual revenue.

Nadella’s view is simple: don’t compete to build the most powerful model; compete to control the “orchestration layer”, the systems that connect different AI models. He wants to build the infrastructure that everyone else relies on. It’s a smart play, and it’s making Microsoft a fortune. But Nadella’s silence on safety is deafening. While Amodei and Altman wrestle with their consciences, Nadella is counting the money. It’s not that he doesn’t care; it’s that his business model depends on AI being adopted, not regulated.

Jacob Coxon: The Whistleblower Who Lit the Fuse

You may not have heard of Jacob Coxon. He’s not a billionaire. He’s not a CEO. He’s a 27-year-old researcher who worked at both OpenAI and Anthropic. And in September 2026, he resigned from Anthropic with a warning that shook the industry. “Neither company is acting responsibly,” he wrote on X. “They are launching themselves directly toward a superintelligence capable of self-improvement, and gambling with our lives”.

Coxon’s warning was remarkable because it came from inside the machine. He said the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade”. He called for a temporary freeze on advanced AI training. His resignation triggered a wave of concern, and even Dario Amodei admitted he agreed with Coxon more than he disagreed. Coxon is the canary in the coal mine. And the canary is not looking well.

Donald Trump: The Wildcard

And then there’s Donald Trump. The US President has consistently downplayed AI fears, calling them a “hoax” and a “sick conspiracy”. But even Trump is starting to change his tune, sort of. In September 2026, he announced plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an AI “Czar”. He said the government would look for “bad” uses of AI through the existing criminal and civil justice systems.

But Trump’s priority is clear: winning the AI race against China. “We will not in any way hinder or stifle the growth of this incredible industry,” he said. He wants AI to account for 25% of US GDP. Trump is not a technologist. He’s a businessman and a nationalist. He sees AI as a tool for economic dominance, not an existential threat. Whether he’s right or wrong, his stance puts him at odds with almost every expert in the field.

The Bottom Line: A House Divided

So where does this leave us? We have the CEOs of the world’s leading AI companies, Amodei, Altman, and Musk, all calling for a slowdown. We have Bill Gates, the elder statesman of tech, warning of a billion deaths. We have a whistleblower who says the industry is gambling with our lives. And then we have Satya Nadella, quietly building the infrastructure that powers it all, and Donald Trump, who wants to speed up.

The irony is hard to miss. The people who built the AI train are now telling us to slow down. The people who profit from the AI economy are the ones building the tracks. And the public is caught in the middle, trying to figure out who to believe.

Maybe the most honest thing anyone said came from Jacob Coxon, the 27-year-old researcher who quit. “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” he wrote. “This is not a marketing stunt”.

If the people building the technology believe it could kill us, perhaps we should listen. Before it’s too late.

(Prof. C. A. Saliya, is a charted accountant, academic, researcher and former banker. He is the author of SAMAJA GAVESHAKAYA and Springer Publication DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH. He can be contacted at saliya.ca@gmail.com. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the organisations with which he is affiliated.)

Features

Preventing grievances from becoming communal

Published

2 days ago

2026/10/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

Police removing the Thileepan statue

by Jehan Perera

The death sentence on Sivarasa Anojan, a Sri Lankan citizen convicted of blasphemy in Saudi Arabia has taken a central place in national consciousness for the past several weeks. It has been in the headline news since it was first reported last month. There have been many initiatives taken locally to get a more lenient sentencing by the Saudi authorities. There is also an undercurrent that is critical of both the culture and religion from which this sentencing emanates. This also sustains the widespread publicity being given nationally to the issue. By way of contrast, the controversy caused by the forcible removal of the Thileepan statue in Jaffna has not significantly impacted upon the national consciousness. There was only passing mention of the incident in the national media which has been overtaken by other events.

