Features

Back in the saddle as Secretary/PM:Ranil-CBK tensions after 2001 election

Published

4 months ago

2025/08/24

With President megawati of Indonesia at the UN General Assembly meeting New York, Oct. 2003

A day after the December 5, 2001 general election results were out, I got a call from Ranil Wickremesinghe’s private office at Cambridge Terrace. It was Dayaratne, Ranil’s personal secretary, with a message that the ‘boss’ wanted to see me urgently.

Ranil was brief and to the point as usual. He wasted no time on the formalities. He returned my congratulatory handshake with his normal perfunctory acknowledgement. He waved me to a chair.

“Brad,” he said, “I have a problem.”

I thought I would be flippant; after all it was a moment for celebration.

“Not one, I think you have got quite a few.”

“No, but there is a serious one,” said Ranil. “What’s that?”

“I don’t have a secretary.”

I was relieved. All he wanted were a few good names.

“That’s not too difficult, I can suggest a few names,” I ventured. “No, no, I want you.”

That really floored me.

“Me! Do you know how old I am?”” You must be about sixty five.”

“No. I am 71. I don’t think I can last the pace.” “But you are well, aren’t you. You look okay.” He looked so earnest. I played for time.

“I can help you out for about three months and then…

“No. Come for about a year and we’ll see … “

I knew I’d had it. I tried once more to obtain release. on my 72nd birthday dinner at which he was a special invitee, but I don’t think he was listening. Today April 2, 2004, as the country votes again at the general elections that President Chandrika Kumaratunga has called, I would have been with him over two years and three months.

Ranil had won the 2001 December election with a comfortable majority. From the opposition, and with a formidable array of forces against him he had prevailed and brought off a comprehensive victory. The final results showed the following alignment of seats in Parliament:

Party No of Votes Seats

UNP 4,086,026 109

PA 3,330,815 77

JVP 518,774 16

He had focused on a single issue that of bringing peace once more to people and a country devastated by 20 years of war. I felt I could not in good faith turn down his invitation. After all it would only be for a few months during which we, he and I, would find someone else for the job.

I had not thought of re-entering government service ever again. I had officially retired many years ago and was enjoying my life in semi-retirement. I had a sinecure’ in the private sector as chairman of a shipping company (where I was literally all at sea!) and with lots of free time in the late afternoon for seminars and such like. I must have been very regular at these seminars since some observant people apparently gained the impression that I had a permanent job at the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES). I had some time too for golf, whose mysterious ways I now decided to take up for diligent study on a free morning.

There was also another project I had planned to do which had already been long delayed. This was to write a book on the lives of the prime ministers and presidents whom I had worked with. Where would I have time for this if I went back to work as secretary to the prime minister? And this time not even as an advisor which I had been to Premadasa when he was president, but as a full- fledged public official with all the financial and establishment responsibilities that such a position entailed. What would my erstwhile friends say? ‘Never know when to give up’; ‘still after the power and glory’, etc. And the all-knowing media? Wasn’t ‘Uncle Brad’ far too old and so on? To most of these I properly belonged, like others of my age, now `lean and slippered’, to lounging around the house and having a beer with my buddies at sundown at the local pub.

But there was one important matter which, if I could stir myself to help Ranil, would be still worthwhile doing. Perhaps the last hurrah! He was going to stop the war. He had made a promise to do that and I reckoned that he had the guts to keep his word. No one before had succeeded or even gone half-way.

I had seen throughout the years, the pain, the fear and the sense of loss which conflict brought in its wake to ordinary people. I had seen it in Ampara; in the faces of the young men and women captured after the JVP uprising and awaiting an uncertain future; I had been witness to it in 1983 in the heartbreaking refugee camps throughout_the country. I had seen it at the funerals and in the homes of soldiers and friends slain in battles far away.

I found it incomprehensible to see the disbelief on the faces of the young widows as they refused to reconcile themselves to the fact that their husbands are most likely injured or even dead when engaged in war. (I used to ask myself whether they had not known that death or serious injury was part of a soldier’s lot; or had the astrologers prediction and the prayers they daily offered to the gods dulled them into thinking that what to them was ‘impossible’ would not come their way).

