Sri Lanka 2048 panel on Living with Climate Change – Ray Wijewardene is second from right

[Authors note: Dr Philip Revatha (Ray) Wijewardene, who passed away on August 18 aged 86, spent a lifetime being unpigeonholeable – which won him many admirers and a few detractors. Despite being an accomplished engineer, aviator, inventor and Olympian, he chose to introduce himself as a farmer and mechanic ‘who still got his hands dirty’. Unpretentious and always enthusiastic, he was one man who somehow managed to have his head (literally) in the clouds and his feet firmly on the ground.

Ray's multi-faceted career blended many disciplines and pursuits. At Cambridge University, he studied three branches of engineering -- aeronautical, mechanical and agricultural. He also earned a masters degree in business administration from the Harvard Business School, and later received honorary degrees from the UK and Sri Lanka. He was Chancellor of the Sri Lanka’s technological University of Moratuwa from 2002 to 2007, where he succeeded his long-time friend Arthur C Clarke. Ray was also an outstanding sportsman who represented his country in sailing: he competed in the Mexico Olympics in 1968, and won a Silver medal at the Asian Games in Bangkok in 1970.

As an aviator, he was licensed to fly fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and autogyros. He also experimented with building and flying ultra-light aircraft and helicopters – a passion he was forced to abandon when private flying was restricted during the war.

He was fond of saying, "Agriculture is my bread and butter, while aviation is the jam on top of it”. As a world authority on tropical farming systems, Ray worked for many years in Malaysia for the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and later with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria.

In the 1960s, as the designer and promoter of the world’s first two-wheeled (Land Master) tractor, Ray travelled all over Asia, Africa and Latin America working with tropical farmers. But years later, he questioned the wisdom of trying to mechanise tropical farming, and dedicated the rest of his life to researching and promoting ecologically sustainable agriculture. On his estate cum farm in in Sri Lanka’s North-western Province, he kept on experimenting with rain-fed farming, agroforestry and dendro power. He never retired.

In his spare time, Ray also worked with the research and policy communities. He held various appointments as Chairman of the Tea Research Board, head of the Inventors Commission and a member of several public sector bodies concerned with agriculture, science and technology. While he stayed clear of politics, he never hesitated to speak his mind – which sometimes landed him in controversy.

Science writer Nalaka Gunawardene first met Ray Wijewardene in the mid 1980s when he covered the latter’s work for the local and international media. Later, they collaborated in various science communication projects – the last was in mid 2008, when Nalaka interviewed Ray on climate change for the Sri Lanka 2048 TV debate series.

Nalaka did this wide-ranging interview with Ray in mid 1995, and a compact version appeared in Down to Earth, the science and environmental magazine published from New Delhi  (31 October 1995). However, the full exchange has never before been published. Releasing this text is Nalaka’s own tribute to Ray -- an imaginative and unorthodox thinker, life-longer experimenter and an outspoken public intellectual.]

###

Nalaka Gunawardene: A major thrust of the Green Revolution was promoting high yielding crop varieties and high external inputs. You’re questioning these now. Why?

Ray Wijewardene: All along in the Green Revolution, its promoters focused on maximizing yields through massive inputs. But they forgot that what the farmer wants is to maximize profits, not necessarily yields! During the past three decades, we have increasingly adopted high input technologies for agriculture, which naturally cost more. Increasing cost for the inputs and declining real prices (say, in terms of 1960 levels) for crops such as rice has resulted in a net decrease in the profit margins of farmers all over the tropics. Further, the heavy use of agricultural chemicals has resulted in serious environmental degradation.

So we lost on two fronts. There is now an increasing realization both among the farmers, and more slowly among the scientists and agricultural policy makers, that a return to some traditional systems practised in the past is the best option. Those systems had low external inputs, and optimum recycling of locally available inputs. We also need to optimize –- not maximize — the available land area for producing food and other crops for a rapidly increasing population.

Some argue that we can’t make agriculture sustainable and still hope to produce enough food for the growing human family. Do you agree?

As I said, the issue here is not one of mere yields, but improving the farmers’ overall profits. Sustainability is not a new concept in our agriculture. Our traditional farmers knew and practised it well. And as for back as 1936, our Department of Agriculture had outlined what sustainable productivity is in a publication called “Green Manuring”. Had we followed that course, instead of losing our heads in the euphoria of the Green Revolution during the 1960s and 1970s, we would surely not be facing the present dilemma of declining yields despite heavy inputs of agro-chemicals, particularly in crops such as tea.

You were a part of the new wave of agriculture in the 1960s, and helped mechanise farming through your two-wheeled tractor. But later you called it all a ‘big mistake’. Why?

Because we failed totally to ask ourselves a fundamental question: does the tractor mechanize agriculture or does it simply mechanize the buffalo? Ultimately, the tractor only mechanized the buffalo — and that too, not very well. It didn’t have the reproductive capability of the buffalo! Nor could it produce milk as the buffalo did, or fertilize our fields! So our initial attempt to introduce tractors was indeed a big mistake.

After a great deal of study, we realized a fundamental truth: the main, if not the whole, purpose of tillage in farming is to control weeds. The cost for (weed control by) tillage represents between 40 to 60 per cent of the total costs of agricultural productions. Tillage is not a healthy practice: it aggravates erosion, and is a major contributor to the serious loss of soil fertility. The loss of soil fertility is particularly serious in the tropics which have some of the poorest and most erodible soils on earth!

Ray Wijewardene on the set of Sri Lanka 2048, June 2008

Instead of tilling, what can be done to control weeds?

There are two main alternatives to tillage. The first is using herbicides, which usually creates further (and undesirable) dependence upon import of chemicals. It can also lead to environmental hazards.

The second method is using water for weed control, which is practised more widely that we realize. By far, the major use (over two thirds) of irrigation water in rice farming is for control of weeds in paddy fields! Some 20 tons of water are used to grow just one kilogramme of rice! The real costs of irrigated water, when added to the other (ever increasing) costs of inputs into rice production, invariably results in the costs of rice production far exceeding the price that a farmer receives for his crop!

Thus, we urgently need a ‘revolution’ in how weeds are controlled in tropical farming, with minimal reliance on imported inputs — or on expensive irrigated water. I spent many years studying the problem of how to control weeds naturally. And (I realized) looking into the tropical forests will ultimately give us the answer.

How is weed control an issue in the forest?

