Features
The Trapped Titan: Mahinda at Eighty
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa celebrated his eightieth birthday on Nov.18th. Whether we admire or despise his politics, there is no denying that he decisively shaped the destiny of this island for decades, and his imprint will linger for generations. Understanding Mahinda Rajapaksa is crucial not merely as a study of one man, but as a lens through which to examine the interplay of society, religion, and charisma—the forces that both elevated him and ultimately constrained him. To scrutinize his trajectory is to confront the anatomy of a political phenomenon, the philosophical tragedy of a “big man,” and the distortion of institutions when personality eclipses principle.
Mahinda rose to prominence in a moment of decisive national crisis. At the close of a decades-long civil war, he embodied the image of a saviour, a warrior-statesman, echoing Pericles rallying Athens during the Peloponnesian wars or Augustus consolidating Rome after civil chaos. Weber’s concept of charismatic authority is indispensable here: Mahinda commanded not merely office but loyalty, belief, and symbolic legitimacy. “Charisma,” Weber argued, “is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” For Mahinda, the powers were political rather than mystical, yet society projected onto him its anxieties, hopes, and collective identity in identical fashion.
Yet charisma, as Weber warned, is inherently unstable. Unlike Augustus, who transformed personal power into legal and bureaucratic frameworks, or Pericles, who entwined civic virtue with democratic rituals, Mahinda remained essentially a man of personal devotion, surrounded by family and loyalists who reflected his will rather than challenged it. The irony is brutal: the very admiration that elevated him also blinded him. As the populace celebrated him and his inner circle echoed every gesture, he became increasingly incapable of distinguishing genuine strategy from flattery, principle from applause. In the post-war era, Mahinda was more than a politician; he was a symbol, a vessel of hope, and an avatar of nationalist Buddhist identity. Yet symbols do not govern—they are interpreted, projected upon, and inevitably misread.
The post-war period exposed the fragility of personalised power. Charisma, Weber insisted, must either routinise into institutional authority or dissipate. Mahinda’s independence eroded precisely because those around him began to worship the symbol more than the substance. Advisors, loyalists, and even family members treated public exaltation as justification for actions divorced from reasoned governance. Buddhism, historically decentralised and sustained by lay support rather than political authority, was increasingly mobilised to serve personal legitimacy. His rhetoric and gestures drew on a century of nationalist Buddhist revival, echoing the dynamics Prof S. J. Tambiah and Prof Gananath Obeyesekere described: a tradition transformed into a vehicle for political identity and mass mobilisation. The irony is profound: a philosophy rooted in impermanence became instrumentalised in pursuit of permanence for a single human agent.
This manipulation of religious authority was neither accidental nor purely symbolic. Mahinda’s administration drew on multiple religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, each eager to assert its relevance in a post-war state. In doing so, he became dependent upon them. His ideology—once framed in terms of national unity and reconstruction—shifted under the weight of symbolic expectation. Like Augustus leveraging Roman religion to consolidate authority or Pericles entwining civic and religious pride to fortify the polis, Mahinda’s political philosophy became inseparable from the very structures that ultimately constrained him. Ironically, he was pathetically used by the Catholic Church just as the Buddhist clergy, in many instances, deliberately ignored opportunities for much-needed structural reform.
The result was inevitable: a gradual unraveling of independence, first political, then familial. The network that had amplified his authority became the very mechanism of limitation. Loyalty, combined with unexamined adulation, became a cage. Siblings and inner circle, once instruments of his will, transformed into mirrors reflecting public desire, amplifying triumphs and shielding him from critique. Mahinda did not merely lose power externally; he became politically incapacitated within his own household—a tragic inversion of the charismatic logic that had elevated him. In Lacanian terms, the “mirror stage” of collective projection trapped the subject within the desires of the Other, leaving him blindfolded by affection, rejoicing in praise while losing touch with reality.
Mahinda’s trajectory invites reflection on history, power, and social perception. There is a Nietzschean aspect to his rise and fall: a temporary Übermensch, a man transcending conventional norms, becoming the axis of collective aspiration. Yet, like all such figures, he confronts mortality, social expectation, and human frailty. The worship that initially empowered him became the instrument of his constraint. Camus’ notion of absurdity is pertinent: the man who once seemed invincible confronts the absurdity of societal projection—a populace demanding permanence from an impermanent human agent.