I was appalled at the massive destruction of private property and public assets that security ‘operations’ and the bomb attacks of the terrorists in both north and south had caused over the 20 years of war.

Much of the time I had spent in the company of civil society NGO groups was in discussion on the hapless condition, particularly, of women and children whose hopes and expectations had been destroyed by the unending conflict.

Some of the `consultancies’ I had done for the UN system, particularly in the protection of children, had highlighted the dreadful consequences of the war. Perhaps the ‘pluses’ of being able to do something substantial through being at the prime minister’s office, of stopping the daily killing and maiming of both soldiers and civilians, might be time worthwhile spent in this last official chapter of my life.

This would probably compensate for the daily grind of dressing up in the morning, foregoing the long afternoon nap, poring through those bulky files and lengthy minutes, chairing unending meetings and pushing generally indifferent and demotivated staff. Everything would be different now; at Temple Trees and even in the prime minister’s office, from what I had known several years ago.

Rajiv Gandhi and Bradman in a one-to-one meeting New Delhi, Nov. 1989

Then there was also another personal reason as to why I thought I should work for Ranil now that he had asked me to. When I left for the IPPF job in 1984, Ranil, who was then the minister of education, had written an extraordinarily nice letter of appreciation for something I had done. I reproduce this letter later in this book. I had thought it special at the time, and it had been with me all these years. The last line was close to becoming prophetic. It seemed that I now had in my final years, a chance to make it happen!

The challenge of the Peace Process

Ranil knew of the difficulties in managing something as challenging as the peace process in Sri Lanka. The LTTE was deemed at most times to be intractable with fixed goals which were unchangeable, military cadres well resourced and, over the many years of conflict, now vastly experienced in both guerrilla and conventional warfare strategies. They were being assisted by a formidable diaspora across the world.

There was a long history of the breaking of truce agreements which the LTTE had entered into with the governments of the day. How was Ranil going to achieve the impossible of transforming this group of committed fighters into becoming a peaceful partner in political negotiations; one which would not break the truce when the going gets difficult? It was a high-risk venture he was going into where others before him had paid dearly and some with their lives.

There would also be the opposition from within to contend with. Those who had said, and would continue to say, that there should be no compromise with terrorism or armed insurgency against the state. They would continue to deny the reality that beating the LTTE or any such armed force that throve on ethno-nationalism and backed by a powerful diaspora, was unachievable except at great cost. The past battles’ had proved this beyond doubt and the people had finally spoken out that they wanted peace, literally at any price.

Yet there were many who would scoff at peace through negotiations with a long-time enemy. They would include elements of the political opposition, the military, nationalist minded NGOs, the media, and the majority’ of the Sinhalese diaspora’ abroad.

Ranil conceived an approach and plan of action which would address the reality he was confronted with. He spelt it out to Parliament and the people in a broad-ranging speech he delivered on January 22, 2002. His approach’ dealt with both the domestic and international imperatives. He realized a well-founded peace process needed the following basic elements:

= An experienced facilitator who is trusted by both sides.

= An agreement in writing laying down the parameters for a durable cease-fire subscribed to by both leaders of the parties to the conflict, namely Prabhakaran, on behalf of the LTTE and himself on behalf of the government.

= An official institutional structure which could manage the manifold requirements needed to keep the negotiations between the parties on track.

= An effective mechanism to coordinate the relief, rehabilitation and development activities which would sustain the process.

To buttress and support this he would need to establish an `international safety-net’ composed of the leading nations of the world to guarantee, and intervene whenever necessary, to achieve the shared goal of a negotiated political settlement of the national problem.

It was a task of enormous proportions and there had been many political leaders who had tried and failed. In addition he had a formidable political opponent from within to contend with. He was not, as the others who had tried to bring peace before him had been, the constitutional head of government. The president of the country, Chandrika Kumaratunga was the constitutional head of state and government and although she too was in favour of peace through negotiation, she could be expected to be fastidious in the manner she would oversee Ranil’s strategy and methodology, in the name of national security, sovereignty, territorial integrity and so on.

