Features
Concluding JRJ’s Nehru letters; statement on Rajiv’s assassination
(Excerpted from Men and Memories by JR Jayewardene)
Anand Bhawan
Allahabad (This letter is handwritten Oct. 13, 1945)
Dear Mr. Jayewardene,
My father, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, has asked me to thank you for your telegram of good wishes.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Indira Nehru Gandhi
20th October, 1945 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Swaraj Bhawan
Allahabad
India
My dear Pandit Nehru,
I wrote to you on the 29th June 1945, soon after your release from gaol. Since I have received no reply, I presume, the Censor prevented the letter from reaching you. I am enclosing a copy of it. Instead of the Sessional Papers, mentioned in the 5th paragraph, I am sending you a copy of the Soulbury Report, which contains the relevant Sessional Papers, and a few notes of mine on it. I particularly, draw your attention to Chap. 10 & 11. I do not think, that any Indian, who seeks freedom for India, can object to the recommendations, in para 242 (i) & (ii).
The Ceylon Indian Congress, however, while pleading for Ceylon’s independence, in the same breath insists, that the British Government should include in the Constitution, Articles relating to immigration, and the Indian franchise, in accordance with the demands of the Congress. Mr. Aney is now at Simla to press this point of view on the British Raj. I do hope, for the sake of friendly feelings, which you, as well as many others, in India and in Ceylon wish to promote between our two countries, he will not be successful.
I wish you will be able to accept our invitation to come to Ceylon in January.
With best wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene
Anand Bhawan Allahabad
Camp: Simla 12 May 1946
Joint Honorary Secretaries Ceylon National Congress Borella Flats, Colombo
Dear friends,
Thank you for your letter of the 11th April. I am glad of your resolution welcoming the movement to organise an Asian conference. Probably the initiative in this will be taken by the Indian Council of World Affairs, 63/2 Daryaganj, Delhi. I suggest you keep in touch with them.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Jawaharlal Nehru
Congress Office
Borella Flats
Colombo
22nd May, 1946
Dear Pandit Nehru,
Your statement to the Press about Indians in Ceylon has surprised many of us. The Ceylon Government is contemplating no action in regard to the Indians here. An artificial agitation has, however, been raised by the Ceylon Indian Congress against the recommendations of the Soulbury Commission, which recommendations were accepted by the British Government, embodied in the White Paper of October 1945 and accepted by the Ceylon State Council by 51 votes to 3. These proposals have now been enclosed in the Order-in-Council promulgating a new Constitution for Ceylon.
I am sending you a copy of the Soulbury Report, and I wish to draw your attention particularly to paragraphs 202 to 203 and paragraphs 224 to 242. The first few paragraphs deal with the impoverishment of the Indian immigrant labourer and show that the franchise rights possessed by those labourers under the Donoughmore Constitution are now preserved in the new Constitution. “Did not seem to His Majesty’s Government to involve any racial discrimination against Indians, whereas some of the Indians’ protests amounted in effect to a claim to a position of privilege rather than of equality”. (vide para 209)
The second group of paragraphs deals with immigration and the political status of Indians in Ceylon. The new Constitution accepts these proposals and gives Ceylon for the first time the right to determine the future composition of her population and the right to prohibit or restrict immigration into Ceylon without any overriding powers being vested in the British Government.
Surely you will agree that the powers granted to Ceylon under the new Constitution, a copy of which is sent with this letter, are consistent with her progress toward freedom, and that the request of the Ceylon Indian Congress to the British Government to include in the Constitution articles relating to franchise and immigration in accordance with its demands is a negation of that freedom? The Ceylon Indian Congress also talks of a general strike as a protest. As a protest against what? Against Ceylon’s march to freedom; against vesting in the people of Ceylon the right to determine the composition of the country’s population and the rights which its citizens should be entitled to. Surely you will not accept for India any restriction on the freedom that Britain will soon give her? Then why should Ceylon not enjoy a freedom as full and as unqualified as yours?
