Features
Dream That was Peradeniya: The Beginning of the End
by Ananda Wanasinghe
Last Sunday my friend Nissanka Warakaula wrote about the halcyon days at the then iconic University of Ceylon at Peradeniya. Nissanka was three years senior to me. I went down from Peradeniya in 1966. In my first term of that final year, I had the misfortune of being present on the day that set off the decline of “The Dear Perpetual Place” as Prof. Ashley Halpe lovingly and aptly referred to it in the excellent anthology “Peradeniya: Memories of a University” (1997).
A major, and most un-academic, diversion from studies during the first term of every year was routine during our time at Peradeniya. With exams being a distant two terms away, these rumpuses on campus were taken as lively distractions from studies. In my first year (1962) the disturbances started when some left-wing students jostled Mr. Dudley Senanayake, the then Leader of the Opposition, who had been invited to address the students at the Arts Theatre. Two other strikes followed in ‘63and ’64. So, inevitably, a boycott of lectures based on 12 demands commenced on Monday, December 6, 1965. Provision for regular meetings between the Vice Chancellor and students’ representatives; assured government employment for all graduates; and making all minor workers permanent employees of the University were among these demands. Unfortunately, no one seems to remember any of the other demands now. However, they were all couched in the language of the strident radical left-wing politics of the time.
In my narrative below, I write what I recall vividly of what I witnessed that day, as well as what I gathered from others immediately after the events. A few gaps in the account have been filled after discussion over a few weeks, with some of my contemporaries: all of us going down ‘memory lane’. This account amounts to a series of snapshots of incidents in the larger episode and is by no means a minute-by-minute commentary. There could be some incidents that I am not aware of.
MORNING
I was woken up at five in the morning from a deep slumber by the sound of loud knocking on some doors on my floor in the Wijewardane Hall accompanied by loud talk. It was Saturday, December 11, 1965.
The previous night most Hall Societies including ours had decided, after much fractious debate, to end the strike. A large number of students who were against the strike, including myself, participated in a boisterous march to Ramanathan Hall to announce to all that reason was restored.
Now it seemed that the strikers headed by my friend and batch-mate N. Shanmugaratnam (Shan), President of the Union Council, had plotted and planned throughout the night in Marrs Hall and were ordering the first-year students out to continue with their agitation. I realized that we, the anti-strikers, had been preempted. Shan was a decent and good-natured fellow with a strong mind. Politically, he was a ‘Maoist’ with the Peking Wing of the Communist Party. He also had the support of the other left parties for the strike. However, there were also opportunists who were after glory for themselves by indulging in vain deluding heroics.
At about 5.30 in the morning, I telephoned Shan at Marrs Hall and spoke with him for about five minutes. [Shan and I were in the Agriculture Faculty and a large majority of faculty students were against the strike and continued with the lectures and practical work. I openly campaigned against the strike in the Faculty as well as among the fellow students at Wijewardane.] I asked him to rethink the possible consequences of going ahead with the strike, particularly because there were a significantly large number of students who were against the strike. He told me that he believed what they were doing was the right thing and that he was determined to go ahead. I cautioned him about others who may have different objectives and told him to be a little careful of his own personal safety in the event that things got out of hand. It was a very cordial exchange that would be unthinkable in the present culture of campus politics and agitation anywhere in Sri Lanka.
VIOLENCE
After breakfast I was alone in my room on the second floor of the first wing as my room-mate Gerry Jayawardane had gone for lectures. As I had no work in the Faculty that morning I practiced on a ‘Button Accordion’ That I had borrowed from the late Dr. Harold Wijetunga, the Senior University Medical Officer and a very kind gentleman. After a while I decided to catch up on the sleep lost earlier in the morning. I must have slept for about an hour, when for the second time that day I was rudely awakened by the door being burst opened and two girls and a boy rushing into the room screaming “wedi thiyanawa, wedi thiyanawa“. All three of them were covered in perspiration and hysterical.
I told them to sit down and try to be calm. Looking out of my window I saw some policemen come running past Jayatilaka Hall towards Kandy Road with a large number of students in hot pursuit. Just past the railway under crossing, almost out of my line of sight, the students caught up with them and the last policeman was dragged down by the leading pursuant. In an instant a dozen student were upon him. I also saw one student picking up a large rock with both his hands and walking towards the scuffle which was now out of my sight. I thought the policeman might be killed.
Later I learnt that Sarath Ranasinghe of Wijewardane, my classmate in school, while walking to the Medical Faculty had been there on the spot when the students attacked the policeman. He boldly intervened and stopped the student with the rock before he could hurl it on the fallen policeman. Sarath received a few blows himself, but managed to prevail on the assailants to have mercy on the man who was badly injured. When they left, Sarath, being well-built and strong, carried the injured man (Sgt. Seneviratne) up the embankment to the road and continued towards the Medical Faculty to have him attended-to when a police ambulance arrived and took the Sergeant to the hospital. This incident was reported in ‘The Island’ of October 19, 2008.