But through it all, winning the confidence of the Norwegian facilitator, pushing through the cease-fire agreement, gaining the goodwill of the Tamil diaspora, and a considerable section of the Sinhalese as well, and securing the commitment of a powerful array of the developed countries, Ranil succeeded in making peace actually come to pass. Overall it was a magnificent display of bold and innovative strategising, tenacity of purpose, the mobilizing of a devoted team of workers and infinite patience. Only. someone with an extraordinary sense of mission could have managed all the uncertainties and imponderables which this long-endured national problem posed.

In addition to the constant presidential challenges, he had a range of domestic forces opposed to what he was doing. There was the bedrock of nationalistic feeling stemming from a long history of perception of the Tamil community as aliens and outsiders, who had literally no place in the country which belonged to the majority, the Sinhalese. A strident reflection of this opinion came from the now resurgent JVP, who were again making a strong mark in the political field. There were also a heterogeneous grouping of intellectuals, serious students of the subject, who had come to the determination that the demands of the LTTE, were too much and should never be conceded. The price of peace was in their view becoming too high to pay.

There were several media men and women, including one or two editors of mainline newspapers themselves, who regularly questioned the wisdom of embarking on a path which would inevitably end up in changing the nature of the Sri Lankan polity. In their view, and apparently a large part of the population supported their position, Sri Lanka had always” been one united state and its constitution should therefore remain immutably unitary in structure. Federalism was the `F word’ in all its possible connotations. To many of these groups, the proposed fundamental structural change (here both the president and the prime minister found agreement in opposing this line) from a unitary style constitution to one that was federal was anathema. They would regularly highlight in their editorials the dangers of several aspects of the peace process and by implication, the naivety, and in some instances even the treachery, of those engaged in the venture.

Throughout the two years process, what was unhelpful was the non-collaborative attitude that the president took. There was evident hostility at some of the actions of the Norwegian facilitator in the person of the Norwegian ambassador in Colombo and the head of mission of the monitoring force, the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM). These were seen as being partial and on the side of the LTTE, something that others too were saying but particularly decisive as it came from the head of the state.

The president was also said to be involved in ordering the sinking of a LTTE vessel, alleged by Anton Balasingham to be a merchant ship and at the time of attack by the Navy, in international waters. It was well known that as commander-in-chief of the three armed services, the president could give direct orders to the Navy Commander. She held the chair of the National Security Council (NSC) and remained in constant contact with the service commanders throughout the cease-fire period.

The tactic of the defence ministry virtually run by Ranil as prime minister on the other hand had been to shadow the vessel and put the international monitors on board to verify what was really on board after it moved into Sri Lankan waters. This would have enabled a verification of whether in fact, as alleged, the vessel carried arms and ammunition, or merchandise as claimed by the LTTE. There were numerous other incidents too in which the terms of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) were either breached or came close to being broken.

No cease-fire agreement could cover every possible eventuality that could arise and this led to an exchange between the president and her defence minister, the laconic Tilak Marapone, PC, which illustrates the sense of humour of Chandrika Kumaratunga and the bitter-sweet nature of the relationships between the president and the government.

Apparently after one particular close encounter between the LTTE and the army, which might have been regarded as a violation of the cease-fire agreement, Tilak, on being upbraided by Chandrika soon after a meeting of the National Security Council” for his lack of attention to such lapses, nonchalantly suggested that there were occasions when it was necessary to, as they say ‘turn a blind eye’ to such happenings. Quick as a flash Chandrika retorted that if that was so, it was she more than him, who could afford to do so!

It takes two to tango as the saying goes and there was much that Ranil could have done by sharing information and more consultation to change the confrontational attitude the president took about most of the actions he initiated. Ranil always countered this charge by insisting that she was being informed by their mutual friend Lakshman Kadirgamar whom he regularly met, and who was the president’s special advisor. But this was obviously no substitute to a regular face-to-face encounter between the two protagonists.

