Anura's New Year Is a Problem for Wimal

One of the recent topics of discussion on social media was the current President, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, not publicly celebrating the Sinhala and Tamil New Year with his family. This is in contrast to the Rajapaksa family, who held high office for about a decade and often showcased extravagant, highly publicised New Year celebrations. Those accustomed to such displays are now questioning why something similar did not happen this time.

Critics argue that people who demanded a “system change” are now strangely requesting the return of old traditions — a contradiction in itself. The official stance is that the President chose to stay away from such events to avoid unnecessary spending and protect his privacy.

However, Wimal Weerawansa, a former JVP member and key figure from the Rajapaksa camp, insists that for a nation with over 2,500 years of history, its head of state not publicly celebrating a major cultural festival must be viewed as a serious issue.

He expressed this view in the following letter:

Dear Revered Monks,

Religious Leaders of Other Faiths,

Mothers and Fathers,

Brothers and Sisters,

Although the Sinhala and Tamil New Year was not celebrated officially at a state level, the majority of people across the country still managed to celebrate it meaningfully — even amidst economic hardship.

One thing I observed on social media this year was the sudden emergence of debates questioning the value of celebrating the New Year. Some claimed it is a tradition unique only to Sri Lanka, calling it a bizarre festival. (This is false — many Asian cultures celebrate New Year between March and May.) Others criticized it as being based on weak astrological systems, or as irrelevant rituals clinging to the past.

As we have said before, what is important is not the unexamined and shallow criticisms of the New Year made by third-rate paid opinion-makers, but a deeper inquiry into who really benefits from dismantling a festival like this — a unique cultural celebration tied to the identity of a nation.

As stated by Francis Fukuyama, the American liberal economist in his globally renowned book The End of History and the Last Man, the ultimate stage of global human cultural evolution is the liberal free market economic system — the final station for human societies. (Fukuyama was later appointed to a senior post in USAID and related institutions.) According to this theory, unique national cultures will dissolve, giving rise to a single liberal consumer culture. For that to happen, cultural obstacles must be removed.

In this globalized vision, there’s no place for kiribath (milk rice), kavum, kokis, helapa, or kurakkan roti. Instead, we are expected to embrace hamburgers and hot dogs. That’s why our traditional New Year is considered “primitive” while December 31st becomes “modern.”

Those who question the New Year’s astrological or social relevance often ignore the fact that Western New Year is itself rooted in Greek mythology. They do not seem to notice — or perhaps don’t want to acknowledge — the contradictions in their own beliefs. December 31st is celebrated as a global festival because it is a main event of the Western liberal world and consumer culture. Other New Years are mocked or dismissed as "native curiosities" because they don’t fit that narrative.

Leaders of nations who resist this global pressure actively work to strengthen and promote their indigenous cultural celebrations. They do this to unite their people and resist cultural dominance.

So when the head of state of a nation with more than 2,500 years of history chooses to "pass off" a major cultural celebration in silence, that must be looked at with deep concern.

Wimal Weerawansa

Leader – National Freedom Front

2025.04.01