Even though development discourse has expanded accomodating human development as well as the sustainability of the eco system theoretically, in practice it is yet to be appropriated by the actors, mainly the state (in case of developing countries) which is involved in executing these development projects. You're right in pointing out that most of the post-war development activities in Sri Lanka have neglected real development concerns of the people of those areas such as livelihood opportunities and employment generation.

Moreover, some of the development projects such as building a city in the sea at the Galle face Green seem to be quiet exclusive and catering to a very very privileged new multi milionnaires of the country. These modern development projects which are mega in scale invariably contributes in human as well as animal displacement and very few people seem to be interested in campaigning against them - such campaigns are almost non-existent. Civil society and pressure group lobbying is dieing in Sri Lanka. Illegal settlers are an indirect result of regional assymentry in development. Urbanisation and availability of opportunities are mainly concentrated into the principal cities. Therefore, without answering this core bias in the development as well as the parochial understanding of the term, these problems will never be solved.

well shakila, development turn as the impact on civil society. although if the state stagnate with protecting of democratic values, there is not a possibility for making the state economically development. there is none principal that every thing make in fare and justice. have to make a justification. yes few of people will face the inconveniences. but they do not have the legal claim for land. they encroach the land of state. when there is a development policy, the state is able to utilize the states land. in this circumstance, these encroaches should be given up from there. and the pther fact that, today we have a neo liberalism. there fore state doesn't not obligate to provide every thing for the citizens. state is there for maintain the law and order and play the role of nanny. we are dreaming to be a miracle in Asia. to achieve that end, Evey one should be sacrificed. in the case of development, it is hard to keep a trust to protect the rights of people all the time

Well said. Development practice lags sadly behind the development discourse in ensuring that development “accommodates human development as well as the sustainability of the ecosystem”. This is partly due to the failure of development education to serve as a link between development theory (discourse) and practice. In order for the actors (state, private sector, civil society) in the development process to implement in practice what the development discourse has been saying for a long time, we need development practitioners who have training that is cross-disciplinary, cross-border and rooted in the communities they serve. For a long time, development education has been isolated, discipline-specific, and theoretical. Yet, for development practice to really work, Engineers need to know how communities operate, Economists need to think about human rights and biodiversity, Natural scientists need to understand social contexts, we all need to understand how politics works, etc. The more we share of the knowledge generated in our own disciplines, and the more we learn of each other's disciplines, the likelier we are to come up with solutions that are technically sound but also contextually appropriate. And when professionals from different fields agree on policy, they have a stronger base from which to lobby--not to mention help in the process of formulating evidence based policy. We also need development practitioners who “think globally and act locally”. To quote the Report from the International Commission on Education for Sustainable Development Practice 2008, they “require the ability to work in global networks and local teams across many professions and cultures, since the skills and knowledge required for success range far beyond a single discipline or profession, much less an individual practitioner.” The global MDP which this commission recommended, is a graduate education programme that has a cross-disciplinary, cross-border, practical focus that draws, not just on the lessons of the development discourse of the last 50 years, but also from core insights of many fields such as agronomy, ecology, hydrology, engineering, public health, economics, politics and management. Soon, 24 universities in 16 countries across the globe (including the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka) will offer this degree. Development education alone will not change the face of development practice. But it can help.

Most of the states turn for development process violate the human rights plus democratic rights. Look at the United Kingdom during the period of industrial revolution. it made land grabbing program for making vast agricultural farms. In modern days, Singapore, they climbed up in development while violating the human rights. The problem is that most of the countries in north have already violate the rights and democratic values in the program of development. Now they came to development. Though they have a stick for the modern developing countries for violating the rights in terms of development. That's why developing states do not focus on the protecting of rights because they have seen how the developed states already violate the rights.

In this chapter the author has tried to look at the social issues of the development process within the context of human rights issues. Thus, the chapter addresses paradoxical relationship between the development needs of the country and the humantarian crisis, which have been intensified in the metropolitan and sub urban areas of the country. The questions which have been raised by the author are well foqmulated. Obviously these questions agitates intellectual curiousity on the serious social and human rights issue which have to be concerned by the relavant authorities plan and engage with new development projects in the country. Since it may be difficult to sacrifice one aspect for the other, it is good to have compromises through social discourses among all factions which posses contradictory needs. In other words neither the humantarian rights nor the development issues can be compromised.

To most people “Development” means growth in quantity, quality, complexity and sophistication. This is what I call the “Growth Model of Development” (GMD). Upon a finite planet with limited resources this “Growth Model of Development” (GMD) is an insult to human intelligence and yet it continues to be the only widely accepted definition of what “Development” may be. I would suggest that we look at Development as being the progressive perception, projection and realization of potential. From this point of view “Development” requires considerable perceptual input as well as connective structures that will permit the making of collective perceptions. This would best be achieved in a context where access to commodities is de lined from access to wages. That would be an end to poverty The “Growth Model of Development” (GMD) is primarily concerned with growth. It is not concerned with anyone’s rights or wrongs as can be seen from several developmental initiatives undertaken under the supervision of multilateral institutions.

However the definition of rights and their origins is also problematic. We would do well to look closely at the question of who guarantees these rights and whether the dynamics of universal evolution indicate anything like the existence of anything like rights and whether such rights are therefore realistic or no more than the way we would wish that we would relate to each other. It is of course possible to change the way we see the world and the way we relate to each other. All that has to be done it to change the primary formative processes that we subject our off sprint to and within a period of fifteen to twenty years we would have a generation of people who behave very differently to what we are accustomed to. My contention is that the primary issue at hand is that of the definition of Development itself and not of the securing of rights or the righting of wrongs.

Poverty is not something dropped from the skies. It is man-made or more correctly has accompanied the long story of evolution of mankind. During this lengthy process running up to millenia the more intelligent and more careful grew richer while others squirmed at their feet. Rich growing richer, poor poorer since all attendant booms and evils get tagged on to each party. These are the access to opportunity/ lack of p opportunity, exposure/non--exposure, education/non--education etc. Neither will change voluntarily mean the rich will not give up their riches voluntarily, nor will the poor make a bulldozing efforts to come up.

Hence it is left to the State to act as the neutralizing party. Its allies in this function m that is to create awareness of the problem and provide in an indirect way suitable solutions are the media, the world of aesthetics and communication. Charismatic persons too could exert much influence. Can we change the evil tide from going on? One can never say.