Perspective on the outcome of Sri Lanka’s 2015 general election, The Hindu, August 19, 2015

“The Sri Lankan electorate has voted to reject polarisation and reinforce the process of democratisation…The new UNP government will have to quickly address a range of concerns from prosecution of corrupt politicians to providing a credible process to address war-time accountability.”

Together, these analytical articles provide a rounded perspective on the significance, potentialities, and hope held by the outcome of Sri Lanka’s 2015 general election.

A pdf of the whole Perspective page is attached.

1) “A vote for continuing change,” by Jayadeva Uyangoda, The Hindu, August 19, 2015, Page 11:


2)”Defeat of divisive politics,” by Ahilan Kadirgamar, The Hindu, August 19, 2015, Page 11:

pdf icon Perspective-on-Sri-Lankas-general-election-outcome-The-Hindu-August-19-2015-Page-11.pdf

"A bank account for Mary," Jayshree Venkatesan, The Hindu, August 17, 2015, link & pdf

Narendra Modi’s Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), launched as a national mission for financial inclusion, “celebrates success on its website [], but thousands of Marys remain outside the banking system. There won’t be change unless the scheme alters both design and implementation.” Jayshree Venkatesan, a scholar at the Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, looks into why the scheme has failed to deliver what was promised, on the basis of her field research:

pdf icon A-bank-account-for-Mary-Jayshree-Venkatesan-The-Hindu-August-17-2015-page-11.pdf

Outrageous Challenge to Freedom of Expression

Outrageous Challenge To Freedom Of Expression

N. Ram

“The show-cause notices sent by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to three television news channels, NDTV 24×7, Aaj Tak, and ABP News, for so-called violations of the programme code prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 in their coverage of the serious issues arising from the execution of Yakub Memon are a flagrant attempt to stifle constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. The grounds cited – exploiting the central government’s power of licensing, and the claimed authority to ‘regulate the content’ of private satellite television channels – are specious and patently arbitrary and unlawful. In the latest instance, regulation under the guise of enforcing the programme code has become indistinguishable from crude censorship.”