I personally felt that the president believed that the peace process which was rightfully her’s to move forward with, had been now usurped by an outsider. What was most galling was that the outsider, Ranil, was now seen to be making unexpected progress towards a settlement. She, the president, had been the originator of the negotiation approach to a political settlement. Her father, S W R D Bandaranaike had many years earlier made the first moves in this direction through the famous Bandaranaike Chelvanayakam Pact. She and her late husband Vijaya Kumaratunga had intensely believed in the negotiation approach for years.

In 1994 when she got the chance, she had, first as prime minister for a few months and later as president, initiated “Talks” by sending a delegation to Jaffna. That attempt faltered after some months and an intense period of conflict had followed. In 2000, she had come up with significant proposals in a draft constitution which was presented in Parliament.

Ranil and the UNP who had participated in some of the discussions had rejected the draft out of hand. Copies of the draft Constitution had been burnt on the floor of Parliament. Ranil was perceived by her as always being on the opposite side, inhibiting her attempts at resolution of the problem. In her view the UNP had been doing so ever since its opposition to the B-C Pact in 1957.

(Excerpted from Rendering Unto Caesar, the Bradman Weerakoon autobiography) ✍️

All News Advertisement

Features

Sustaining good governance requires good systems

Published

19 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

A prominent feature of the first year of the NPP government is that it has not engaged in the institutional reforms which was expected of it. This observation comes in the context of the extraordinary mandate with which the government was elected and the high expectations that accompanied its rise to power. When in opposition and in its election manifesto, the JVP and NPP took a prominent role in advocating good governance systems for the country. They insisted on constitutional reform that included the abolition of the executive presidency and the concentration of power it epitomises, the strengthening of independent institutions that overlook key state institutions such as the judiciary, public service and police, and the reform or repeal of repressive laws such as the PTA and the Online Safety Act.

The transformation of a political party that averaged between three to five percent of the popular vote into one that currently forms the government with a two thirds majority in parliament is a testament to the faith that the general population placed in the JVP/ NPP combine. This faith was the outcome of more than three decades of disciplined conduct in the aftermath of the bitter experience of the 1988 to 1990 period of JVP insurrection. The manner in which the handful of JVP parliamentarians engaged in debate with well researched critiques of government policy and actions, and their service in times of disaster such as the tsunami of 2004 won them the trust of the people. This faith was bolstered by the Aragalaya movement which galvanized the citizens against the ruling elites of the past.

In this context, the long delay to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has earned notoriety for its abuse especially against ethnic and religious minorities, has been a disappointment to those who value human rights. So has been the delay in appointing an Auditor General, so important in ensuring accountability for the money expended by the state. The PTA has a long history of being used without restraint against those deemed to be anti-state which, ironically enough, included the JVP in the period 1988 to 1990. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), published in December 2025, is the latest attempt to repeal and replace the PTA. Unfortunately, the PSTA largely replicates the structure, logic and dangers of previous failed counter terrorism bills, including the Counter Terrorism Act of 2018 and the Anti Terrorism Act proposed in 2023.

Misguided Assumption

Despite its stated commitment to rule of law and fundamental rights, the draft PTSA reproduces many of the core defects of the PTA. In a preliminary statement, the Centre for Policy Alternatives has observed among other things that “if there is a Detention Order made against the person, then in combination, the period of remand and detention can extend up to two years. This means that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being charged with a crime. Such a long period again raises questions of the power of the State to target individuals, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long periods of remand and detention, which has contributed to abuse and violence.” Human Rights lawyer Ermiza Tegal has warned against the broad definition of terrorism under the proposed law: “The definition empowers state officials to term acts of dissent and civil disobedience as ‘terrorism’ and will lawfully permit disproportionate and excessive responses.” The legitimate and peaceful protests against abuse of power by the authorities cannot be classified as acts of terror.

The willingness to retain such powers reflects the surmise that the government feels that keeping in place the structures that come from the past is to their benefit, as they can utilise those powers in a crisis. Due to the strict discipline that exists within the JVP/NPP at this time there may be an assumption that those the party appoints will not abuse their trust. However, the country’s experience with draconian laws designed for exceptional circumstances demonstrates that they tend to become tools of routine governance. On the plus side, the government has given two months for public comment which will become meaningful if the inputs from civil society actors are taken into consideration.

