Midweek Review
War in Ukraine: US Indo-Pacific strategy suffers as India skips several votes
…bid to isolate China fails
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Washington’s emerging Indo-Pacific strategy suffered a destructive setback in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one of the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union.
India’s decision not to back the US-led efforts, inside the UN and outside against Russia must have surprised the Western powers.
Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ordered the offensive on February 24, just four days before the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council was to meet. The Russian offensive dominated the 49th sessions of the UNHRC, where, among the issues that had been taken up, was Sri Lanka’s alleged accountability issue.
Ironically UNHRC Chief Michelle Bachelet has turned a Nelsonian eye to all those horrific crimes that were committed by the West in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.. Then what about continuing unimaginable terror tactics, employed against civilians, in places like Yemen and Palestine? What are all these bleeding heart ‘independent’ Western media, liberals, I/NGOs, saying about such horrendous crimes? Next to nothing! But see how they feel for Ukrainians-always in a virtual frenzy!
War is a terrible thing anywhere as only fools and cold blooded Nazi types would wish for such suffering on any living being.
One-time top intelligence officer having been the head of the KGB in the former East Germany when the so-called Iron Curtain of the ex-Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, Putin, President of Russia since 2012, and previously from 2000 until 2008, in addition to being the Premier from 1999 to 2000 opened up a new front at a time the West was trying to finish off China by cornering and luring it into a quagmire over Taiwan the way they are trying to do to Russia over Ukraine. Sri Lanka has been caught up with the conflict between the West and China.
The much disputed yet understandable looking at it from her security perspective, the Russian move in Eastern Europe invariably compelled nuclear powers China, a permanent member of the five-nation UN Security Council and India, to take a common stand on Ukraine. Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Friday (March 4) that would have technically forced Putin to cease the offensive immediately and withdraw his forces. India and China skipped the vote whereas the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the text. United Arab Emirates, too, abstained.
In spite of heavy and relentless Western pressure, India didn’t bow to any of it and threw its weight behind the Western move against Russia. The Indian position on Russian offensive, the biggest ever ground action since the end of WW II undermined the four nation Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) in the Asia-Pacific, aka the Quad, comprising the US, India, Japan and Australia. Meant to counter the growing Chinese political, military and economic power, the Russian invasion is the first real test for Quad. The failure on the part of Quad members to swiftly reach a consensus to oppose the Russian action in Ukraine would demoralise the grouping. That is the undeniable truth.
The Indian stand on Russian offensive should be examined taking into consideration its refusal to deploy ground troops in Iraq in support of the US-UK led 2003 invasion.
India reawakens as to her true friends
Western media coverage of the Indian response highlighted their disbelief and sort of ire as the Russia sustained the offensive. Perhaps the US really believed India would blindly back international sanctions against Russia. Had that happened, the Quad as well as the overall US-UK strategy in the Indo-Pacific region would have been greatly strengthened. It would be pertinent to mention that the US renamed United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command on 30 May 2018. The move underscored the pivotal importance of the US-India alliance in the wake of defence relationship emerging as a major pillar of India-US strategic partnership. The signing of the ‘New Framework for India-U.S. Defence Relations’ in 2005 and the resulting intensification in defence trade, joint exercises, personnel exchanges, collaboration and cooperation in maritime security and counter piracy, and exchanges between each of the three services. The Defence Framework Agreement has been updated and extended for another 10 years in June 2015.
India abstained from three votes at the UN Security Council, two at the UN General Assembly in New York, two at the UNHRC in Geneva, and one at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Modi follows Indira’s stand
India has no option but to walk a diplomatic tightrope over war in Ukraine as it tried to balance its ties with Russia and the West. The US humiliated Narendra Modi before the whole world with a much publicised denial of visa in 2005, over his alleged role in anti-Muslim violence three years earlier in Gujarat state, where he was the Chief Minister.
More than 1,000 people were killed, mostly Muslims in that riot. The US swiftly changed its stance soon after the Modi-led BJP romped to victory at the 2014 General Election and Washington quickly forgot the Gujarat victims, with the obvious backing of the powerful Israel lobby in America and elsewhere. Israel, surrounded by a sea of enemies, barring the corrupt regimes there beholden to the West sees India as a natural counterbalance because of the almost unbridgeable Hindu-Muslim divide emanating from the time of the Moghul invasion of Bharat. So no wonder Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was the first world leader to fly to Moscow to appease the situation and it showed how worried ‘the never say die attitude’ state is.
The State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki declared that Modi would get a visa to the US once he took office and forms a government. Modi would be eligible for an A1 visa, said Psaki. She said: “We congratulate Narendra Modi and the BJP on its victory in winning a majority of seats in India’s historic national election, which saw more voters cast their ballots freely and fairly than in any election in human history. Secretary Kerry has also offered his congratulations, and looks forward to working with the BJP on expanding our shared prosperity and security.”