The spark that set off the violence had been lit at the entrance to the Biology Lab. Kushlani Ranasinghe, a final-year student from Sangamitta had been prevented from entering the zoology lab by picketing strikers lying supine covering all approaches to the main entrance to the building. Evidently, a daring girl, she waded across this mass of ‘fallen’ humanity and stumbled into the doorway where she was stopped from losing her balance and helped in by her batch-mate R. Rudran from Arunachalam Hall, who had arrived before the entrance was blocked. Following this event, Prof. Hilary Cruz, who was authoritarian and could hardly relate to the students, had called the University Proctor.
Kushlani recalls Dr. Tommy Wickramanayake (Proctor) turning up and telling the picketing students to vacate the place, and going away saying that the police would be called if they did not. When there was no response from the strikers Prof. Cruz had called the Police. In a while, the police arrived. Bandula Perera from Wijewardane remembers Mr. R. Sunderalingam, SP Kandy, removing his regulation cap in an obviously conciliatory gesture, and proceeding to address the strikers. He spoke as a graduate of Peradeniya as well as a past President of the Union Council and appealed to the students to disperse peacefully. At this point Shan stepped out and spoke to the gathering asking them to listen to the present President and said that this is our campus, and the police have no right to interfere. He added that the students were not moving away from where they were.
Not long afterwards, a group of policemen had arrived at the scene fired tear gas at the crowd of students and baton-charged them. One of the first to get hit was Shan, and he was bleeding from the head. A Police Inspector took hold of him saying that he had a big mouth. Let me quote Shan about what happened next. “…Then I ended up in a police truck. That was when WS (Prof. W.S. Karunaratne), fleeing the angry crowd, ran towards the truck calling out ‘ralahamy, ralahamy’, and got in and sat with me. He was quite chatty!! The students were now marching in big numbers towards the truck. Coora (P.S. Cooray) was one of the leaders. He removed his shirt, waved it, and raised his clenched fist and shouted at the police. In the melee I saw a tall man steadily walking towards the police truck. Pointing at me, he told the officer standing there – ‘You must release this man, otherwise it’s going to be difficult to control the students.’ I came to know later that he was Prof. Sivapragasapillai of the Faculty of Engineering. After some time, I was taken to the Kandy police station. Prof. Siva had followed us to the police station. He bailed me out and took me to the hospital. Many students visited me at the hospital. Some of them wept.”
The students who had now been provoked attacked the police with stones. Pandemonium reigned at the Biology Building. Rudran remembers hearing shots being fired, and a large number of students fleeing across the cricket field towards the Arts Faculty. Police had fired warning shots in the air. He remembers he was sick the entire day from the tear gas that came into the lab. Kushlani recollects that she, with other lab staff, dressing wounds of a few girls, among those who rushed into the lab for protection.
They were bleeding from cut injuries. There were no reports of any student sustaining gunshot injuries. H.L. Premasiri, an engineering student arriving late in a group to join the protest saw Neville Perera, a well-known loud-mouthed agitator who seemed to bask in the adulation of his followers, come loping down the Old Galaha Road. As he passed Premasiri’s group, he shouted “sahodarawaruni duwanda” [run comrades run]. So Premasiri and others beat a hasty retreat back to Wijewardane Hall.
Among those who fled towards the Arts Faculty was K.S. de Abrew, an engineering student who was a hyperactive supporter of the strike. A few days earlier, he was apprehended by Marshals while slipping leaflets under people’s doors at night. He was an inveterate troublemaker. There were a large number of students at the Arts Theatre who were injured during the baton charge and the resulting stampede. Abrew with a colleague who had a scooter rushed to the Health Center on Sanghamitta Hill to get some medical supplies for dressing wounds. When the Sister-in-charge refused to give anything, they forcibly grabbed as much cotton wool and bandage rolls as they could and rode back to the Arts Theatre.
On his way up and down, he saw a few items of furniture thrown down to the road from the Vice Chancellor’s Lodge. A while later, Sunila Munaweera (final year) an ardent supporter of the strike who enjoyed missing lectures, and Shirani Fonseka (first year) both from Ramanathan remember watching him spellbound as he made a fiery exhortation to the satankaami sahodarawaru (battling comrades) to continue to battle the reactionary forces on campus. Sunila claims that she didn’t know any of the demands she was ‘fighting’ for. Shirani says she had several misgivings about the demands as well as about picketing, but because everyone in her group of friends supported the agitation, she also joined the boycott of lectures but covertly avoided joining in picketing. It is most likely that such attitudes of thrill-seeking and passive participation prevailed among a large majority of the strikers.
A group of students had broken into the Lodge and damaged and thrown out furniture. When Coora visited the place later he saw some periodicals burning on the lawn. And as Samarasinghe says, there was only a little damage caused to the building and the furniture.