You don’t see any weed in a rainforest because firstly, it is shaded by the overhead canopy and secondly, the weeds are smothered by the leaf mulch. You realize that the fertility of the forest is enriched by the deep roots of the trees bringing up nutrients from manure reserves in the deeper soil levels, producing leaves and other parts of trees, which then fall on the top soil. This is how a forest system recycles fertility! This recycling of manure and fertility also controls weeds.

Ultimately, we come to realize that faming is all about managing weeds and managing fertility. These are the two key limiting factors. In the tropical forests, both these factors are beautifully managed by Nature itself. Trees are the essential link in this process — one that can determine whether a given land will be productive or marginal.

In addressing this problem of managing weeds and maintaining soil fertility under rain-fed conditions, we came across a technique which tries to mimic the forest. In the Philippines, it was called the Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) — now the name is being used universally. It helps us to bring perennial trees back into farming, as was done traditionally. In SALT, we basically generate large amounts of leaf mulch on the farm land by establishing contoured hedge-rows of suitable trees. Work at IITA and other institutions across the tropics and ground level experimentation in Asia and other tropical regions have helped develop SALT to an advanced state.

What are the main advantages of SALT?

Farming with SALT reduces the need for external inputs such as fertilizers and weed control chemicals. It also minimizes soil erosion. SALT has a particular application to the cultivation in the uplands. Upland farming normally starts with the clearing of trees — which immediately removes from the land the shade and leaf litter that smother weeds and also provide natural fertility. Such clearing also exposes the land to weather processes, leading to a rapid loss of top soil.

(In contrast) SALT helps by bringing nitrogen-fixing trees and shrubs back into their traditional role in the farming scene with their abundance of leaf-litter and mulch for restoring fertility and smothering weeds. What we are learning is how to do all this cultivation with minimal need for expensive tools and external fertilizers.

Are you fundamentally opposed to any use of external inputs in agriculture?

No, on the contrary! I believe we have to use some external inputs, but in an appropriate manner. I call it replenishing the land’s fertility. Especially where export crops are concerned, we have been extracting the fertility of our lands and sending it out (overseas). We need to put it back — or else we deplete our soils.

Sri Lanka doesn’t have extensive chemical deposits like India to produce all its own chemical replenishment. So we need to import some chemical fertilizers, but it must be used sparingly and alongside the natural ways of fertilizing the land. We need to pay more attention to aspects such as green manure, cow dung and earthworms – these are the real friends of farmers!

Our universities and research institutes have tended to ignore these aspects, largely because there are no powerful, western lobbies to promote their use. We have multinational companies supporting — directly or indirectly — the extensive use of chemical fertilizers. But who supports cow-dung? Who extols the virtues of the humble earthworm? For us in Asia, these elements are far more important. Indians have recognized this, but we still haven’t. As long as our agricultural scientists are trained in the western mould of high external input agriculture, this (mindset) won’t change. Cow-dung and earthworms won’t stand a chance – until some western academic suddenly “re-discovers” them…

Some activists have criticized you for working with tobacco companies to promote SALT in the hill country of Sri Lanka. What really happened?

I couldn’t care less what people do with tobacco — I don’t support smoking. But that’s not the issue here. The tobacco companies offer a very good deal to the farmer. My interest is in improving the farmer’s lot. Here’s my challenge to our critics and cynics: ‘If you don’t want farmers to grow tobacco, please come up with equally attractive packages of extension and marketing for farmers’!

I have been working not only with tobacco companies, but also with tea companies, in Sri Lanka’s hill country. I’ve been trying to get them interested in practising SALT. Earlier, the cultivation of both tobacco and tea has led to massive soil erosion. This is largely because of the misplaced belief that the land should be fully cleared of weeds before growing these cash crops. This is an imported, temperate-farming concept. What we have tried to show these farmers and plantation companies is that much more organic material must be put into farming. Sri Lanka’s tea yields have been declining, and our productivity is going to be a appallingly low unless and until we can recycle more organic matter in these crop lands. It has taken us more than a century to realize that chemical fertilizers will produce little effect without the organic matter.

I work with tobacco and tea companies also because they have good extension systems to reach out to the farmers and to share new information and techniques with them. The tobacco company did a first class job in promoting SALT because their extension staff got the message and spread it effectively.

Ray Wijewardene on the set of Sri Lanka 2048 show – June 2008

What about introducing SALT also to the subsistence farmers who engage in shifting cultivation?

I am encouraged by the fact that more and more farmers who engage in rain-fed farming realize the importance of covering the bare soil with mulch: they are gradually reverting to these techniques. They have seen these techniques used on bigger farms as well as in tea and tobacco plantations. It would have been ideal if there was a system to tell more farmers about the virtues of these methods.

But our great tragedy is that the Department of Agriculture fails to see the value of SALT. The country’s agricultural authorities have been ‘brainwashed’ totally by the “open field” concepts of temperate faming that they want more time to “research” the desirability of SALT before giving it their stamp of approval. While realizing the benefits of SALT, the inertia of the system prevents them from fully endorsing it…

It sounds like our Department of Agriculture is the biggest impediment to achieving sustainable agriculture?

So far, yes! As I have said, they are still following outmoded western methods which even the west is now questioning! The other problem is the huge gap between research and effective extension to the farmer. I whole-heartedly agree with the senior officer of the Department of Agriculture who said, in a rare moment of candour: “Fifty years of the DoA has been a total failure….Still, 90 per cent of our farmers are recipients of poverty alleviation subsidies.”

Why do you advocate growing multi-purpose trees instead of short term crops?

For two good reasons. One is that in the tropical counties, climatic conditions are more suitable for perennial tree crops than short-term crops. A major constraint in tropical agriculture is the insufficiency of sunshine. This may sound contradictory, but on the whole, we in the tropics don’t get very long hours of daylight, and on top of that, we also experience frequent cloud cover. This can affect short-term crops. But trees don’t rely on a single growing season; they benefit from the tropical sun that shines throughout the year. Tree crops are thus the natural vegetation and source of food for the tropics.

We have to question whether we practise correct type of agriculture. Many forms of “bare-soil” agriculture, as practised in countries with a temperate vegetation and climate, have been blindly adopted in the tropics. Even rice is a temperate crop, although it has adapted well to the swampy valleys where water serves ideally to control weeds. But using water for this purpose on large irrigation schemes is not very cost effective. As I said earlier, some 20 tons of water are used to grow one kilogram of rice: three fourths of this water goes into managing weeds. The rest is adequate for the physiological needs of the rice plant. Water is rapidly becoming the most expensive herbicide in the world — and freshwater is increasingly scarce!

