Dr. B.J.C. Perera (Dr. BJCP) in his article ‘The Education cross roads: Liberating Sri Lankan classroom and moving ahead’ asks the critical question that should be the bedrock of any attempt at education reform – ‘Do we truly and clearly understand how a human being learns? (The Island, 16.02.2026)

Dr. BJCP describes the foundation of a cognitive architecture taking place with over a million neural connections occurring in a second. This in fact is the result of language learning and not the process. How do we ‘actually’ learn and communicate with one another? Is a question that was originally asked by Galileo Galilei (1564 -1642) to which scientists have still not found a definitive answer. Naom Chomsky (1928-) one of the foremost intellectuals of our time, known as the father of modern linguistics; when once asked in an interview, if there was any ‘burning question’ in his life that he would have liked to find an answer for; commented that this was one of the questions to which he would have liked to find the answer. Apart from knowing that this communication takes place through language, little else is known about the subject. In this process of learning we learn in our mother tongue and it is estimated that almost 80% of our learning is completed by the time we are 5 years old. It is critical to grasp that this is the actual process of learning and not ‘knowledge’ which tends to get confused as ‘learning’. i.e. what have you learnt?

The term mother tongue is used here as many of us later on in life do learn other languages. However, there is a fundamental difference between these languages and one’s mother tongue; in that one learns the mother tongue- and how that happens is the ‘burning question’ as opposed to a second language which is taught. The fact that the mother tongue is also formally taught later on, does not distract from this thesis.

Almost all of us take the learning of a mother tongue for granted, as much as one would take standing and walking for granted. However, learning the mother tongue is a much more complex process. Every infant learns to stand and walk the same way, but every infant depending on where they are born (and brought up) will learn a different mother tongue. The words that are learnt are concepts that would be influenced by the prevalent culture, religion, beliefs, etc. in that environment of the child. Take for example the term father. In our culture (Sinhala/Buddhist) the father is an entity that belongs to himself as well as to us -the rest of the family. We refer to him as ape thaththa. In the English speaking (Judaeo-Christian) culture he is ‘my father’. ‘Our father’ is a very different concept. ‘Our father who art in heaven….

All over the world education is done in one’s mother tongue. The only exception to this, as far as I know, are the countries that have been colonised by the British. There is a vast amount of research that re-validates education /learning in the mother tongue. And more to the point, when it comes to the comparability of learning in one’s own mother tongue as opposed to learning in English, English fails miserably.

Education /learning is best done in one’s mother tongue.

This is a fact. not an opinion. Elegantly stated in the words of Prof. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas-“Mother tongue medium education is controversial, but ‘only’ politically. Research evidence about it is not controversial.”

The tragedy is that we are discussing this fundamental principle that is taken for granted in the rest of the world. It would not be not even considered worthy of a school debate in any other country. The irony of course is, that it is being done in English!

At school we learnt all of our subjects in Sinhala (or Tamil) right up to University entrance. Across the three streams of Maths, Bio and Commerce, be it applied or pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, zoology, botany economics, business, etc. Everything from the simplest to the most complicated concept was learnt in our mother tongue. An uninterrupted process of learning that started from infancy.

All of this changed at university. We had to learn something new that had a greater depth and width than anything we had encountered before in a language -except for a very select minority – we were not at all familiar with. There were students in my university intake that had put aside reading and writing, not even spoken English outside a classroom context. This I have been reliably informed is the prevalent situation in most of the SAARC countries.

The SAARC nations that comprise eight countries (Sri Lanka, Maldives, India, Pakistan Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan) have 21% of the world population confined to just 3% of the earth’s land mass making it probably one of the most densely populated areas in the world. One would assume that this degree of ‘clinical density’ would lead to a plethora of research publications. However, the reality is that for 25 years from 1996 to 2021 the contribution by the SAARC nations to peer reviewed research in the field of Orthopaedics and Sports medicine- my profession – was only 1.45%! Regardless of each country having different mother tongues and vastly differing socio-economic structures, the common denominator to all these countries is that medical education in each country is done in a foreign language (English).