As Mr Senanayake has informed you, the relations between India and Ceylon, and any questions relating to Indians in Ceylon which are not already settled, will be the subject of negotiations between a free India and a free Ceylon; until then your influence should be used to prevent misguided actions by these Indians in Ceylon who are adopting tactics so correctly criticized by you in your latest book as follows: “Some Indian businessmen in Ceylon are demanding exactly the same kind of protection which they rightly resent having been given to British interests in India. Self-interest not only blinds one to justice and fairplay but also to the simplest applications of logic and reason.” (Discovery of India, p. 43).
We want you to judge our actions by logic and reason, but that too requires a knowledge of the facts, and I am always prepared to send you the fullest information.
With my best wishes, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Geo. E. de Silva, President
By Air Mail 17, York Road New Delhi 27th February, 1947
Dear friend,
I have just received your letter of the 20th February informing me that the Ceylon National Congress will celebrate “Independence Day” on March 2nd. May I send you, and through you to the people of Ceylon, our greetings on this occasion and our good wishes for the rapid realization of the Free Lanka of your dreams? I have no doubt that a free India and a free Lanka will have the closest of associations with each other for their mutual advantage and for the furtherance of peace and progress in Asia.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Jawaharlal Nehru
The President,
Ceylon National Congress, Congress Office,
Borella Flats, Borella,
Colombo
Concluding…p13
President,
Ceylon National Congress Borella
Colombo
Our greetings on Lanka’s Independence Day. We trust that Lanka will be free soon and play her full part as a free nation in the advancing destinies of Asia. Letter follows.
Jawaharlal Nehru 27th February 1947
J.R. Jayewardene Braemar 66, Ward Place Colombo
12th February, 1964
My Dear Sri Nehru,
It was with great regret we head of your recent illness. You are aware of the great affection the people of Ceylon have for you and the members of your family; this was quite manifest here during the first few days after the news reached us. We were all relieved to hear of your recovery and wish you many more years of good health, to serve India and the cause of Peace and Democratic Progress throughout the World.
You may remember I spoke to you about conditions in Ceylon when I met you in New Delhi, in June last year. The Government finances are in perilous state and it is difficult even to pay for food imports. Our Party as well as many in the country are also worried about the Government’s leanings towards China. We are pressing for a debate in the House on Foreign Affairs, when we hope to compel the
Government to disclose its hand.
I can see no early solution to our problems under this Government. I think the people are realizing this too, for recent Parliamentary by-elections and local elections have gone heavily against Government nominees, and our Party has had successes beyond our hopes.
I will not detain you longer with a recital of political events here, for I am sure your High Commissioner’s reports are accurate and full. I may be in India on a pilgrimage to the Buddhist shrines in March/April and I hope I will be able to meet you once again in the best of health.
Believe me,
I am
Yours Sincerely,
(Signed) J.R. Jayewardene
High Commissioner for India in Ceylon Colombo No. Col/SCR/121/1/64
February 29, 1964
My dear J.R.,
You will recall giving me a letter for the Prime Minister of India, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru. This was duly forwarded and has been received by the Prime Minister who has asked me to thank you for the kind enquiry after his health and for your good wishes. He has asked me to let you know that he is much better now and that he will be glad to see you when you go to India on your pilgrimage in March/April next. You mentioned that you might go to Delhi for a couple of days during the visit. If you will let me know the approximate date of your arrival there, I have no doubt the Government of India will wish to welcome you as their guest during your stay in the capital.
(Signed) B.K. Kapur
J.R. Jayewardene, Esq., Braemar
66, Ward Place
Colombo
The “Nehru Letters” were also part of my bond with three generations of the Nehru family on the human and personal level. I had also maintained contact with Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Perhaps the last link in this relationship was my reaction to the shocking assassination which had vitiated peace and normalcy of human existence, both in Sri Lanka and India. On 31 May, 1991, I had written down and signed a statement of my shock and grief at the sad demise of Rajiv Gandhi.