There were too many enraged students who were now willing to risk everything to get even with the police and the vastly outnumbered policemen were forced to turn around and run for dear life. It was these men that I saw from my window. By this time, the three [probably first year] students had sought some other place of refuge; and I walked down to the ground floor to find out what was going on. There were a large number of boys and girls in the dining hall and the lobby, and an even larger crowd of boys gathered on the large lawn out in front. It seemed the police had left the campus. Students in small groups were piecing together the preceding events and relating their individual experiences. By now the students had shed their differences and were united against the Police.
Before long, Police returned in larger numbers. Many of them were now armed with rifles. They ordered everybody outside to get inside Wijewardane Hall, and they seemed to mean business – after all, a few of their comrades had been badly mauled by the students earlier in the day. But there were still a few very angry hot-headed students willing to defy the police. However, a few senior students, including Coora and myself stepped out of the crowd and coaxed the others into the Hall. This took some time, and I clearly remember two constables close behind Coora and me pointing their rifles at us. The police ordered students not to leave the Hall. There must have been close to a thousand students now in the Hall. I cannot quite remember about lunch, but I guess that everybody shared what had been prepared for only the 500 occupants of Wijewardane.
REVOLUTION!
Then came to pass the most comical as well as pathetic episode during my four-year stay at Peradeniya.
It was now about two hours after the cessation of hostilities and things seemed to have settled on campus. But police jeeps kept prowling the roads. No student ventured to step out into the open. Then an announcement was made that there would be a meeting of the students in a short while in the dining hall which would be addressed by “The Leader”. To me this sounded ominous and mysterious because everybody knew that Shan was under arrest. I wondered if there was further mischief afoot.
For a while one and all waited in suspense, quandary, and misgivings as to what was going to happen. Then amidst much hailing and hosannas from some of the leading strikers, in strode Neville Perera on to the podium. His supporters kept cheering until he signaled them to stop. Then without any preliminaries he proclaimed that the Union Council was dissolved, and the Revolution had started!! He also announced that the harbor workers in Colombo had gone on strike and that CTB would follow shortly.
Perera went on to give instructions as to how we should conduct ourselves, the details of which I don’t remember. And in truly revolutionary fashion he appointed several agents provocateurs, to act on whatever the ‘revolutionary council’ decreed and also to maintain order. True to form, and to the best of my memory, these agents were bestowed with the code name ‘Danco’. I well remember Bandula, one of the Dancos, marching up and down the lobby of Wijewardane like a drill sergeant ordering students not to leave the Hall. Neville Perera did not stay long after these histrionics and was cheered out by his allies and devotees.
To me it seemed that all this nonsense was taken seriously by everybody present. I felt sad for such seeming credulity of the absurd, among those who were usually referred to by the literati as the ‘cream of the country’s intelligentsia’. Or were they all stunned out of their wits by the bombast?
Towards the evening, Marshals came and asked everyone to get back to their respective halls of residence. They escorted the girls back to their halls. Dancos seemed to have renounced their arrogance and anticipated role in the revolution had re-merged with the students. The police disguised Rudran and Kushlani in police raincoats and evacuated them to Colombo in the evening, for their protection. There came an announcement that the university had closed, and all students were required to leave the campus the next day. This was only one week ahead of the scheduled end of the first term. So ended this unforgettable day.
EPILOGUE
With the start of the second term, the University instituted action against those who were perceived as indulging in violence. This included all the ‘Dancos’. The inquiries were conducted by a triumvirate comprising Dr. Tommy Wickramanayake (University Proctor) and two other senior staff members. The suspect students were allowed, if they so wished, to be represented by another student. [This was the era when today’s State Counsel were called ‘Crown Counsel’. A wag promptly labeled those representing the suspects – ‘Clown Counsel’.] Understandably, most ‘suspects’ chose those who were openly against the strike to represent them. I ‘defended’ Bandula and the late Sinha Perera.
The Court Case and After
The case, Queen vs. N. Shanmugaratnam, N. Perera, Sydney Jayasinghe, and W.B. Wijeratne, was first taken up in the Majistrate’s court. They were charged with unlawful assembly, arson, attempted murder etc. Sydney was discharged at this inquiry. The other three accused stood trial at the district court in Kandy and were defended by a team of three lawyers headed by Mr. V. Karalasingham. In the end, an understanding judge conditionally discharged the accused students.
This was followed by an inquiry by the University’s Board of Residence and Dicipline. The inquiry was conducted by a panel headed by Prof Bawa with Dr. Mrs. Aluwihare as a member. Shan and Sydney were suspended for one year. Wijeratne and Wijegunawardane were suspended for one term. Neville Perera was not suspended on the technical point that he was not a student at the time.
