The rise of Harini Amarasuriya to power has sparked a debate on women in politics in Sri Lanka alongside a series of attacks on childless women in power. Among the more direct criticisms is a statement by Presidential candidate Dilith Jayaweera, who claims that Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya does not embody the qualities of a ‘true Sri Lankan woman.’ According to him, Harini’s handling of the English and Sinhala language reflects her elite background and that she is distanced from the traditional Sri Lankan family values (lankika sampradayika pawla) as she is unmarried and does not have children. Jayaweera contested under the Communist Party, a party once led by pioneering women like Doreen Young (Wickremasinghe) and Hedi Simon (Keuneman) could never have imagined that men with such anti-feminist views would one day contest from their party.
His comment suggests that Harini is morally suspect and unqualified for power because she is not a mother.
Harini has worked closely with progressive educationists and women’s groups. She has placed emphasis on inclusive educational policies that can also make children and undergraduates become aware and critical of the socio-political systems of oppression around them. She was an active member of the Federation of the University Teachers’ Associations. Many of us expect that she will strive for the betterment of the children of this country both as Prime Minister and Minister of Education. She has worked so far to show us that her ‘political will’ is based on collective politics. However, many people doubt this world view, or simply do not believe that such politics can exist. One common criticism raised against Leftists in the country is that they are poor. For instance, some say they cannot even afford proper roofing materials for their homes. Critics often ask: how can one build a country without enriching one’s own life or having the means to do so?The question, indeed, is based on a bourgeois worldview about private property and individual success.However, those posing this question overlook that these individuals are dedicating their time and labour to public service rather than personal gain, and their collective politics reflect a border societal vision rather than a narrow focus on individual success.
In contrast, media owners like Dilith Jayaweera base their political ambitions on racist, classist, sexist and religiously exclusive ideologies. Their morals are rarely questioned, even as their politics revolve around personal wealth accumulation and amassing political power. While Jayaweera boldly claims that Harini does not align with Sri Lankan tradition, he has been actively undermining any values that such a tradition might represent. His exclusivist approach, framed as preservation, is in fact a deliberate attempt to distort and destroy these values for personal gain. For instance, in 2019, Jayweera’s TV channel orchestrated a propaganda campaign centered around the Kelaniya temple. He even persuaded the temple’s learned chief incumbent to stage a ‘miracle’ in which a cobra emerged from Naga Lokaya to symbolically anoint Gotabaya Rajapaksha as President to save the motherland. He shows no shame in manipulating the public or in reducing the rational intelligence of the Sinhala Buddhist people to such a low level.
This attack on women who challenge their racist, capitalist political projects– specifically the criticism that they are unworthy of their positions–may appear to be about tradition, but it is actually rooted in concern over the loss of women’s unpaid labour. A woman’s ‘free service’ which is not accounted for in any economic survey is essential to the existence of the contemporary system that we are part of, particularly in their role as mothers, who produce and nurture the labour force that reproduces and sustains the economy. Their free service to managing the household, facilitating children’s education, and maintaining a clean family environment are critical to creating an educated and healthy workforce. Additionally, her free service also extends to elderly care that further supports a smooth functioning of society.
However, the neoliberal capitalism that dominates our world today does not seem to provide adequate support for any of these roles— the arena of women’s social reproduction. For example, when the International Monetary Fund recommends to reduce the social welfare or healthcare services, women are disproportionately affected. Since mothers are often entrusted with the care of both children and the elderly, austerity measures in health services place a greater burden on them.
Accordingly, motherhood today is a political state. As Helen Charman points out in her new book, Mother State (2024), “nurture, care, the creation of human life – all immediate associations with mothering – have more to do with power, status and the distribution of resources … than we like to admit. For raising children is the foundational work of society, and, from gestation onward, it is unequally shared.”
Motherhood is, therefore, both an economic issue and a matter of collective social good. The declining birth rate is a global phenomenon. Yet, this matter is used to promote sexist, misogynistic attacks on women. The right-wing frames women’s marital choice and their decision to not have children as a mark of selfishness or loss of virtue (as Dilith says about Harini), or irresponsibility, etc. But it goes without saying that there are many external factors that affect one’s ability to have children. That means affordable childcare, support networks, flexible working arrangements and the risk of financial strain that motherhood often brings. These are material considerations and should be taken into account to understand the burden that women face in economic terms when they become mothers.
Furthermore, the thin line between biological and social actualisation should not be obscured. Childless women are not disconnected from their bodies or from the concept of motherhood. Many of these women have experienced pregnancies, miscarriages or menstrual passing through a number of limited stages of motherhood that do not conform to Jayaweera’s exclusionary and singular definition of the term. Also, those women have extended the hands of motherhood to many children in their lives. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the difference between these two dimensions of motherhood.
Many people reacted to Dilith Jayaweera’s derogatory statement about Harini. Yet these reactions often ended up insulting women. For example, a large number of social media posts portray Dilith as a woman, labeling him ‘Lankan woman’ (Sinhala, Lankika Katha). Implicit, of course, is the notion that being a woman is synonymous with inferiority. It is unfortunate that the anti-feminist rhetoric perpetuated by media owners like Dilith Jayaweera in the “manosphere” –the collection of web forums and content creators that push misogyny as an ideological agenda– has not been able to escape many people.
Dilith Jayaweera’s statement on the reproductive lives of women is not just a Sri Lankan issue. It is a worldwide prejudice against women, especially those in positions in power. This criticism is also evident in the Republican party’s attacks on Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for the upcoming Presidential election in the United States. They argue that she is unfit for power because she has no children.
Also, an Australian senator once said that Prime Minister Julia Gillard was unfit to lead her country. Because she does not give birth to children on purpose.
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark faced similar scrutiny. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave birth to a child during her time in office, endured sexist comments when she resigned. When Arden stepped down, the BBC ran a sexist headline asking, “Can women really have it all?”. However, such discussions rarely arise regarding men in power. For instance, Emmanuel Macron in France and Shinzo Abe in Japan are both childless; yet there is no comparable discourse about childless men assuming leadership roles in politics.
What we see here is nothing else, after all, but the anxiety stemming from the loss of perceived gender status among men like Dilith Jayaweera. That is, their anger and fear is that women entering arenas that were previously dominated by men, as well as the realisation that women are no longer lining up to serve their interests. Thus, men assert that women who do not conform to traditional family structures are worthless. Is there anything more to it than the fact that they cannot tolerate the presence of women in the arena of power they are competing for and such women reaching the highest positions of power? These are women who have made a name for themselves in Left politics without inheriting the “male mantle of power” to borrow a term from Kumari Jayawardena in her book, Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World (1986). For men like Dilith, the core issue does not seem to be that women in power are childless-it is simply that they are women and women who challenge their racist, religious, misogynist and neoliberal political projects.
(The writer is a senior lecturer at the University of Colombo.)
Geethika Dharmasinghe