Category: Featured Headlines

Today (23) is a day that brings back the memories of one of the darkest days in Sri Lankan History.

Today (23) marks 40 years since “Black July” a day on which Sri Lankans who had been living in peace and harmony for thousands of years were divided and pitted against each other, all for the selfish political goals of a few.

The violence that gripped Sri Lanka on a day like today, 40 years ago split our society in half and changed the course of our nation forever.

The violence on that day claimed the lives of many of our brothers and sisters and the destruction to property on that day was immeasurable.

The events that led up to this bloodshed are written in Sri Lanka’s history books and one thing that is clear is that this day of violence was not an isolated incident.

This bloodshed was the result of the political decisions of Sri Lanka’s post-independence leaders, which divided and shattered Sri Lanka’s society.

These political decisions were made to serve the selfish political aspirations of a few and not for the greater good of Sri Lanka.

The rulers consolidated their power while their families’ places in Sri Lanka’s political sphere were assured.

What happened to the people of Sri Lanka?

The people were divided while the economy was in tatters. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives. While this incident was a direct result of the selfish political aspirations of a few, we must not forget the brave Sri Lankans who worked against this violence and bloodshed.

While a few in power worked to sow the seeds of hatred, there were those who protected their fellow citizens at great risk of their own safety.

The story of those who risked their lives to protect their fellow brothers and sisters amidst the chaos speaks volumes of what true Sri Lankan patriotism and brotherhood should be.

Sri Lanka is a stark example of what happens to a nation divided on religious and racial grounds.

The only hope for a better Sri Lanka is to move forward as one people, united in our ambition to become a developed nation.

The cause-and-effect of 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom

It is forty years since the 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom (‘Black July’) in which an estimated 3,000 Tamils died, hundreds of thousands displaced, and millions worth of Tamil properties destroyed. A crime of monumental proportion to which no one was ever held responsible. During the peak of the violence, J.R. Jayewardene, the president at that time, said, “I am not worried about the opinion of the Jaffna (Tamil) people; now we cannot think of them, not about their lives or their opinion………. really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy” – supposedly reflecting the mood in the South of the country and exposing his own attitudes towards the non-Sinhala populace.

Undoubtedly, Black July was the tipping point on Tamil people’s history in Sri Lanka. It is no exaggeration that almost every Tamil was made to feel they did not belong to the country, and they would always be second class citizens. Even for their basic physical security, they were transported to the North-East of the country where they had historic links and were the majority.

‘Black July’ did not happen in a vacuum. In fact, there was an air of inevitability about it. The seeds were planted decades earlier – discriminatory Citizenship Act, Official Language Act and educational policies, colonization schemes that altered the demography in Tamil majority areas, abolition of power-sharing pacts under hardline Sinhala Buddhist pressure, the burning of the Jaffna Public Library, enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and ensuing routine police and army brutality, and many other anti-Tamil riots of a lesser scale.

The impact of ‘Black July’ was immediate, global, and far reaching. Every Tamil who could find a way to leave the country left. The incipient armed resistance grew big enough to fight a protracted war that lasted two and a half decades with devastating consequences to all. Militarized Sri Lanka grew more authoritarian where human rights were violated without conscience, impunity reigned, and corruption became endemic. The International Community, and India in particular, started to play an ever-increasing role in Sri Lankan affairs, often with charitable intentions.

The longer term impacts

Today, Sri Lanka is economically nearly bankrupt. The excessive violence committed by the armed forces to end the war in 2009 has been a subject of much international scrutiny. A few Sri Lankan top political and military leaders are personae non gratae in many countries. Sri Lanka is often cited as a country that was so promising only a few decades ago but managed to squander everything. Without oversimplification, most of Sri Lanka’s ills can be attributed to a single source – its inability to manage a pluralist society without pandering to majoritarian chauvinism. In effect, what should have been an immense strength, became its defining failure.

Forty years may be a short time in a country’s history, but this is typically half the lifetime of an average person. Many a youth who fled Sri Lanka after ‘Black July’ are now grandparents in some corner of the world. ‘Black July’ was the exodus moment for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, with nearly one-third of Tamils from North-East Sri Lanka origin – loosely defined as ‘Tamil Diaspora’ – now living in many countries across the world with transformational impact on both, those who left and others who are left behind.