Long-term Consequences
This event was the turning point of the decline of universities in Sri Lanka. The government took the opportunity presented by the violence to appoint Civil Servants as Vice Chancellors instead of electing them from among the academics. The Minister of Education, who had an axe to grind with the university, took every opportunity to intervene in the affairs of the universities. (Incidentally, the minister’s daughter and future son-in-law were students at Peradeniya during this period.) Prof. Ashley Halpe has recounted in some detail the decline of the Universities in Sri Lanka following this event in the anthology mentioned above.
R. Sundaralingam, at the time, Acting S.P. Kandy, and a former president of the Union Council, is on record as telling the Vice Chancellor early in December 1965 “…that police intervention in university student unrest would aggravate the situation, the Vice Chancellor, … was adamant that police should intervene to bring the situation under control.” Sir Nicholas had also reported to the Prime Minister about the SP’s attitude. He further says that the police intervened in response to a call from Prof. Cruz claiming that the biology building was being stoned causing heavy damage. [‘The Island’, October 19, 2008.]
Sir Nicholas Attygalle had a reputation as an exceptionally gifted obstetrician and gynecologist but not as a great educator. He was authoritative, rarely accessible to students, and hardly responsive to student demands of any sort. Newspapers of the time often referred to him as the “Iron Chancellor” after the first German Chancellor von Bismarck. The students’ demand for regular meetings with him reflected this obstinate attitude of his.
It was also known that there was an irreconcilable rift between Sir Nicholas and Prof. EOE Pereira, Dean of the Engineering Faculty. The latter was known to be an excellent teacher and was almost venerated by students of his faculty. He never compromised on the high academic standards expected of them. There would have been members of the staff who supported one or the other of them. This may have been a major reason for the strong participation of the Engineering Faculty in the strike. However, there must have been many other highly respected senior staffers who did not take sides. They perhaps could have opened a dialogue/initiative with student leaders and political leaders of the time who themselves had been the beneficiaries of post-graduate education at prestigious universities in the West. Such an effort towards the development of the University along the liberal lines that Sir Ivor Jennings had intended for Peradeniya could well have prevented the deterioration of university education in Sri Lanka that we see today.
In hindsight, it seems that Sir Nicholas may not have been the best to succeed Sir Ivor who went on to hold the positions of Master of Trinity Hall and Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University. Prof. EOE Pereira was appointed Vice Chancellor in 1969. But by that time, the university system had undergone a seminal change, and its effective management had passed on to the hands of mere politicians.
It is the country’s misfortune that the pantheon of academic luminaries that graced the then University of Ceylon could not deliver a scholar as Vice Chancellor who would have commanded the respect of the staff and the esteem of the students.
How they ended up – 50 years on
Cooray P.S. – Retired Teacher and voluntary social worker; Bandaragama
De Abrew, K.S. – Senior Water and Sanitation Engineer, Botswana
Fonseka, Shirani – (Mrs. De Abrew) Amateur Ceramic Artist; Botswana
Jayasinghe, Sydney – Consultant Director, Bogala Graphite Company PLC; Colombo
Perera, Dr. Bandula – Company Director; Deputy Chairman, Public Utilities Commission; Board Member, Industrial Technology Institute; Colombo
Perera, Neville – Germany (when last heard of)
Premasiri, H.L. – Water Supply Engineer; Specialist in Procurement; Colombo
Munaweera, Sunila – (Mrs. Rajawasan) Formerly; Statistician, RVDB; Now Aerobics Instructor; Mt Lavinia
Ranasinghe, Kushlani – (Mrs. Amarsuriya) Formerly, Executive Director, Alcohol and Drug Information Center (ADIC); now, voluntary social worker, Colombo
Ranasinghe, Sarath – Consultant Physician and Managing Director, Kandy Private Hospital
Late Rudran, Dr. R. – Scientist Emeritus, Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. USA
Shanmugaratnam, Dr. N. – Professor Emeritus and Director of international studies,
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway
Wanasinghe, Ananda – Consultant Development Economist, Colombo
Wijegunasinghe, D.
(now Wije Dias) – General Secretary of the Socialist Equality Party, Colombo
Wijeratne, Dr. W.B. – Director, Research & Food Technology, Harvest Innovations, Iowa, USA
Features
A wage for housework? India’s sweeping experiment in paying women
In a village in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, a woman receives a small but steady sum each month – not wages, for she has no formal job, but an unconditional cash transfer from the government.
Premila Bhalavi says the money covers medicines, vegetables and her son’s school fees. The sum, 1,500 rupees ($16: £12), may be small, but its effect – predictable income, a sense of control and a taste of independence – is anything but.
Her story is increasingly common. Across India, 118 million adult women in 12 states now receive unconditional cash transfers from their governments, making India the site of one of the world’s largest and least-studied social-policy experiments.
Long accustomed to subsidising grain, fuel and rural jobs, India has stumbled into something more radical: paying adult women simply because they keep households running, bear the burden of unpaid care and form an electorate too large to ignore.