The following is the statement which expressed my honest feelings and impressions about Rajiv Gandhi, which must be viewed as a link in the same chain of relationships:
“By Rajiv Gandhi’s cruel assassination I have lost a friend. This was my immediate reaction and public statement. I feel it more as the days go by.
“I do not wish to comment on the political consequences of his untimely death for I did not look upon him or trust him other than as a friend. We wrote to each other on matters of common interest and just a month ago he sent me his latest book, a collection of his speeches and statements, entitled, World View.
He advocated a central authority among nations to possess and control armaments and their use so that individual nations may not be able to go to war with one another. This would ultimately lead to the abolition of war.
“It was unfortunate that the inherited, as Prime Minister, a situation where the Tamil Nadu Government was openly helping the several terrorist groups in Sri Lanka with the Central Government’s knowledge and acquiescence. The result was the dropping of food over Sri Lanka, violating its sovereignty, etc. in June 1987.
“Fortunately, he received wiser counsel later and by the end of July 1987, both countries accepted the proposals I had tabled in our Parliament in December 1986. The whole country was aware of these and Parliament raised no objection to them. He made a new and special request to consider the temporary merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, subject to a Referendum. I agreed and obtained Cabinet approval as well as the approval of the Parliamentary Group and my party.
“The Agreement was a political document and there was no mention of the Indian military forces coming to Sri Lanka. This was not necessary, as the Agreement ushered in peace and all the groups fighting against Sri Lanka, there were five of them, agreed to the Agreement.
“Rajiv further promised me that he would forcibly disarm any group that broke the Agreement. The Indian Peace Keeping Force was invited by me as a military decision to disarm the enemy as Sri Lankan troops were then wholly engaged in fighting the terrorists in the South.
“As President and Commander-in-Chief, I invited them to help us and having lost about 1,200 lives, 5,000 injured and billions of rupees, when they were requested to go by the President as Commander-in-Chief, they went.
“Such situations have occurred in the world and in Sri Lanka before. King Devanampiya Tissa invited Emperor Asoka to help him to secure the throne against his own relations and he succeeded with their help. So did other Kings when they fought for the throne and invited Indian help.
“In the Russian Civil War of 1917, forces loyal to the monarchy invited the Allies in the Great War to help them against Lenin’s Armies and they did, unsuccessfully. India invited the USA to help them against China, and foreign planes and troops were in New Delhi for two years. We know how the USA helped the Allies in the 1939-1945 war and there are about 60 American Air Bases still in the UK.
“The IPKF came here to protect our unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity which, at that time, was under threat. I cannot conceive of any sensible Commander-inChief not accepting the offer of India to help him, especially as they were giving up helping terrorists and were to help us instead.”
(J.R. Jayewardene)
Features
Educational reforms under the NPP government
When the National People’s Power won elections in 2024, there was much hope that the country’s education sector could be made better. Besides the promise of good governance and system change that the NPP offered, this hope was fuelled in part by the appointment of an academic who was at the forefront of the struggle to strengthen free public education and actively involved in the campaign for 6% of GDP for education, as the Minister of Education.
Reforms in the education sector are underway including, a key encouraging move to mainstream vocational education as part of the school curriculum. There has been a marginal increase in budgetary allocations for education. New infrastructure facilities are to be introduced at some universities. The freeze on recruitment is slowly being lifted. However, there is much to be desired in the government’s performance for the past one year. Basic democratic values like rule of law, transparency and consultation, let alone far-reaching systemic changes, such as allocation of more funds for education, combating the neoliberal push towards privatisation and eradication of resource inequalities within the public university system, are not given due importance in the current approach to educational and institutional reforms. This edition of Kuppi Talk focuses on the general educational reforms and the institutional reforms required in the public university system.