Tamil diaspora phenomenon

Tamil Diaspora settled in most western countries could be characterized as one of the success stories among the recent migrant communities. Building on their inbuilt values of education and hard work, they have many notable achievements – professionally, economically, and through social and political impact in their new home countries. On top of it, they have shown immense passion and commitment to maintaining and passing on their linguistic, religious, and cultural traditions to the next generation. And there was the added incentive – the will to cherish and enhance their identity in countries that did not impose the obstacles they faced in their birth country.

But this romantic notion of migrant success is only part of the story. There are many who lead unsettled and difficult lives – whether as refugees in Indian camps or in other countries without legal certainties or, working physically demanding jobs in harsh climates to meet the economic demands of theirs and the loved ones they left behind. Older people often lead lonely lives in unfamiliar environments with unfulfilled dreams of spending their old age in a homely, village environment. Also, the challenges faced by the young generation caught up between different cultural norms and value systems are not trivial.

Tamil people in Sri Lanka

Compared to those in the diaspora, Tamil people living in Sri Lanka face exceptional challenges. Their areas are de-populated and many lead limited social lives, with their relatives and friends already moved overseas. Parents living alone in their old age with no children to look after has become the new normal. For young people, opportunities are limited, with their regions near the bottom in terms of economic development and educational achievements. The impact of militarization and war related displacements and disappearances continue to haunt them. A generation that took the brunt of the war is still languishing in unpalatable conditions.

In terms of political rights and empowerment, the sense of being second-class citizens in their home country still lingers. The promises given by different Sri Lankan Governments related to accountability, transitional justice, political resolution, and reconciliation remain just that. The political outcome Tamil people achieved after decades of struggle – power devolution through Provincial Councils – remain ineffective with no political will on the part of the Government for full implementation.

A multi-faceted, pragmatic approach

Sri Lanka appears to be a country that resists meaningful change even after historic events such as ‘Black July’, end of war in May 2009, and the Aragalaya resistance in response to the unprecedented economic crisis. Perhaps, only slow and progressive changes are what is possible in an intransient political system that has dominated the country for decades. What the Tamil community, including those in the diaspora, can do under such circumstances?

For the Tamil diaspora, the influence and leverage we can have on our governments’ Sri Lanka policies (including at the UN) are fundamental to our advocacy efforts. But what has often been overlooked is the need to engage with all key stakeholders in Sri Lanka and develop a deeper understanding of the aspirations and fears of each community.

Tamil politics for the past several decades has been driven by the fear of losing its uniqueness and identity in the land where they have been living for centuries. It is also a fact that despite being the dominant majority, the Sinhalese community also suffers from a feeling of insecurity due to certain historical and geographical considerations. There also appears to be some paranoia about Tamil diaspora, with no sympathetic consideration given for their hardship and suffering due to displacement and migration.

We believe it is the responsibility of all communities and their leaders to take steps to reduce both the fear and insecurity of the other. It is in this matter that many politicians have not only failed but, in fact, exploited peoples’ fear for their own political benefits.

It is also unfortunate that ethnic and religious harmony in Sri Lanka has been viewed almost exclusively through a political prism, and the role of the civil society and religious leaders in promoting them has been rather marginal.

Tamil diaspora engagement

Forty years after Black July, Tamil diaspora is confident and capable, and many among them are willing to explore different ways of contributing to the betterment of the Tamil people, and indeed all communities living in Sri Lanka.

While the possibilities are varied, many believe that with genuine and progressive inter-religious and civil society dialogue, including with the participation of Tamil diaspora, Sri Lanka can inch towards a truly pluralist country – a country where no community feels fearful of losing its identity or pride of place, and ‘Black July’ will appear only in history books, never to be repeated.

*Dr. K. Mukunthan is a Director of Global Tamil Forum (GTF) where he is a Senior Member of the Strategic Initiatives Team.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe has informed senior members of the Indian Government that the Sri Lanka Parliament, following recommendations from a special Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), will decide on the proposal to build a land bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka, The Sunday Morning learns.

India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, during a meeting with President Wickremesinghe on Thursday (20) in New Delhi, had underscored the importance of developing connectivity between the two countries. Wickremesinghe had also agreed that connectivity was important for the two countries.

It is learnt that President Wickremesinghe had proposed the launch of a fully-fledged ferry service between Sri Lanka and India, where vehicles too could be taken between the two countries.