Eligibility filters vary – age thresholds, income caps and exclusions for families with government employees, taxpayers or owners of cars or large plots of land.
“The unconditional cash transfers signal a significant expansion of Indian states’ welfare regimes in favour of women,” Prabha Kotiswaran, a professor of law and social justice at King’s College London, told the BBC.
The transfers range from 1,000-2,500 rupees ($12-$30) a month – meagre sums, worth roughly 5-12% of household income, but regular. With 300 million women now holding bank accounts, transfers have become administratively simple.
Women typically spend the money on household and family needs – children’s education, groceries, cooking gas, medical and emergency expenses, retiring small debts and occasional personal items like gold or small comforts.
What sets India apart from Mexico, Brazil or Indonesia – countries with large conditional cash-transfer schemes – is the absence of conditions: the money arrives whether or not a child attends school or a household falls below the poverty line.

Goa was the first state to launch an unconditional cash transfer scheme to women in 2013. The phenomenon picked up just before the pandemic in 2020, when north-eastern Assam rolled out a scheme for vulnerable women. Since then these transfers have turned into a political juggernaut.
The recent wave of unconditional cash transfers targets adult women, with some states acknowledging their unpaid domestic and care work. Tamil Nadu frames its payments as a “rights grant” while West Bengal’s scheme similarly recognises women’s unpaid contributions.
In other states, the recognition is implicit: policymakers expect women to use the transfers for household and family welfare, say experts.
This focus on women’s economic role has also shaped politics: in 2021, Tamil actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan promised “salaries for housewives”. (His fledgling party lost.) By 2024, pledges of women-focused cash transfers helped deliver victories to political parties in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Odisha, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh.
In the recent elections in Bihar, the political power of cash transfers was on stark display. In the weeks before polling in the country’s poorest state, the government transferred 10,000 rupees ($112; £85) to 7.5 million female bank accounts under a livelihood-generation scheme. Women voted in larger numbers than men, decisively shaping the outcome.
Critics called it blatant vote-buying, but the result was clear: women helped the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition secure a landslide victory. Many believe this cash infusion was a reminder of how financial support can be used as political leverage.
Yet Bihar is only one piece of a much larger picture. Across India, unconditional cash transfers are reaching tens of millions of women on a regular basis.
Maharashtra alone promises benefits for 25 million women; Odisha’s scheme reaches 71% of its female voters.
In some policy circles, the schemes are derided as vote-buying freebies. They also put pressure on state finances: 12 states are set to spend around $18bn on such payouts this fiscal year. A report by think-tank PRS Legislative Research notes that half of these states face revenue deficits – this happens when a state borrows to pay regular expenses without creating assets.
But many argue they also reflect a slow recognition of something India’s feminists have argued for decades: the economic value of unpaid domestic and care work.
Women in India spent nearly five hours a day on such work in 2024 – more than three times the time spent by men, according to the latest Time Use Survey. This lopsided burden helps explain India’s stubbornly low female labour-force participation. The cash transfers, at least, acknowledge the imbalance, experts say.
Do they work?
Evidence is still thin but instructive. A 2025 study in Maharashtra found that 30% of eligible women did not register – sometimes because of documentation problems, sometimes out of a sense of self-sufficiency. But among those who did, nearly all controlled their own bank accounts.

A 2023 survey in West Bengal found that 90% operated their accounts themselves and 86% decided how to spend the money. Most used it for food, education and medical costs; hardly transformative, but the regularity offered security and a sense of agency.
More detailed work by Prof Kotiswaran and colleagues shows mixed outcomes.
In Assam, most women spent the money on essentials; many appreciated the dignity it afforded, but few linked it to recognition of unpaid work, and most would still prefer paid jobs.
In Tamil Nadu, women getting the money spoke of peace of mind, reduced marital conflict and newfound confidence – a rare social dividend. In Karnataka, beneficiaries reported eating better, gaining more say in household decisions and wanting higher payments.
Yet only a sliver understood the scheme as compensation for unpaid care work; messaging had not travelled. Even so, women said the money allowed them to question politicians and manage emergencies. Across studies, the majority of women had full control of the cash.
“The evidence shows that the cash transfers are tremendously useful for women to meet their own immediate needs and those of their households. They also restore dignity to women who are otherwise financially dependent on their husbands for every minor expense,” Prof Kotiswaran says.
Importantly, none of the surveys finds evidence that the money discourages women from seeking paid work or entrench gender roles – the two big feminist fears, according to a report by Prof Kotiswaran along with Gale Andrew and Madhusree Jana.
Nor have they reduced women’s unpaid workload, the researchers find. They do, however, strengthen financial autonomy and modestly strengthen bargaining power. They are neither panacea nor poison: they are useful but limited tools, operating in a patriarchal society where cash alone cannot undo structural inequities.

