Sri Lanka stands at a critical crossroads where the choice between inclusive governance and exclusionary politics will determine not only social harmony, but also the strength of its democracy, national security, and long-term stability.
“Inclusion strengthens nations; exclusion strengthens problems.”
Sri Lanka’s long-term stability and democratic resilience depend not only on the effectiveness of its security institutions but also on the depth and sincerity of its inclusiveness. History and lived experience have repeatedly shown that it is inclusive governance, rather than exclusionary thinking, that determines whether national challenges are resolved or allowed to spiral into deeper crises. Policies grounded in inclusion foster trust, legitimacy, and cooperation between citizens and the state. By contrast, policies shaped by exclusion, even when introduced with good intentions, often deepen fear, alienation, and social fragmentation.
Over the years, Sri Lanka has learned through hardship that security cannot be sustained by force or surveillance alone. True stability emerges when citizens feel protected, respected, and invested in the nation’s future. Inclusion reassures communities that they belong. Exclusion signals suspicion and distance. The consequences of this difference are profound and long lasting.
In recent years, the increasing securitisation of Muslim identity has become a source of growing concern. Influenced by global anxieties and compounded by domestic political pressures, this approach has created unease within the Muslim community and strained intercommunal relationships. Addressing such concerns requires more than operational security responses. It demands responsible governance that balances vigilance with justice, and firmness with fairness. When security policies lose this balance, they risk becoming counterproductive.
At its core, the Muslim community in Sri Lanka is not asking for privilege or special treatment. It seeks freedom from injustice and the ability to live in the country with dignity while practising its religion without fear. These expectations are not extraordinary demands. They are fundamental democratic guarantees that apply equally to all citizens. A democracy that selectively applies these principles weakens its own moral and institutional foundations.
When inclusion guides policy, communities feel invested in the state and its success. When exclusion shapes public narratives, communities feel perpetually under suspicion. This distinction directly affects social cohesion. Inclusion reassures citizens that they are valued partners in nation building. Exclusion unsettles, creating distance between communities and the institutions meant to serve them. Over time, this distance erodes trust and undermines stability.
A respected and united community does not turn against the state. Instead, it becomes a stabilising force within the democratic framework. Sri Lankan Muslims understand that in a functioning democracy, influence is exercised through participation, dialogue, and civic responsibility, not confrontation or violence. While a united community does not challenge legitimate authority, it can become a decisive stakeholder in democratic outcomes. When nurtured through inclusion, this influence translates into cooperation with governance, support for public policy, and shared responsibility for national challenges.
Exclusionary approaches, by contrast, carry hidden and often underestimated costs. They weaken trust, reduce public cooperation, and erode the social capital upon which effective security institutions depend. In this sense, exclusion may create an illusion of control, but it rarely delivers real or lasting security. Inclusion, though sometimes politically inconvenient, offers sustainable stability.
Sri Lankan Muslims have consistently rejected separatism and violence. They have never sought a separate state, nor have they tolerated ideologies that threaten the country’s unity. This position remained firm even during the most turbulent periods of the armed conflict. Despite being forcibly displaced from the Northern Province, the Muslim community did not revolt or resort to violence. This restraint stands as a powerful demonstration of civic maturity and democratic commitment, deserving recognition rather than suspicion.
In the Eastern Province, Muslim communities historically functioned as a social and geographic buffer that complicated infiltration and operational mobility for militant groups. Their presence constrained the reach of the LTTE and indirectly contributed to broader stabilisation efforts. These realities underscore a critical lesson for policymakers. Inclusive environments strengthen security outcomes, while marginalisation weakens them.
More recently, cyclonic devastation and climate related disasters have once again tested Sri Lanka’s social fabric. These crises revealed a consistent truth. When communities feel protected and valued, they respond with solidarity, resilience, and generosity. Muslim communities, like others across the country, actively participated in relief efforts, shared resources, and supported recovery without discrimination. These responses were not coincidental. They were the result of belonging.
Inclusion encourages collective responsibility, especially during moments of national crisis. Exclusion discourages engagement precisely when unity is most needed. Disaster response therefore becomes more than an operational task. It becomes a test of inclusive governance. Fairness in relief distribution, transparency in decision making, and sensitivity to community concerns strengthen public trust. Neglect or bias, even if unintended, risks undoing years of social progress.
Islamophobia thrives in environments where fear replaces understanding. While the state has a legitimate responsibility to counter extremism, broad based suspicion is neither effective nor just. Targeting extremist behaviour must never translate into targeting entire identities. Sri Lankan Muslims, by and large, are not inclined towards violence. Where radical tendencies have emerged, they are often linked to external ideological influences, online manipulation, and distorted religious interpretations presented in emotionally appealing but theologically flawed forms.
These influences gain traction in environments marked by alienation and exclusion. Where inclusion, education, and open engagement are absent, misinformation and extremism find fertile ground. Once again, the lesson is clear. Exclusive approaches amplify risk, while inclusive approaches neutralise it.
Across the country, Muslims are closely observing whether the government demonstrates a genuine commitment to removing unnecessary fear and prejudice associated with Islamophobia. This observation is not adversarial. It is evaluative. Trust is not built through rhetoric alone, but through consistent action. Equal application of the law, proportionate and intelligence led security measures, respect for religious practices within constitutional limits, and timely and transparent grievance redress mechanisms all signal whether inclusion is being practised rather than merely promised.
When inclusion becomes visible public policy, confidence grows not only among Muslims but across all communities. Inclusive governance sends a clear message that the state belongs to everyone and that national identity is not defined by exclusion.
From both governance and security perspectives, inclusion is not a concession. It is a strategic asset. A community that feels safe and respected becomes a partner in countering extremist narratives. It supports intelligence efforts through cooperation and early warning. It strengthens disaster preparedness and recovery. It fosters interfaith understanding and social cohesion. Exclusion, by contrast, weakens the state’s own capacity to manage risk, isolates institutions from society, and reduces the effectiveness of both security and development initiatives.
Sri Lanka’s experience confirms a simple but powerful truth. It is the inclusive approach, not the exclusionary one, that determines whether challenges are resolved or compounded. Inclusion builds legitimacy, resilience, and cooperation. Exclusion magnifies grievances and complicates governance.
By keeping communities safe, respected, and engaged, the state secures their fullest commitment to development, stability, and collective resilience in the face of adversity, whether from extremism or natural calamities. Inclusive governance is not merely an ethical aspiration. It is the foundation of enduring national security, democratic strength, and a shared future for all Sri Lankans.
SOURCE :- SRI LANKA GUARDIAN