A highly-placed Government source told The Sunday Morning that the Indian side had proposed the building of a land bridge connecting the two countries and the President had observed that it would depend on approval by the Parliament of Sri Lanka.

Wickremesinghe, it is learnt, had told the Indian External Affairs Minister that the proposal would be put before Parliament and a special PSC would be tasked with studying the matter and making recommendations to Parliament.

President Wickremesinghe had also conveyed this message to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the meeting between the two leaders on Friday (21).

India’s External Affairs Ministry Secretary Vinay Mohan Kwatra told the media last week following Wickremesinghe’s meeting with Jaishankar that the two countries were exploring new ways of improving connectivity between India and Sri Lanka.

In a year and three days, Ranil Wickremesinghe has remained President, there is no gainsaying, much has been done to ease the hardships to people from the bankruptcy his predecessor Gotabaya Rajapaksa caused. Lengthy queues are no longer for fuel, cooking gas and what have you.

However, the journey towards fuller economic recovery remains. Other than accelerating efforts, the difficult task is the inability to place a timeline to alleviate all those woes. A comforting factor, spelt out by ruling party politicians, boasts of at least one timeline. They claim that from September, there will be no need to call the country bankrupt. A corollary of that would be that the economy would have improved even further. Of course, one is reminded of their projections last year about the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility (EFF). The coming attraction was repeated almost every month since late last year until it finally arrived in March. The Domestic Debt Optimisation (DDO) got underway after a much-hyped campaign. A few understood and many remain confused. There is suspense over the next EFF tranche in September.

From the time he assumed office, one is not wrong in saying that President Wickremesinghe, who heads a Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government, has been preoccupied with arresting a deteriorating economy. The rot became worse after Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country. When he returned and ensconced himself in a second government bungalow at Stanmore Crescent, (the first at Malalasekera Mawatha which he complained was “too noisy,”) he sat down with confidants one day to do some soul searching. He told one of them that there were three persons responsible for what he called “misleading” him and the resultant unprecedented chaos. One was a bureaucrat, and the two others were connected to the military. It was the responsibility of one of the two to keep him updated on all ground developments. One was related to protests. However, he had been found wanting on many occasions. One of the listeners asked the former President, “Why did you not sack him if he caused such damage?” The answer left the questioner speechless. “I felt sorry for the poor fellow. That would have ended his career.”

The officer remains to date but the boss who gave him his job was forced out. The moral – in high office sympathy for a favourite overlooking colossal blunders could place a nation in peril. The bureaucrat was faulted for his “erroneous” actions and the officer for allegedly “acting on his own agenda.” In another development, this officer has become the subject of a top-level probe by the Criminal Investigation Department. It must be mentioned that the trio were hand-picked by Gotabaya Rajapaksa for their jobs. He consulted them before making decisions on economic or security matters.

Bribery and corruption

As the leader of the SLPP government, President Wickremesinghe’s other top priority areas were either left out or received less attention. Among a lengthy catalogue, one can say, was the increase in bribery and corruption. True, an anti-corruption law was passed in Parliament this week. This Act, when it comes into effect, will repeal the Bribery Act (Chapter 26), the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act, No. 19 of 1994 and the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law No. 1 of 1975.

The new Bribery Commission that will be established under the Anti-Corruption Act will consist of three members appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council (CC). The Commission will consist of one person who has expertise, reached eminence, and has at least twenty years of experience in law while the other two persons will be those who have expertise, reached eminence and have at least 20 years’ experience in one or more of the following fields:- (i) investigation of crime and law enforcement; (ii) forensic auditing; (iii) forensic accounting; (iv) engineering; (v) international relations and diplomatic services; (vi) management of public affairs; or (vii) public administration.

The President will appoint one among the three Commission members as Chairman of the Bribery Commission on the recommendation of the CC.

The Commission will also have a Director-General appointed by the President on the CC’s recommendation. In a historic first, private sector entities, too, have been brought under the ambit of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption through the new Anti-Corruption Act.

The Act contains provisions for the protection of public officials and employees of private entities who act as informers, witnesses or “whistleblowers”; who expose acts of bribery or corruption. The crime of sexual bribery too has been added as an offence coming under the provisions of the new Act.