General Educational Reforms
Any reform process – whether it is in education or any other area – needs to be shaped by public opinion. A country’s education sector should take into serious consideration the views of students, parents, teachers, educational administrators, associated unions, and the wider public in formulating the reforms. Especially after Aragalaya/Porattam, the country saw a significant political shift. Disillusionment with the traditional political elite mired in corruption, nepotism, racism and self-serving agendas, brought the NPP to power. In such a context, the expectation that any reforms should connect with the people, especially communities that have been systematically excluded from processes of policymaking and governance, is high.
Sadly, the general educational reforms, which are being implemented this year, emerged without much discussion on what recent political changes meant to the people and the education sector. Many felt that the new government should not have been hasty in introducing these reforms in 2026. The present state of affairs calls for self-introspection. As members affiliated to the National Institute of Education (NIE), we must acknowledge that we should have collectively insisted on more time for consultation, deliberations and review.
The government’s conflicts with the teachers’ unions over the extension of school hours, the History teachers’ opposition to the removal of History from the list of compulsory exam subjects for Grades 10 and 11, the discontent with regard to the increase in the number of subjects (now presented as modules) for Grade 6 classes could have been avoided, had there been adequate time spent on consultations.
Given the opposition to the current set of reforms, the government should keep engaging all concerned actors on changes that could be brought about in the coming years. Instead of adopting an intransigent position or ignoring mistakes made, the government and we, the members affiliated to NIE, need to keep the reform process alive, remain open to critique, and treat the latest policy framework, the exams and evaluation methods, and even the modules, as live documents that can be made better, based on constructive feedback and public opinion.
Philosophy and Content
As Ramya Kumar observed in the last edition of Kuppi Talk, there are many refreshing ideas included in the educational philosophy that appears in the latest version of the policy document on educational reforms. But, sadly, it was not possible for curriculum writers to reflect on how this policy could inform the actual content as many of the modules had been sent for printing even before the policy was released to the public. An extensive public discussion of the proposed educational vision would have helped those involved in designing the curriculum to prioritise subjects and disciplines that need to be given importance in a country that went through a protracted civil war and continue to face deep ethno-religious divisions.
While I appreciate the statement made by the Minister of Education, in Parliament, that the histories of minority communities will be included in the new curriculum, a wider public discussion might have pushed the government and NIE to allocate more time for subjects like the Second National Language and include History or a Social Science subject under the list of compulsory subjects. Now that a detailed policy document is in the public domain, there should be a serious conversation about how best the progressive aspects of its philosophy could be made to inform the actual content of the curriculum, its implementation and pedagogy in the future.
University Reforms
Another reform process where the government seems to be going headfirst is the amendments to the Universities Act. While laws need to be revisited and changes be made where required, the existent law should govern the way things are done until a new law comes into place. Recently, a circular was issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to halt the process of appointing Heads of Departments and Deans until the proposed amendments to the University Act come into effect. Such an intervention by the UGC is totalitarian and undermines the academic and institutional culture within the public university system and goes against the principle of rule of law.
There have been longstanding demands with regard to institutional reforms such as a transparent process in appointing council members to the public university system, reforms in the schemes of recruitment and selection processes for Vice Chancellor and academics, and the withdrawal of the circular banning teachers of law from practising, to name a few.
The need for a system where the evaluation of applicants for the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be manipulated by the Council members is strongly felt today, given the way some candidates have reportedly been marked up/down in an unfair manner for subjective criteria (e.g., leadership, integrity) in recent selection processes. Likewise, academic recruitment sometimes penalises scholars with inter-disciplinary backgrounds and compartmentalises knowledge within hermetically sealed boundaries. Rigid disciplinary specificities and ambiguities around terms such as ‘subject’ and ‘field’ in the recruitment scheme have been used to reject applicants with outstanding publications by those within the system who saw them as a threat to their positions. The government should work towards reforms in these areas, too, but through adequate deliberations and dialogue.
From Mindless Efficiency to Patient Deliberations
Given the seeming lack of interest on the part of the government to listen to public opinion, in 2026, academics, trade unions and students should be more active in their struggle for transparency and consultations. This struggle has to happen alongside our ongoing struggles for higher allocations for education, better infrastructure, increased recruitment and better work environment. Part of this struggle involves holding the NPP government, UGC, NIE, our universities and schools accountable.