However, in the north and east of the country, and in the diaspora, the removal of the Thileepan statue has become a major issue. It has led to protest marches led by university students and widespread condemnation by civil society and political groups. The issues underlying the Thileepan statue have deep undercurrents in the Tamil consciousness particularly in the north and east which time is unlikely to dispel. The real test of harmony in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society like Sri Lanka is not whether communities coexist peacefully when nothing controversial is at stake. Rather, the test is how they respond when an event touches their identities and grievances. The death sentence imposed on Anojan in Saudi Arabia and the removal of the Thileepan statue in Jaffna carry the risk of becoming grievances to entire communities.

In the case of Anojan, a young Tamil migrant worker, he was first sentenced to five years imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals over a Facebook comment. Both he and the Saudi prosecution appealed, with the appeal court raising the sentence to death. This has led to public sympathy for him in Sri Lanka.

Appeals for clemency have come from the President, government and opposition leaders, clergy of all faiths and Muslim political leaders. At the same time there is a need to reject attempts to turn the case into a source of anti-Muslim sentiment or collective blame. Peacebuilding therefore has to be within Sri Lanka as well as diplomatic. Religious leaders and civil society in the country should be ready to quell rumour, even as Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Christian leaders stand together publicly.

Thileepan Statue

The Thileepan controversy has had a different trajectory. Many Tamils admire Thileepan, the LTTE name of Rasaiah Parthipan, who died on 26 September 1987 after a twelve-day fast. His demands were addressed to India but included matters pertaining to the Sri Lankan government including the release of detainees held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The statue put up during this year’s commemoration was removed by police in the early hours of 27 September, a day after the commemoration ended. The government’s legal concern, as articulated by its spokesperson, was the LTTE remains a proscribed organisation and before removing the statue, police had presented facts to the court. But law and memory answer different questions and the depth of Tamil anguish cannot be disregarded.

For many Tamils, remembrance of Thileepan is connected to their sense of loss and historical memory. The memorial has been destroyed and rebuilt more than once, and each destruction has added to the meaning it carries. Many who mourn Thileepan are grieving a young man who died without violence and by his own fast. They also grieve an era of loss of the struggle for Tamil rights and self-determination for which Thileepan has become a symbol. The Office for Reparations Act, No. 34 of 2018, provides for collective reparations and gives the Office for Reparations a role in policies on memorialisation. This does not automatically permit any particular statue, nor does it override laws on public places or proscribed organisations. But it shows that memorialisation is recognised within Sri Lanka’s framework for reparations and reconciliation. There is also a wider question of equality.

The JVP that now leads the NPP government was itself once proscribed when it took up arms against the state in which tens of thousands died, later entered democratic politics, and now for many years has publicly commemorated its own fallen. The opportunity to remember those who died should not belong to one community alone.

A commitment to peacebuilding requires that the same trust that has been given to former militants of one community needs to be given to members of other communities if equal citizenship and equal rights are to have meaning. Further, the Office for Reparations Act provides for reparations through livelihood. It is today a fact that those former LTTE members who went through the government’s rehabilitation process find it difficult to get jobs in the private sector.

Private sector employers are reluctant to come under surveillance for employing former LTTE members. There needs to be equal access to employment and removal of unjustified barriers to reintegration, with targeted public programmes where necessary. Until this situation is realized on the ground, the government needs to consider employing those who went through the government’s rehabilitation process and still unable to find suitable employment.

Continuing Peace

The challenge that post-war Sri Lanka faces, a full 17 years after the end of war, is to strengthen the foundations of trust between communities rather than deepen existing suspicions. Anojan is an individual Sri Lankan citizen facing a severe sentence in another country. His case should not become a reason to blame Sri Lankan Muslims. Thileepan is remembered differently by different communities, but the dispute over his memorial should not become a reason to revive the communal divisions of the past. The cases are also mirror images in an important respect. In the Anojan case, the state is an advocate pleading before another government. In the Thileepan case, the state is the actor whose decision is being judged. The first calls for quiet diplomacy and restraint in public language. The second calls for fairness and explanation, and the burden on the state is heavier.