Many amendments were introduced to the Bill at the committee stage on Wednesday (19). These included amendments proposed by the Supreme Court (SC), the government and the opposition. One such significant amendment to Clause 162 of the bill ensured that the President too fell within the scope of the new law. The President had earlier been excluded from the bill in view of the definition of a “public official” which had only mentioned officials from the Prime Minister downwards. In its determination into Fundamental Rights petitions challenging the bill, the Supreme Court, however, ruled that excluding the President from the application of the provisions of the bill is “arbitrary and impinges on the sovereignty of the People which includes a right to a Government free of bribery or corruption.”

The new Act will also compel officials from the President and the Prime Minister downwards to submit their assets and liabilities declarations. As such the new Act will apply to many officials who were previously not covered by assets and liabilities declaration legislation. Presenting the bill to Parliament earlier, Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe said that at present, there was no follow-up mechanism to ascertain whether these declarations were correct or not. The only consequence for failure to submit assets and liabilities declarations was a fine of Rs. 1000. Under the new Act that was passed, however, all those coming under its scope must submit assets and liabilities declarations annually. This can be done online if they prefer. Even after retirement, the officials must continue submitting their assets and liabilities declarations for two years from the date of retirement.

During the hearing into the FR petitions challenging the constitutionality of the bill, some of the petitioners’ lawyers argued that select clauses of the bill infringed on the Right to Information (RTI) Act. As per an undertaking given by the Attorney General’s Department to the SC, a sub-clause was added at the Committee Stage to Clause 136 clarifying that the provisions of the RTI Act would apply to the Anti-Corruption Act. The opposition had urged the government to introduce an amendment at the committee stage to give retrospective effect to the bill.

During the Committee Stage on Wednesday, Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella said the opposition had repeatedly asked Justice Minister Rajapakshe to include a clause clearly stating that the Bill would have a retrospective effect. Minister Rajapakshe, though, countered that the Bill already states clearly enough that it will have a retrospective effect.

For a long period now, even before the Anti-Corruption law was introduced, bribery and corruption have been on the rise. Even a ruling party parliamentarian was caught red-handed with gold and smartphones in his personal baggage. He smuggled the contraband from Dubai through the VIP Lounge at the Bandaranaike International Airport. He remains free to use this facility again and no action has been taken against him. Crime has galloped and murders are on the rise with Police in most parts of the country unable to arrest the trend. The free availability of weapons has led to an increase in killings. Two other vices which have assumed huge proportions are the smuggling of cigarettes and the manufacture of illicit liquor. The demand for illicit cigarettes and liquor has risen after the government announced price increases for these items.

If these have remained the ground realities for the SLPP government led by President Wickremesinghe, that is now changing significantly. The question that looms large is whether the new developments this week signal early signs of a widening rift within the SLPP. For the first time, SLPP General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam publicly opposed on Friday President Wickremesinghe’s offer of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, without Police powers, as an instrument to resolve the ethnic conflict. The offer was first made during a meeting of Tamil political parties and government sources said it was also raised when the President held talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday.

The Indian Premier, however, had taken up the position during talks with President Wickremesinghe that 13A should be implemented in full. That would mean the provinces should have their own Police force. He has also further insisted that the elections to Provincial Councils should be held. Nevertheless, the references were not reflected in the official statements. It was Indian Foreign Secretary Vinay Mohan Kwatra who made the revelation at a news conference. Last Monday, ahead of his visit to New Delhi, President Wickremesinghe obtained a series of approvals from the cabinet of ministers. Among them was one which said that all documents would be signed by Milinda Moragoda, Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in New Delhi.

True, most Tamil political parties have already opposed the move. At least five smaller parties have also written to Premier Modi, ahead of the President’s visit, asking him not to endorse the move. In this instance, that is not the issue. The question is how Kariyawasam was making a conclusive assertion that President Wickremesinghe “has no moral right to make such a statement.” It is very well known not only in political circles but also in the SLPP that Kariyawasam is a staunch supporter of Basil Rajapaksa, the party founder. The question is whether the SLPP did discuss the matter and take a formal decision. If so, it would have been reflected in the form of a statement from the party. Here, he is voicing Basil Rajapaksa’s words to convey that it was the view of the SLPP.

It comes at a time when Basil Rajapaksa’s own standing in the SLPP has come down and he is said to command the support of only around 20 to 21 MPs. A good number of SLPP parliamentarians have voiced their support for President Wickremesinghe. Is Basil Rajapaksa, therefore, using his regular medium to trigger a power crisis within the SLPP? It was only weeks earlier that he voiced publicly that he had confidence in President Wickremesinghe’s leadership. It is known within the SLPP that his efforts to secure ministerial portfolios for more MPs did not materialise.

