Features
The root of all evil
Professor Michael K. Jerryson of Youngstown State University, Ohio, USA, testified on the subject of ‘Human Rights Concerns in Sri Lanka’ before the ‘Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, House Committee on Foreign Affairs (of the U.S. House of Representatives) on June 20, 2018. While delivering his statement, Jerryson submitted a written testimony into the record. He thanked Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and other Members of the Committee for ‘addressing a very important issue facing Sri Lanka, which is also a larger issue of peace and stability for South and South Asia today’.
The witness described himself as ‘a professor of religious studies at Youngstown State University’ who had ‘worked on Buddhism and violence for over 20 years’ from 1998 until then (2018). He claimed that he had travelled, and done his fieldwork, in Asia. His work involved ‘living and interviewing Buddhist civilians and monks involved in Buddhist-supported violence’ (!). Then he mentioned a list of his then recent publications including his ‘Mongolian Buddhism: The Rise and Fall of the Sangha (Silk Worm, 2008) …, and ‘Violence and the world’s Religious Traditions (Oxford, 2016).
Jerryson explained that his ‘position’ as a scholar of religion was ‘not to judge a religion or its adherents, but rather to illuminate the ways in which religious values motivate or influence people and social patterns’. He said that, in his work, he ‘found that religion is one of the most undervalued and misunderstood causes for violence and for reconciliation in the contemporary world’. Moving towards his central topic, he identified ‘strong pervasive identifications’ as the basic cause of the current problems in Sri Lanka. Jerryson asserted that for many Sri Lankan Buddhists ‘a true Sri Lankan is a Sinhala Buddhist’. He arbitrarily concluded that this was ‘a powerful normative influence throughout Sri Lanka’, and that the same social conformity inducing Buddhist influence was found within the larger South and Southeast Asian societies at present. So, he avers that ‘the change necessary in Sri Lanka … requires a systemic shift in the way Sri Lankans identify themselves and their concept of the nation (and, concurrently, patriotism)’. He told the Committee that, while drawing on the information that he gathered from scholars, journalists and NGO workers, he expressed his own (independent) views in his testimony.
I (RRW) was surprised to find that he mentions my name in a footnote with an extract from an article of mine published in the online news forum Lankaweb/June 17, 2018, that he uses as an example of what he alleges to be ‘Buddhist propaganda’ (something that I would have confidently challenged, had I known it at that time); but I came across Jerryson’s statement quite by chance only a couple of months ago while scouring the internet for any information about a possible letup in the strong bias against Sri Lanka that still persists in Western countries for no other reason than successfully overcoming mindless separatist terrorism in 2009 against their domestic vote bank based unholy expectations.
The footnote number 8 pertains to the following paragraph in the section of the written testimony under the heading ‘The power of Buddhist monks’:
‘The power behind Buddhist propaganda are Sri Lankan Buddhist monks. The more public and vocal conservative monks have stroked (sic) Sinhala Buddhist fears and angers of minority and marginalised identities. This behaviour is distinctly modern. Prior to British colonialism (1815 1948), Buddhist monks legitimated Sri Lankan governments; however, they did not directly participate in any political system. This historic role explains the Sri Lankan Buddhist monk’s symbol as society’s moral foundation. When Buddhist monks publicly speak, they do so not only as religious voices, but also as political moral authorities.’
The footnote (8) is as follows:
‘A recent editorial by Rohana R. Wasala exemplifies this. Rohana writes, “Buddhist monks feel compelled to respond to what they perceive as aggressive acts by non-Buddhist religious extremists that adversely affect the rights of the exceptionally tolerant, accommodative Buddhists. “Anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer – III,” LankaWeb, June 11, 2018,…….’