Over the years, the US-India relations reached new heights with India and the US extending nuclear cooperation partnership in late Oct 2020. New Delhi and Washington, in a joint statement issued on Nov 24, 2020, declared that the original agreement that had been signed on Nov 07, 2010 was extended in recognition and appreciation of ‘the strength of the enduring partnership between the two countries on matters of security and reaffirming the important contributions of the US-India nuclear and radiological security cooperation for the benefit of their citizens and the world.’
There is no doubt China is relieved by India’s position. China must have quite rightly ascertained India wouldn’t upset its relationship with Russia by siding with the West. Modi’s stand on the war in Ukraine is very much similar to that of Indira Gandhi as regards the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late Dec 1979. That war lasted 10 years. Having failed to achieve its objectives, the Soviet Union ended the disastrous mission in Feb 1989, a year before India terminated its military mission in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces. India brought its military project to a successful end in March 1990, having compelled the then Sri Lankan government to introduce 13th Amendment to the Constitution in Nov 1987. That objective was achieved at gunpoint.
India’s statement at the interactive session on the OHCHR’s written report on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka reminded how New Delhi pursued the 80s strategy. India’s Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador Indra Mani Pande declared: “We will continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government for the early conduct of elections to the Provincial Councils in keeping with its commitment to devolution of power.”
The late J.N. Dixit, in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy’ discussed India’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and their military intervention in Sri Lanka. Having referred to its their disastrous 1962 war with China, the triumph over Pakistan nine years later and achieving much desired nuclear capability in 1998, Dixit, one-time Indian High Commissioner in Colombo (1985-1989) commented on policy decisions on Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. It would be better to read verbatim what Dixit, who also served as National Security Advisor said about Indira Gandhi. The comment should be examined against the backdrop of India’s refusal to join the anti-Russia camp. Had that happened, China, would have found itself in much more complicated and difficult situation over the Russian adventure in Ukraine.
Dixit stated: “She (Indira Gandhi) redefined the ideology of nonalignment more preciously in terms of the interests of the developing countries. The two foreign policy decisions on which she could be faulted are: her ambiguous response to the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan and her giving active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants. Whatever the criticisms about these decisions, it cannot be denied that she took them on the basis of her assessments about India’s national interests. Her logic was that she could not openly alienate the former Soviet Union when India was so dependent on that country for defence supplies and technologies. Similarly, she could not afford the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils. These aspirations were legitimate in the context of nearly 50 years of Sinhalese discrimination against Sri Lankan Tamils.
In both cases, her decisions were relevant at the point of time they were taken. History will judge her as a political leader who safeguarded Indian national interests with determination and farsightedness.”
Obviously, Modi felt the same way as the late Indira Gandhi did when he came under tremendous pressure to abandon Russia. New Delhi must have weighed how their stand on the Ukraine war affected common front against China.
Some have questioned India’s strategy. Commentators and analysts have raised questions, particularly in the West, over whether the world’s largest democracy should have backed the West. But, India, as a mature democracy has taken a principled stand. Some interpreted New Delhi’s first statement at the UN Security Council that regretted repeated calls from the international community to give diplomacy and dialogue a chance had not been heeded. But, at the end India skipped votes on Ukraine much to the dismay of the US.
Among those who abstained along with India and China were Pakistan, Vietnam, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and Bangladesh. Altogether 35 countries abstained not because they endorsed the Russian aggression but didn’t want to back a coalition that was responsible for millions of deaths in various regions of the world. The 2003 US-UK led invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) exposed the duplicity of those countries preaching to other nations about accountability.
It would be pertinent to ask whether those countries which staged a walk out last week as the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was addressing the UN in Geneva felt the same way when Western powers invaded Iraq. Some sections of the media quoted Ukrainian Ambassador in Geneva, Yevheniia Filipenko, who led the walkout at UNHRC as having thanked those who took part in the stunt. The Ambassador is right. It is nothing but a stunt as the then US Ambassador Nikki Haley in June 2018 called it a cesspool of political bias.
Lanka takes another beating at Geneva sessions
The Geneva agenda made further progress at the ongoing sessions overshadowed by the war in Ukraine. The Sri Lankan delegation to Geneva comprised Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC, Foreign Secretary Admiral (retd) Jayanath Colombage. The delegation joined Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative there, one-time The Island political correspondent C.A. Chandraprema.
Prof. Peiris, bitterly complained about the way the UNHRC has treated Sri Lanka and pursued a strategy severely inimical to the country. The Foreign Ministry quoted Prof. Peiris as having said: “In March 2021, the Council voted on Resolution 46/1 which was tabled without the consent of Sri Lanka as the country concerned. The consideration of this matter polarised and politicised this forum. In a startling departure from the mandate which the UN General Assembly originally conferred on this Council, operative paragraph 6 of this resolution refers to a so-called evidence-gathering mechanism, a measure that was strongly opposed by a number of countries. Such initiatives create disharmony both in the domestic and international arenas. It creates obstacles to reconciliation efforts, breeds hatred by reopening past wounds, and polarises society.”