The post-war narrative also illustrates the perils of historical contingency and generational expectation. Unlike South Korea or Singapore, where leaders institutionalised authority to endure beyond their lifetimes, Mahinda’s charisma remained personalistic. The “big man” syndrome, familiar in many post-colonial contexts, collided with democratic volatility, economic pressures, and familial rivalry. There was no proceduralisation, no legal-rational scaffolding to transform adulation into sustainable governance. In Weberian terms, Mahinda failed to routinise charisma into institutional power, leaving a paradoxical legacy: national reverence intertwined with political paralysis.
At eighty, Mahinda Rajapaksa stands as both relic and warning. His life embodies the intersection of ambition, social projection, and religious symbolism. The distortion of Buddhist revivalism and the co-option of religious institutions into political legitimacy expose the fragility of governance when entwined with mass adoration. The post-war period, marked by triumph and symbolic sacralisation, mirrors ancient precedents: Augustus employed ritual to consolidate Rome, Pericles entwined civic pride with political control. In both cases, institutionalisation buffered the collapse; Mahinda, by contrast, illustrates the limits of unmediated charisma: the man adored becomes the man trapped, the nation that worshipped becomes constrained by expectation.
History rarely permits the return of such personalities. No successor embodies his post-war symbolic and political capital. Minor attempts to imitate him falter because the phenomenon was both personal and era-specific. Mahinda’s eightieth year is not merely a birthday; it is a prism to examine society, religion, and political psychology. It reminds us that leadership demands not only decisiveness or heroism, but also foresight, management of adulation, and ethical stewardship of symbolic power.
Mahinda Rajapaksa’s life chronicles the collision of human expectation with impermanence. Society elevated him, religious institutions sanctified him, family amplified him—yet each contributed to his political constriction. The charismatic paradox is blunt: the greater the worship, the narrower the freedom; the more profound the symbol, the sharper the distortion. Sri Lanka’s history, and the philosophical lessons of political life, require that we study such figures not only for their deeds, but for the dynamics they expose: the societies that exalt them, the ideologies they embody, and the vulnerabilities inevitable in human aspiration.
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Features
Fractious West facing a more solidified Eastern opposition
Going forward, it is hoped that a reported ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran would provide a basis for a degree of stability in the Middle East and pave the way for substantive peace talks between the powers concerned. The world is compelled to fall back on hope because there is never knowing when President Donald Trump would change his mind and plans on matters of the first importance. So erratic has he been.
Yet, confusion abounds on who has agreed to what. The US President is on record that a number of conditions put forward by him to Iran to deescalate tensions have been accepted by the latter, whereas Iran is yet to state unambiguously that this is so. For instance, the US side claims that Iran has come clear on the point that it would not work towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but there is no official confirmation by Iran that this is so. The same goes for the rest of the conditions.
Accordingly, the peace process between the US and Iran, if such a thing solidly exists, could be said to be mired in uncertainty. Nevertheless, the wider publics of the world are bound to welcome the prospects of some sort of ceasing of hostilities because it would have the effect of improving their economic and material well being which is today under a cloud.
However, questions of the first magnitude would continue to bedevil international politics and provide the breeding ground for continued tensions between East and West. Iran-US hostilities helped highlight some of these divisive issues and a deescalation of these tensions would not inevitably translate into even a temporary resolution of these questions. The world community would have no choice but to take them up and work towards comprehending them better and managing them more effectively.
For example, there are thorny questions arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Essentially, this treaty bans the processing and use of nuclear weapons by states but some of the foremost powers are not signatories to it.
Moreover, the NPT does not provide for the destroying of nuclear arsenals by those signatory states which are already in possession of these WMDs. Consequently, there would be a glaring power imbalance between the latter nuclear-armed states and others which possess only conventional weapons.