The common roots of the two cases lie in mistrust that does not belong to one community alone. It has been produced by experiences of discrimination, violence, insecurity and loss that have been interpreted differently by different communities. Grievances turn communal when an individual is seen as a representative of a community, when institutions seem to treat communities unequally, and when people feel their pain goes unacknowledged. Each of these can be addressed. The system change that the Sri Lankan people voted for in 2024 would need to include a government that rejects collective blame, acknowledges grief and explains its decisions openly. It also requires state institutions to act transparently and consistently, so that no citizen feels that the law protects some communities more than others.

This peacebuilding imperative requires enlightened leadership as much as legal authority. It requires leaders who will speak to their own communities against prejudice, even when this is politically inconvenient. It requires religious leaders who will demonstrate solidarity across religious boundaries. And it requires civil society to recognise that peacebuilding is not simply preventing violence after tensions have risen, but is addressing the mistrust and grievances that allow tensions to rise in the first place. Sri Lanka has learned, at great cost, that communal divisions can become much larger than the events that initially give rise to them. The Anojan and Thileepan cases give Sri Lanka an opportunity to demonstrate that it has learned from its past. The test of Sri Lanka’s continuing peace is whether we can address difficult grievances without turning them into communal ones.

Features

Sri Lanka Cricket Bill: Governance reform is not yet a cricket strategy – Part II

Published

2 days ago

2026/10/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Sarath S. Kodithuwakku

President, Institute of Management of Sri Lanka; Senior Professor, University of Peradeniya

(Continued from yesterday)

Representation, Independence and Decision-Making

The membership-based electoral structure should provide representation without becoming a substitute for executive management. The seven Elected Directors would bring the perspectives of the SLC membership into the Board, while the seven Independent Directors would provide additional professional expertise and independence. The model’s effectiveness will, therefore, depend on whether the Board can integrate these perspectives into coherent strategic decisions while maintaining a clear boundary between governance and day-to-day management.

The equal division between Elected and Independent Directors also raises a governance-design question. An even-numbered Board can create a tie. The Bill addresses this directly: in the event of equality, the Chairperson has a casting vote; in the Chairperson’s absence, the Deputy Chairperson has a casting vote; and if both are absent, an Independent Director, elected to preside, has the casting vote. The issue is, therefore, not whether a tie can be resolved, but how this mechanism affects the balance between representation, independence and accountability.

The leadership structure reinforces this balance: the Chairperson is elected from among the Independent Directors and the Deputy Chairperson from among the Elected Directors. The casting-vote arrangement makes the Chairperson’s role and perceived independence particularly important, especially when a major strategic decision divides the two components of the Board.

The Bill’s committee provisions could support a disciplined model of delegation, but implementation will depend heavily on the terms of reference adopted by the new Board. The framework could be strengthened by requiring a published cricket-development strategy, a clear division of powers among the Board, executives and selection committees, transparent principles for major development allocations, and periodic reporting on outcomes across men’s, women’s, schools and domestic cricket. These measures would strengthen accountability without legislating the details of team selection or tournament scheduling.

From Measurement to Strategic Accountability

If the Board is to hold management accountable for strategy rather than simply for short-term results, it needs a performance framework that captures both outcomes and the capabilities that produce them.

SLC should consider requiring an explicit multi-year cricket-development strategy, supported by measurable objectives and an annual strategy review. Such a strategy should identify the development pathway from schools and grassroots cricket through domestic competitions to high performance; define major capability priorities such as coaching, sports science, data and analytics; set resource-allocation principles; and establish indicators against which progress can be assessed.

The purpose would not be to turn cricket into a bureaucratic exercise. Strategic accountability simply creates a disciplined basis for asking whether the organisation is doing what it said it would do, whether its assumptions remain valid, and whether resources are producing the intended results.