Sri Lanka’s soil and climate — as elsewhere in the humid tropics — clearly favour the growing of more tree crops. Archaeological research reveals that ancient Lankans had more tree crops in their diet, and were less dependent on grain crops including rice. During the Second World War, when the rice supplies from the East were interrupted, I remember how our people reverted to eating more yams, manioc (cassava), coconut, breadfruit, bananas, jak fruit, and a whole range of other tree crops to supplement local rice production and maintain a healthy diet.

As a rice farmer myself, I whole-heartedly support the growing of rice and am proud of the yields achieved under difficult circumstances in our valleys and lowlands. But let’s optimize the uplands with tree crops.

You’ve also been experimenting with agroforestry. What exactly is agroforestry, and how can it help our farmers?

Agroforestry is a term used to describe a wide range of agricultural practices which combine both short term crops with long-term, larger trees in the same agricultural land, at the same time. Tropical farmers have long raised food crops and trees/shrubs, and sometimes animals, in an integrated and sustainable manner. So it’s nothing new.

However, such integrated land use systems, which require less external inputs, have until recently been ignored by agricultural and  forestry researchers due to a tragic decision several decades ago to separate the  departments and ministries concerned with agriculture (for food) and forestry (for timber)! That the two are intrinsically liked was not realised nor appreciated.

It’s only in the last decade that specialists have rediscovered the integration of crops, animals and tree production in “agroforestry”. A much overlooked fact is that deeper-rooted trees bring nutrients up from lower soil levels and deposit it on the soil surface as leaf mulch. On this, a wide range of food crops can be grown.

In your view, what’s the biggest single problem facing tropical agriculture?

The two biggest problems facing farmers throughout the world are the loss of soil fertility and control of weeds. Every year, a large extent of agricultural land is rendered unproductive due to soil erosion in the catchment areas in Sri Lanka’s central hill country. The susceptible ecosystem (steep slopes, high rainfall) is damaged by inappropriate land use and cultivation practices. One millimetre of top soil lost is 13 tons of total soil loss per hectare.

In some areas in Sri Lanka’s hill country, more than a centimetre of soil has been lost in a year, so the loss is often over 100 tons per hectare! Such erosion leads to a rapid loss of soil fertility, and can seriously affect the catchment of several key rivers that originate from the hill country. Already, the Mahaweli River‘s reservoirs and irrigation systems have begun to show the impact of sedimentation. So it’s a double jeopardy: threatening both land and waterways, particularly irrigation systems.

One thing is clear: tropical soils should never be left exposed. A rice field covered with water is fine. Similarly, uplands covered with mulch are also acceptable. But bare soil – absolutely no! That will soon lead to erosion and loss of fertility.

Some blame shifting (‘chena’) cultivation for much of this soil erosion and land degradation. But you’ve disagreed. Why?

Rain-fed shifting cultivation is practised widely in Sri Lanka and all over the tropics. Shifting cultivation (called chena cultivation in Sri Lanka) is the earliest and most wide-spread form of agroforestry in the tropics. It was a land use system in which the branches of forest trees were lopped and crops are cultivated alongside those trees. The deep rooting trees were left intact on these lands to provide shade — and to bring up soil nutrients. After cultivating on that land for a few seasons, the land was left for the regeneration of the foliage (this was called the ‘fallow period’).

The good chena farmer only lopped the branches to let sunlight through. He didn’t fully clear the forest. Sometimes the lopped branches were burned very slightly to prepare the ground for cultivation, but farmers did NOT set fire to whole forest areas. It was nothing like the burns encouraged by the World Bank sponsored projects with huge machinery and massive, destructive opening up of forest lands.

It’s only in recent decades that the traditional shifting cultivation practice has become totally “vulgarized” and farmers have started clearing whole forests for cultivation. It has been influenced by western (temperate) farming approach where they have vast areas of open farm lands. However, as available land diminished, the fallow periods become shorter and shorter, so there was less time for abandoned lands to regenerate naturally. During the last few decades, the fallow period had come down from over 10 years to less than three years.

The earlier, correct form of shifting cultivation was practised by farmers all over the  tropics for hundreds of years without serious damage to land or soil fertility. Armchair critics are quick to blame chena for causing soil erosion and deforestation. But when correctly done with adequate fallow periods, it is one of the best methods to raise crops using only rain water, in areas where irrigated water is either not available or is simply too expensive.

So banning chena cultivation – as some critics advocate – isn’t the solution?

No, chena cultivation cannot be eliminated or regulated by mere laws or through harsh penalties. Chena provides a good part of Sri Lanka’s subsidiary food crops, and it forms the only source of income — particularly during a year of low rainfall — to the poorest segments of rural society. So it’s likely to continue, no matter what the critics say or do.

It has always been a challenge to agricultural scientists and development planners to devise and promote viable alternatives to chena cultivation — or at least to find ways of making it sustainable. One way forward is to promote the use of fast growing trees which will help recycle soil fertility faster, so that the farmer can return to the same plot of land after shorter fallow periods. This is the principle behind SALT and “alley cropping”. Many much fast growing trees have been identified and are now being popularized.

Will the small tropical farmers always be prisoners of local and global market forces?

In fact, their problem is that market forces are not allowed to operate freely! Governments both in the North (developed world) and in the South (developing world) are interfering with market forces in ways that marginalize the small tropical farmer.

At the international level, prices are kept artificially low by Northern governments offering huge farm subsidies to their own farmers, and then flooding the markets with cheap produce, which undercuts our farmers. Apart from subsidies, the North can afford to keep prices low also because of the vastness of agricultural enterprises (i.e. economies of scale). Our small farmers naturally incur higher unit costs.

The subsidized foods, imported from the North, freely enter our markets and pose increasing market competition, e.g. wheat and milk from subsidized farms in the US, Europe and Australia. The Americans’ PL 480 (Public Law 480), which annually provides large quantities of wheat to the developing countries at comparatively low prices, is one of the biggest enemies of our farmers, who are squeezed between diminishing real prices for their produce and the increasing costs of production.