Such a situation has grave implications for Iran’s security, for instance. The latter could argue, in view of the NPT restrictions, that the US poses a security threat to it but that it is debarred by the Treaty from developing a nuclear arms capability of its own to enable it to match the nuclear capability of the US. Moreover, its regional rival Israel is believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, a case could be made that the NPT is inherently unfair. The US would need to help resolve this vexatious matter going forward. But if it remains, US-Iran tensions would not prove easy to resolve. The same goes for Iran-Israeli tensions. Consequently, the Middle East would remain the proverbial ‘powder keg’.
Besides the above issues, the world has ample evidence that it could no longer speak in terms of a united NATO or West. Apparently, there could be no guarantee that US-NATO relations would remain untroubled in future, even if the current Iran-US standoff is peacefully resolved. US-NATO ties almost reached breaking point in the current crisis when the US President called on its NATO partners, particularly Britain, to help keep open the Hormuz Straits for easy navigation by commercial vessels, militarily, on seeing that such help was not forthcoming. Such questions are bound to remain sore points in intra-Western ties.
In other words, it would be imperative for the US’ NATO partners to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’ going ahead. The question is, would NATO be willing to thus toe the US line even at the cost of its best interests.
For the West, these fractious issues are coming to the fore at a most unpropitious moment. The reality that could faze the West at present is the strong opposition shown to its efforts to bolster its power and influence by China and Russia. Right through the present crisis, the latter have stood by Iran, materially and morally. For instance, the most recent Security Council resolution spearheaded by the US which was strongly critical of Iran, was vetoed by China and Russia.
Accordingly, we have in the latter developments some marked polarities in international politics that could stand in the way of the West advancing its interests unchallenged. They point to progressively intensifying East-West tensions in international relations in the absence of consensuality.
It is only to be expected that given the substance of international politics that the West would be opposed by the East, read China and Russia, in any of the former’s efforts to advance its self interests unilaterally in ways that could be seen as illegitimate, but what is sorely needed at present is consensuality among the foremost powers if the world is to be ‘a less dangerous place to live in.’ Minus a focus on the latter, it would be a ‘no-win’ situation for all concerned.
It would be central to world stability for International Law to be upheld by all states and international actors. Military intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries remains a principal cause of international mayhem. Both East and West are obliged to abide scrupulously with this principle.
From the latter viewpoint, not only did the West err in recent times, but the East did so as well. Iran, for instance, acted in gross violation of International Law when it attacked neighbouring Gulf states which are seen as US allies. Neither Iran nor the US-Israel combine have helped in advancing international law and order by thus taking the law into their own hands.
Unfortunately, the UN has been a passive spectator to these disruptive developments. It needs to play a more robust role in promoting world peace and in furthering consensual understanding among the principal powers in particular. The need is also urgent to advance UN reform and render the UN a vital instrument in furthering world peace. The East and West need to think alike and quickly on this urgent undertaking.
Features
Science-driven health policies key to tackling emerging challenges — UNFPA
Marking World Health Day on April 7, health experts have called for a stronger commitment to science-based decision-making to address increasingly complex and evolving health challenges in Sri Lanka and beyond.
Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga, Assistant Representative of the United Nations Population Fund, stressed that health is no longer confined to hospitals or traditional medical systems, but is shaped by a broad spectrum of social, environmental, and technological factors.
“This year’s theme, ‘Together for Health. Stand with Science,’ reminds us that science is not only for laboratories or policymakers. It is a way of thinking and a tool that shapes everyday decisions,” he said.
Dr. Ranatunga noted that modern health challenges are increasingly interconnected, ranging from infectious diseases such as COVID-19 to climate-related risks, demographic shifts, and emerging forms of online violence.
He warned that maternal and newborn health continues to demand urgent attention despite progress. Globally, an estimated 260,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in 2023 alone—many of them preventable through timely, science-based interventions.
“In countries like Sri Lanka, where fertility rates are declining and survival rates improving, every pregnancy carries greater significance—not just for families, but for the future of communities and economies,” he said.
The UNFPA official also highlighted the growing threat of Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), including cyber harassment and online abuse, noting that these forms of violence can have deep psychological consequences despite lacking visible physical harm.
He emphasised the need for multidisciplinary, science-informed approaches that integrate mental health, digital safety, and survivor-centered care.