The new year requires us to think about social justice and accountability in education in new ways, also in the light of the Ditwah catastrophe. The decision to cancel the third-term exams, delegating the authority to decide when to re-open affected schools to local educational bodies and Principals and not change the school hours in view of the difficulties caused by Ditwah are commendable moves. But there is much more that we have to do both in addressing the practical needs of the people affected by Ditwah and understanding the implications of this crisis to our framing of education as social justice.
To what extent is our educational policymaking aware of the special concerns of students, teachers and schools affected by Ditwah and other similar catastrophes? Do the authorities know enough about what these students, teachers and institutions expect via educational and institutional reforms? What steps have we taken to find out their priorities and their understanding of educational reforms at this critical juncture? What steps did we take in the past to consult communities that are prone to climate disasters? We should not shy away from decelerating the reform process, if that is what the present moment of climate crisis exacerbated by historical inequalities of class, gender, ethnicity and region in areas like Malaiyaham requires, especially in a situation where deliberations have been found lacking.
This piece calls for slowing-down as a counter practice, a decelerating move against mindless efficiency and speed demanded by neoliberal donor agencies during reform processes at the risk of public opinion, especially of those on the margins. Such framing can help us see openness, patience, accountability, humility and the will to self-introspect and self-correct as our guides in envisioning and implementing educational reforms in the new year and beyond.
(Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the University of Jaffna)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies
by Mahendran Thiruvarangan
Features
Build trust through inclusion and consultation in the New Year
Looking back at the past year, the anxiety among influential sections of the population that the NPP government would destabilise the country has been dispelled. There was concern that the new government with its strong JVP leadership might not be respectful of private property in the Marxist tradition. These fears have not materialised. The government has made a smooth transition, with no upheavals and no breakdown of governance. This continuity deserves recognition. In general, smooth political transitions following decisive electoral change may be identified as early indicators of democratic consolidation rather than disruption.
Democratic legitimacy is strengthened when new governments respect inherited institutions rather than seek to dismantle them wholesale. On this score, the government’s first year has been positive. However, the challenges that the government faces are many. The government’s failure to appoint an Auditor General, coupled with its determination to push through nominees of its own choosing without accommodating objections from the opposition and civil society, reflects a deeper problem. The government’s position is that the Constitutional Council is making biased decisions when it rejects the president’s nominations to the position of Auditor General.
Many if not most of the government’s appointments to high positions of state have been drawn from a narrow base of ruling party members and associates. The government’s core entity, the JVP, has had a traditional voter base of no more than 5 percent. Limiting selection of top officials to its members or associates is a recipe for not getting the best. It leaves out a wide swathe of competent persons which is counterproductive to the national interest. Reliance on a narrow pool of party affiliated individuals for senior state appointments limits access to talent and expertise, though the government may have its own reasons.
The recent furor arising out of the Grade 6 children’s textbook having a weblink to a gay dating site appears to be an act of sabotage. Prime Minister (and Education Minister Harini Amarasuriya) has been unfairly and unreasonably targeted for attack by her political opponents. Governments that professionalise the civil service rather than politicise them have been more successful in sustaining reform in the longer term in keeping with the national interest. In Sri Lanka, officers of the state are not allowed to contest elections while in service (Establishment Code) which indicates that they cannot be linked to any party as they have to serve all.
Skilled Leadership
The government is also being subjected to criticism by the Opposition for promising much in its election manifesto and failing to deliver on those promises. In this regard, the NPP has been no different to the other political parties that contested those elections making extravagant promises. The problem is that the economic collapse of 2022 set the country back several years in terms of income and living standards. The economy regressed to the levels of 2018, which was not due to actions of the NPP. Even the most skilled leadership today cannot simply erase those lost years. The economy rebounded to around five percent growth in the past year, but this recovery now faces new problems following Cyclone Ditwah, which wiped out an estimated ten percent of national income.