Interestingly, the small farmers in Japan, Taiwan and Korea are paid four to five times the price per kilo of paddy paid to the farmers in Sri Lanka. The Japanese authorities well appreciate that the so-called “world price” for rice is based on production from the very large farms of the US which benefit from the economies of scale, and with proximate low cost access to the inputs and facilities for higher yields.  There is no way the much smaller-scale Japanese farmers could produce rice at comparable prices.

What about our farmers and the local market?

It’s the same with the small farmers is Sri Lanka and in most other countries of Asia. A good stating point would be to offer our farmers realistic prices for their produce.

Unfortunately, our politicians just love to subsidize the city consumer upon the sweat of the village farmer. If higher prices are paid to the farmer, it will gradually lead to enhanced rural prosperity, which in turn will lead to a whole chain of events – for example, reversing migration to the already congested cities. It makes sense in every way to offer a realistic price to the farmer. But it doesn’t happen!

Finally, you have long been critical of international development aid. Why?

I believe development aid is a part of “neocolonialism” — a conspiracy of sort that keeps developing counties bound to inappropriate development models and ill-fitting technologies. It is our short-sighted politicians who mortgage the future of our entire nations to the west.

I remember Martin Luther King, Jr., once said to his people: “You buy what you want, yet you beg for what you need”. This is exactly what our politicians are doing in relation to development aid.

I, for one, would prefer to see all development aid to the global South stop. Then we’ll learn to stand on our own feet — or we’ll perish. That could be the best thing that can happen to Sri Lanka, and we will surely learn the meaning of “independence” as “non-dependence”. And I’m confident: we shall not perish!

[Note: The interview has been reproduced without further editing or updating.]

• Paddy at Rs. 20 and Rice at Rs. 60 – What is the mystery?
• Queue For Pongal Rice
• Some Reflections on North-East Development in Sri Lanka
• War IDPs
• SRI LANKA MAY WANT – AN ECONOMIC VISION 2030

Prof. Sumanasiri Liyanage, who has written to Groundviews regularly, teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya, is a well-known political analyst, columnist and on the Board of the South Asia Peace Institute (SAPI).

We began our short conversation with the crisis facing the main opposition party in Sri Lanka, the United National Party, flagging serious issues others on this site like Dayapala Thiranagama have also noted. Prof. Liyanage’s critique of the party stems from his observation that in recent years it has lost sight of a political party’s raison d’être – the capture of political power as opposed to issue based advocacy best suited for NGOs.

We also spoke about the demise of Mangala Samaraweera’s Third Way politics, and the end of the SLFP Mahajana wing after Mr. Samaraweera recently joined the UNP. I noted that many commentators, including those like Publius on Groundviews, who hailed Mr. Samaraweera’s vision at the time , now failed to ask what went wrong and why his Third Way did not materialise.

Prof. Liyanage also made some observations about the continuation of zero sum politics even post-war, noting that it was largely the result of the spirit and expression of the constitution. I also contested him on his submission that he saw no change between the present Rajapaksa regime and those in the past vis-a-vis media freedom, the timbre of democracy, the space for civil society and dissent. Towards the end, Prof. Liyanage also talks about the nexus between democracy and development, noting that he feels there is no correlation between the two.

• Post-war Sri Lanka: A conversation with Shanthi Sachithananthan
• The Mangala Sutra: Preliminary observations on Mangala’s third way
• Interview with Prof. Kumar David
• Mangala’s party and the Citizen’s dream
• In conversation with Dr. Harsha de Silva, MP

Download the 162 page compilation of content as a PDF in high quality (25.4Mb), or low quality (3.7Mb). The low quality version is good enough to read, but the photos will look and print much better in the high quality version.

From 19 – 27 May 2010, Groundviews ran a special edition on the end of war in Sri Lanka. Over this week alone, the site received over forty thousand readers and exclusively featured over eighty thousand words of original content, one video premiere, over a dozen photos, generating over one hundred and fifty thousand words of commentary. Tens of thousands more have read and commented on this content since, making the special edition a sui generis archive of intelligent debate, incisive critique and vital perspectives that mainstream media in Sri Lanka, even post-war, is too fearful to feature.

For example, one memorable and particularly hard-hitting comment inspired by the content in this special edition came from Tathagata Bose, an Indian medical doctor who based on direct experience with the treatment of large civilian casualties at Menik Farm just after the end of war averred:

“I am an Indian pediatrician who served with the Indian Medical Team at Menik Farm IDP center. The point I am trying to raise is this – we were managing scores of infants with bullet / shell blast injuries (some festering, mostly healed). It gives an idea of the extent of collateral damage suffered by the civilians caught in the last days of the conflict. If an infant could not be protected, imagine the plight of older children and adults. The so-called “Sri Lankan Solution” being touted as the panacea for dealing with terrorism worldwide needs a thorough relook.”

A significant challenge when publishing web content in print form is to capture the vibrant nature of online debate and discussion. Because of the sheer volume of reader generated commentary, this volume only contains the original contributions by the authors. Links are provided to each article on this site, and readers are very strongly encouraged to engage with online comments.

The articles are published in the order they appeared on the site. However, the final three essays were not part of the special edition online and are included because the authors anchor their key arguments to issues, processes, people and events flagged in the special edition.

Groundviews was set up to bear witness, contest the status quo and document inconvenient truths. The comment by Dr. Bose alone is a cogent example of the site’s unique role, recognition and continued relevance post-war.

The content in this special edition alone is a compelling record of hope that risks disappointment, defiance that trumps despair and a resilient, indefatigable search for identity, truth, accountability and closure – vital narratives that need to be heard and which can’t be censored, curtailed and contained.

Veritas vos liberabit.

• 1,000 posts on Groundviews: Bearing witness, shaping peace
• Groundviews back online, with new features and enhanced for mobile phones
• Scheduled downtime for Groundviews
• Groundviews on Twitter
• Happy New Year!

I happen to come across an interesting TED talk http://on.ted.com/88Xq. Its about a school in India (Riverside School) that starts a program called I Can, where children aged 8 – 14, in small groups are empowered and inspired to become change agents. It’s a simple concept. The children are asked to pick an issue that bothers them, that they want to change, and then they are given a week to make the change. The impact and results are amazing. From cleaning up garbage, to making cities child friendly, to stopping child marriages, to teaching their parents to read and write, no issue was too big or too small. Kiran Sethi, the lady spearheading this project sees the potential of the project and starts taking the idea to other schools in the state and then across India. It gathers momentum and start spreading all over … Pakistan, England, Canada, Bhutan. Check how its spreading.