Worldwide experience has repeatedly demonstrated that integrity at the level of individual leaders, while necessary, is not sufficient to guarantee good governance over time. This is where the absence of institutional reform becomes significant. The aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah in particular has necessitated massive procurements of emergency relief which have to be disbursed at maximum speed. There are also significant amounts of foreign aid flowing into the country to help it deal with the relief and recovery phase. There are protocols in place that need to be followed and monitored so that a fiasco like the disappearance of tsunami aid in 2004 does not recur. To the government’s credit there are no such allegations at the present time. But precautions need to be in place, and those precautions depend less on trust in individuals than on the strength and independence of oversight institutions.

Inappropriate Appointments

It is in this context that the government’s efforts to appoint its own preferred nominees to the Auditor General’s Department has also come as a disappointment to civil society groups. The unsuitability of the latest presidential nominee has given rise to the surmise that this nomination was a time buying exercise to make an acting appointment. For the fourth time, the Constitutional Council refused to accept the president’s nominee. The term of the three independent civil society members of the Constitutional Council ends in January which would give the government the opportunity to appoint three new members of its choice and get its way in the future.

The failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General has created an institutional vacuum at a critical moment. The Auditor General acts as a watchdog, ensuring effective service delivery promoting integrity in public administration and providing an independent review of the performance and accountability. Transparency International has observed “The sequence of events following the retirement of the previous Auditor General points to a broader political inertia and a governance failure. Despite the clear constitutional importance of the role, the appointment process has remained protracted and opaque, raising serious questions about political will and commitment to accountability.”

It would appear that the government leadership takes the position they have been given the mandate to govern the country which requires implementation by those they have confidence in. This may explain their approach to the appointment (or non-appointment) at this time of the Auditor General. Yet this approach carries risks. Institutions are designed to function beyond the lifespan of any one government and to protect the public interest even when those in power are tempted to act otherwise. The challenge and opportunity for the NPP government is to safeguard independent institutions and enact just laws, so that the promise of system change endures beyond personalities and political cycles.

by Jehan Perera

Features

General education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?

Published

19 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

A new batch arrived at our Faculty again. Students representing almost all districts of the country remind me once again of the wonderful opportunity we have for promoting social and ethnic cohesion at our universities. Sadly, however, many students do not interact with each other during the first few semesters, not only because they do not speak each other’s language(s), but also because of the fear and distrust that still prevails among communities in our society.

General education reform presents an opportunity to explore ways to promote social and ethnic cohesion. A school curriculum could foster shared values, empathy, and critical thinking, through social studies and civics education, implement inclusive language policies, and raise critical awareness about our collective histories. Yet, the government’s new policy document, Transforming General Education in Sri Lanka 2025, leaves us little to look forward to in this regard.

The policy document points to several “salient” features within it, including: 1) a school credit system to quantify learning; 2) module-based formative and summative assessments to replace end-of-term tests; 3) skills assessment in Grade 9 consisting of a ‘literacy and numeracy test’ and a ‘career interest test’; 4) a comprehensive GPA-based reporting system spanning the various phases of education; 5) blended learning that combines online with classroom teaching; 6) learning units to guide students to select their preferred career pathways; 7) technology modules; 8) innovation labs; and 9) Early Childhood Education (ECE). Notably, social and ethnic cohesion does not appear in this list. Here, I explore how the proposed curriculum reforms align (or do not align) with the NPP’s pledge to inculcate “[s]afety, mutual understanding, trust and rights of all ethnicities and religious groups” (p.127), in their 2024 Election Manifesto.

Language/ethnicity in the present curriculum

The civil war ended over 15 years ago, but our general education system has done little to bring ethnic communities together. In fact, most students still cannot speak in the “second national language” (SNL) and textbooks continue to reinforce negative stereotyping of ethnic minorities, while leaving out crucial elements of our post-independence history.