The impact of not learning in one’s mother tongue can be illustrated at a global level. This can be easily seen when observing the research output of different countries. For example, if one looks at orthopaedics and sports medicine (once again my given profession for simplicity); Table 1. shows the cumulative research that has been published in peer review journals. Despite now having the highest population in the world, India comes in at number 16! It has been outranked by countries that have a population less than one of their states. Pundits might argue giving various reasons for this phenomenon. But the inconvertible fact remains that all other countries, other than India, learn medicine in their mother tongue.

(See Table 1) Mother tongue, medium of education in country rank order according to the volume of publications of orthopaedics and sports medicine in peer reviewed journals 1996 to 2024. Source: Scimago SCImago journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/) has collated peer review journal publications of the world. The publications are categorized into 27 categories. According to the available data from 1996 to 2024, China is ranked the second across all categories with India at the 6th position. China is first in chemical engineering, chemistry, computer science, decision sciences, energy, engineering, environmental science, material sciences, mathematics, physics and astronomy. There is no subject category that India is the first in the world. China ranks higher than India in all categories except dentistry.

The reason for this difference is obvious when one looks at how learning is done in China and India.

The Chinese learn in their mother tongue. From primary to undergraduate and postgraduate levels, it is all done in Chinese. Therefore, they have an enormous capacity to understand their subject matter just not itself, but also as to how it relates to all other subjects/ themes that surround it. It is a continuous process of learning that evolves from infancy onwards, that seamlessly passes through, primary, secondary, undergraduate and post graduate education, research, innovation, application etc. Their social language is their official language. The language they use at home is the language they use at their workplaces, clubs, research facilities and so on.

In India higher education/learning is done in a foreign language. Each state of India has its own mother tongue. Be it Hindi, Tamil, Urdu, Telagu, etc. Infancy, childhood and school education to varying degrees is carried out in each state according to their mother tongue. Then, when it comes to university education and especially the ‘science subjects’ it takes place in a foreign tongue- (English). English remains only as their ‘research’ language. All other social interactions are done in their mother tongue.

India and China have been used as examples to illustrate the point between learning in the mother tongue and a foreign tongue, as they are in population terms comparable countries. The unpalatable truth is that – though individuals might have a different grasp of English- as countries, the ability of SAARC countries to learn and understand a subject in a foreign language is inferior to the rest of the world that is learning the same subject in its mother tongue. Imagine the disadvantage we face at a global level, when our entire learning process across almost all disciplines has been in a foreign tongue with comparison to the rest of the world that has learnt all these disciplines in their mother tongue. And one by-product of this is the subsequent research, innovation that flows from this learning will also be inferior to the rest of the world.

All this only confirms what we already know. Learning is best done in one’s mother tongue! .

What needs to be realised is that there is a critical difference between ‘learning English’ and ‘learning in English’. The primary-or some may argue secondary- purpose of a university education is to learn a particular discipline, be it medicine, engineering, etc. The students- have been learning everything up to that point in Sinhala or Tamil. Learning their discipline in their mother tongue will be the easiest thing for them. The solution to this is to teach in Sinhala or Tamil, so it can be learnt in the most efficient manner. Not to lament that the university entrant’s English is poor and therefore we need to start teaching English earlier on.

We are surviving because at least up to the university level we are learning in the best possible way i.e. in our mother tongue. Can our methods be changed to be more efficient? definitely. If, however, one thinks that the answer to this efficient change in the learning process is to substitute English for the mother tongue, it will defeat the very purpose it is trying to overcome. According to Dr. BJCP as he states in his article; the current reforms of 2026 for the learning process for the primary years, centre on the ‘ABCDE’ framework: Attendance, Belongingness, Cleanliness, Discipline and English. Very briefly, as can be seen from the above discussion, if this is the framework that is to be instituted, we should modify it to ABCDEF by adding a F for Failure, for completeness!

(See Figure 1) The components and evolution of learning: Data, information, knowledge, insight, wisdom, foresight As can be seen from figure 1. data and information remain as discrete points. They do not have interconnections between them. It is these subsequent interconnections that constitute learning. And these happen best through the mother tongue. Once again, this is a fact. Not an opinion. We -all countries- need to learn a second language (foreign tongue) in order to gather information and data from the rest of the world. However, once this data/ information is gathered, the learning needs to happen in our own mother tongue.