Coming back to my random web surfing. I tweet the link. My dear friend Bishan Rajapakse, in New Zealand picks it up and is equally inspired and does more than tweet it. He writes to Kiran praising her for her work and saying it would be amazing to start this in Sri Lanka. She replies. Of course … You Can! He puts me and several others in touch with Kiran.

In the meantime I have been meeting with a group of my friends, who are depressed and disheartened about some of the political and social issues in Sri Lanka. We wanted to get out of the apathy we were in and were looking for practical way to engage with social issues and the community, to bring in values, empowerment and good governance. I Can seemed like an ideal way to engage with children, teachers and the education system.

We pick up the idea, and today we are running a few pilot projects with amazing results. children have been involved in teaching under-privileged children English, stopping bullying in the school, cleaning up a garbage dump and convincing the municipality to give a job to an unemployed person known to them etc. Amazing what children will do when adults believe in them and they believe in themselves. The teachers are amazed too. Children whom they have hitherto written off as being ‘naughty’ and ‘undisciplined’ have worked the hardest and shown their true potential in their engagement with the project.

So what’s the moral of this story?

A simple random act can often have an unpredictable chain reaction and create change! A tweet. An email. A contact and introduction. A group of friends.

A change initiative that is empowering children to believe in themselves as change agents and adults to start respecting the passion and action of children.

I did not know at the time I tweeted the link that it would connect me to a social change initiative that is growing as we speak. I didn’t realize that this would be a project that my friends and I would start doing.

What was the link?

Each one of us (me, the group of friends, Bishan, Kiran) in our separate corners of the world had one intention – the intention to transform human society, to empower the good humanness in all of us, to believe in children, to believe in the good in the world. This connected us. And simple random acts with this underlying intention connected us. That’s all. Simple.

I can make simple random acts, holding my intention closely to my heart, and see my intentions unfold, and connect with others.

I am not alone. You are not alone.Be brave. Be foolish. Make one simple random act of goodness. Share a story. Help someone. Believe in yourself. Believe in someone else. You never know how far it can reach.

Wishing life and energy to your good intentions!

• ‘I want a decent Education’ – A twelve year old’s plea
• A requiem by Karuna: The death of sub-regionalism?
• The untold story of a child
• Groundviews upgrades: Preview websites before visiting them
• Causing a storm in a tea plantation

Dr. Muttukrishna Sarvananthan is the Principal Researcher at the Point Pedro Institute of Development and author of three well read articles on Groundviews. Our conversation was pegged to the socio-economic aspects of post-war scenarios in the North and East. Dr. Sarvananthan’s key ideas for post-war development are captured in SL Govt monopoly impeding economic revival in NE and forestalling private entrepreneurship, an article published in April in the Tamil National. In this scathing critique, he points to a number of problems with the Government’s misguided approach to development in and around the North and ends with a novel idea to kick-start sustainable local entrepreneurship in the region. These are points raised and discussed in detail.

The conversation with Sherine Xavier, an activist born and now living in Jaffna looks at life in the city after the end of war. Sherine returned to Jaffna around 3 years ago, and talks about memories of growing up in Jaffna, comparing it with the social fabric post-war.

We talk about the persistent levels of violence and trauma in and around Jaffna as flagged earlier by Shanthi Sachithananthan, the Chairperson of Viluthu, appearing on the same interview series. Sherine also touches on aspects of economic development in the region, and clearly notes that plans by the central government drawn up and enacted with piecemeal consultation with the local population stand little chance of success over the long-term. Given her time in the diaspora, Sherine also talks about the politics of diaspora engagement with post-war Sri Lanka, the perception of the hordes from the South who visit the peninsula with little sensitivity over, inter alia, the lasting trauma and scars of war and related to this, the key challenges facing reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

She repeatedly spoke of those in Jaffna as a resilient peoples, and I asked her at the end to speak about the well-spring of hope guiding her own work and life in Jaffna.

• Current situation in Jaffna, Sri Lanka: A resident speaks out
• The voice of an IDP single mother in Puttlam
• The Travelling Circus on video: Looking at war and IDPs through theatre
• In conversation with Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
• Post-war Sri Lanka: A conversation with Shanthi Sachithananthan

Every day, we fight several battles – from inflation to traffic to our friendly neighborhood cop. Our battles are many, but our defeat in one particular battle stands out, quite spectacularly.  Sign boards saying “Mehi kunu dameema ballanta pamanai” (Only dogs may dump garbage here) are testimony that we did not go down without a fight, that we tried our best.

Whenever I see these signs on people’s walls I’m always intrigued because the garbage issue seems to be problem that never seems to go away, and in true Sri Lankan style, we are always quick to blame the Government or even cite a Western conspiracy. While the blame does partially lie in the hands of the Government, the average Sri Lankan’s attitude towards, or, if you like, solution for, the garbage problem never fails to amaze me.

Dumping your trash in front of another person’s house seems to be the common and recommended solution. Live on the 4^th floor and have no time to place your garbage bag in front of your neighbor’s gate? No problem, just throw it from your balcony in the general direction of your target. If the garbage collection service on your road is a myth, it is still always best to keep your garbage bags on the road anyway… just in case.

It IS frustrating, not to have a regular garbage collection service or even a dumping ground nearby. But leaving it outside another person’s house is not the answer. That garbage has to end up somewhere and most often than not, garbage that is gifted to different parts of the city end up in the same place – the gutter.

Since the Government is clearly not giving any solution to this problem, we should keep dumping our garbage anywhere, as we please. And during the torrential rain, we shall watch as they block our drains and flood our streets and keep complaining that while the Government can win the war against the LTTE, they cannot conquer the garbage crisis.

• The Sri Lankan Voter
• A Look Into A Village In Kalutara
• Colombo goes under water, and not for the first time
• When meritocracy dies and nepotism reigns supreme
• Forcible resettlements in East

Context and Drivers

(1)  Vacuum in Tamil nationalist politics: Comprehensive military defeat of the LTTE and the decimation of its entire leadership have created almost an unbridgeable vacuum in Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka. All other trends in Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka revolved round their attitudes towards the LTTE when the latter enjoyed an unchallengeable military capability. The two options that were available to other Tamil nationalist parties were either to be a proxy to the LTTE (TNA) or to be an opponent of it (EPDP, TULF, TMVP). When the LTTE were decimated, none of these two tendencies were in a position to present a viable Tamil nationalist political position. There are no signs that this political vacuum will be filled in the immediate future.