What next?
The emerging research offers clear hints.
Eligibility rules should be simplified, especially for women doing heavy unpaid care work. Transfers should remain unconditional and independent of marital status.
But messaging should emphasise women’s rights and the value of unpaid work, and financial-literacy efforts must deepen, researchers say. And cash transfers cannot substitute for employment opportunities; many women say what they really want is work that pays and respect that endures.
“If the transfers are coupled with messaging on the recognition of women’s unpaid work, they could potentially disrupt the gendered division of labour when paid employment opportunities become available,” says Prof Kotiswaran.
India’s quiet cash transfers revolution is still in its early chapters. But it already shows that small, regular sums – paid directly to women – can shift power in subtle, significant ways.
Whether this becomes a path to empowerment or merely a new form of political patronage will depend on what India chooses to build around the money.
[BBC]
Features
People set example for politicians to follow
Some opposition political parties have striven hard to turn the disaster of Cyclone Ditwah to their advantage. A calamity of such unanticipated proportions ought to have enabled all political parties to come together to deal with this tragedy. Failure to do so would indicate both political and moral bankruptcy. The main issue they have forcefully brought up is the government’s failure to take early action on the Meteorological Department’s warnings. The Opposition even convened a meeting of their own with former President Ranil Wickremesinghe and other senior politicians who shared their experience of dealing with natural and man-made disasters of the past, and the present government’s failures to match them.
The difficulty to anticipate the havoc caused by the cyclone was compounded by the neglect of the disaster management system, which includes previous governments that failed to utilise the allocated funds in an open, transparent and corruption free manner. Land designated as “Red Zones” by the National Building Research Organisation (NBRO), a government research and development institute, were built upon by people and ignored by successive governments, civil society and the media alike. NBRO was established in 1984. According to NBRO records, the decision to launch a formal “Landslide Hazard Zonation Mapping Project (LHMP)” dates from 1986. The institutional process of identifying landslide-prone slopes, classifying zones (including what we today call “Red Zones”), and producing hazard maps, started roughly 35 to 40 years ago.
Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines which were lashed by cyclones at around the same time as Sri Lanka experienced Cyclone Ditwah were also unprepared and also suffered enormously. The devastation caused by cyclones in the larger southeast Asian region is due to global climate change. During Cyclone Ditwah some parts of the central highlands received more than 500 mm of rainfall. Official climatological data cite the average annual rainfall for Sri Lanka as roughly 1850 mm though this varies widely by region: from around 900 mm in the dry zones up to 5,000 mm in wet zones. The torrential rains triggered by Ditwah were so heavy that for some communities they represented a rainfall surge comparable to a major part of their typical annual rainfall.
Inclusive Approach
Climate change now joins the pantheon of Sri Lanka’s challenges that are beyond the ability of a single political party or government to resolve. It is like the economic bankruptcy, ethnic conflict and corruption in governance that requires an inclusive approach in which the Opposition, civil society, religious society and the business community need to join rather than merely criticise the government. It will be in their self-interest to do so. A younger generation (Gen Z), with more energy and familiarity with digital technologies filled, the gaps that the government was unable to fill and, in a sense, made both the Opposition and traditional civil society redundant.
Within hours of news coming in that floods and landslides were causing havoc to hundreds of thousands of people, a people’s movement for relief measures was underway. There was no one organiser or leader. There were hundreds who catalysed volunteers to mobilise to collect resources and to cook meals for the victims in community kitchens they set up. These community kitchens sprang up in schools, temples, mosques, garages and even roadside stalls. Volunteers used social media to crowdsource supplies, match donors with delivery vehicles, and coordinate routes that had become impassable due to fallen trees or mudslides. It was a level of commitment and coordination rarely achieved by formal institutions.
The spontaneous outpouring of support was not only a youth phenomenon. The larger population, too, contributed to the relief effort. The Galle District Secretariat sent 23 tons of rice to the cyclone affected areas from donations brought by the people. The Matara District Secretariat made arrangements to send teams of volunteers to the worst affected areas. Just as in the Aragalaya protest movement of 2022, those who joined the relief effort were from all ethnic and religious communities. They gave their assistance to anyone in need, regardless of community. This showed that in times of crisis, Sri Lankans treat others without discrimination as human beings, not as members of specific communities.
Turning Point
The challenge to the government will be to ensure that the unity among the people that the cyclone disaster has brought will outlive the immediate relief phase and continue into the longer term task of national reconstruction. There will be a need to rethink the course of economic development to ensure human security. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has spoken about the need to resettle all people who live above 5000 feet and to reforest those areas. This will require finding land for resettlement elsewhere. The resettlement of people in the hill country will require that the government address the issue of land rights for the Malaiyaha Tamils.