However, Geneva repeated the same old accusations against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure at least to set the record straight.
Daya Gamage, one-time US State Department employee and the author of ‘Tamil Tigers’ Debt to America: US Foreign Policy Adventurism and Sri Lanka’s Dilemma’ strongly condemned Sri Lanka’s response to the Geneva threat. In comments posted online, Gamage questioned the failure on the part of the Sri Lankan government, at least to remind Geneva how now vanquished Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) expelled the entire Muslim community from Sri Lanka’s Northern Province in Oct/Nov 1990, just a few months after India pulled out its troops from Sri Lanka. Gamage stressed that the expulsion of Muslims should have been dealt with as Sri Lanka was being accused of perpetrating genocide. The former US Embassy employee in Colombo said: “Anyone who reads the interpretation of ‘genocide’ in the UN Charter and other scholarly works can know what genocide means.”
The UK-led Sri Lanka Core Group comprising Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Malawi and Montenegro continued its despicable strategy of persecution of this country for defeating the world’s “most ruthless terrorist organisation” against their sinister advice. That lot voted against Russia over the continuing war in Ukraine but didn’t find fault with the invasion of Iraq or military action against several other countries in the past. Canada recently unearthed hard evidence of genocide and other calculated human rights violations against its indigenous population plays a major role in the project to undermine Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka’s failure to challenge the very basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations in spite of Lord Naseby providing the required ammunition in Oct 2017 along with a significant US military statement (Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith, US Defence Advisor, Colombo) in June 2011, over two years after the successful conclusion of the war is a point to ponder. Can there be an excuse for continuously failing to set the record straight in Geneva and New York. What prevents Sri Lanka from making a reference to Indian intervention at least on the basis of what Dixit stated in his widely read memoirs? Why can’t we remind the world Geneva proceeded with a contentious process based on unverified accusations that cannot be examined till 2031? Or point out the vast discrepancy in the number of dead (both civilians and combatants) as reported by the UN Colombo and the disputed Darusman report?
The current dispensation has caused countrywide chaos by extremely poor management of the national economy. There is no doubt the vast majority of people struggling to make ends meet have been deprived of the basic needs. Disruption of both fuel and gas supplies as well as daily countrywide power cuts have jolted the public. Having repeatedly promised a system change, the current government has caused gross human rights violation by depriving all communities of the basic needs. It would be a grave mistake on the part of the government to believe the crisis can be conveniently blamed on the Covid-19 global epidemic.
The Geneva didn’t receive the attention it required in the local media due to the war in Ukraine and unprecedented political crisis caused by sharp differences emerging within the SLPP-led ruling coalition. The rebel group made explosive accusations pertaining to Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, who holds Sri Lanka and US dual citizenship, of pursuing a strategy to facilitate Western intervention. The rebel group compared the current situation with that of Indonesia in the 1960s that brought military dictator Suharto to power and resulted in butchering of possibly several hundred thousand innocents suspected of being Communist sympathisers.
Regardless of pompous declarations made, Sri Lanka has been encircled on the Geneva front with so-called evidence-gathering mechanism free to proceed. Perhaps, Sri Lanka should explore the possibility of presenting its case with all available evidence, including now unclassified wartime dispatches from the British High Commission in Colombo with fresh request to the UK as well as other key diplomatic missions to submit their wartime dispatches to the UN evidence gathering mechanism. Sri Lanka never used Wiki leaks revelations for its advantage.
Let me end this piece by reproducing a section of Wikileaks managed to secrete out of US diplomatic cables from Geneva. A cable dated July 15, 2009 signed by the then Geneva-based US Ambassador Clint Williamson cleared the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) of crimes against humanity during the Vanni offensive. The cable addressed to the US State Department was based on a confidential conversation Ambassador Williamson had with the then ICRC head of operations for South Asia, Jacque de Maio on July 9, 2009. Ambassador Williamson wrote: “The army was determined not to let the LTTE escape from its shrinking territory, even though this meant the civilians being kept hostage by the LTTE were at an increasing risk. So, de Maio said, while one could safely say that there were ‘serious, widespread violations of international humanitarian law,’ by the Sri Lankan forces, it didn’t amount to genocide. He could cite examples of where the army had stopped shelling when the ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet it chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths. He concluded however, by asserting that the GoSL failed to recognise its obligation to protect civilians, despite the approach leading to higher military casualties.”
Midweek Review
BASL fears next set of civil society representatives might be rubber stamps of NPP
CC in dilemma over filling impending vacancies
Sajith Premadasa
Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution
.”