Although SNL has been a compulsory subject since the 1990s, the hours dedicated to SNL are few, curricula poorly developed, and trained teachers few (Perera, 2025). Perhaps due to unconscious bias and for ideological reasons, SNL is not valued by parents and school communities more broadly. Most students, who enter our Faculty, only have basic reading/writing skills in SNL, apart from the few Muslim and Tamil students who schooled outside the North and the East; they pick up SNL by virtue of their environment, not the school curriculum.

Regardless of ethnic background, most undergraduates seem to be ignorant about crucial aspects of our country’s history of ethnic conflict. The Grade 11 history textbook, which contains the only chapter on the post-independence period, does not mention the civil war or the events that led up to it. While the textbook valourises ‘Sinhala Only’ as an anti-colonial policy (p.11), the material covering the period thereafter fails to mention the anti-Tamil riots, rise of rebel groups, escalation of civil war, and JVP insurrections. The words “Tamil” and “Muslim” appear most frequently in the chapter, ‘National Renaissance,’ which cursorily mentions “Sinhalese-Muslim riots” vis-à-vis the Temperance Movement (p.57). The disenfranchisement of the Malaiyaha Tamils and their history are completely left out.

Given the horrifying experiences of war and exclusion experienced by many of our peoples since independence, and because most students still learn in mono-ethnic schools having little interaction with the ‘Other’, it is not surprising that our undergraduates find it difficult to mix across language and ethnic communities. This environment also creates fertile ground for polarizing discourses that further divide and segregate students once they enter university.

More of the same?

How does Transforming General Education seek to address these problems? The introduction begins on a positive note: “The proposed reforms will create citizens with a critical consciousness who will respect and appreciate the diversity they see around them, along the lines of ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, and other areas of difference” (p.1). Although National Education Goal no. 8 somewhat problematically aims to “Develop a patriotic Sri Lankan citizen fostering national cohesion, national integrity, and national unity while respecting cultural diversity (p. 2), the curriculum reforms aim to embed values of “equity, inclusivity, and social justice” (p. 9) through education. Such buzzwords appear through the introduction, but are not reflected in the reforms.

Learning SNL is promoted under Language and Literacy (Learning Area no. 1) as “a critical means of reconciliation and co-existence”, but the number of hours assigned to SNL are minimal. For instance, at primary level (Grades 1 to 5), only 0.3 to 1 hour is allocated to SNL per week. Meanwhile, at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), out of 35 credits (30 credits across 15 essential subjects that include SNL, history and civics; 3 credits of further learning modules; and 2 credits of transversal skills modules (p. 13, pp.18-19), SNL receives 1 credit (10 hours) per term. Like other essential subjects, SNL is to be assessed through formative and summative assessments within modules. As details of the Grade 9 skills assessment are not provided in the document, it is unclear whether SNL assessments will be included in the ‘Literacy and numeracy test’. At senior secondary level – phase 1 (Grades 10-11 – O/L equivalent), SNL is listed as an elective.

Refreshingly, the policy document does acknowledge the detrimental effects of funding cuts in the humanities and social sciences, and highlights their importance for creating knowledge that could help to “eradicate socioeconomic divisions and inequalities” (p.5-6). It goes on to point to the salience of the Humanities and Social Sciences Education under Learning Area no. 6 (p.12):

“Humanities and Social Sciences education is vital for students to develop as well as critique various forms of identities so that they have an awareness of their role in their immediate communities and nation. Such awareness will allow them to contribute towards the strengthening of democracy and intercommunal dialogue, which is necessary for peace and reconciliation. Furthermore, a strong grounding in the Humanities and Social Sciences will lead to equity and social justice concerning caste, disability, gender, and other features of social stratification.”

Sadly, the seemingly progressive philosophy guiding has not moulded the new curriculum. Subjects that could potentially address social/ethnic cohesion, such as environmental studies, history and civics, are not listed as learning areas at the primary level. History is allocated 20 hours (2 credits) across four years at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), while only 10 hours (1 credit) are allocated to civics. Meanwhile, at the O/L, students will learn 5 compulsory subjects (Mother Tongue, English, Mathematics, Science, and Religion and Value Education), and 2 electives—SNL, history and civics are bunched together with the likes of entrepreneurship here. Unlike the compulsory subjects, which are allocated 140 hours (14 credits or 70 hours each) across two years, those who opt for history or civics as electives would only have 20 hours (2 credits) of learning in each. A further 14 credits per term are for further learning modules, which will allow students to explore their interests before committing to a A/L stream or career path.

