by Luxman Aravind
Forget about what they’ve issued, a “diplomatic” communiqué over the future of Indo-Lanka relationships. The message is abundantly clear who wrote this, but instead of showering praises, we must critically assess, with shocking feelings of surprise and dismay, the actions of a so-called “statesman.” This is the bitter irony when people come to power to learn how to govern a country. What should have happened is that the learned, experienced, and capable come to power to show the people how to govern. Instead, Sri Lanka, once again, finds itself in the appalling position of watching individuals learn the ropes of governance while in power. A perfect example of this is President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s recent visit to India—a political and diplomatic fiasco that has exposed the utter incompetence and lack of preparation in his administration. What should have been a momentous occasion for Sri Lanka, meant to symbolise a new era in Indo-Lanka relations, ended up becoming a display of ignorance, inexperience, and utter disrespect.
Diplomatic Missteps: A Display of Ignorance
President Dissanayake’s India visit is more than just a diplomatic misstep; it highlights a fundamental flaw in Sri Lanka’s current governance model. This is a government that has failed in its most basic duties, allowing its head of state to walk into the lion’s den of international diplomacy unprepared and, worst of all, with no one to point him in the right direction. The images and videos from his trip became the subject of ridicule and bewilderment not only in Sri Lanka but across the Indian subcontinent. The Indian public, baffled by his behaviour, could not help but notice his disregard for protocol, customs, and even simple etiquette. To make matters worse, the embarrassment did not end with his appearance; it extended to the very core of diplomatic practice—attire, gifts, and the cultural expectations between two nations with centuries of shared history.
In Bihar, one of India’s populous states, the public response was a mixture of surprise, confusion, and even sarcastic amusement. “Indians were surprised and confused at the same time,” one commentator observed. “For Indians, the outfit of a person matters a lot. Outfit represents the personality of a person.” To a Sri Lankan leader, perhaps the basics of attire might seem trivial, but in the world of international diplomacy, it is an essential part of maintaining respect and honour. Dressing appropriately for an official visit is not a mere matter of style but of respect. By showing up for high-level meetings in inappropriate clothing, President Dissanayake effectively communicated a message of disrespect. In Indian culture, where clothing has an established cultural and diplomatic significance, attire is not a minor detail. It is a symbol of the individual’s respect for the country they are visiting, its people, and its leadership. By disregarding this, he insulted the very people he was meant to engage with, including the leadership of India. The failure to dress appropriately for the winter weather in Delhi, where temperatures can drop significantly, not only indicated a lack of awareness but a deep disregard for the cultural expectations of his hosts.
As we turn our focus to the shocking incident involving the shawl, things become even more perplexing. The shawl, an ancient and respectful gift presented to President Dissanayake by his Indian counterparts, was meant to signify warmth, hospitality, and friendship. The fact that the President either loosened or allowed it to be removed and taken away by the Indian High Commissioner rather than a member of the Sri Lankan delegation is beyond disrespectful. This blatant disregard for diplomatic gestures is nothing short of a scandal. For those steeped in the literature of diplomacy, such actions would be considered unforgivable. In his Arthashastra, Chanakya articulates the importance of maintaining dignity, respect, and awareness of every action and gesture in diplomacy. “A ruler should ensure that his actions reflect the strength and stature of his state,” he writes. But here, President Dissanayake’s actions undermined not only his own dignity but that of Sri Lanka.
Chanakya’s Arthashastra presents a detailed roadmap for the conduct of leaders in the international arena. It is not merely about wielding power but about cultivating respect and nurturing diplomatic relationships. His advice to rulers on diplomatic conduct is clear: “The king should act like a mother to his subjects, and like a father to his allies.” What does this tell us about the Sri Lankan leadership’s failures? Instead of acting with the maternal care and fatherly responsibility Chanakya prescribes, President Dissanayake’s behaviour was akin to that of a reckless novice, unprepared and incapable of understanding the nuances of the role.