A detailed report on President Wickremesinghe’s visit to New Delhi appears elsewhere in this newspaper. What was released after talks on Friday between the two leaders was a five-page Vision Statement which among factors dealt with Promoting Connectivity, Catalyzing Prosperity: and India-Sri Lanka Economic Partnership. The mission statement concluded with the following paragraphs: “To establish land connectivity between Sri Lanka and India for developing land access to the ports of Trincomalee and Colombo, propelling economic growth and prosperity in both Sri Lanka and India, and further consolidating the millennia-old relationship between the two countries. A feasibility study for such connectivity will be conducted at an early date.

“Both the leaders directed respective officials concerned to expedite realisation of this shared vision, which will not only impart long-term direction and significant momentum to bilateral cooperation for growth and prosperity in both countries and in the wider region, but also set the future direction of a dynamic India-Sri Lanka relationship, founded on enhanced mutual confidence and trust.”

The centerpiece of the latest Indo-Sri Lanka dialogue is a deal to jointly develop Trincomalee as an energy hub. An oil pipeline is also to be constructed across the Palk Strait. Ahead of the New Delhi visit, President Wickremesinghe was armed with a 16-page document that listed the various measures the government has adopted or proposed to adopt towards ethnic reconciliation.

Even the main opposition , which has been exhorting in the past for the full implementation of 13A expressed reservations. Its General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara told the Sunday Times “We are unaware of what President Wickremesinghe is planning to concede. On such a matter of utmost national importance, he has not thought it fit to consult us, the largest opposition in the country.”

The recent weeks have seen an escalation of political shadowboxing. In what appears as a counter to a small but influential faction of the SLPP, a strong countermove has come from another section. It is led by Negombo district parliamentarian Nimal Lanza, a one-time confidant of Basil Rajapaksa. He said yesterday that he would formally announce the formation of an independent group. “So far, we have 40 MPs supporting us. We need to raise this figure to 50,” he told the Sunday Times. If his contention is correct, those numbers, whether it is 40 or 50 would have to come from the SLPP. Lanza, who coordinates political activity from the Presidential Secretariat to help President Wickremesinghe, said that his independent group would set up an office in Gampaha in the coming weeks. A surprise inclusion in this caucus is Sugeeswara Bandara, private secretary to ex-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Does that mean the former President is throwing his weight against the SLPP? Like Lanza, Bandara also operates from the Presidential Secretariat. It is no secret that political opinions between Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brothers Mahinda and Basil are sharply divided. During the protests (aragalaya) last year, he sought the removal of both from the cabinet of ministers.

A special discussion took place between the officials of the Election Commission and the President’s Secretary, focusing on the upcoming election process.

Chairman of the Election Commission, R.M.A.L Ratnayake, confirmed the participation of the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and a group of Treasury officials in the meeting.

During the discussion, particular attention was given to the arrears owed to the Election Commission from the Treasury. The President’s Secretary instructed the Treasury officials to take necessary actions for the prompt disbursement of funds.

Furthermore, the budget estimate for next year’s election expenditure will be sent to the Treasury without delay. This includes the budget estimate for the presidential election, which will be calculated based on the election day for the following year.

There is a big risk that Sri Lanka may fall into another phase of bankruptcy if the current program prepared and implemented according to the IMF guidelines to overcome the bankruptcy facing the country collapses in the event of a change in the government in an upcoming election or due to any other reason. Obviously, it needs not to be reiterated that the recovery will be extremely difficult if such a situation occurs. In such an eventuality there will be a real danger of Sri Lanka falling into a long-term miserable situation that is not easy to overcome.

It is very rare that a country goes bankrupt and it could be described as a very unfortunate and terrible situation that a country has to face. In such a situation, the political parties have a special responsibility to work together regardless of their political differences and parochial interests. But the mainstream political parties in Sri Lanka have failed to realise that the crisis facing the country is a serious and complex issue that needs to be overcome by a common consensus of all political parties. The political parties of our country lacked the wisdom and the discipline to apprehend the intensity of the crisis and act accordingly.

