Sri Lanka’s Struggles: Are We Doomed to Repeat History? – By Tass (Camer) Thassim, Guest Writer
As Sri Lanka marks the 50th anniversary of the AMA. Azeez Memorial Oration, the nation finds itself at a crossroads eerily reminiscent of its troubled past. The recent oration, delivered by Professor M. Sornarajah, Emeritus Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore, reflected on the speeches and legislative legacy of Senator Azeez—a Muslim Tamil leader whose warnings about the dangers of populism, corruption, and ethnic strife remain as relevant today as they were half a century ago.
This paper outlines three objectives.
Firstly, the root causes why Sri Lanka is in turmoil after 75 years of independence.
Secondly History repeating itself.“A Warning” It examines the horrors of the past that manifested in Europe with this ideology also narrates the altered direction America had taken from the time of the first Trump administration.” “Is history repeating itself?” It appears to be so in the light MAGA.
Thirdly the Irony. The people most impacted are the Sinhalese with these majority Sinhala related laws.
Echoes of the Past in Today’s Crisis
The world is once again gripped by conflict, with wars raging and minorities scapegoated parallels not lost on Sri Lankans who have seen their own nation slide into economic and social turmoil. The world is in chaos and history is repeating itself.2 The period 1870 to 1945 saw two wars. The Current Period has several wars, and the narrative of blaming minorities is almost the same.3 In this current period the world is transporting less fortunate human beings by plane to prisons across international borders as they did before use trains.
The world is again witnessing genocide through starvation and bombings instead of the holocaust and we are powerless to do anything. Father Ranjit (Colombo) quoted recently: Quote “Congratulations on getting the life of your dear wife EVE, to the Amazon platform. Her life is thought provoking and very apt in the current context of a world of blood, tears, death, and destruction. Contemporary actions of world leaders including genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation being used as a weapon of war, murder of especially women and children etc. Actions prompted by greed for land or dominance. This is the Weltanschauung (a German word meaning philosophy a comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe) of the leaders (allies) of the nations at war”. Yousuf Galely (Colombo) Recently commented Quote” Whole world is in turmoil, and no one knows where we are heading.”,
Global Turmoil Draws Parallels to Early 20th Century Conflicts
As conflicts erupt across multiple regions, observers warn that the world is witnessing a repeat of history, with disturbing similarities to the tumultuous period between 1870 and 1945. Then, two world wars reshaped nations; today, several ongoing wars are accompanied by familiar narratives of blaming minorities and widespread human suffering.
In a stark reflection of the past, vulnerable individuals are reportedly being transported across borders—now by plane rather than by train—to detention centers and prisons. Meanwhile, experts and humanitarian leaders highlight that modern atrocities, including genocide through starvation and bombings, echo the horrors of the Holocaust, leaving many feeling powerless to intervene.
Father Ranjit of Colombo recently commented on the relevance of these issues, stating, “Congratulations on getting the life of your dear companion, EVE, to the Amazon platform. Her life is thought-provoking and very apt in the current context of a world of blood, tears, death, and destruction. Contemporary actions of world leaders—including genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation used as a weapon of war, and the murder of especially women and children—are prompted by greed for land or dominance. This is the Weltanschauung of the leaders of the nations at war.” Echoing these concerns, Yousuf Galely, also of Colombo, remarked, “The whole world is in turmoil, and no one knows where we are heading.”
As global crises intensify, calls for accountability and humanitarian intervention grow louder, with many urging world leaders to break the cycle of violence and learn from the lessons of history.
The Legacy of Senator Azeez
Born in Jaffna in 1911, Senator Azeez’s life was shaped by the values of Islam and Tamil Saivaism. Despite not being a lawyer by training, his profound understanding of the law and its impact on society set him apart in the Ceylonese Senate. He sacrificed a promising civil service career to lead Zahira College, Colombo, and championed the rights of minorities at a time when communal tensions were on the rise.
AMA. Azeez’s Warnings on Sri Lankan Law Remain Strikingly Relevant
The late Senator AMA. Azeez’s critiques of Sri Lanka’s legal and political systems are resonating anew amid growing concerns over the country’s democratic backsliding. Azeez, a prominent parliamentarian and legal thinker, warned decades ago that the power to make laws was increasingly falling into the hands of incompetent leaders who relied on populism to secure election victories.
Observers note that the erosion of democratic norms, which Azeez identified during his tenure, has only intensified in the years since. His efforts to stem the tide of authoritarianism and preserve democratic processes are now seen as prescient, as Sri Lanka grapples with challenges to its legal and political institutions.