Since independence the Malaiyaha Tamils have been collectively denied ownership to land due first to citizenship issues and now due to poverty and unwillingness of plantation managements to deal with these issues in a just and humanitarian manner beneficial to the workers. Their resettlement raises complex social, economic and political questions. It demands careful planning to avoid repeating past mistakes where displaced communities were moved to areas lacking water, infrastructure or livelihoods. It also requires political consensus, as land is one of the most contentious issues in Sri Lanka, tied closely to identity, ethnicity and historical grievances. Any sustainable solution must go beyond temporary relocation and confront the historical exclusion of the Malaiyaha Tamil community, whose labour sustains the plantation economy but who remain among the poorest groups in the country.
Cyclone Ditwah has thus become a turning point. It has highlighted the need to strengthen governance and disaster preparedness, but it has also revealed a different possibility for Sri Lanka, one in which the people lead with humanity and aspire for the wellbeing of all, and the political leadership emulates their example. The people have shown through their collective response to Cyclone Ditwah that unity and compassion remain strong, which a sincere, moral and hardworking government can tap into. The challenge to the government will be to ensure that the unity among the people that the cyclone disaster has brought will outlive the immediate relief phase and continue into the longer term task of national reconstruction with political reconciliation.
by Jehan Perera
Features
An awakening: Revisiting education policy after Cyclone Ditwah
In the short span of two or three days, Cyclone Ditwah, has caused a disaster of unprecedented proportions in our midst. Lashing away at almost the entirety of the country, it has broken through the ramparts of centuries old structures and eroded into areas, once considered safe and secure.
The rains may have passed us by. The waters will recede, shops will reopen, water will be in our taps, and we can resume the daily grind of life. But it will not be the same anymore; it should not be. It should not be business as usual for any of us, nor for the government. Within the past few years, Sri Lankan communities have found themselves in the middle of a crisis after crisis, both natural and man-made, but always made acute by the myopic policies of successive governments, and fuelled by the deeply hierarchical, gendered and ethnicised divides that exist within our societies. The need of the hour for the government today is to reassess its policies and rethink the directions the country, as a whole, has been pushed into.
Neoliberal disaster
In the aftermath of the devastation caused by the natural disaster, fundamental questions have been raised about our existence. Our disaster is, in whole or in part, the result of a badly and cruelly managed environment of the planet. Questions have been raised about the nature of our economy. We need to rethink the way land is used. Livelihoods may have to be built anew, promoting people’s welfare, and by deveoloping a policy on climate change. Mega construction projects is a major culprit as commentators have noted. Landslides in the upcountry are not merely a result of Ditwah lashing at our shores and hills, but are far more structural and points to centuries of mismanagement of land. (https://island.lk/weather-disasters-sri-lanka-flooded-by-policy-blunders-weak-enforcement-and-environmental-crime-climate-expert/). It is also about the way people have been shunted into lands, voluntarily or involuntarily, that are precarious, in their pursuit of a viable livelihood, within the limited opportunities available to them.
Neo liberal policies that demand unfettered land appropriation and built on the premise of economic growth at any expense, leading to growing rural-urban divides, need to be scrutinised for their short and long term consequences. And it is not that any of these economic drives have brought any measure of relief and rejuvenation of the economy. We have been under the tyrannical hold of the IMF, camouflaged as aid and recovery, but sinking us deeper into the debt trap. In October 2025, Ahilan Kadirgamar writes, that the IMF programme by the end of 2027, “will set up Sri Lanka for the next crisis.” He also lambasts the Central Bank and the government’s fiscal policy for their punishing interest rates in the context of disinflation and rising poverty levels. We have had to devalue the rupee last month, and continue to rely on the workforce of domestic workers in West Asia as the major source of foreign exchange. The government’s negotiations with the IMF have focused largely on relief and infrastructure rebuilding, despite calls from civil society, demanding debt justice.
The government has unabashedly repledged its support for the big business class. The cruelest cut of them all is the appointment of a set of high level corporate personalities to the post-disaster recovery committee, with the grand name, “Rebuilding Sri Lanka.” The message is loud and clear, and is clearly a slap in the face of the working people of the country, whose needs run counter to the excessive greed of extractive corporate freeloaders. Economic growth has to be understood in terms that are radically different from what we have been forced to think of it as, till now. For instance, instead of investment for high profits, and the business of buy and sell in the market, rechannel investment and labour into overall welfare. Even catch phrases like sustainable development have missed their mark. We need to think of the economy more holistically and see it as the sustainability of life, livelihood and the wellbeing of the planet.
The disaster has brought on an urgency for rethinking our policies. One of the areas where this is critical is education. There are two fundamental challenges facing education: Budget allocation and priorities. In an address at a gathering of the Chamber of Commerce, on 02 December, speaking on rebuilding efforts, the Prime Minister and Minister of Education Dr. Harini Amarasuriya restated her commitment to the budget that has been passed, a budget that has a meagre 2.4% of the GDP allocated for education. This allocation for education comes in a year that educational reforms are being rolled out, when heavy expenses will likely be incurred. In the aftermath of the disaster, this has become more urgent than ever.