(2)  The rise of exclusive Sinhala nationalism: The second contextual factor that is a determinant in future scenarios is the presence of Sinhala exclusivist nationalism, the manifestation of which may be traced in the mid-1990s. Since the first years of this century, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Hela Urumaya have been in intense competition to emerge as the most prominent and vocal Sinhala party. Although electoral strength of the two parties are not that significant, it is interesting to note that both have been capable of influencing the two main political parties, the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, to change their stand on national question.

(3)  Over-securitization of the state: Prioritization of state security is a natural growth of nearly 30 years of armed conflict that totally disturbed the equilibrium between civil society and military in favor of the latter. Although the armed conflict between the government security forces and the LTTE came to an end a year ago, the involvement of the military in political decision-making remains undiminished. Hence, it is not only a phenomenon but is also an attitude. The government seems to look at almost everything from the prism of its own security, which deeply influences its practices and policies in many spheres.

(4)  External relations: Under the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, there has been a paradigm shift in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. As Gotabhaya Rajapaksa recently outlined, three main elements of Sri Lanka’s new foreign policy are: (1) Sri Lanka is non-aligned country, so that it maintains friendly relations with all the countries in the world; (2) Sri Lanka has shifted the focus of its foreign policy from Western countries (USA and EU) to countries in the region; (3) Sri Lanka maintains special relations with India so that its foreign policy decisions will be consistent with the security concerns of India (limited external self-determination). While these three pillars will remain unchanged, it seems that the government will make a serious attempt to re-win the support of the West, as it is imperative especially from the point of view of economics.

How will these conditions and drivers affect the way in which Sri Lanka deals with the national question post-war? In one of my previous articles, I envisioned that Sri Lanka was heading towards East-Asian type of democracy. The post-election scenario appears to have strengthened the movement in this direction. The way in which the new cabinet was formed signifies that Sri Lanka is now heading towards the adoption of the American style of cabinet-making rather that of the Westminster system that is party based. I do not intend here to discuss possible changes in political landscape at macro level, but confine my analysis to how these changes will impact deliberations on the national question in Sri Lanka.

In what follows, I identify four possible scenarios and assume that the actual developments may combine the characteristics of all these four. Although the fourth scenario is a very remote possibility, we may not be able leave it out completely at least in a theoretical exercise as militant organizations have shown high degrees of resilience. How the first three elements will evolve and morph will also depend on the strength of non-Sinhala nationalisms, the democratic forces, the activities of the opposition parties and the pressure from external actors.

(a) Developmental welfarism: Some section of the ruling coalition and Sinhala elites appear to think that there is no separate or specific Tamil national problem. The problems the Sri Lankan population has faced are, to them, problems of underdevelopment that include poverty, unemployment, regional inequalities and class-based inequalities. These problems are common to the Sinhala population in peripheral regions and to Tamil populations living in the Vanni, Mulathivu or Mannar districts. Tamil youth took up arms as Sinhala youth took up arms in 1971 and 1987-89. According to this view, a specific ethnic/national expression was given to it by the Tamil separatists backed by imperialist forces who sought the destabilization of the region. Now this terrorist threat has been defeated. So, what is imperative now is to address the general and common issues of underdevelopment. Of course a protracted war has made the Northern and Eastern provinces more underdeveloped because the circumstances did not permit the implementation of development projects that took place in other regions. So, special attention to these areas in new development strategies is warranted. This is quite a strong notion within as well as outside the ruling coalition. A large part of the business community also thinks in the same way. Negenahira Udanaya and Uthuru Wasanthaya are concrete expression of this developmental welfarist perspective. The strength of this strategy is that it emphasizes basic material needs of the majority of people that have to be satisfied. However, its main flaw as demonstrated in the last elections lies in the fact that people have basic needs like security, identity and the recognition of identity that are also of an equal existential importance. When those non-material needs are neglected, the experience shows that people tend to interpret the lack of physical and material needs in ethnic terms.

(b) Assimilationist Strategy: President Mahinda Rajapakse announced in his speech to the Parliament after the conclusion of war last year that there is no division in the country hereafter between the majority and minority, and the division that actually exists is between the people who love the country and those who do not. He reiterated the same idea in his exclusive interview with the Editor of the Hindu, N. Ram. Of course, this statement should not be interpreted to give the meaning that the President wanted all to be integrated into one single community shedding their cultural differences. What he implied was an overarching Sri Lankan identity making other identities subordinated to it. Assimilationist strategy gains its strength in my opinion from two sources. First, it flows from the idea of civic nationalism that has been constantly identified with democracy. While accepting the presence of different cultures, it posits, what Habermas called, constitutional patriotism. However, in real politics, civic nationalism except in exceptional cases tends to be defined from the prism of majoritarian cultures neglecting or marginalizing pluri-cultural characteristics of the society. Hence, there is a possibility, in highly divided societies, that non-dominant communities may come forward to resist such an overarching identity. Secondly, it appears to be fitting into prevailing demographic realities of the island.

(c) Power-Sharing Arrangement: Since 1987, two major political parties in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the United National Party accepted that some form of power-sharing is needed to satisfy Tamil nationalist demands. When the President announced that his government would implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution fully until new proposals are ready, many believed that this would be the point of departure or benchmark in future constitutional reform. In the Parliamentary election in 2010, the UPFA made an appeal to the voters that the UPFA be given a two third majority in the Parliament so that it could initiate long awaited constitutional reforms. However, the UPFA did not reveal what would be the major changes that it proposed to introduce in making new constitution. Changing the electoral system was the only aspect that was stressed during the election time. Prior to the election, three suggestions were flagged. The suggestions were: (1) full implementation of the 13^th Amendment (may be with some minuses); (2) the introduction of a second chamber; and (3) a bill of right that was initiated by Milinda Moragoda as a former Minister of Justice. The negative signs are visible in the arena of real political practice. First, there is no genuine effort to implement the 13th Amendment. Secondly, the implementation of many development programs is done by the central government, almost completely neglecting elected provincial bodies. This is clearly visible in the Eastern Province. Thirdly, the President has so far not taken any action against the activities of the Governor in the Eastern Province whose own actions are under constant contestation from the elected provincial council. Finally, there has been a significant Sinhala national opposition within and outside the government to any kind of power-sharing arrangement. The recent statement by Minister Wimal Weerawansa against Indian Foreign Secretary’s statement demonstrates this anti-power-sharing sentiment in government.