With the distribution of credits across a large number of subjects, and the few credits available for SNL, history and civics, social/ethnic cohesion will likely remain on the back burner. It appears to be neglected at primary level, is dealt sparingly at junior secondary level, and relegated to electives in senior years. This means that students will be able to progress through their entire school years, like we did, with very basic competencies in SNL and little understanding of history.

Going forward

Whether the students who experience this curriculum will be able to “resist and respond to hegemonic, divisive forces that pose a threat to social harmony and multicultural coexistence” (p.9) as anticipated in the policy, is questionable. Education policymakers and others must call for more attention to social and ethnic cohesion in the curriculum. However, changes to the curriculum would only be meaningful if accompanied by constitutional reform, abolition of policies, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (and its proxies), and other political changes.

For now, our school system remains divided by ethnicity and religion. Research from conflict-ridden societies suggests that lack of intercultural exposure in mono-ethnic schools leads to ignorance, prejudice, and polarized positions on politics and national identity. While such problems must be addressed in broader education reform efforts that also safeguard minority identities, the new curriculum revision presents an opportune moment to move this agenda forward.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, 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 Ramya Kumar

Features

Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs

Published

19 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

Certain songs become ever-present every December, and with Christmas just two days away, I thought of highlighting the Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs.

The famous festive songs usually feature timeless classics like ‘White Christmas,’ ‘Silent Night,’ and ‘Jingle Bells,’ alongside modern staples like Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You,’ Wham’s ‘Last Christmas,’ and Brenda Lee’s ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree.’

The following renowned Christmas songs are celebrated for their lasting impact and festive spirit:

* ‘White Christmas’ — Bing Crosby

The most famous holiday song ever recorded, with estimated worldwide sales exceeding 50 million copies. It remains the best-selling single of all time.

* ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ — Mariah Carey

A modern anthem that dominates global charts every December. As of late 2025, it holds an 18x Platinum certification in the US and is often ranked as the No. 1 popular holiday track.

Mariah Carey: ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’

* ‘Silent Night’ — Traditional

Widely considered the quintessential Christmas carol, it is valued for its peaceful melody and has been recorded by hundreds of artistes, most famously by Bing Crosby.

* ‘Jingle Bells’ — Traditional

One of the most universally recognised and widely sung songs globally, making it a staple for children and festive gatherings.

* ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ — Brenda Lee

Recorded when Lee was just 13, this rock ‘n’ roll favourite has seen a massive resurgence in the 2020s, often rivaling Mariah Carey for the top spot on the Billboard Hot 100.

* ‘Last Christmas’ — Wham!

A bittersweet ’80s pop classic that has spent decades in the top 10 during the holiday season. It recently achieved 7x Platinum status in the UK.

* ‘Jingle Bell Rock’ — Bobby Helms

A festive rockabilly standard released in 1957 that remains a staple of holiday radio and playlists.

* ‘The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)’— Nat King Cole

Known for its smooth, warm vocals, this track is frequently cited as the ultimate Christmas jazz standard.

Wham! ‘Last Christmas’

* ‘It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year’ — Andy Williams

Released in 1963, this high-energy big band track is famous for capturing the “hectic merriment” of the season.

* ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ — Gene Autry

A beloved narrative song that has sold approximately 25 million copies worldwide, cementing the character’s place in Christmas folklore.

Other perennial favourites often in the mix:

* ‘Feliz Navidad’ – José Feliciano

* ‘A Holly Jolly Christmas’ – Burl Ives

* ‘Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!’ – Frank Sinatra

Let me also add that this Thursday’s ‘SceneAround’ feature (25th December) will be a Christmas edition, highlighting special Christmas and New Year messages put together by well-known personalities for readers of The Island.