Without a doubt English is the most universally spoken language. It is estimated that almost a quarter of the world speaks English as its mother tongue or as a second language. I am not advocating to stop teaching English. Please, teach English as a second language to give a window to the rest of the world. Just do not use it as the mode of learning. Learn English but do not learn in English. All that we will be achieving by learning in English, is to create a nation of professionals that neither know English well nor their subject matter well.

If we are to have any worthwhile educational reforms this should be the starting pivotal point. An education that takes place in one’s mother tongue. Not instituting this and discussing theories of education and learning and proposing reforms, is akin to ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’. Sadly, this is not some stupendous, revolutionary insight into education /learning. It is what the rest of the world has been doing and what we did till we came under British rule.

Those who were with me in the medical faculty may remember that I asked this question then: Why can’t we be taught in Sinhala? Today, with AI, this should be much easier than what it was 40 years ago.

The editorial of this newspaper has many a time criticised the present government for its lackadaisical attitude towards bringing in the promised ‘system change’. Do this––make mother tongue the medium of education /learning––and the entire system will change.

by Dr. Sumedha S. Amarasekara

The world has unhappily arrived at the 4th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and as could be seen a resolution to the long-bleeding war is nowhere in sight. In fact the crisis has taken a turn for the worse with the Russian political leadership refusing to see the uselessness of its suicidal invasion and the principal power groupings of the West even more tenaciously standing opposed to the invasion.

One fatal consequence of the foregoing trends is relentlessly increasing ‘Global Disorder’ and the heightening possibility of a regional war of the kind that broke out in Europe in the late thirties at the height of Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler’s reckless territorial expansions. Needless to say, that regional war led to the Second World War. As a result, sections of world opinion could not be faulted for believing that another World War is very much at hand unless peace making comes to the fore.

Interestingly, the outbreak of the Second World War coincided with the collapsing of the League of Nations, which was seen as ineffective in the task of fostering and maintaining world law and order and peace. Needless to say, the ‘League’ was supplanted by the UN and the question on the lips of the informed is whether the fate of the ‘League’ would also befall the UN in view of its perceived inability to command any authority worldwide, particularly in the wake of the Ukraine blood-letting.

The latter poser ought to remind the world that its future is gravely at risk, provided there is a consensus among the powers that matter to end the Ukraine crisis by peaceful means. The question also ought to remind the world of the urgency of restoring to the UN system its authority and effectiveness. The spectre of another World War could not be completely warded off unless this challenge is faced and resolved by the world community consensually and peacefully.

It defies comprehension as to why the Russian political leadership insists on prolonging the invasion, particularly considering the prohibitive human costs it is incurring for Russia. There is no sign of Ukraine caving-in to Russian pressure on the battle field and allowing Russia to have its own way and one wonders whether Ukraine is going the way of Afghanistan for Russia. If so the invasion is an abject failure.

The Russian political leadership would do well to go for a negotiated settlement and thereby ensure peace for the Russian people, Ukraine and the rest of Europe. By drawing on the services of the UN for this purpose, Russian political leaders would be restoring to the UN its dignity and rightful position in the affairs of the world.

Russia, meanwhile, would also do well not to depend too much on the Trump administration to find a negotiated end to the crisis. This is in view of the proved unreliability of the Trump government and the noted tendency of President Trump to change his mind on questions of the first importance far too frequently. Against this backdrop the UN would prove the more reliable partner to work with.

While there is no sign of Russia backing down, there are clearly no indications that going forward Russia’s invasion would render its final aims easily attainable either. Both NATO and the EU, for example, are making it amply clear that they would be staunchly standing by Ukraine. That is, Ukraine would be consistently armed and provided for in every relevant respect by these Western formations. Given these organizations’ continuing power it is difficult to see Ukraine being abandoned in the foreseeable future.

