Friday Apr 10, 2026
Friday Apr 10, 2026
Friday, 10 April 2026 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By A. M. Peiris
It is with much humility and restraint that I write these belated comments on certain sections of the political analysis by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, published in the Daily FT on 26 March 2026 (See https://www.ft.lk/columns/Preventable-global-conflict-targeting-China-Lanka-s-vulnerability-and-leadership-deficit/4-790079)
I am not challenging or contesting his learned discourse. The only thing is that I, as a comparatively ordinary and mundane person, became rather puzzled and abashed regarding my ignorance and ‘mediocrity’ upon reading his article.
At the age of four scores and seven, I wonder whether what I have gathered at the beginning of the 1960s at Peradeniya University would have metamorphised due to senility. Added to that, the wisdom that would have accumulated during my services and the work that I carry out even to this day must be bunkum.
Forgive me for the prelude, without which the following points that I am commenting on will lose ground.
Firstly, I would like to point out that the pictorial presentation in Dr. Jayatilleka’s article was arranged as follows:
I am stumped as to why and how these four individuals have been portrayed side by side. Whatever the motive behind the juxtaposition of the four pictures, the readers who are aware of the struggles made and the roles played by the two world renowned icons will never see eye-to-eye with the writer’s attempt to give a class to any imaginary crown princes who yearn to grab power with ease by resting on mediocrity and hiding their true background of deception and ill-gotten wealth.
The second factor that was intriguing were the following lines by Dr. Jayatilleka:
“Thanks to their fathers, who reached the pinnacles of their political profession, were exceptionally gifted, elected leaders, Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksha have been confidentially familiar from boyhood with the world and world leaders”.
Does the professor incline to believe that leadership traits are hereditary and are exclusively passed from father to son? Leaders are chosen to work for the people and to solve the problems that surface at their time of election. Whether they are from the elite class or humble precariats, they are chosen by the people to better the country as a whole, not just the sliver of cream at the top of the pot.
In today’s world, the reality is that just because a problem or two is solved, the leader cannot bear the credit alone. However significant the feat is, it will always be a collective victory. Therefore, he or she cannot hope to stay in power forever by simply hanging on past laurels.
It is indeed sad to observe our esteemed professor make a contemptuous contrast between the two ‘heirs’ to the Lankan throne and the current President, who is likened to an “untrained trawler captain”, referring to his handling of the war situation today. Let us not fail to keep in mind that Sri Lanka’s sensitive geopolitical location requires a leader who keeps in mind our vulnerability in the face of global superpowers, not a brash aggressor who runs his mouth in an endeavor to fatten his coffers even from the current crisis. The country cannot afford to be dragged into the current conflict, even though this may be in the interests of certain parties.
It is a simple fact that a democratic leader is a helper, and not the sovereign owner of the State, which is a permanent entity with a temporary Government. The general public is well aware of this. Governance of a country is a highly volatile field of ever-changing chaos. We can never presume to know where leadership talent lies, and where it would surface like gems out of a rubble-filled mine to contest the groomed shine of even the most polished jewels in the king’s palace.
The third dictum that rather challenged my thoughts is as follows. Dr. Jayatilleka provides a statistic from the World Happiness Report to bolster his claim that “We are the unhappiest country in South Asia”. I respect the numbers, but would like to point out that many a contextual nuance has been glossed over when declaring that “to prevent Sri Lanka becoming the unhappiest country in the world we must free ourselves from the manacles of mediocrity”. This reference is made by Dr. Jayatilleka as the last attack on the very unskilled President. He seems to praise Ranil Wickremasinghe, whom I recall he vehemently criticised in 2023, and states in an about turn that the 112th place out of 147 was a paradise gained in the past. He also tactfully evades to reveal the data used by the survey when determining happiness rankings, particularly criteria such as GP, social support, freedom, and corruption. Why hide this context? If the rankings had been analysed with respect to the full context, it would have revealed the real culprits behind Sri Lanka’s current low ranking: the culprits who took our gullible people for a ride over so many years.
Are we forgetting that the “mediocre” Government that currently rules Sri Lanka has inherited an economy that was, and still is, reeling from the 2022 financial crisis which occurred due to the actions of the previously governing ‘experts’? The Happiness Index may indeed be accurate for this point in time, but we must not forget that the present state of the country was not built in a vacuum. The people of Sri Lanka, and their economy, have been trampled on time and time again by politicians at the “pinnacle” of their career, natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, the list goes on. I invite the reader to ponder upon the fairness of broadly comparing the happiness indices under the AKD Government and those that correspond to previous Governments without acknowledging the extent of the latter parties’ influence on current ‘happiness’ indicators.
Of course, I am certain that our professor’s train of thought must be firmly rooted in Sri Lanka where the rule of law reigns supreme, and where corruption, nepotism, perks granted to slavish singers of hosannas, crime, murders, and other vices are under control.