Reforms in Education
The Government has announced a set of amendments to educational policy and implementation, with little warning and almost no consultation with the public, found in the document, Transforming General Education in Sri Lanka 2025 published by the Ministry of Education. Though hailed as transformative by the Prime Minister (https://www.news.lk/current-affairs/in-the-prevailing-situation-it-is-necessary-to-act-strategically-while-creating-the-proper-investments-ensuring-that-actions-are-discharged-on-proper-policies-pm), the policy is no more than a regurgitation of what is already there, made worse. There are a few welcome moves, like the importance placed on vocational training. Here, I want to raise three points relating to vital areas of the curriculum that are of concern: 1) streamlining at an early age; relatedly 2) prioritising and privileging what is seen as STEM education; and 3) introducing a credit-based modular education.
1. A study of the policy document will demonstrate very clearly that streamlining begins with Junior Secondary Education via a career interest test, that encourages students to pursue a particular stream in higher studies. Further Learning Modules at both “Junior Secondary Education” and “Senior Secondary Education Phase I,” entrench this tendency. Psychometric testing, that furthers this goal, as already written about in our column (https://kuppicollective.lk/psychometrics-and-the-curriculum-for-general-education/) points to the bizarre.
2. The kernel of the curriculum of the qualifying examination of Senior Secondary Education Phase I, has five mandatory subjects, including First Language, Math, and Science. There is no mandatory social science or humanities related subject. One can choose two subjects from a set of electives that has history and geography as separate subjects, but a Humanities/Social Science subject is not in the list of mandatory subjects. .
3. A credit-based, modular education: Even in universities, at the level of an advanced study of a discipline, many of us are struggling with module-based education. The credit system promotes a fragmented learning process, where, depth is sacrificed for quick learning, evaluated numerically, in credit values.
Units of learning, assessed, piece meal, are emphasised over fundamentals and the detailing of fundamentals. Introducing a module based curriculum in secondary education can have an adverse impact on developing the capacity of a student to learn a subject in a sustained manner at deeper levels.
Education wise, and pedagogically, we need to be concerned about rigidly compartmentalising science oriented, including technological subjects, separately from Humanities and Social Studies. This cleavage is what has led to the idea of calling science related subjects, STEM, automatically devaluing humanities and social sciences. Ironically, universities, today, have attempted, in some instances, to mix both streams in their curriculums, but with little success; for the overall paradigm of education has been less about educational goals and pedagogical imperatives, than about technocratic priorities, namely, compartmentalisation, fragmentation, and piecemeal consumerism. A holistic response to development needs to rethink such priorities, categorisations and specialisations. A social and sociological approach has to be built into all our educational and development programmes.
National Disasters and Rebuilding Community
In the aftermath of the disaster, the role of education has to be rethought radically. We need a curriculum that is not trapped in the dichotomy of STEM and Humanities, and be overly streamlined and fragmented. The introduction of climate change as a discipline, or attention to environmental destruction cannot be a STEM subject, a Social Science/Humanities subject or even a blend of the two. It is about the vision of an economic-cum-educational policy that sees the environment and the economy as a function of the welfare of the people. Educational reforms must be built on those fundamentals and not on real or imagined short term goals, promoted at the economic end by neo liberal policies and the profiteering capitalist class.
As I write this, the sky brightens with its first streaks of light, after days of incessant rain and gloom, bringing hope into our hearts, and some cheer into the hearts of those hundreds of thousands of massively affected people, anxiously waiting for a change in the weather every second of their lives. The sense of hope that allows us to forge ahead is collective and social. The response by Lankan communities, to the disaster, has been tremendously heartwarming, infusing hope into what still is a situation without hope for many. This spirit of collective endeavour holds the promise for what should be the foundation for recovery. People’s demands and needs should shape the re-envisioning of policy, particularly in the vital areas of education and economy.
(Sivamohan Sumathy was formerly attached to the Department of English, University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
By Sivamohan Sumathy
-
News6 days ago
Lunuwila tragedy not caused by those videoing Bell 212: SLAF
-
News1 day agoOver 35,000 drug offenders nabbed in 36 days
-
News5 days agoLevel III landslide early warning continue to be in force in the districts of Kandy, Kegalle, Kurunegala and Matale
-
Business3 days agoLOLC Finance Factoring powers business growth
-
News3 days agoCPC delegation meets JVP for talks on disaster response
-
News3 days agoA 6th Year Accolade: The Eternal Opulence of My Fair Lady
-
News1 day agoRising water level in Malwathu Oya triggers alert in Thanthirimale
-
Midweek Review6 days agoHouse erupts over Met Chief’s 12 Nov unheeded warning about cyclone Ditwah
