Writing for the nation, not for a person
Sinhabahu is an independent platform for clear thinking about Sri Lanka — its history, its security, its place among nations, and the decisions that will shape its future.
This is not a platform built around any person, party, or ideology. It is built around the nation. The writing here will praise where praise is due and criticise where criticism is necessary, regardless of who holds power.
What you will find here
The essays here cover geopolitics and great power competition as they bear on Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean; national resilience and what it truly means to build a state capable of withstanding external pressure and internal decay; history as an indispensable tool for understanding the present; and strategy as a discipline for those who must think clearly before they act.
Why Sinhabahu
The name reaches back to the founding myth of the Sinhala people — a warrior-king who chose duty over comfort, whose deliberate choices set a civilisation in motion. That spirit of purposeful action, of thinking before speaking and acting with consequence, is what this platform aspires to carry forward.
The author
Sinhabahu is not a single individual, but a collective of writers who have chosen to speak with one voice. By remaining anonymous, we hope to keep attention where it belongs: on what is written, rather than on who has written it.
Too often, readers judge an argument not through a critical examination of its ideas, evidence, and reasoning, but through assumptions about the writer’s identity and perceived allegiances. Although this tendency is not new, it has become especially pronounced in the age of social media.
We believe that every piece of writing should be evaluated on its own merits. We borrow this principle from the reasoning behind the use of the pseudonym “Publius” by the authors of The Federalist Papers: the arguments were intended to stand independently of the individuals who advanced them.
We therefore invite you to read our articles for what they are. Engage with their ideas, examine their evidence, and challenge their conclusions—but do so on the basis of their content, rather than through preconceived notions about who we are or what we might represent.