Azeez’s commentary on key issues—including capital punishment, bribery, and the persistent ethno-religious tensions that have hampered Sri Lanka’s social and economic progress—remains strikingly relevant. He also raised concerns about the sweeping powers exercised during states of emergency, which have since formed the basis for modern anti-terrorism legislation.
Capital punishment
Azeez characterized as “a primitive form of punishment. Humanity has been moving towards the abolition of capital punishment”. I. He supported total abolition of such punishment. Indeed, since he spoke, the abolition of capital punishment has progressed impressively. When Senator Azeez spoke, he referred to 36 countries as having abolished it but the World Coalition against Capital Punishment states that by 2023, 112 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and 23 countries had suspended execution of those sentenced to such punishment.
In Sri Lanka, the penalty exists but there is a moratorium on executions. Senator Azeez believed that the taking of life as a form of punishment was an inhumane act. IV. It is mentioned that pardoned Duminda Silva who was found guilty of killing a fellow politician in cold blood and Sunil Ratnayake who was found guilty of committing the Mirusuvil massacre of eight Tamil civilians. Both were given the capital sentences. Gotabaya Rajapakse pardoned both using a wide power of review of presidential powers in this case.
Bribery
On one interesting speech by Senator Azeez involves the introduction of a bill on the prosecution of bribery.
It is a demonstration of how squeamish a subject the prosecution of bribery was in 1954 long before it became a major cause of the rot that ate deep into the political and economic structure of the country. An argument against it put forward by some senators was that it violated the human rights of potential suspects. iii. It is strange to read the speech of Senator Azeez on the Bribery Bill today when bribery has led our country to economic ruin because he was speaking against the characterization of the Bribery Bill as against fundamental rights. There was no momentum towards the creation of strong institutions against the practice of bribery. v. Senator Azeez had said in his speech: “in a young democracy like ours, it is very essential that all possible steps should be taken against bribery and accusations of bribery”. That warning was not heeded. Bribery was to consume the economy of the country in time to come. The institution of strong enforcement machinery to prevent bribery, as suggested by Senator Azeez, and meaningful prosecution of those who took bribes may have prevented the problem. Instead, a soft view had been taken. As the IMF pointed out, wide-spread corruption has been the cause of the economic crisis in Sri Lanka.
Politicians and public servants have been stealing the wealth and the resources of this country. here has been no accountability. There is a Bribery Commission and adequate laws on bribery. But, prosecutions of bribery seldom occur. Though the public knows who committed bribery, there is no effort to prosecute the persons involved because they hold power in the state. Where proceeds of bribery are taken out of the country, simple procedures exist for the recovery of such money with hardly any cost to the state. The World Bank runs a programme for the tracing and recovery of assets stolen by leaders of states.
Presidential Pardons Under Scrutiny
The presidential regimes of Maithripala Sirisena and Gotabaya Rajapakse have faced criticism for the controversial use of pardons. Legal experts argue that high-profile pardons, such as those granted to Atte Gnanasara Thero and convicted murderer Shramantha Jayamaha, were issued without proper procedure or reasonable justification. Analysts say these decisions were driven by political or mercenary motives, raising questions about their legality and undermining public trust in the rule of law.
Ethnic and Religious Strife: A Persistent Challenge
Ethnic and religious tensions have been at the heart of Sri Lanka’s challenges since independence. For 75 years, political leaders—particularly from the majority Sinhala community—have leveraged these divisions to consolidate power. Senator Azeez, who served during a period of rising Sinhala nationalism, warned that policies such as making Sinhala the sole official language and Buddhism the state religion would have lasting, destabilizing effects.
The 1956 Official Languages Bill, which Azeez described as “the shortest Bill ever introduced but fraught with the gravest of consequences,” is widely regarded as a turning point. The Bill’s legacy continues to shape Sri Lankan society, with its effects outlasting generations and contributing to ongoing social and economic turmoil. Critics note that while the policy was promoted as benefiting the “common man,” it ultimately limited opportunities for Sinhala-speaking youth and deepened divisions among minorities.
The Lingering Shadow of the Official Languages Bill: Senator Azeez’s Prophetic Warning
When Senator M. A. M. Azeez rose in the Senate to address the Official Languages Bill, he described it as “the shortest Bill ever introduced but fraught with the gravest of consequences—consequences that will outlast the present generation.” Nearly seventy years later, his words ring with haunting accuracy, as the effects of the Bill continue to reverberate through Sri Lankan society.