Speculation is rife about a possible attempt by the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) to take control of the 10-member Constitutional Council (CC). The only way to take command of the CC is to appoint those willing to pursue the NPP agenda as civil society representatives.
Against the backdrop of the NPP’s failure to obtain CC’s approval to finalise the appointment of the Auditor General, the government seems hell-bent on taking control of it. Civil society representatives, namely Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Dr. (Mrs.) Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr. (Mrs.) Weligama Vidana Arachchige Dinesha Samararatne, whose tenure is coming to an end in January, blocked President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s nominee receiving the AG’s position. They took a courageous stand in the greater interest of the nation.
Chulantha Wickramaratne, who served as AG for a period of six years, retired in April 2025. Following his retirement, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake first nominated H.T.P. Chandana, an audit officer at the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. The CC rejected the nomination. Subsequently, President Dissanayake appointed the next senior-most official at the National Audit Office (NAO) Dharmapala Gammanpila, as Acting Auditor General for six months. Then, the President nominated Senior Deputy Auditor General L.S.I. Jayarathne to serve in an acting capacity, but her nomination, too, was also rejected.
Many an eyebrow was raised when the President nominated O.R. Rajasinghe, the Internal Audit Director of the Sri Lanka Army, for the top post. As a result, the vital position remains vacant since 07 December. Obviously the overzealous President does not take ‘No’ for an answer when filling key independent positions with his minions
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) in a letter dated 22 December, addressed to President Dissanayake, who is the leader of the NPP and the JVP, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa emphasised their collective responsibility in ensuring transparency in the appointment of civil society representatives.
Cabinet spokesperson and Health and Media Minister, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, is on record as having emphasised the urgent need to finalise the appointment. Minister Jayatissa alleged, at the post-Cabinet media briefing, that the President’s nominations had been rejected without giving explanation by certain members, including three representatives of civil society.
Parliament, on 18 January, 2023, approved the former Ministry Secretary Dr. Ramanujam, former Chairperson of the Sri Lanka Medical Association Dr. Wijesundere, and Dr. Samararatne of the University of Colombo as civil society representatives to the CC.
They were the first post-Aragalaya civil society members of the CC. The current CC was introduced by the 21 Amendment to the Constitution which was endorsed on 31st of October, 2022, during a time of grave uncertainty. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been elected by the SLPP to complete the remainder of ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, sought to manipulate the CC. Wickremesinghe received the SLPP’s backing though they fell out later.
During Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President, civil society representatives earned the wrath of the then Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe government by refusing to back Deshabandu Tennakoon’s appointment as the IGP. The then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena was accused of manipulating CC’s ruling in respect of Deshabandu Tennakoon to suit Wickremesinghe’s agenda.
Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP, at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution.”
The NPP realises the urgent need to neutralise the CC. The composition of the CC does not give the Opposition an opportunity to challenge the government if the next three civil society representatives succumb to political pressure. The Speaker is the Chairman of the CC. The present composition of the Constitutional Council is as follows: Speaker (Dr) Jagath Wickramaratne, ex-officio, PM (Dr) Harini Amarasuriya, ex-officio, Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, ex-officio, Bimal Rathnayake, Aboobucker Athambawa, Ajith P. Perera, Sivagnanam Shritharan, Dr Prathap Ramanujam, Dr Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr Dinesha Samararatne.
In terms of Article 41E of the Constitution, the CC meets at least twice every month, and may meet as often as may be necessary.
The failure on the part of the NPP to take over Office of the AG must have compelled them to explore ways and means of somehow bringing CC under its influence. The end of the current civil society members’ term, has given the government a chance to fill the vacancies with henchmen.
BASL’s letters that dealt with the appointment of civil society representatives to the CC and the failure to appoint AG, both dated 22 December, paint a bleak picture of the NPP that throughout the presidential and parliamentary polls last year assured the country of a system change. The NPP’s strategy in respect of filling the AG’s vacancy and possible bid to manipulate the CC through the appointment of civil society representatives reminds us of the despicable manipulations undertaken by previous governments.
An appeal to goverment
BASL seems convinced that the NPP would make an attempt to appoint its own to the CC. BASL has urged the government to consult civil society and professional bodies, including them, regarding the forthcoming vacancies in the CC. It would be interesting to examine the NPP’s strategy as civil society, too, would face daunting challenges in choosing representatives.
Civil society representatives are nominated by the Speaker by agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
If consensus cannot be reached swiftly, it would cause further political turmoil at a time the country is experiencing an unexpected burden of dealing with the post-Cyclone Ditwah recovery process.
The term of non-ex-officio members of the Council is three years from the date of appointment. In terms of the Constitution, the civil society representatives should be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life and who are not members of any political party. Their nominations should be approved by Parliament.