(d) Back to Confrontational Politics: If the government gives into Sinhala exclusive forces and assumes that the large section of the Sinhala masses are against any kind of consensual politics, are totally unconcerned about the Tamil national issues and the issues relating to other numerically small nations and ethnic groups, the re-emergence of exclusive Tamil nationalist politics may be unavoidable. The epicenter of Tamil exclusive nationalist politics has been now transferred to the diasporic community. Although it may not happen in the immediate future due to the high magnitude of the defeat suffered by the LTTE and continuing vigilance of the security establishment, the presence of trained combatants and stockpile of arms hidden in various places may facilitate an emergence of militant groups like in the late 1970s.

This is based on the talk given at Center for South Asian Studies, in Chennai.

• Post-CFA politics, war and peace in Sri Lanka: A few thoughts
• Dr. Devanesan Nesiah on post-war / post-LTTE Sri Lanka
• Are We Back on Square One?
• Interview with Ravi Karunanayake
• The Nationalist Epidemic

For President Mahinda Rajapakse and the government elected on an overwhelming  ‘gratitude vote’ for providing political leadership to crush the Liberation Tigers militarily, the post war call is to rebuild the lives of 22 million people-beyonds the rubble of yesteryear.

If winning the war was no mean task, leading this country post war to new heights and to achieve its true potential will prove a bigger challenge. This requires a collective and concerted effort to go beyond the war psyche that continues to grip Sri Lankan society.

Two crucial elections have been fought and won by the incumbency this year largely on the emotional premise of ‘a public demonstration of gratitude’ (read sometimes servitude) than to make prudent political choices. The appalling quality of some legislators demonstrates at what price gratitude may be expressed but that’s entirely a different topic.

It is no mean task to end a socio-economically as well as politically costly war. But a year later, the question is not about resting on laurels but about the need to create a winning formula that could take Sri Lanka beyond its present political wasteland.

History is replete with examples of war winning leaders being ousted from power only to be replaced by more strategic managers of economies. But the large majority of Sri Lankans, having entrusted the task of eradicating the LTTE militancy to the Rajapakse administration, installed them back in power- this time to lead a different war towards economic prosperity.

As we make grand plans for economic advancement and seek to absorb Malaysian and Singaporean economic models,  on the downside , such focus  indicates a willingness to compromise democratic fundamentals upon which this society was created and nurtured.

The war being over in May 2010, Velupillai Pirapaharan’s ability to revise the nation’s agenda sans notice and bombs that go off that instilled fear in people is now history. Yet the real challenge before President Mahinda Rajapakse is to ensure the transition of this nation into a true democracy.

Besides, in the absence of the LTTE, the government is faced with a unique opportunity to strike a better political bargain with the Tamil leadership in addressing the root causes of conflict.  The Tamil political leadership has been diluted and splintered in and there less likelihood for them to act like prisoners of some Tamil militant group and to make extreme demands that may be unacceptable to the majority.  Yet, the government remains stoically silent on the most vital question.

In a post war analysis, it is pertinent to flag some concerns the citizens have including the possibility of the re-emergence of violent conflict.  The Rajapakse administration appears to be concentrating fully on a developmental drive despite the absence of significant aid (hence the backdoor negotiations to urgently secure the GSP + facility).

But what is needed to complete socio-political transition in a country that has suffered three decades of war, the commitment to address the root cause of the conflict is nowhere in sight.

To begin with, the incumbency should have taken measures to ensure de-escalation and demilitarisation so that the rule of law can take root.  It is undeniable that huge compromises were made in this regard and provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and Public Security Ordinance (PSO) in effect overruled many other laws.

It is only fair that the citizenry be allowed to experience normalcy, more so in the north east where thousands are still huddled in displaced camps. The introduction of normalcy can take place only if the government demonstrated a serious commitment to de-escalate and demilitarize-but no such action appears in the horizon yet.

Let it not be forgotten that the war effectively turned this nation into a national security state and the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers was achieved at great human and financial cost. Good governance and civil liberties took severe beatings in the process, but this should have been, at its worst, a very temporary state.

While it is a welcome change to hear about the appointment of a commission similar to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the results of such an effort may prove futile in a country where the chief executive himself defines who a patriot and a traitor would be and systematically divides the citizens into two broad camps. It certainly is no formula for healing ethnic wounds or promoting integration.

During this month, two positive developments have indeed taken place.  The government introduced effective amendments to the emergency regulations, enacted under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO) and jailed journalist J S Tissainayagam was granted a presidential pardon to coincide with the International Press Freedom Day on May 3.  Yet these two moves are of symbolic value and too little for a nation that needs to experience more visible signs of demilitarisation to and a state of normalcy.

Though the election campaigns were replete with promises that range from dismantling high security zones to immediately resettling the internally displaced to generating thousands of jobs to curbing corruption, they simply remained election pledges.  It is pertinent to note that the need to address the root causes of the conflict did not even make to these war- hyped platforms, though so vital to complete this nation’s transition from a national security state to a post war, growth- driven and politically mature nation.

Yet, with the burdensome war consigned to history, Sri Lanka is presented with a unique opportunity to develop itself. This requires strategy and political maturity.  If the priority in May 2009 was to fight the war to an absolute end, a year later it is restoration of democracy, rule of law, ethnic integration and ensuing normalcy in the island.  Only huge efforts in these areas could augment effort at nation building.

The Sri Lankan opposition is virtually crippled in many ways. The common opposition candidate, Retd. Gen. Sarath Fonseka has been brought before a military tribunal for alleged conspiracy to overthrow the government, a clear message that Sri Lanka does not shy away from the Burmese model of dealing with democratic opposition. Less said of the fragmented United National Party (UNP) the better, except to note that the UNP’s perpetual leadership crisis only strengthens a government that relishes concentration of power.

Despite riding a popular wave, the government continues to wage a separate war against the media, and a presidential pardon to a single journalist, a very welcome move, till cannot conceal the reality of continued harassment experienced by individual journalists and media houses. Post war, journalists have also felt compelled to temporarily leave the country amidst continued and systematic harassment of certain sections of the media and of course the plight of missing political cartoonist Pradeep Ekneligoda remains a mystery.