From Measurement to Organisational Learning

SLC should, therefore, consider adopting a formal Balanced Scorecard. Rather than measuring success solely through international match results or annual financial audits, the framework could track four interdependent perspectives:

Financial Sustainability:

commercial growth, financial discipline and compliance.

Internal Processes:

domestic tournament quality, development pathways and selector-process integrity.

Stakeholder Value:

grassroots development, school cricket and women’s cricket expansion.

Strategic Capability:

coaching quality, sports science, talent development, data and analytics capability, and the organisation’s ability to convert investment into sustainable performance.

The purpose of such a framework would not be to reduce cricket development to a collection of numbers. Rather, it would create a disciplined process for asking four fundamental management questions:

What did we expect to achieve?

What actually happened?

Why was there a difference?

What should we change as a result?

Evaluating these dimensions periodically would help SLC move beyond performance reporting towards genuine organisational learning.

ICC as a Stakeholder in Governance Reform

The ICC is another important stakeholder whose interests should be recognised in the reform process. SLC’s governance arrangements do not operate solely within Sri Lankan law; they also have to be compatible with the governance obligations associated with ICC membership. The ICC’s Articles of Association require each Member to provide for free and democratic elections (or nominees from outside its members) and to manage its affairs autonomously, without government or other public-body interference in the governance, regulation or administration of cricket.

International experience demonstrates that ICC engagement in member governance restructuring is not unusual. In the United States, after the ICC expelled the old national association for chronic governance failures, the ICC directly oversaw a multi-year project to design a new governance model. The ICC Board formally approved the constitution for a replacement body (USA Cricket) before it was adopted. The resulting structure combined elected constituent directors with independent directors, showing that an ICC-backed framework can accommodate both forms of representation.

In Nepal, the ICC established a Nepal Advisory Group comprising stakeholders from across the game to recommend constitutional amendments, with adoption of the revised constitution and subsequent elections forming part of the conditions for reinstatement of ICC membership.[8] The ICC subsequently facilitated an independent panel that included ICC nominees together with representatives of Nepal’s National Sports Council and the existing cricket administration to map the election process, guidelines and timelines.[9] More recently, in 2026, an ICC delegation visited Bangladesh to engage with stakeholders on governance and electoral matters.[10] The ICC has also reported that its Deputy Chair and another ICC Board representative visited Sri Lanka and met relevant stakeholders to assess ongoing developments, while the ICC Board reiterated the need for elections to be held as soon as possible.

These precedents make the ICC a legitimate stakeholder in considering the governance implications of the proposed Bill. This does not mean that the ICC should determine Sri Lanka’s domestic legislation, nor that every feature of the Bill requires prior ICC approval. It does, however, suggest that early and formal engagement with the ICC would be prudent, particularly where the proposed arrangements concern Board independence, elections, government involvement and the transition to the new governance structure.

This is particularly relevant because the Bill creates two institutional arrangements that deserve careful scrutiny from an autonomy perspective. The Transformation Committee is responsible for managing the transition until the First Board is constituted, while the Nomination Committee, although structurally independent of the SLC Board, includes representatives connected with the Sports Ministry and the National Sports Council. Neither arrangement, by itself, establishes government interference. However, taken together, they make it important that the independence of the incoming Board is demonstrable through transparent procedures rather than assumed from the structure alone.

Given the professional calibre and international exposure of the members of the Transformation Committee, it would be reasonable to expect that the importance of ICC engagement would have been recognised. Although any such consultation has not been evident in the public domain, it is therefore reasonable to expect that the ICC has either already been consulted or will be consulted before the Bill is enacted. Such engagement would allow potential incompatibilities to be identified before the new structure is enacted and implemented, rather than after the fact.

The Transition Is Itself a Governance Challenge

The transition provisions introduce a significant organisational-change challenge. Replacing the existing club- and association-based governance structure with a new hybrid Board and governance architecture is not simply a legal exercise; it is an organisational change programme. The Sri Lanka Cricket Transformation Committee is required to manage the transition until the First Board is constituted and, during that period, to establish rules covering matters including tournament structure, domestic governance, selection committee appointments, committee terms of reference, the Nomination Committee process and the election of the Elected Directors.