The word ‘this’ at the end of the first sentence here refers to what is said in the paragraph above, beginning ‘The power behind……’ quoted from Jerryson’s attestation. He says there that Sri Lankan Buddhist monks, through their ‘Buddhist propaganda’, spread fears among Buddhists while at the same time infuriating ‘minority and marginalised identities’. But he argues that this behaviour of the monks is a new development. Jerryson takes a sweeping view of the Buddhist monks’ relationship with the Lankan state before the period of British colonial rule (1815-1948) as one of ‘legitimating’ governments without participating in any political systems. So, the alleged new element in Sri Lankan Buddhist monk’s conduct is that they have started interfering in politics fomenting social unrest to the detriment of so-called minorities and marginalised groups. (This implicit allegation is totally false.) He refers to my Lankaweb article cited above, which he erroneously calls ‘an editorial’ (implying misleadingly that I was the Editor of Lankaweb that he probably saw as a pro-Buddhist website carrying out ‘Buddhist propaganda’). The truth about me is that I am not a professional journalist. I can’t be called a freelancer either, for I don’t write for money. It’s only a post-retirement hobby for me. I write about these things purely because I love Sri Lanka. Jerryson has arbitrarily let me be taken for the Editor of Lankaweb. I don’t know why he did that. Further, I abandoned religion at age 15 or 16, when I realised that Buddhism was not a religion at all, except in a cultural sense. I may be called a cultural Buddhist. I don’t subscribe to any particular political or economic ideology. But I believe that the secular democratic system of government is the most compatible with Buddhist moral and ethical values.
I must say at this point that everything that Jerryson maintains against Buddhist monks is false. He relies almost exclusively on questionable sources/biased non-Buddhist informants, while taking casual remarks made by persons like Piyadassi Thera and Dilanthe Vithanage, who are highly knowledgeable about the issue involving Buddhist monks vs minority religious extremists as serious but false assertions. It is incredible that a professor who claims to have done over twenty years’ research about the ridiculously implausible subject of ‘Buddhism and violence’ occurring in many Buddhist countries including Sri Lanka, showed so little knowledge of Buddhism, its history in Sri Lanka, and its vital importance for the majority Buddhist Sri Lanka. Shouldn’t the Sinhalese Buddhist community also enjoy the basic human right of freedom of religion. Buddhism co-exists with any other religion provided that extremist adherents of other religions do not tread on Buddhists’ toes.
Jerryson mentions in his affidavit that, in 2013, he participated in a panel discussion with A.R.M. Imtiaz at the Association for Asian Studies (I found that this is a Michigan/USA based academic NGO, and that Imtiaz, a researcher with an impressive array of academic qualifications acquired in the West, had been teaching in the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, but is currently, in 2025, serving as a professor at Delaware Valley University, Pennsylvania, USA). At that discussion, Imtiaz read a paper on ‘the persecution of Sri Lankan Muslims in the post-civil war era’, where he argued that ‘the Sri Lankan flag serves as a harbinger for the Sri Lankan ethno-religious strife throughout the last four decades’ (that is, since 1972, the year that Sri Lanka declared itself an independent sovereign republic completely free from British colonial influence, an epoch making event for all Sri Lankans). ‘In his conference presentation, Imtiyaz explained that the Sinhala Buddhists first turned their “sword” to the Sri Lankan Tamils during the 26-year civil war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, 1983-2009). After the Sinhala Buddhist government conquered the last strongholds of the LTTE, they turned their “sword” to the next largest minority in their country: the Sri Lankan Muslims.1 For the last five years ….’
I quoted this piece of Imtiaz’s academic brilliance to prove that Jerryson’s testimony about alleged Buddhist propaganda and violence against ‘minority and marginalised identifications’ (there has never been any such problem in Sri Lanka) was not worthy of that august body in America, which claims to the only superpower in the world. Imtiaz’s argument was not original, though probably he didn’t tell Jerryson about it. ‘The lion turning its sword menacingly towards Tamils and Muslims’ meme was popularly known in Sri Lanka before 2013. When an ordinary Muslim articulated this argument to his Sinhalese friend, the latter retorted: ‘Then let’s ask the government to reverse the picture of the lion, but then, won’t you grumble, saying that the lion is turning its tail-raised backside to Tamils and Muslims?’
Incidentally, before I conclude, let me point out a very real form of discrimination or even harassment that the majority Sinhala speakers were or probably still are being subjected to by the powers that be, due to anti- Sinhalese Buddhist prejudice (apparently repeated in Jerryson’s own thesis): the appointment of a local office to keep tabs on Sinhala language FB content during the Yahapalanaya of 2015-2019. The Island newspaper published (Thursday, May 3, 2018) an article by me criticizing this anomaly under the title ‘A local office to monitor FB content: Is it a wise move?’