In spite of the NPP having an absolute 2/3 majority in Parliament, the ruling party is under pressure. The composition of the CC is a big headache for NPP leaders struggling to cope up with rising dissent over a spate of wrongdoings and a plethora of broken promises. The furore over the inordinate delay in finalising AG’s appointment has made matters worse, particularly against the backdrop of the BASL, Transparency International Sri Lanka Chapter and Committee on Public Finance, taking a common stand.
Having been part of the clandestine regime change project in 2022; Western powers and India cannot turn a blind eye to what is going on. Some Colombo-based foreign envoys believe that there is no alternative to the NPP and the government should be given the opportunity to proceed with its action plan. The uncompromising stand taken by the NPP with regard to the appointment of permanent AG has exposed the ruling party.
In the wake of ongoing controversy over the appointment of the AG, the NPP’s integrity and its much-touted vow to tackle waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement seems hollow.
The government bigwigs must realise that appointment of those who campaigned for the party at the presidential and parliamentary polls caused deterioration of public confidence. The appointment of ex-top cops Sharnie Abeysekera and Ravi Seneviratne with black marks as Director, CID and Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, eroded public confidence in the NPP administration.
A vital role for CC
The SLPP, reduced to just three lawmakers in the current Parliament, resented the CC. Having secured a near 2/3 majority in the House at the 2020 Parliamentary election, the SLPP made its move against the CC, in a strategy that was meant to strengthen President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s hands at the expense of Parliament. Introduced in 2001 during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, the 17th Amendment paved the way for the establishment of the CC. Those who wielded political power subjected the CC to critical changes through 18th, 19th and 20th amendments. Of them, perhaps, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution that had been passed in October 2020 is the worst. The SLPP replaced the CC with a Parliamentary Council. That project was meant to consolidate power in the Executive President, thereby allowing the appointment of key officials, like judges, the Attorney General, and heads of independent commissions.
People may have now forgotten the 20th Amendment removed civil society representatives from the so-called Parliamentary Council consisting of lawmakers who represented the interests of the government and the main Opposition. But such manipulations failed to neutralise the challenge (read Aragalaya) backed by external powers. The role played by the US and India in that project has been established and there cannot be any dispute over their intervention that forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country.
Interestingly, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been picked by the SLPP to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s term, restored the CC through the passage of 21 Amendment on 31 October, 2022. Unfortunately, the NPP now wants to manipulate the CC by packing it with those willing to abide by its agenda.
It would be pertinent to mention that the 20th Amendment was aimed at neutralising dissent at any level. Those who formulated that piece of legislation went to the extent of proposing that the President could sack members appointed to the Parliamentary Council by the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader without consulting anyone.
If not for the Aragalaya, the Parliamentary Council that didn’t serve any meaningful purpose could have paved the way for the President to fill all key positions with his nominees.
Recommendation of nominations to the President for the appointment of Chairpersons and Members of Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B of the Constitution.
Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B: The Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Audit Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Finance Commission, the Delimitation Commission and the National Procurement Commission.
Approval/ Disapproval of recommendations by the President for the appointment to the Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C of the Constitution.
Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C: The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Members of the Judicial Service Commission, other than the Chairman, the Attorney-General, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the Auditor-General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and the Secretary-General of Parliament.
NPP under pressure
In spite of having the executive presidency, a 2/3 majority in the legislature, and the bulk of Local Government authorities under its control, the NPP is under pressure. Their failure to muster sufficient support among the members of the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) to pass its 2026 Budget underscored the gravity of the developing situation. The unexpected loss suffered at the CMC shook the ruling party.
But, the NPP faces a far bigger challenge in filling the AG’s vacancy as well as the new composition of the CC. If the NPP succeeds with its efforts to replace the current civil society representatives with rubber stamps, the ruling party may feel vindicated but such feelings are likely to be short-lived.
Having criticised the government over both contentious matters, the BASL may be forced to step up pressure on the government unless they can reach a consensus. It would be really interesting to know whether the government accepted the BASL’s request for consultations with the stakeholders. Unless consensus can be reached between the warring parties there is possibility of opening of a new front with the BASL and civil society being compelled to take a common stand against the government.
The developing scenario should be examined taking into consideration political parties and civil society confronting the government over the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA). Having promised to do away with the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in the run up to the presidential election, the NPP is trying to explain that it cannot do without anti-terrorism law. The civil society is deeply unhappy over the NPP’s change of heart.
The National Peace Council (NPP) that has been generally supportive and appreciative of the NPP’s efforts probably with the blessings of its benefactors in the West, too, has now found fault with the proposed PSTA. Dr. Jehan Perera, NPP’s Executive Director commented: “A preliminary review of the draft PSTA indicates that it retains core features of the PTA that have enabled serious abuse over decades. These include provisions permitting detention for up to two years without a person being charged before a court of law. In addition, the broad definition of terrorism under the draft law allows acts of dissent and civil disobedience to be labelled as terrorism, thereby permitting disproportionate and excessive responses by the state. Such provisions replicate the logic of the PTA rather than mark a clear break from it.”