A Bill with Lasting Impact
Senator Azeez’s warning was stark: the problems sparked by the Bill, which established Sinhala as the sole official language of Ceylon, would not be settled quickly. “Until it is settled, our country will be in turmoil,” he cautioned. Today, the wisdom of his foresight is evident. The policy, intended to empower the “common man,” instead left generations of Sinhala-speaking youth ill-equipped for modern professions, even as their leaders sent their own children abroad for education.
The Common Man Betrayed
While the Bill’s proponents claimed to champion the ordinary Sinhalese, Azeez argued that the policy ultimately betrayed them. Educated only in Sinhala, many found themselves locked out of opportunities in technology and the professions. Meanwhile, the children of the elite, including those of the Bill’s architects, continued to receive education in English or overseas, deepening social divides.
Minorities Marginalized
Azeez, a democratic socialist and former member of the Jaffna Youth Congress, was particularly concerned about the Bill’s impact on minorities. He highlighted the unique linguistic challenges faced by the Muslim community, who, to fully participate in society, needed proficiency in Tamil, Arabic, Sinhalese, and English. For Muslims of Malay origin, Malay was also essential. The Bill, he argued, would disproportionately disadvantage Muslims, especially those in the Eastern Province who were deeply rooted in Tamil language and culture.
The Fracturing of Communities
The Bill not only alienated Tamils but also began to fragment the Muslim community. Southern Muslims, living among Sinhalese, could more readily adapt to the new language policy, while those in the East, whose livelihoods and identities were tied to Tamil, faced greater challenges. The elite, conversant in English, viewed the issue through a class lens, further complicating the community’s response.
Democracy Undermined
Azeez was adamant that democracy meant rule by the people, not merely by the majority. He lamented that, with the passage of the Sinhala Only Act, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) had shifted toward majoritarian rule, eroding the democratic fabric of the nation. The division of the country into ethnic groups, he argued, marked the beginning of a long decline in governance and economic stability.
Constitutional Protections Proved Hollow
The Senator also criticized the Soulbury Constitution’s Article 29, which required a two-thirds majority for any statute affecting minorities. In practice, he said, this provision offered “scant protection” in the face of rising populist politics. The courts, he noted, had upheld legislation that ignored minority rights simply because it met the two-thirds requirement, rendering Article 29 “no longer the Magna Carta” it was intended to be.
A Warning Unheeded
Senator Azeez’s speech, delivered on July 3, 1956, stands as a prescient warning. The “shortest Bill” has cast a long shadow, its consequences outlasting not only Azeez’s generation but threatening to persist for generations to come. As Sri Lanka continues to grapple with the legacy of the Official Languages Bill, his words serve as a sober reminder of the dangers of legislating identity and the enduring need for genuine inclusivity and protection of minority rights.
Federalism, Autonomy, and the Shadow of Secession in Sri Lankan Politics
The debate over federalism and autonomy versus secession has long been a contentious issue in Sri Lankan politics, with legal and constitutional implications that continue to shape the nation’s discourse.
Senator Azeez and the Legal Debate
In parliamentary debates, Senator M. A. M. Azeez frequently addressed the legal complexities surrounding parties accused of advocating secession, a stance strictly prohibited by the Sri Lankan Constitution. Critics often cited party constitutions that called for “political, economic and cultural liberation among Tamil-speaking people by way of forming autonomous Tamil and Muslim governments as part of a United Federal Sri Lanka, in accordance with the principles of self-determination.” These provisions, they argued, ran afoul of constitutional limits on separatism.
The Federalist Vision
Party documents emphasized that their goal was not outright secession, but rather the creation of autonomous regional governments for Tamil and Muslim communities within a united federal structure. Guarantees of religious freedom, language rights, and fundamental rights for minorities were central to this vision, aiming to address longstanding grievances while preserving Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity.
The Legacy of Civil Conflict
The line between autonomy and secession has been a flashpoint in Sri Lankan history. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) waged a three-decade armed struggle for a separate Tamil state, citing the right to self-determination. In response, the government enacted the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, making it a criminal offence to advocate or even discuss secession.
Constitutional Barriers to Secession
Today, any discussion of external self-determination or secession is strictly prohibited under Sri Lankan law. The Sixth Amendment not only criminalizes advocacy for separation but also serves as a significant barrier to political parties seeking greater autonomy for minority communities.