The hype of recent times is about northeastern resurgence and Sri Lanka becoming Miracle of Asia. Indeed there are many developmental projects underway in the once war ton areas and it is hoped that the local people will soon benefit from these projects and enjoy the fruits long denied economic advancement.

But theirs is a social fabric torn asunder by militancy. The LTTE may not be active anymore, but there are other armed groups, some working with the government.  People are separated from their families, lost their homes, livelihoods and basic rights. Restoring their lives require a different miracle and this miracle must happen for Sri Lanka to move forward.

It is time to strengthen Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions and to introduce a more liberal legal regime that would not compromise civil liberties. It is time to embrace a new culture of openness and unity and a time for celebrating peoples’ fundamental freedoms.

Whether President Rajapakse is confident and mature enough to ensure those socio-political, legal and economic changes will ultimately be his litmus test.  He has certainly walked away with the trophy by defeating the LTTE. But the world continues to watch him as to how he may lead this nation beyond the phase of war.

If the President is keen to maintain his popular base and to go down in history as the leader who actually placed Sri Lanka under the sun, it is hoped he would take meaningful steps to complete the vital transition. Only then can there be permanent peace and Sri Lanka can be justly proud of what it can become.

[Editors note: The author is a lawyer by training having specialized in international law. A journalist for over 17 years, she has extensively covered the areas of politics, conflict, environment, culture, and history and gender issues. Groundviews interviewed Dilrukshi on Human Rights Day 2009 on the murder of Lasantha Wickremetunge, the Editor of the Sunday Leader, media freedom and human rights in post-war Sri Lanka.]

• Groundviews Person of the Year ?
• Your opinion on a war ‘over in 3 weeks’ and a ‘post-LTTE’ Sri Lanka?
• The untold story of a child
• Post-presidential elections: The new challenges before Sri Lanka
• Achievement 2008, Challenge 2009

By this time you will be deriding me for bringing out that hackneyed old socialist Marxist tripe that, in academia at least, is becoming very mainstream. It’s easy, it’s even trendy to go all hammer and tongs at neo-liberalism, capitalism and modernity. These institutions are built on good, strong moral, Christian grounds, and yet, of course, they destroy and fall to ruins very easily. I am not speaking only of the disasters of the Third World, but globally, certainly. Academics active in the climate change debate are arguing for governments not run by politicians but for institutional authoritarianism run by knowledge experts. Why? Because democracy has failed humanity and the institutions, laws, markets and corporations that sustain this experiment of the modern only survive on the image of humanity in chaos and disorder. All our value and knowledge systems are distorted by its principles. More than colonial legacies, it is the principles of modernity, with a focus on individualism, with the dominance of a concern for the centrality of the individual, for private values against collective values that divides and antagonises us. Social fragmentation at its best, preying on our social insecurities and fears in the most insidious manner- by talking to us of equality and liberty. I make no new or perverse argument here. The democratic experiment will fail in Sri Lanka, and this would have happened even if this war had ended in a ‘credibly delivered’ equitable political solution.

Do not mistake the sentiments of this piece. I have no sympathy with the petty thuggery of the Rajapakse administration or in their handling of the conflict or the country. The damage that they are doing to Sri Lanka has caused many of my friends to think fondly of Chandrika Kumaratunge and even Ranasinghe Premadasa. It is morally revolting to think of members of the Buddhist clergy in active parliamentary politics and somewhat shaming to note the weakness of the Christian leadership. There is no place for academia or independent thought and speech, and certainly nothing but death or a little light torture for the braver members of the media and civil society. Ranil Wickremasinghe, leader of the opposition cannot and will not deliver. Indeed, civil society is fighting the ‘good’ fight for liberal democracy, economic prosperity and so on. Contrary to the rhetoric of the government, I would point to them as the real patriots of Sri Lanka.  My grief with this ‘peace industry’ is that they buy in to the West, to the policies by which foreign superpowers have decided we must all run our countries, and this makes it all the easier for the Rajapakse administration and the Buddhist clergy to wage a vicious cultural war upon them and to incite the darker sides of Sinhala nationalism.

I am tired, as you are, of the argument I made above about the failure of democratic, modern institutions and the dominance of economic and individual concerns. As I said before, it’s dead easy to criticise institutions and policies without presenting an alternative. This focus only solidifies the centrality of these systems to our thought and organisation of the world. This is a blind spot in  modern academia and policy making, that while willing to be critical of the systems and institutions, we are unwilling to look beyond them to the possibility of an alternative, towards radical reform that moves away from the models of ‘growth’ and ‘progress’ that the principles of political modernity are fundamentally based upon. We cannot imagine even the conception of an alternative, and in terms of Sri Lanka, a home-grown solution that isn’t based on these principles. Now I do not know what this alternative is so I cannot provide you with the framework for building it. However, let me ask this. An academic I met in Sri Lanka, years ago, made the comment that little in Sri Lanka fits neatly into any theoretical box. If this is so, why struggle to make Sri Lanka fit into the same democratic, capitalist box? Why not move the discussion, debate and work we do into a Sri Lanka that becomes an example to the world in seeking a moral, sustainable alternative? Perhaps we need to retrace our steps, not be afraid of a little developmental regression into the pre-modern, and courageously make a new journey out of the city of the world and into the village of the mind. I think it’s best to do this while the sun’s still shining and arrack flows free and true.

• In defense of the JVP campaign to support Sarath Fonseka
• In conversation with Tissa Jayatilaka
• A Spectre Haunting Global Capitalism
• A Marxist Perspective on Constitutional Reforms
• Intra-Party Democracy

Vikalpa, the sister site of Groundviews with citizen journalism in Sinhala, produced this mini-documentary on Jaffna a year after the war ended. Vikalpa also produced a series of interviews in Tamil, Sinhala and English on the end of war, that will be progressively made available on its YouTube channel, embedded below.

Please leave your comments on Vikalpa’s post යුද්ධය අවසන් – ලංකාවේ අනාගතය (The war is over: Sri Lanka’s future).

• Video footage from TMVP weapons decommisioning
• Launch of Groundviews Facebook Fan Page
• Victim, eye-witness and first responder accounts of Dehiwela train blast
• Claymore attack against bus in Katubadda: Video and interviews
• Thoughts on violence against and the future of independent media in Sri Lanka by Dinidu de Alwis