Accordingly, the Ukraine war would continue to painfully grind on piling misery on the Ukraine and Russian people. There is clearly nothing in this war worth speaking of for the two peoples concerned and it will be an action of the profoundest humanity for the Russian political leadership to engage in peace talks with its adversaries.

It will be in order for all countries to back a peaceful solution to the Ukraine nightmare considering that a continued commitment to the UN Charter would be in their best interests. On the question of sovereignty alone Ukraine’s rights have been grossly violated by Russia and it is obligatory on the part of every state that cherishes its sovereignty to back Ukraine to the hilt.

Barring a few, most states of the West could be expected to be supportive of Ukraine but the global South presents some complexities which get in the way of it standing by the side of Ukraine without reservations. One factor is economic dependence on Russia and in these instances countries’ national interests could outweigh other considerations on the issue of deciding between Ukraine and Russia. Needless to say, there is no easy way out of such dilemmas.

However, democracies of the South would have no choice but to place principle above self interest and throw in their lot with Ukraine if they are not to escape the charge of duplicity, double talk and double think. The rest of the South, and we have numerous political identities among them, would do well to come together, consult closely and consider as to how they could collectively work towards a peaceful and fair solution in Ukraine.

More broadly, crises such as that in Ukraine, need to be seen by the international community as a challenge to its humanity, since the essential identity of the human being as a peacemaker is being put to the test in these prolonged and dehumanizing wars. Accordingly, what is at stake basically is humankind’s fundamental identity or the continuation of civilization. Put simply, the choice is between humanity and barbarity.

The ‘Swing States’ of the South, such as India, Indonesia, South Africa and to a lesser extent Brazil, are obliged to put their ‘ best foot forward’ in these undertakings of a potentially historic nature. While the humanistic character of their mission needs to be highlighted most, the economic and material costs of these wasting wars, which are felt far and wide, need to be constantly focused on as well.

It is a time to protect humanity and the essential principles of democracy. It is when confronted by the magnitude and scale of these tasks that the vital importance of the UN could come to be appreciated by human kind. This is primarily on account of the multi-dimensional operations of the UN. The latter would prove an ideal companion of the South if and when it plays the role of a true peace maker.

The National People’s Power (NPP), led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), came to power promising democratic renewal and long-awaited economic, educational, healthcare, and social transformation. It pledged to build a modern Sri Lanka rooted in democratic values while steering the country toward its vision of Democratic Socialism. For many supporters, the NPP’s rise to the pinnacle of political power represents a historic opportunity to reset the nation’s direction.

Yet recent developments have stirred unease. Statements by several senior ministers and certain policy signals have prompted critics to question whether the government’s path remains firmly democratic. Some warn that in the pursuit of rapid development and social justice, central pillars of the NPP’s election campaign, there may be a growing temptation to consolidate power in ways that edge toward policies of old “Hammer & Sickle.”

Is the NPP committed to pluralistic democratic socialism, or is Sri Lanka witnessing the early signs of a more centralised political model? To answer this question, it is necessary to revisit the JVP’s ideological history, examine the pressures that shape governing parties once in power, and weigh the potential consequences, both promising and perilous, of any shift in direction.

History of the JVP

The JVP emerged in the mid-1960s with a revolutionary agenda, mobilising youth through its Five Lecture Programme, which criticised capitalist policies, questioned the country’s “real independence,” opposed Indian influence, and called for armed struggle. This ideology culminated in the 1971-armed uprising against the elected government, leading to widespread violence, a harsh state crackdown, mass arrests, and the banning of the party.

Although suppressed, the JVP later re-entered democratic politics after its leaders were imprisoned and eventually pardoned. In the 1980s, after electoral defeat, the JVP shifted from strict Marxist-Leninist ideology toward a national, framework known as “Jathika Chinthanaya”, while maintaining strong opposition to Indian involvement.

However, it launched a second violent insurgency in 1988–1989, resulting in significant loss of life and severe repression, including the killing of its leader, Rohana Wijeweera. These events marked a decisive turning point, after which the party gradually moved away from armed struggle and embraced parliamentary politics.

By 1994, the JVP abandoned armed insurrection and embraced parliamentary democracy. While retaining its Marxist-Leninist identity, it adopted a more pragmatic socialist approach, seeking influence through elections rather than violence.