The Ongoing Debate
As Sri Lanka continues to grapple with questions of governance, minority rights, and national unity, the debate over federalism versus secession remains unresolved. While some advocate for greater regional autonomy within a united Sri Lanka, constitutional restrictions and the legacy of civil conflict continue to cast a long shadow over these aspirations.
Impact on Minority Communities
Azeez’s speeches highlighted the unique challenges faced by Sri Lanka’s Muslim community, which is divided geographically and culturally between the North, East, and South. The Sinhala Only policy fragmented Muslim identity, with Southern Muslims adapting more easily while their Northern and Eastern counterparts maintained closer ties to Tamil language and culture. Azeez also stressed that democracy should represent all people, not just the majority—a principle he saw eroded by majoritarian politics.
Landmark Noise Pollution Case Highlights Religious and Legal Tensions in Sri Lanka
The issue of noise pollution took centre stage in Sri Lanka’s courts with the landmark case of Ashik v Bandula, commonly referred to as the Noise Pollution Case. The legal battle began when police refused to grant permits for the use of loudspeakers during prayers at the Kapuwatte Mohideen Jumma Mosque in Weligama, citing noise concerns.
Police Action and Community Response
The Weligama police, led by a Muslim officer, issued an order prohibiting the mosque from using loudspeakers. The case quickly drew attention, not only for its legal implications but also for its historical resonance—noise from drumming was famously a trigger for anti-Muslim riots as far back as 1815.
Intra-Religious Dispute
Unusually, the main complainant was not from another faith but from a neighboring mosque, the Jamiul Rahman Mosque. The dispute reflected deeper intra-religious tensions: the Kapuwatte Mosque followed Sufi traditions, while the Jamiul Rahman Mosque adhered to a more austere, Middle Eastern interpretation of Islam. The conflict underscored the diversity within Sri Lanka’s Muslim community, which is often overlooked in legal and social frameworks that treat Muslims as a homogenous group—a legacy of British colonial administration.
Wider Religious Repercussions
The case soon sparked broader controversy. Buddhist clergy, recalling the colonial-era dictum that grouped all Muslims together, protested the ruling, fearing it would set a precedent limiting their own religious practices—specifically, the use of loudspeakers for chanting pirith. The situation escalated when Pannaloka Thero, a Buddhist monk, was arrested for using loudspeakers outside permitted hours, further inflaming tensions.
Secularism and Constitutional Debate
The judgment’s reference to Sri Lanka as a “secular state” added fuel to the fire, with Buddhist leaders pointing out that the Constitution gives Buddhism “the foremost place.” The Noise Pollution Case thus became a flashpoint, not only for issues of religious freedom and minority rights, but also for the ongoing debate over the secular versus Buddhist identity of the Sri Lankan state.
Federalism, Autonomy, and the Minority Dilemma
Debates over federalism and autonomy remain contentious, with constitutional amendments now prohibiting advocacy for secession. Senator Azeez anticipated the complex interests within minority groups, particularly among Muslims and Tamils, whose experiences and aspirations differ based on region and history.
Legal Battles and Social Tensions
The issue of noise pollution, exemplified by the Ashik v Bandula case, illustrates the complexities of religious and community rights. Disputes over the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes have sparked intra- and inter-religious tensions, with legal decisions sometimes fuelling broader societal conflicts.
Economic Consequences and Corruption
Senator Azeez also warned of the economic fallout from policies that marginalized minorities and fostered corruption. Targeting of Muslim businesses and the rise of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist groups have further strained the economy. Corruption scandals, from the Avant Garde and Central Bank frauds to wasteful infrastructure projects, have depleted national resources and widened the poverty gap. Today, much of Sri Lanka’s wealth is concentrated among a small elite, while the majority struggle with rising poverty.
Mounting Debt and International Pressure
Sri Lanka’s mounting foreign debt, often incurred for projects of questionable value, has led to calls for greater accountability. The doctrine of “odious debt” suggests that loans benefiting corrupt regimes rather than the public may not be legitimate. Recent IMF loans have come with austerity measures that threaten social safety nets, deepening hardship for the poor and raising concerns about the long-term impact of economic reforms focused solely on fiscal recovery.
Legacy of the Public Security Ordinance: A Tool of Power and Division in Sri Lanka
The enduring influence of the Public Security Ordinance, enshrined in Article 155 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, continues to cast a long shadow over the nation’s political landscape. Far from being a relic of the past, the law remains a central instrument in the government’s arsenal, shaping the country’s response to unrest and dissent.