Except the BASL, other professional bodies and political parties haven’t commented on the developing situation at the CC while taking into consideration the delay in appointing an AG. The issue at hand is whether the government intends to hold up AG’s appointment till the change of the CC’s composition in its favour. Whatever the specific reasons, a country that has suffered for want of accountability and transparency, enters 2026 without such an important person to guard against all types of financial shenanigans in the state.
All previous governments sought to influence the Office of the AG. The proposed establishment of NAO prompted the powers that be to undermine the effort. The Yahapalana administration diluted the National Audit Bill and what had been endorsed as National Audit Act, Nov. 19 of 2018 was definitely not the anti-corruption grouping originally proposed. That Act was amended this year but the Office of the AG remains vacant.
The NPP has caused itself immense harm by failing to reach consensus with the CC on filling the AG’s post. Unfortunately, the ruling party seems to be uninterested in addressing the issue expeditiously but is exploring the possibility of taking over control of the CC by stuffing it with civil society members favourable to the current ruling clique.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Midweek Review
Towards Decolonizing Social Sciences and Humanities
‘Can Asians Think?’

I want to initiate this essay with several questions. That is, are we, in Sri Lanka and in our region, intellectually subservient to what is often referred to as the ‘West’? Specifically, can knowledge production in broad disciplinary areas such as social sciences and humanities be more creative, original and generated in response to local conditions and histories, particularly when it comes to practices such as formulating philosophy and theory as well as concepts and approaches? Why have we so far imported these from Western Europe and North America as has been the undisputed norm?
In exploring the responses and delving into this discussion, I will seek reference from the politics of the recently published book, Decolonial Keywords: South Asian Thoughts and Attitudes edited by Renny Thomas from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research – Bhopal and me. The book was brought out by Delhi-based Tulika Publishers in December 2025.
Let me first unpack my anxiety over theory and philosophy, which I have talked about many times previously too. Any social science or humanities text we read here or elsewhere in South Asia invariably borrows concepts, theories and philosophical input generated mostly in Western Europe and North America. It almost appears as if our region is incapable of serious and abstract thinking. It is in this same context, but specifically with reference to India that Prathama Banerjee, Aditya Nigam and Rakesh Pandey have observed in their critical essay, ‘The Work of Theory Thinking across Traditions’ (2016), that for many “theory appears as a ready-made body of philosophical thought, produced in the West …” They argue, “the more theory-inclined among us simply pick the latest theory off-the-shelf and ‘apply’ it to our context, notwithstanding its provincial European origin, for we believe that ‘theory’ is by definition universal.”
Here, Banerjee et al make two important points. That is, there is an almost universal acceptability in the region that ‘theory’ is a kind of philosophical work that is exclusively produced in the West, followed by an almost blind and unreflective readiness among many of us to simply apply these ideas to local contexts. In doing so, they fail to take into serious consideration the initial temporal and historical contexts in which these bodies of knowledge were generated. However, theory or philosophy is not universal.
This knowledge is contextually linked to very specific social, political and historical conditions that allowed such knowledge to emanate in the first place. It therefore stands to reason that such knowledge cannot be applied haphazardly/ willy-nilly anywhere in the world without grave consequences. Of course, some ideas can be of universal validity as long as they are carefully placed in context. But to perceive theory or philosophy as all-weather universals is patently false even though this is the way they are often understood from universities to segments within society in general. This naiveté is part of the legacy of colonialism from which these disciplines as well as much of their theoretical and philosophical structures have been bequeathed to us.
It is in this context that I would like to discuss the politics our book, Decolonial Keywords: South Asian Thoughts and Attitudes entail. Here, thirty South Asian scholars from across disciplines in social sciences and humanities have come together to “discuss words and ideas from a variety of regional languages, ranging from Sinhala to Hebrew Malayalam” encapsulating “the region’s languages and its vast cultural landscape, crossing national borders.” To be more specific, these languages include Assamese, Arabic-Malayalam, Bengali, Hebrew Malayalam, Hindi, Nepali, Sanskrit, Sinhala, South Asian uses of English, Tamil-Arabic, Tamil, Urdu and concepts from indigenous languages of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
Each chapter, focuses on a selected word and “reiterates specific attitudes, ways of seeing and methods of doing that are embedded in the historical and contemporary experiences of the region” keeping in mind “the contexts of their production and how their meanings might have changed at different historical moments.”
In this exploration, the volume attempts to understand “if these words and concepts can infuse a certain intellectual rigour into reinventing social sciences and humanities in the region and beyond.” In short, what we have attempted is to offer a point of departure to a comprehensive and culturally, linguistically and politically inclusive effort at theory-building and conceptual fine-tuning based on South Asian experiences and histories. We assume these concepts from our region might be able to speak to the world in the same way schools of thought in politically dominant regions of the world have done so far to us. This is a matter of decolonizing our disciplines. But it is still not a claim for universality. After all, our main focus is to come up with a body of conceptual categories that might be useful in reading the region.