Embracing Parliamentary Democracy

The party served as Ministers and Deputy Ministers under President Chandrika Kumaratunga (2004–2005) and later supported Mahinda Rajapaksa in the 2005 presidential and subsequent parliamentary elections. Between 2005 and 2010, the JVP aligned with the Rajapaksa government in opposing federalism and supporting a unitary state.

Historically, the JVP opposed federalism. Under Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD), however, there appears to be a strategic shift toward decentralisation and inclusivity, without formally endorsing federalism. Since 2019, the NPP/JVP has criticised successive governments for failing to implement the 13th Amendment fully. This transformation is real and should be acknowledged.

Reports indicate the NPP/JVP is drafting a new constitution, but there is limited public clarity on its position regarding abolishing the Executive Presidency and devolving powers to Provincial Councils. Sri Lanka can chart a path toward a united, prosperous future where all citizens feel valued and represented. Therefore, I hope that NPP will consider the Provincial Councils in their current form might best serve as a relic of the past, making way for more cohesive and efficient systems of governance.

It is also a fact that many parties have historically criticised the Executive Presidency while in opposition, only to retain it in power. Whether the NPP/JVP will pursue genuine reform remains a subject of debate.

Democratic Concerns State Power

A recent statement by a senior Cabinet Minister that the party holds government power but has not yet “captured” broader state power raises fundamental questions. In a parliamentary democracy, winning government is the highest legitimate authority a party can obtain. Government power is temporary which is granted by voters, limited by the Constitution, and revocable at elections.

State power is permanent and it lies with state institutions i. e. the judiciary, administrative service, armed forces, law enforcement, and independent commissions. These bodies must remain politically neutral and serve the Constitution, to prevent any ruling party from dominating the permanent machinery of governance.

To frame democratic victory as incomplete without “capturing” state power, suggests a conception of power that goes beyond electoral legitimacy. It echoes a revolutionary mindset highlighting the real transformation requires ideological alignment of the state itself.

Past few decades, Sri Lanka has suffered from politicised institutions. Replacing one form of control with another is not reform, it is substitution.

Judiciary and Due Process

Public frustration over past corruption is understandable. However, allegations must be addressed through due legal process. In a democracy, individuals are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When parliamentarians publicly pass judgments on opposition figures before judicial proceedings conclude, it risks undermining the rule of law and raising concerns about political overreach.

Concerns are further heightened when there are perceptions that the rule of law is not applied equally, particularly if members of the governing party are treated differently in similar circumstances in the recent past. Unequal enforcement of legal standards can erode public trust in institutions. If such patterns persist, they may raise broader questions about the strength and impartiality of democratic governance.

Village-Level Courts

Democratic Concerns
State Power

In another recent statement, by a senior Minister reiterated one of his earlier proposals to establish judicial courts at the village level to adjudicate certain legal cases, depending on the nature and severity of the alleged offences. While improving local access to justice may enhance efficiency, such courts require strong institutional safeguards.

As this proposal raises serious concerns, it bears characteristics often associated with totalitarian systems, where village-level courts may be controlled by ruling party “cadres” who preside over legal matters and pass judgments against individuals. Without strong safeguards to ensure independence, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law, such courts could be misused to suppress dissent and curtail legitimate political opposition.

Any reform of the judicial system must uphold constitutional protections and preserve the separation of powers. Failing to do so could raise broader concerns about democratic accountability and institutional independence.

Civil / Administrative Service

Before 1978, Sri Lanka’s civil service was widely respected for its professionalism and independence. Over time, however, political appointments increasingly influenced senior administrative positions.

There are growing concerns that some recent appointments to high-level administrative service posts by the NPP may also be politically motivated. Many voters expected systemic reform and a decisive shift toward merit-based governance under the NPP/JVP. It is disappointing to observe indications that similar patterns of politicisation may be continuing.

The real test of reform lies not in rhetoric but in institutional safeguards. Transparent selection criteria, independent oversight mechanisms, and clear accountability structures are essential to ensuring that the administrative service remains professional and non-partisan.