Ethnic Strife and Political Subjugation
Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is marred by recurring waves of violence and communal strife. Initial riots targeted the Tamil minority, culminating in a brutal civil war. In more recent years, the Muslim community has faced hostility and violence, often with the tacit approval or active support of powerful Sinhala-Buddhist political factions.
Observers note that instead of prioritizing economic development, successive governments have focused on creating and maintaining “the other”—marginalizing minorities to reinforce Sinhala-Buddhist hegemony. The Public Security Act has frequently been used as a tool to suppress dissent and maintain control.
Ironically, the economic decline resulting from decades of conflict and division has now come full circle, impacting the very majority that once benefited from these policies. As Senator Azeez famously remarked after the 1958 riots, such violence “set back progress by several years.” The subsequent decades—marked by further riots, a protracted civil war, and the rise of extremist groups like Bodu Bala Sena and Sinhala Ravaya—have only deepened the nation’s woes.
Expanding State Powers
In response to labor unrest and the growing militancy among Tamil youth, the government expanded its powers even further. The Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979 granted authorities sweeping rights to detain suspects for extended periods, often without adequate judicial oversight.
While some argue that such measures are necessary to combat organized violence, critics warn that these powers are routinely abused, stifling legitimate dissent and undermining citizens’ rights.
The Specter of External Interference
Concerns about foreign influence are not new in Sri Lankan politics. In a landmark 1954 parliamentary debate, Senator Azeez delivered a thoughtful critique of a proposed commission to investigate external interference—then primarily feared as the spread of communism. Drawing parallels to McCarthyism in the United States, Azeez cautioned against granting such bodies unchecked authority, warning that innocent citizens could be unjustly targeted.
Today, the scale of external interference has grown exponentially. Sri Lanka, once proud of its non-aligned stance, now finds itself increasingly dependent on foreign aid and investment amid a deepening economic crisis. The island nation has become a battleground for global powers, with local politicians often accused of trading away national interests for short-term gains.
A Nation at a Crossroads
As Sri Lanka grapples with the legacy of its security laws and the realities of foreign intervention, the challenge remains: how to balance the need for national security with the protection of individual rights, and how to chart an independent course in an increasingly interconnected world.
Public Security Laws: Legacy of Control and Controversy in Sri Lanka
The Public Security Ordinance, preserved under Article 155 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, remains a powerful tool in the hands of the government. Originally designed to maintain order, its legacy is closely tied to the island’s turbulent history of ethnic strife and political unrest.
A History of Riots and Suppression
Despite the existence of such laws, Sri Lanka has witnessed repeated cycles of violence. Riots against Tamils erupted, followed by a protracted civil war, and later, waves of hostility against the Muslim community. Analysts argue that Sri Lankan politics has long prioritized the creation and subjugation of “the other” over economic development, with first Tamils and then Muslims subjected to Sinhala-Buddhist hegemony.
The Public Security Act and Its Impact
The Public Security Act, and later the Prevention of Terrorism Act (1979), provided the government with sweeping powers—especially during times of labor unrest and the rise of militant Tamil youth. These laws enabled authorities to detain suspects for prolonged periods, often without adequate judicial oversight.
While intended to combat organized violence, critics warn that such powers risk being misused to suppress dissent and violate citizens’ rights. The legacy of these laws is complex: while they have been used to maintain order, they have also contributed to a climate of fear and repression.
Economic and Social Fallout
The consequences of decades of unrest and heavy-handed security measures are now being felt across all communities, including the Sinhala-Buddhist majority. Economic decline, international isolation, and reliance on foreign aid have become pressing issues. As Senator Azeez once remarked, the 1958 riots “set back progress by several years”—a setback compounded by subsequent conflicts, the rise of extremist groups like Bodu Bala Sena and Sinhala Ravaya, and the increasing militarization of the state.
The Ongoing Challenge
As Sri Lanka continues to grapple with its legacy of conflict, the challenge remains: how to balance the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights. The debate over the scope and use of public security laws is far from over, as the nation seeks a path toward reconciliation and sustainable development.
Senator Azeez’s 1954 Warning on External Interference Echoes in Modern Sri Lanka
The issue of foreign influence in Sri Lankan affairs is not new, as illustrated by a landmark parliamentary debate in May 1954. Senator A. M. A. Azeez, renowned for his erudition, delivered a memorable speech during discussions on a motion to establish a commission investigating external interference—a motion put forward by the equally respected Senator Nadesan.