Structural reform on paper can encounter resistance from established interests, institutional habits and existing routines. The implementation phase will therefore require a clear change-management framework, including stakeholder engagement, transparent onboarding for Independent Directors, clarification of decision rights, alignment of legacy committees, and careful transfer of information and responsibilities.

Without attention to these organisational factors, cultural friction could undermine the intended administrative improvements. The success of the reform will therefore depend not only on the text of the legislation but also on the quality of the rules, appointments, delegation arrangements and organisational behaviours that follow it.

From Governance Reform to a Cricket Strategy

The Bill deserves credit for addressing how SLC is constituted and for creating places for specialist advice. It should not be dismissed simply because it does not prescribe a batting order or a domestic fixture list. Those are not appropriate tasks for legislation.

Its limitation is more precise: the proposed governance arrangements do not, by themselves, assure the strategic capability of the Board or the quality, independence and accountability of the decisions made beneath it. They establish the architecture. The future Board and management must supply the strategy, capabilities, discipline and learning mechanisms that make the architecture work.

A stronger reform would connect four elements: a Board selected for collective strategic capability; professional cricket management with clear delegated authority; transparent but non-mechanical selection and investment processes; and systematic evaluation of development outcomes. Within the first of these, information technology and computer science should be recognised as distinct from the broader capability to understand and govern data science, analytics and emerging AI-enabled decision support.

Ultimately, the governing question is not only who gets a seat at the SLC Board table. It is whether that Board can build, fund, execute and learn from a credible strategy for Sri Lankan cricket.

References

1. Department of Government Printing, Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Cricket Bill, Gazette Supplement, Part II of September 25, 2026, issued on 28 September 2026.

2. International Cricket Council. Media release, 15 July 2026, reporting the ICC Board discussion of Sri Lanka Cricket and the need for elections to be held as soon as possible.

3. Sport New Zealand – Ihi Aotearoa. Nine Steps to Effective Governance, particularly Step 1: Define and Agree the Board’s Role; Step 4: Provide Strategic Leadership; Step 5: Employ and Support a Chief Executive; and Step 8: Get the Right People on Board.

4. Cricket South Africa. Governance and management frameworks, including the delegation-of-authority framework, Board committees, Cricket Committee, Cricket Pipeline Committee and CEO accountability.

5. International Cricket Council. ICC Articles of Association, provisions requiring free and democratic elections and autonomous administration without government or other public-body interference. ICC. https://images.icc-cricket.com/image/upload/prd/f7vm88yw1933dc38cgtg.pdf

6. International Cricket Council. “ICC outlines proposed USACA constitution.” ICC, 2017. https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/icc-outlines-proposed-usaca-constitution

7. International Cricket Council. “Approved constitution marks historic landmark for cricket in USA.” ICC, 2017. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/approved-constitution-marks-historic-landmark-for-cricket-in-usa

8. International Cricket Council. “ICC welcomes Nepal Special General Meeting to adopt revised constitution.” ICC, 2018. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-welcomes-nepal-special-general-meeting-to-adopt-revised-constitution

9. International Cricket Council. “Independent Panel meet to progress Nepal elections under revised constitution.” ICC, 2018. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/independent-panel-meet-to-progress-nepal-elections-under-revised-constitution

10. International Cricket Council. “ICC delegation visits Bangladesh to engage with stakeholders on governance and electoral matters.” ICC, 2026. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-delegation-visits-bangladesh-to-engage-with-stakeholders-on-governance-and-electoral-matters

11. International Cricket Council. “ICC Board approves governance, membership and member support decisions.” ICC, 2026; see also “ICC Board Meeting,” 2026, reporting ICC representatives’ meetings with stakeholders in Sri Lanka. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/icc-board-approves-governance-membership-and-member-support-decisions

(Concluded)