History shows that democracy does not usually collapse overnight. It erodes gradually when ruling parties seek to align permanent institutions with their own ideological or political objectives.

Strengthening institutional independence is not optional, it is imperative. Sri Lanka’s democratic future depends not only on who holds power, but on how responsibly that power is exercised.

Media Freedom

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
(Evelyn Beatrice Hall, describing Voltaire’s belief in freedom of speech.)

Recent reports suggest the NPP/JVP government is dissatisfied with parts of the media, accusing some outlets of political bias and even proposing bans for allegedly spreading false information. Such actions would be undemocratic and would weaken constructive criticism.

Governments already possess legal remedies for defamation. If laws are inadequate, they may be reviewed. However, this must not undermine the media’s fundamental right to fair, independent, and legitimate criticism of those in power.

Every government dislikes criticism. But mature democracies tolerate it. Any attempt to restrict the media risks eroding democratic freedoms and should be adamantly opposed by all who value an independent media.

Religion and Public Conduct

In the past, opposition parties accused the JVP of being hostile to religion, particularly toward Buddhist monks aligned with political opponents. Confirming this accusation, recently a few NPP/JVP ministers, MPs, and party supporters have publicly criticised Buddhist monks who speak and organise meetings against the government.

At the same time, social media contains intolerable language about the conduct of certain Buddhist monks. While misconduct by members of the clergy is concerning, it does not justify hostile or disrespectful reactions from politicians or the public.

Responding with anger and division contradicts the very Dhamma many claim to defend. Using monks as political tools, or attacking them publicly, only deepens social divisions. If there are genuine concerns about the monastic order, they should be addressed respectfully through proper religious channels rather than through public humiliation.

Economic Democracy

Following Sri Lanka’s 2022 fiscal crisis, the NPP/JVP revised its economic policy and aligned itself with a framework closer to Social Democracy. This shift suggests that the JVP has accepted capitalism as the economic system necessary to revive the collapsed economy. At the same time, it has emphasised redistribution, welfare measures, and regulatory reforms aimed at reducing inequality.

The NPP/JVP’s economic policy now focuses on reforming capitalism rather than replacing it. The party initially sought to renegotiate the IMF agreement to ease the burden on the public. However, it was unable to secure significant changes. A key long-term objective remains reducing dependency on imports. The NPP aims to promote local industries and agriculture, while supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to reduce unemployment and expand export capacity.

Although the party pledged to strengthen state-owned enterprises through improved management rather than outright privatisation, recent developments indicate a shift toward public-private partnerships and selective privatisation.

Overall, economic progress is gradually aligning with these reformed Capitalist policies. This approach marks a significant departure from the original “Hammer and Sickle” ideology associated with classical Marxist theory as articulated by thinkers such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Friedrich Engels.

If judged solely on economic direction, the shift from revolutionary rhetoric to reformist governance appears substantial.

Bribery and Corruption

The nation is deeply grateful to the NPP government for taking bold steps to minimise bribery and corruption, which have long been a cancer eating away at our society. For decades, this practice has existed from top politicians to the lowest levels of the state sector, and even within society at large. Full credit must be given to the NPP government for prioritising the fight against this unethical and deeply rooted problem. It is hoped that the law will be applied equally to everyone, irrespective of status or party affiliation.

However, the public remains sceptical about the delay in pressing charges against the alleged culprits. During the election campaign, the JVP claimed that it possessed substantial evidence, over one hundred files, sufficient to prosecute members of previous governments accused of misusing public funds. Are they now discovering that the evidence is not as concrete as initially suggested?

Conclusion

Having analysed the current situation of the NPP/JVP, it is evident that there are conflicting statements from some senior figures in the JVP. Some favour the continuation of the traditional “Hammer and Sickle” policies. Others within the NPP emphasise and implement aspects of Social Democratic policies. Considering these differences, the nation is entitled to seek clarity regarding the government’s present direction.

It remains to be seen whether the JVP is merely marking time before reintroducing its former ideological policies, or whether it has genuinely chosen the path of Social Democracy.

By Gamini Jayaweera