This failure is not an isolated incident; it is a reflection of the systemic rot that runs deep within Sri Lanka’s current administration. When a head of state, representing the highest office in the land, is so visibly unprepared, it raises serious concerns about the calibre of the government that put him there. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which should have ensured that President Dissanayake was briefed on the importance of every diplomatic gesture, failed spectacularly. The entire diplomatic team, responsible for preparing the President for the visit, allowed this fiasco to unfold. The responsibility for such blunders cannot rest solely with President Dissanayake—it is a collective failure of leadership and management within the government.
This is where we begin to see the true tragedy unfold. By failing in the smallest details, such as attire and gifts, the President has exposed not only his personal shortcomings but also the incompetence of his entire foreign ministry. As quoted from Sun Tzu in The Art of War, “He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.” In this case, President Dissanayake is the enemy of his own diplomatic efforts. His failure to prepare adequately, combined with the lack of any response from his advisors or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has led to a collapse in Sri Lanka’s diplomatic capital. This is not just a failure of one man—it is a failure of a system that has allowed such a leader to take charge without any competent preparation or strategy.
Leaders Are Not Born; They Are Made—But in Sri Lanka, They Are Learnt
Sun Tzu’s principles, however, are not the only wisdom to be found. A closer examination of Machiavelli’s The Prince reveals another disturbing layer to this incident. Machiavelli writes, “The wise ruler should not put too much trust in the loyalty of others, but should rely more on their own knowledge and understanding of statecraft.” However, what we witnessed was the opposite—a President putting blind trust in his unprepared entourage, and failing to recognize the importance of understanding the cultural and political dynamics of his host country. A leader, Machiavelli cautions, must not only understand the complex art of power but also the subtle, behind-the-scenes nuances of diplomacy.
Unfortunately, President Dissanayake’s missteps have shone a spotlight on how deeply out of touch the current Sri Lankan government is with the fundamentals of governance. The country’s leadership seems to have lost all sight of the importance of diplomacy as a fine art, one that requires strategic calculation, cultural awareness, and the ability to foster relationships with sensitivity and respect.
In his treatise, Machiavelli warns that the prince must keep his people happy, for “it is the people who determine whether a prince succeeds or fails.” And in this case, it is the people of Sri Lanka who are being failed by a system that lacks the maturity and wisdom to guide them in the world’s complex international relations. The fact that the President and his foreign ministry failed to recognise the basic necessity of cultural respect in a visit that was intended to strengthen ties with India only further exposes the lack of competency in managing foreign affairs.
This failure is also indicative of a much larger, deeper issue in Sri Lanka’s approach to leadership—one that continues to haunt the island nation. Machiavelli warns that a prince must be capable of “acting decisively in moments of crisis,” yet President Dissanayake’s inability to even navigate a simple diplomatic visit without embarrassing gaffes speaks to the broader issue of Sri Lanka’s political immaturity. This is the government’s failure to grasp the nuanced responsibility of leadership, where every decision, every word, and every action sends a message that extends far beyond the confines of the national borders.
The Reckoning
In the aftermath of this disaster, the Sri Lankan government should take a long, hard look at its leadership. The President is not merely the head of a political party; he is the head of state, the face of Sri Lanka to the world. This visit to India should have been a moment of pride, a moment of national unity and respect. Instead, it became a cautionary tale of what happens when a nation’s leadership is unprepared, immature, and out of touch with the realities of global diplomacy. The failure of this visit stands as a proof to the government’s incompetence and lack of professionalism, and it serves as a grim warning for the future of Sri Lanka’s diplomatic efforts.
The people of Sri Lanka deserve better. They deserve leaders who understand the gravity of their responsibilities, who are capable of representing the nation with grace, dignity, and intelligence. Instead, they are being led by individuals who are still learning how to govern while in power, much to the detriment of the nation’s reputation and future. The President’s visit to India was not just a diplomatic failure; it was a failure of governance. If Sri Lanka does not wake up to this reality, it will continue to falter on the international stage, with grave consequences for the country’s future.
As Sun Tzu and Chanakya both suggest, a ruler must be both wise and prepared. Yet, in Sri Lanka’s case, the current government seems neither, leaving the nation vulnerable to ridicule, disrespect, and diplomatic failure.