When Sri Lankan social sciences and humanities as well as the same disciplines elsewhere in the region thoughtlessly embrace knowledges imported in conditions of unequal power relations, it can never produce forums for discourse from which we can speak to the world with authority. In this book, Thomas and I have attempted, as an initial and self-conscious effort, to flip the script on theory-building and conceptualization in social sciences and humanities in South Asia in the region’s favour.
We are however mindful that this effort has its risks, intellectually speaking. That is, we are conscious this effort must be undertaken without succumbing to crude and parochial forms of nativism that are also politically powerful in the region including in Sri Lanka and India. This book presents an array of possibilities if we are serious about decolonizing our social sciences and humanities to infuse power into the discourses we generate and take them to the world instead of celebrating our parochiality like the proverbial frog in the well. Unfortunately, more often than not, we are trained to be intellectually subservient, and mere followers, not innovators and leaders bringing to mind the polemical title of Kishore Mahbubani’s 2002 book, Can Asians Think?
Midweek Review
The ever-changing river: Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti’s evolving poetic voice
It is said that no man steps into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and he is not the same man. These words came to mind upon reading Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti’s latest poetry collection, Poems from Galle, which inevitably invites comparison with his earlier work, particularly his first volume of poetry and prose, Reflections in Loneliness: A Collection of Poems and Prose (2015).
In this new collection, Jayanetti is demonstrably not the same poet he was a decade ago. His horizons have widened. his subject matter has diversified, and his thematic range has deepened. The earlier hallmarks of his work, including his empathetic attention to human experience, sensitivity to the natural world, and intimate, reflective tone, remain present. Yet they are now complemented by a stronger defiance, a more deliberate engagement with the political and the cosmic, and a broader mosaic of local and universal concerns. His poetic voice has evolved in scope, tonal range, and thematic ambition.
My own acquaintance with Jayanetti’s poetry dates back to our undergraduate days at Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, where we were classmates pursuing a BA in Languages (English Special). Even then, his work revealed precise observational skill coupled with profound sympathy for individuals. This early sensibility found fuller articulation in Reflections in Loneliness, a collection spanning nearly two decades of creative endeavor.
That inaugural volume traversed a wide thematic landscape: childhood memories; tender compassion toward humans and animals; tributes to the deserving; the joys and sorrows of young love; and reflections on Sri Lanka’s three-decade Northeast conflict, which concluded in 2009. Jayanetti’s verse, written with sincerity and empathy, moves fluidly from deeply personal to universally human. Moments of striking poignancy include the loss of his wife’s mother, the death of a young friend who marched unflinchingly to the warfront, and the bittersweet parting from a lover.
The prose section of Reflections in Loneliness offered a return to the rural simplicity of the 1970s and ’80s through the perspective of a schoolboy. Essays such as We Buy a Bicycle, Television Descends, The Village Goes to the Fair, Bathing Excursions and Hingurakanda evoke a bygone era with unvarnished authenticity. As literary critic Kamala Wijeratne noted, Jayanetti’s prose merited commendation for its perceptive and affectionate portrayal of rural life, written with the authority of lived experience. His meticulous attention to minute details revealed not only the flaws and frailties of human nature but also its loyalties and quiet virtues, articulated with unforced sympathy.
Consisting of 31 poems and five prose pieces, Reflections in Loneliness established Jayanetti as a writer of elegance, precision, and emotional depth. The current collection, however, confirms the Heraclitean and Buddhist insights: both the poet and his poetry have changed. The new work reflects an expansion from the personal to the cosmic, from the intimately local to the globally resonant, a testament to an artist in motion, carried forward by the ever-changing current of his creative life.
Jayanetti’s poetic corpus in the new book Poems from Galle, spanning thirty-five evocative works from They Heard the Cock Crow to A Birthday Celebration, reveals a profound and consistent artistic signature rooted in themes of humanity, nature, history, and social consciousness. Throughout these poems, Jayanetti demonstrates a distinctive voice that is simultaneously empathetic, contemplative, and alert to the complexities of his Sri Lankan heritage and the broader human condition. While maintaining a core of thematic and tonal consistency, each poem enriches this foundation by expanding into new dimensions of experience, whether personal, ecological, political, or historical.
A foundational element of Jayanetti’s poetry is the intimate relationship between humans and nature, frequently underscored by a deep ethical awareness. In poems like From a Herdman’s Life and My Neighbor, he gives voice to the quiet dignity of rural existence and animal companionship, portraying a symbiotic bond imbued with mutual care and respect. Similarly, Fallen Elephant and Inhumanity lament the cruelty inflicted upon majestic creatures, indicting human greed and violence. These poems articulate not only empathy for the natural world but also an implicit call for stewardship, threading a moral sensibility throughout the collection.