In the aftermath of the cyclone, the country’s cause for shame lies with the political parties. Rather than coming together to support relief and recovery, many focused on assigning blame and scoring political points, as in the attacks on the prime minister, undermining public confidence in the state apparatus at a moment when trust was essential. Despite the politically motivated attacks by some, the government needs to stick to the path of inclusiveness in its approach to governance. The sustainability of policy change depends not only on electoral victory but on inclusive processes that are more likely to endure than those imposed by majorities.
Bipartisanship recognises that national rebuilding and reconciliation requires cooperation across political divides. It requires consultation with the opposition and with civil society. Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa has been generally reasonable and constructive in his approach. A broader view of bipartisanship is that it needs to extend beyond the mainstream opposition to include ethnic and religious minorities. The government’s commitment to equal rights and non-discrimination has had a positive impact. Visible racism has declined, and minorities report feeling physically safer than in the past. These gains should not be underestimated. However, deeper threats to ethnic harmony remain.
The government needs to do more to make national reconciliation practical and rooted in change on the ground rather than symbolic. Political power sharing is central to this task. Minority communities, particularly in the north and east, continue to feel excluded from national development. While they welcome visits and dialogue with national leaders, frustration grows when development promises remain confined to foundation stones and ceremonies. The construction of Buddhist temples in areas with no Buddhist population, justified on claims of historical precedent, is perceived as threatening rather than reconciliatory.
Wider Polity
The constitutionally mandated devolution framework provided by the Thirteenth Amendment remains the most viable mechanism for addressing minority grievances within a united country. It was mediated by India as a third party to the agreement. The long delayed provincial council elections need to be held without further postponement. Provincial council elections have not been held for seven years. This prolonged suspension undermines both democratic practice and minority confidence. International experience, whether in India and Switzerland, shows that decentralisation is most effective when regional institutions are electorally accountable and operational rather than dormant.
It is not sufficient to treat individuals as equal citizens in the abstract. Democratic equality also requires recognising communities as collective actors with legitimate interests. Power sharing allows communities to make decisions in areas where they form majorities, reducing alienation and strengthening national cohesion. The government’s first year in office saw it acknowledge many of these problems, but acknowledgment has not yet translated into action. Issues relating to missing persons, prolonged detention, land encroachment and the absence of provincial elections remain unresolved. Even in areas where reform has been attempted, such as the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the proposed replacement legislation falls short of international human rights standards.
The New Year must be one in which these foundational issues are addressed decisively. If not, problems will fester, get worse and distract the government from engaging fully in the development process. Devolution through the Thirteenth Amendment and credible reconciliation mechanisms must move from rhetoric to implementation. It is reported that a resolution to appoint a select committee of parliament to look into and report on an electoral system under which the provincial council elections will be held will be taken up this week. Similarly, existing institutions such as the Office of Missing Persons and the Office of Reparations need to be empowered to function effectively, while a truth and reconciliation process must be established that commands public confidence.
Trust in institutions requires respect for constitutional processes, trust in society requires inclusive decision making, and trust across communities requires genuine power sharing and accountability. Economic recovery, disaster reconstruction, institutional integrity and ethnic reconciliation are not separate tasks but interlinked tests of democratic governance. The government needs to move beyond reliance on its core supporters and govern in a manner that draws in the wider polity. Its success here will determine not only the sustainability of its reforms but also the country’s prospects for long term stability and unity.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Not taking responsibility, lack of accountability
While agreeing wholeheartedly with most of the sentiments expressed by Dr Geewananda Gunawardhana in his piece “Pharmaceuticals, deaths, and work ethics” (The Island, 5th January), I must take exception to what he stated regarding corruption: “Enough has been said about corruption, and fortunately, the present government is making an effort to curb it. We must give them some time as only the government has changed, not the people”
With every change of government, we have witnessed the scenario of the incoming government going after the corrupt of the previous, punishing a few politicians in the process. This is nothing new. In fact, some governments have gone after high-ranking public servants, too, punishing them on very flimsy grounds. One of the main reasons, if not the main, of the unexpected massive victory at the polls of this government was the promise of eradication of corruption. Whilst claiming credit for convicting some errant politicians, even for cases that commenced before they came to power, how has the NPP government fared? If one considers corruption to be purely financial, then they have done well, so far. Well, even with previous governments they did not commence plundering the wealth of the nation in the first year!
