As people began to learn about the terrible consequences of the US dollar crisis, there also emerged a political slogan that seemed to suit the occasion. This slogan was “Gota Go Home”, and in no time, it became the rallying cry of almost everyone throughout the country. There appeared, at the time, a unity of purpose and a unity of perspective among all those who were participating in adopting that slogan.  The actual reasons pushing forward this massive movement varied between groups. For the majority of people, one of the most compelling reasons that dragged them to the streets was the threat of an imminent food crisis. From around the country, many people began to complain that they were unable to consume their meals as they used to in the past. Many complained of having only one or two meals a day, and there were others who even complained of going without food for several days.  The gravity of this problem was made clear when it was found even by international organisations such as the United Nations Children’s Fund that 1.7% of Sri Lankan children below the age of five years are malnourished. The report also said that out of these malnourished children, 17% are suffering from acute forms of malnourishment, which will leave permanent consequences on their bodies. A compelling reason therefore for the massive people’s opposition that arose was primarily economic, and in the most basic sense, in terms of a threat to the availability of food. Following that problem were also revelations of the inadequate supply of medical facilities, which have threatened the life of patients suffering from serious illnesses. Added to this were the problems of the inability to deal with the problems of children by getting them to schools and providing the facilities for their education. Aggravating all this was the problem of the difficulties created for travel. The severe shortages of petrol, diesel, and even kerosene oil, were symbolic of the problems that people began to face in terms of carrying on with their lives, and that aggravated the threat to food, medicine, education, and the like, because without being able to carry on with their livelihoods, there was no way for them to have the basic purchasing power of the essential needs. These economic problems were severely aggravated by massive levels of inflation. In short, everybody of the middle and lower income groups were affected by unprecedented levels of basic economic hardships. When people suffering from such acute economic problems responded to the call for the resignation of the President, what they expected was some quick solution to these economic hardships. The Head of State was seen as the major cause for their problems, and therefore his quick demise, they would naturally have thought, would bring about some relief for these acute problems.  However, among those who supported and promoted “Gota Go Home” were those who had other ideas and other prospects. It is quite natural that people who are looking for political opportunities or political change also see, in the unrest of the people, an opportunity to achieve the political changes that they desire. Naturally, such sections play more vocal roles during the times of peoples’ protests and during times of serious unrest. At last, they would have believed that the sleeping giant that is the people has awoken, and that the longstanding dreams of the people who wanted more changes either for the benefit of the society or for themselves could utilise this situation to their benefit.  So long as the President remained in his seat, these people who have been moved due to different impulses could work together, and it would even be possible to make it appear that everyone is engaged in the pursuit of fame, ambition, and working towards the same or similar changes. However, the departure of the President, which was a cause to celebrate, has brought to surface more serious problems underlining the extent of mutual understanding and common purpose that exists or that does not exist among those who joined in the protests. Now, these differences are surfacing in a severe manner. Some speak of having some secret plans for achieving change if the political tendency that they support would be given political power. Naturally, none of them come forward to explain what these plans or perspectives are. Perhaps there is no such plan. If one were to go by past experiences, political changes come about for various reasons, but once in power, those who are in power do not have any ideas worked out to resolve any of the major problems that are facing the country.  However, the present moment is very unlike such moments in the past. When people on the streets are moved, that is not something that could be wished away with fine rhetoric or by various kinds of excuses as to why that cannot be done urgently. Food or no food is a life-or-death question. Naturally, those who engage in this struggle with the view to find solutions to such problems are not going to be satisfied by merely supporting whichever political tendency wants to utilise this situation to come to power. Those who are irritated by the peoples’ insistence on immediate solutions to their problems may even think of pushing their way through other means, such as by the use of methods of commotion. This kind of thing has happened in history over and over again, and the result has always been to make the situation of the people who are already suffering from acute problems even worse. On the other hand, any open discussions about perspectives that may bring about changes which will answer the greater problems faced by the people can itself lead to much conflict. Those who wish to raise these questions may even be treated as those who raise unnecessary issues at a time when the people have come together for the first time in pursuit of some common goals.  The issue really is that the common goals are no longer clear. That is the very reason why more discussions among those who share the same ultimate aims are needed. Democracy among those who are seeking to establish a democratic way of life in the country has become a dire need. Every attempt to prevent such discussions is in fact going against the very essence of the very force that propelled the people to the streets in search of solutions which they require on an urgent basis.  It is suggested that a very clear position is needed to be developed among those who are struggling for a change, above all to find a solution to the food crisis. International organisations have already pointed out that the food crisis may lead to situations of starvation. Ill-conceived economic policies have often led to massive forms of starvation, which has killed large numbers of people in different countries. One glaring example is that of Cambodia, where an attempt to achieve a rapid agricultural revolution brought about one of the worst crises known in history. Within a short period of over three years, one-seventh of the population died, mostly due to starvation. Thus, the development of conditions of an acute food crisis, including the possibility of starvation, is a real threat. It is this real threat that should concern everyone who is engaged in trying to resolve the kind of problems that have arisen with the departure of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Rajapaksa’s departure is merely a step in the direction of removing an obstacle. However, there are many other obstacles to be overcome if the peoples’ demand for food and basic needs are to be met on an urgent basis. (The writer is the Asian Human Rights Commission’s Policy and Programmes Director) ……………………………… The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.