evidence: Given the extent of the economic debacle, some degree of belt tightening was inevitable. But many Sri Lankans consider the government’s new policies to be unfair in the way they have been targeted. Fiscal reforms such as tax increases and higher utility prices have been shouldered by poor and middle-income Sri Lankans, while economic and political elites, including those who designed and benefited from the policies that led to the crisis, have been left largely unscathed. Key decisions have been made by a government including senior ministers who approved the policies that precipitated the crisis and relying on the same parliamentary majority that backed it then. The lack of action against the alleged corruption of the Rajapaksa family and its cronies, as well as some in Wickremesinghe’s United National Party, has fuelled public perceptions of injustice. [...] The Wickremesinghe government’s initial policy changes – budget cuts and higher taxes, higher energy costs and interest rates – were bound to be unpopular, imposing adjustments before people could see any benefit of renewed economic growth. But while some pain was inevitable even before the government turned to the IMF, the choices the government made about how to meet the Fund’s fiscal and other targets have stirred widespread discontent. Many Sri Lankans perceive that the burden of higher taxes and higher energy costs has fallen disproportionately on those in the low- and middle-income brackets, a large number of whom were already reeling from the economic effects of COVID-19 lockdowns and growing levels of indebtedness.