It does not imply that all the political parties should have backed up naively and uncritically the program adopted by President Ranil Wickremesinghe in conjunction with the Central Bank, which was based on the guidelines of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It should have been implemented by common consensus after subjecting it to review and debate by all the political parties, thereby adopting a program acceptable to all. However, the opposition political parties in Sri Lanka did not have the wisdom or sense of civility required for arriving at such a consensus. It does not mean that the ruling party is in an immaculate and progressive state. In this particular issue, the behaviour of the opposition political parties was more backward and stupid than the ruling party which had reached an outdated level.

If the main Opposition party had the wisdom, what it should have done was to make use of this opportunity to formulate a reform program aimed at recreating the entire socio-political system which is outdated and corrupt and force the Government to implement it with general consensus rather than limiting the issue only to resolving the balance of payments crisis. The President had expressed his desire for a reformation program that would include the views of everyone. He had also expressed his wish to involve the United Nations also, as an observer in the reform program. But the country lost the opportunity to have a reform program initiated because the opposition political parties refused to cooperate and continued to follow a policy of evading it.

If the Opposition had been able to open up the space for reconciliation without being unnecessarily factional and greedy for power, it would have been possible to have had a far reaching and lasting reforms program. Further, It would have been possible to achieve a proper order and a system in the way the affairs of the country was taking place whilst improving the progress that Sri Lanka is currently enjoying by two to three times more. If that was the case, a general consensus could have been reached for a reform program leading to a profound change in the system which includes important progressive elements such as building a modern nation, eliminating corruption and inefficiency, recreating the state to suit the modern needs, and formulating a participatory Constitution that puts more weight on the public.

During this crisis the Janata Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) may have made some stride in terms of gathering a significant share of people’s power, but seen from an ideological point of view it has reflected a greater backwardness than progress. The JVP has done many things that a responsible political party should not have done during a national crisis. The leaders of the JVP continuously appealed to Sri Lankans working in foreign countries not to remit their overseas earnings to Sri Lanka. It was also against working with the International Monetary Fund during this crisis. It followed a policy of frightening the depositors in the Government’s plan to restructure domestic debts. It seems that the JVP has followed a policy of seizing the ruling power driven by a narrow sense of hunger for power even at the cost of pushing the country to a state of bankruptcy again. The criticism made by a leader of JVP about the Japanese Light Rail Transit project (LRT) which was suspended by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, could be considered as a significant occasion that showed the narrow and chaotic nature of the way it thinks.

The JVP being a party that has not abandoned Marxism completely, it is not difficult to understand the extremist behaviour of it. The way the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), the main opposition party, acted during this crisis cannot be said to be intelligent or wise. It has failed to convince the people of the country that it is the best option for them to select next. There were times when the JVP did things and ended up being a source of ridicule. Similarly the SJB too, having said that it would support the IMF program, followed a practice of scaring the public.

Also it made everything possible to thwart the creation of a reform program based on consensus. A large number of members of SJB showed great interest in joining the proposed reform program, but the party leader followed a strict policy that did not allow it. During the Aragalaya, the SJB even had a dream of usurping the power illegally. By that, it followed a policy that strengthened anarchy rather than strengthening democracy. The SJB had to pay a big price for all these opportunistic mistakes it has made. The public acceptance of the party has deteriorated in the face of such stupid actions committed by it.

It must be said that the picture of the immediate future of Sri Lanka does not seem to be good for the benefit of the country. The political picture of the country is such that no party would be able to secure a clear majority in an election. If the present chaotic political environment leads to a situation in which no party could secure a clear majority, there looms a real danger in which the IMF program implemented to overcome the balance of payments crisis might collapse and the country will be plunged into a state of bankruptcy again in the anarchic environment created in the process. How could the occurrence of such a situation be avoided?

It is necessary to pay special attention to such a terrible eventuality from now on. It is necessary to focus the attention of the political parties, scholars and the public towards it. How the future affairs should be carried out in a manner that would ensure the reform program implemented to overcome the balance of payments crisis will not collapse, and the country is prevented from falling into a state of bankruptcy again under any circumstances and the elections necessary for a democratic well-being are held. What are the views and ideas of the political parties in this respect? What are the opinions of scholars, professional organisations and public organisations? Isn’t it necessary to adopt a political consensus to ensure that Sri Lanka would not fall into a state of bankruptcy again under any change that may occur politically? If necessary, how should it be adopted?