This concern extends to the socio-political sphere, as Jayanetti often situates his poems within the fraught realities of Sri Lanka’s history and struggles. Homage to Sir Henry Pedris honors a national martyr, while Confession of a Sri Lankan Cop exposes institutional corruption and personal integrity in tension. Hanuma Wannama and Gone Are They tackle political violence and social upheaval, reflecting the poet’s engagement with national trauma and collective memory. These works enrich the thematic landscape by connecting personal narrative to larger historical forces.

Jayanetti’s choice of subjects is remarkably diverse yet unified by a focus on lived experience—ranging from the intimate (To a Puppy That Departed, Benji) to the grand (Mekong, A Voyage). The poet’s attention to place, whether the Sri Lankan cityscape in City Morning and Evening from the College Terrace or the historic Ode to Galle Fort, anchors his work in locality while evoking universal themes of time, change, and belonging. Even poems centered on seemingly mundane moments, such as Staff Meeting or A Game, are elevated by the poet’s keen observational eye and capacity to find meaning in everyday rituals.
Moreover, Jayanetti often draws from historical and cultural memory, as seen in Ludowyk Remembered, Let Ho Chi Minh Guide You, and Rathna Sri Remembered, positioning his poetry as a dialogue between past and present. This choice expands his thematic range to include legacy, identity, and the power of remembrance, linking the individual to the collective consciousness.
Across the collection, Jayanetti’s tone is marked by a blend of gentle empathy and quiet strength. Poems such as A Companion Departed and To a Puppy That Departed convey tenderness and mourning with understated poignancy. His voice is intimate and accessible, inviting readers into personal reflections suffused with emotional depth.
Yet, this empathy is balanced by moments of stark realism and defiance.
In Corona and Hanuma Wannama, the tone shifts to urgent and accusatory, critiquing social injustice and political decay. A Ship Weeps mourns environmental devastation with an elegiac voice that is both sorrowful and admonitory. This tonal range reveals a poet capable of both consolation and confrontation, who embraces complexity rather than sentimentality.
While many poems explore specific moments or relationships, others invite contemplation on broader existential and cosmic themes. For instance, A Voyage and Mekong traverse spatial and temporal boundaries, evoking the interplay between human journeys and natural cycles. A Birthday Celebration reflects on legacy, learning, and the continuum of knowledge, blending personal homage with universal insight.
Even poems like A Bond and A Game gesture toward symbolic resonance, the former exploring interspecies loyalty as a metaphor for fidelity and duty, the latter invoking sport as a microcosm of life’s challenges and hopes. These works demonstrate Jayanetti’s ability to expand familiar motifs into metaphoric and philosophical territory, enriching his poetic landscape.
Jayanetti’s thirty-five poems in Poems from Galle collectively reveal a consistent and compelling artistic signature that intertwines compassionate engagement with nature and society, a profound sense of place, and an acute awareness of history and memory. His voice navigates seamlessly between moments of intimate reflection and urgent social commentary, creating a poetic landscape that resonates with both specificity and universality.
Each poem adds a distinct dimension to this mosaic. Historical and political awareness emerges strongly in poems like Let Ho Chi Minh Guide You and Homage to Sir Henry Pedris, where the sacrifices of national heroes and struggles for justice are evoked with reverence and clarity. Meanwhile, environmental consciousness is vividly articulated in works such as Abandoned Chena, Kottawa Forest, and Fallen Elephant, where the fragility of ecosystems and the human impact on nature are poignantly explored.
Jayanetti also delves deeply into themes of personal loss and companionship in poems like Benji, A Companion Departed, and In Memory of Brownie, tenderly capturing the bond between humans and animals. Poems like Confession of a Sri Lankan Cop and Hanuma Wannama offer raw social critique, revealing layers of political and moral complexity.
Through this interplay of historical, environmental, personal, and political themes, Jayanetti constructs a body of work that is distinctly Sri Lankan in its cultural and geographical grounding yet profoundly universal in its exploration of human experience. His poetry invites readers to reflect on the interconnected fates of humans, animals, and the natural world, urging a deeper awareness of our shared existence and responsibilities.
by Saman Indrajith
-
News6 days agoStreet vendors banned from Kandy City
-
Sports3 days agoGurusinha’s Boxing Day hundred celebrated in Melbourne
-
News6 days agoLankan aircrew fly daring UN Medevac in hostile conditions in Africa
-
News1 day agoLeading the Nation’s Connectivity Recovery Amid Unprecedented Challenges
-
Sports4 days agoTime to close the Dickwella chapter
-
Features6 days agoRethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya
-
Features2 days agoIt’s all over for Maxi Rozairo
-
Opinion6 days agoAre we reading the sky wrong?