I would argue that dishonesty, even refusal to take responsibility is corruption. Plucking out of retirement and giving plum jobs to those who canvassed key groups, in my opinion, is even worse corruption than some financial malpractices. There is no need to go into the details of Ranwala affairs as much has been written about but the way the government responded does not reassure anyone expecting and hoping for the NPP government to be corruption free.
One of the first important actions of the government was the election of Ranwala as the speaker. When his claimed doctorate was queried and he stepped down to find the certificate, why didn’t AKD give him a time limit to find it? When he could not substantiate obtaining a PhD, even after a year, why didn’t AKD insist that he resigns the parliamentary seat? Had such actions been taken then the NPP can claim credit that the party does not tolerate dishonesty. What an example are we setting for the youth?
Recent road traffic accident involving Ranwala brough to focus this lapse too, in addition to the laughable way the RTA was handled. The police officers investigating could not breathalyse him as they had run out of ‘balloons’ for the breathalyser! His blood and urine alcohol levels were done only after a safe period had elapsed. Not surprisingly, the results were normal! Honestly, does the government believe that anyone with an iota of intelligence would accept the explanation that these were lapses on the part of the police but not due to political interference?
The release of over 300 ‘red-tagged’ containers continues to remain a mystery. The deputy minister of shipping announced loudly that the ministry would take full responsibility but subsequently it turned out that customs is not under the purview of the ministry of shipping. Report on the affair is yet to see the light of day, the only thing that happened being the senior officer in customs that defended the government’s action being appointed the chief! Are these the actions of a government that came to power on the promise of eradication of corruption?
The new year dawned with another headache for the government that promised ‘system change.’ The most important educational reforms in our political history were those introduced by Dr CWW Kannangara which included free education and the establishment of central schools, etc. He did so after a comprehensive study lasting over six years, but the NPP government has been in a rush! Against the advice of many educationists that reforms should be brought after consultation, the government decided it could rush it on its own. It refuses to take responsibility when things go wrong. Heavens, things have started going wrong even before it started! Grade Six English Language module textbook gives a link to make e-buddies. When I clicked that link what I got was a site that stated: “Buddy, Bad Boys Club, Meet Gay Men for fun”!
Australia has already banned social media to children under 15 years and a recent survey showed that nearly two thirds of parents in the UK also favour such a ban but our minister of education wants children as young as ten years to join social media and have e-buddies!
Coming back to the aforesaid website, instead of an internal investigation to find out what went wrong, the Secretary to the Ministry of Education went to the CID. Of course, who is there in the CID? Shani of Ranjan Ramanayake tape fame! He will surely ‘fix’ someone for ‘sabotaging’ educational reforms! Can we say that the NPP government is less corrupt and any better than its predecessors?
by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
-
News15 hours agoBroad support emerges for Faiszer’s sweeping proposals on long- delayed divorce and personal law reforms
-
News2 days agoPrivate airline crew member nabbed with contraband gold
-
News4 days agoHealth Minister sends letter of demand for one billion rupees in damages
-
Opinion6 days agoRemembering Douglas Devananda on New Year’s Day 2026
-
News7 days agoLeading the Nation’s Connectivity Recovery Amid Unprecedented Challenges
-
Features2 days agoPharmaceuticals, deaths, and work ethics
-
Latest News2 days agoCurran, bowlers lead Desert Vipers to maiden ILT20 title
-
News15 hours agoInterception of SL fishing craft by Seychelles: Trawler owners demand international investigation