Fears of Communism and Calls for Oversight
At the time, the primary concern was the potential spread of communism within Sri Lanka. The proposed commission was intended to monitor and curb any such external ideological influence. However, Senator Azeez voiced strong opposition, warning that such a body could wield excessive power and threaten civil liberties. Drawing parallels with McCarthyism in the United States, he cautioned that innocent citizens could be unjustly summoned and scrutinized, undermining individual rights
Balancing Security and Freedom
While Azeez recognized the genuine need to protect the country from foreign interference, he maintained that the solution should not come at the expense of democratic freedoms. His nuanced stance highlighted the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and upholding civil rights—a debate that remains highly relevant today.
Growing External Influence
Since that 1954 debate, the extent of foreign involvement in Sri Lanka has grown dramatically. The island nation, now a strategic playground for global powers, faces increasing pressure as politicians negotiate with various international actors, sometimes at the cost of the people’s interests. The dream of a truly non-aligned foreign policy has faded, particularly as Sri Lanka’s ongoing economic crisis forces it to seek substantial financial assistance from abroad.
A Theatre for Rival Powers
As Sri Lanka finds itself at the crossroads of competing geopolitical interests, Senator Azeez’s warnings from decades ago resonate more than ever. The country’s sovereignty and the rights of its citizens continue to be tested by the complex realities of external interference and the demands of economic survival.
Democracy or Dictatorship? Revisiting Senator Azeez’s Legacy in Sri Lankan Politics
In a critical reflection on the state of democracy in Sri Lanka, the late Senator Azeez’s speeches continue to resonate with contemporary relevance. Contrary to the popular understanding of democracy as mere majority rule, Senator Azeez argued that true democracy must reflect the will of all peoples inhabiting the island—a plurality, not just the dominance of one group.
Majority Rule or Minority Suppression?
Historically, Sri Lanka has not enjoyed democracy in the inclusive sense championed by Senator Azeez. Instead, the nation has experienced what he described as a “dictatorship of the majority,” where the rights of minorities have been systematically trampled. For many political leaders, democracy has become little more than a “rabble-rousing device,” used to mobilize the majority at the expense of minority communities.
Senator Azeez’s warnings were notably prescient during the communal violence of October 1958, when politicians, rather than calming tensions, incited further unrest against the Tamil minority. More than six decades later, the cycle of majoritarian politics and minority suppression remains largely unbroken.
Politics of Hatred and Enduring Poverty
Azeez argued that Sri Lanka’s political landscape has been shaped not by democratic ideals, but by the politics of hatred. Leaders have competed to prove themselves as the most effective defenders of the majority, often by marginalizing Tamil and Muslim minorities. This toxic dynamic, he warned, would condemn the nation to persistent poverty—a paradox that ultimately harms the Sinhala majority most of all.
Questioning the Legitimacy of National Debt
Senator Azeez also raised concerns about the legitimacy of debts incurred by the state, particularly when such loans serve the interests of a ruling elite rather than the public good. He invoked the doctrine of “odious debt,” which holds that debts used to fund oppressive regimes or policies are invalid and need not be repaid. Despite this legal principle, Sri Lanka has largely followed the International Monetary Fund’s prescriptions, servicing debts regardless of their origins or purpose.
A Call for Balance: Security vs. Civil Liberties
Comparing Sri Lanka to England, Senator Azeez highlighted the stark differences in political culture and institutional safeguards. In England, a robust civic society and independent judiciary act as bulwarks against infringements on civil liberties. In Sri Lanka, however, the history of oppression demands a careful balance between security measures and the protection of citizens’ rights.
A Legacy of Insight and Integrity
For legal scholars and policymakers, Senator Azeez’s speeches offer a masterclass in legislative care and foresight. His approach was shaped by deep learning, a nuanced understanding of moral issues rooted in both Islam and Hinduism, and extensive experience as a public administrator. In Tamil culture, the ideal of human perfection—rhd;Nwhd;—finds a rare embodiment in his life and work.
Conclusion
Senato Azeez’s legacy serves as a reminder of the enduring need for inclusive governance, robust legal protections, and genuine accountability—principles that remain as relevant today as they were in his time.
It remains a sobering commentary on Sri Lanka’s ongoing struggles with democracy, minority rights, and governance. His legacy challenges today’s leaders to rise above divisive politics and pursue a more inclusive, just, and democratic future