Following this, I wrote a long article about ‘Anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer’, which was carried in the online Lankaweb in three installments I, II, and III, respectively on June 5, 8, and 11, 2018. It was prompted by the writing of a similarly ill-informed Swedish intellectual
mentioned in the opening paragraph of my ‘Anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer – I’ published on June 5, 2018, thus:
‘A recent article titled ‘Why Violent Buddhist Extremists Are Targeting Muslims in Sri Lanka’ by Andreas Johansson of Lund University in Sweden available at … is a classic example of the relentless anti-Buddhist propaganda carried on by the Western and allied media outlets for a long time now. Johansson’s inexplicable antipathy towards the Sinhalese Buddhist majority of Sri Lanka is clearly reflected in both the title and the opening paragraph ….’
It’s as if Michael K. Jerryson of Youngstown State University, USA, responded to my reply to Andreas Johanson of Lund University in Sweden with a better example of anti-Buddhist propaganda with an academic veneer.
Whatever social unrest took place in the past in the field of interreligious relations in Sri Lanka, it was not initiated by Buddhists; it was always triggered by non-Buddhist extremists bent on proselytising and on encroaching on the traditional Buddhist religious space. The Tamil Hindu minority faces the same threat from those extremists, who promote separatism and proselytisation, pampered and manipulated by the global geopolitical puppet masters in the Indo-Pacific Ocean region where Sri Lanka is located at such a geostrategically sensitive point.
It goes without saying that unity between the religiously nonrigid Sinhalese Buddhist majority and the similarly religiously nonrigid Tamil Hindu minority joined by the non-extremist majority of mainstream Christian and Muslim communities would be the eminently feasible ideal solution to Sri Lanka’s existing problems, if only our pan-Sri Lankan national political leaders developed the collective will to do so without unnecessarily succumbing to the temporary regional and global hegemonies that try to exploit our internal divisions and rivalries to their advantage and to our detriment.
by Rohana R. Wasala
Features
Pakistan-Sri Lanka ‘eye diplomacy’
Reminiscences:
I was appointed Managing Director of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Chairman of the Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd (TPTL – Indian Oil Company/ Petroleum Corporation of Sri Lanka joint venture), in February 2023, by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. I served as TPTL Chairman voluntarily. TPTL controls the world-renowned oil tank farm in Trincomalee, abandoned after World War II. Several programmes were launched to repair tanks and buildings there. I enjoyed travelling to Trincomalee, staying at Navy House and monitoring the progress of the projects. Trincomalee is a beautiful place where I spent most of my time during my naval career.
My main task as MD, CPC, was to ensure an uninterrupted supply of petroleum products to the public.
With the great initiative of the then CPC Chairman, young and energetic Uvis Mohammed, and equally capable CPC staff, we were able to do our job diligently, and all problems related to petroleum products were overcome. My team and I were able to ensure that enough stocks were always available for any contingency.
The CPC made huge profits when we imported crude oil and processed it at our only refinery in Sapugaskanda, which could produce more than 50,000 barrels of refined fuel in one stream working day! (One barrel is equal to 210 litres). This huge facility encompassing about 65 acres has more than 1,200 employees and 65 storage tanks.
A huge loss the CPC was incurring due to wrong calculation of “out turn loss” when importing crude oil by ships and pumping it through Single Point Mooring Buoy (SPMB) at sea and transferring it through underwater fuel transfer lines to service tanks was detected and corrected immediately. That helped increase the CPC’s profits.
By August 2023, the CPC made a net profit of 74,000 million rupees (74 billion rupees)! The President was happy, the government was happy, the CPC Management was happy and the hard-working CPC staff were happy. I became a Managing Director of a very happy and successful State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). That was my first experience in working outside military/Foreign service.
I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention Sagala Rathnayake, then Chief of Staff to the President, for recommending me for the post of MD, CPC.
The only grievance they had was that we were not able to pay their 2023 Sinhala/Tamil New Year bonus due to a government circular. After working at CPC for six months and steering it out of trouble, I was ready to move out of CPC.
I was offered a new job as the Sri Lanka High Commissioner to Pakistan. I was delighted and my wife and son were happy. Our association with Pakistan, especially with the Pakistan Military, is very long. My son started schooling in Karachi in 1995, when I was doing the Naval War Course there. My wife Yamuna has many good friends in Pakistan. I am the first Military officer to graduate from the Karachi University in 1996 (BSc Honours in War Studies) and have a long association with the Pakistan Navy and their Special Forces. I was awarded the Nishan-e-Imtiaz (Military) medal—the highest National award by the Pakistan Presidentm in 2019m when I was Chief of Defence Staff. I am the only Sri Lankan to have been awarded this prestigious medal so far. I knew my son and myself would be able to play a quiet game of golf every morning at the picturesque Margalla Golf Club, owned by the Pakistan Navy, at the foot of Margalla hills, at Islamabad. The golf club is just a walking distance from the High Commissioner’s residence.