Turning to demographic trends, Dr. Ranatunga pointed out that increasing life expectancy is bringing new challenges, particularly the rise of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, and cancers.
In Sri Lanka, nearly 13.9% of mothers develop diabetes during pregnancy, a trend attributed to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, underscoring the urgent need for preventive healthcare strategies.
“Are we investing enough in prevention?” he asked, noting that early intervention and healthier lifestyles could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs, especially in a country with a free public healthcare system.
He underscored the importance of data-driven policymaking, stating that scientific research and analytics enable governments to identify gaps, anticipate future needs, and allocate resources more effectively.
The UNFPA, he said, is already leveraging tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve access to maternal healthcare, including mapping travel times for pregnant women to reach health facilities.
Digital innovation is also transforming healthcare delivery, from telemedicine to real-time data systems, improving efficiency and ensuring continuity of care even during emergencies.
In Sri Lanka, partnerships between the government and development agencies are helping to modernise training institutions, including facilities in Batticaloa, equipping healthcare workers with both clinical and digital skills.
However, Dr. Ranatunga cautioned that technology alone is not a solution.
“It must be guided by evidence and grounded in equity,” he said, pointing out that women’s health remains significantly underfunded, with only about 7% of global healthcare research focusing on conditions specific to women.
He also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, food insecurity, and displacement, describing it as an emerging public health crisis.
“Health does not begin in hospitals. It is shaped by the environments we live in, the choices we make, and the systems we build,” he said.
Calling for renewed commitment, Dr. Ranatunga urged stakeholders to invest in prevention, embrace innovation, and ensure that science remains central to policy and practice.
“Science is not just about knowledge—it is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live healthy, dignified lives, and that no one is left behind,” he added.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Sharing the festive joy with ‘Awurudu Kaale’
Melantha Perera is well known as a very versatile musician.
He was involved with the band Mirage, as their keyboardist/vocalist, and was also seen in action with other outfits, as well, before embarking on a trip to Australia, as a solo artiste.
I now hear that he has plans to operate as a trio.
However, what has got many talking about Melantha, these days, is his awesome work with the visually impaired Bright Light Band.
They have worked out a special song for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, aptly titled ‘Awurudu Kaale.’
Says Melantha: “This song has been created to celebrate the spirit of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year and to share the joy of the Awurudu season with all Sri Lankans”.
Yes, of course, Melantha composed the song, with the lyrics written collaboratively by Melantha, Badra, and the parents of the talented performers, whose creative input brought the song to life during moments of inspiration.

Melantha Perera: Awesome work with Bright Light Band
This meaningful collaboration reflects the strong community behind the Bright Light Band.
According to Melantha, accompaning the song is a vibrant video production that also features the involvement of the parents, highlighting unity, joy, and togetherness.
Beyond showcasing their musical talents, the visually impaired members of Bright Light Band deliver a powerful message, through this project, that their abilities extend beyond singing, as they also express themselves through movement and dance.
Melantha expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the project and looks forward to sharing it with audiences across the country during this festive season.
He went on to say that Bright Light Band extends its sincere gratitude to Bcert Australia for their generous Mian sponsorship, the CEO of the company, Samath Fernando, for his continuous support in making such initiatives possible, and Rukshan Perera for his personal support and encouragement in bringing this project to completion.
The band also acknowledges Udara Fernando for his invaluable contribution, generously providing studio space and accommodating extended recording sessions to suit the children’s availability.
Appreciation is warmly extended to the parents, whose unwavering commitment from ensuring attendance at rehearsals to supporting the video production has been instrumental in the success of this project.
Through ‘Awurudu Kaale’, Bright Light Band hopes to spread festive cheer and inspire audiences, proving that passion and talent know no boundaries.
-
Features4 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News4 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News2 days agoLankan-origin actress Subashini found dead in India
-
Opinion6 days agoHidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
-
Features4 days agoBeyond the Blue Skies: A Tribute to Captain Elmo Jayawardena
-
Features4 days agoAspects of Ceylon/Sri Lanka Foreign Relations – 1948 to 1976
-
Features6 days agoThe Ramadan War
-
Editorial5 days agoBrouhaha over a book