When I took over as Sri Lanka High Commissioner at Islamabad on 06 December 2023, I realised that a number of former Service Commanders had held that position earlier. The first Ceylonese High Commissioner to Pakistan, with a military background, was the first Army Commander General Anton Muthukumaru. He was concurrently Ambassador to Iran. Then distinguished Service Commanders, like General H W G Wijayakoon, General Gerry Silva, General Srilal Weerasooriya, Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody, served as High Commissioners to Islamabad. I took over from Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama (former Chief of Staff of Navy and Governor Eastern Province).

A photograph of Dr. Silva (second from right) in Brigadier
(Dr) Waquar Muzaffar’s album
One of the first visitors I received was Kawaja Hamza, a prominent Defence Correspondent in Islamabad. His request had nothing to do with Defence matters. He wanted to bring his 84-year-old father to see me; his father had his eyesight restored with corneas donated by a Sri Lankan in 1972! His eyesight is still good, but he did not know the Sri Lankan donor who gave him this most precious gift. He wanted to pay gratitude to the new Sri Lankan High Commissioner and to tell him that as a devoted Muslim, he prayed for the unknown donor every day! That reminded me of what my guru in Foreign Service, the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar told me when I was First Secretary/ Defence Advisor, Sri Lanka High Commission in New Delhi. That is “best diplomacy is people-to-people contacts.” This incident prompted me to research more into “Pakistan-Sri Lanka Eye Diplomacy” and what I learnt was fascinating!
Do you know the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society has donated more than 26,000 corneas to Pakistan, since 1964 to date! That means more than 26,000 Pakistani people see the world with SRI LANKAN EYES! The Sri Lankan Eye Donation Society has provided 100,000 eye corneas to foreign countries FREE! To be exact 101,483 eye corneas during the last 65 years! More than one fourth of these donations was to one single country- Pakistan. Recent donations (in November 2024) were made to the Pakistan Military at Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology (AFIO), Rawalpindi, to restore the sight of Pakistan Army personnel who suffered eye injuries due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) blasts. This donation was done on the 75th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army.
Deshabandu Dr. F. G. Hudson Silva, a distinguished old boy of Nalanda College, Colombo, started collecting eye corneas as a medical student in 1958. His first set of corneas were collected from a deceased person and were stored at his home refrigerator at Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7. With his wife Iranganie De Silva (nee Kularatne), he started the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society in 1961. They persuaded Buddhists to donate their eyes upon death. This drive was hugely successful.
Their son (now in the US) was a contemporary of mine at Royal College. I pledged to donate (of course with my parents’ permission) my eyes upon my death when I was a student at Royal college in 1972 on a Poson Full Moon Poya Day. Thousands have done so.
On Vesak Full Moon Poya Day in 1964, the first eye corneas were carried in a thermos flask filled with Ice, to Singapore, by Dr Hudson Silva and his wife and a successful eye transplant surgery was performed. From that day, our eye corneas were sent to 62 different countries.
Pakistan Lions Clubs, which supported this noble gesture, built a beautiful Eye Hospital for humble people at Gulberg, Lahore, where eye surgeries are performed, and named it Dr Hudson Silva Lions Eye Hospital.
The good work has continued even after the demise of Dr Hudson Silva in 1999.
So many people have donated their eyes upon their death, including President J. R. Jayewardene, whose eye corneas were used to restore the eyesight of one Japanese and one Sri Lankan. Dr Hudson Silva became a great hero in Pakistan and he was treated with dignity and respect whenever he visited Pakistan. My friend, Brigadier (Dr) Waquar Muzaffar, the Commandant of AFIO, was able to dig into his old photographs and send me a precious photo taken in 1980, 46 years ago (when he was a medical student), with Dr Hudson Silva.
We will remember Dr and Mrs Hudson Silva with gratitude.
Bravo Zulu to Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society!
by Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Features
Lasting solutions require consensus
Problems and solutions in plural societies like Sri Lanka’s which have deep rooted ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages require a consciously inclusive approach. A major challenge for any government in Sri Lanka is to correctly identify the problems faced by different groups with strong identities and find solutions to them. The durability of democratic systems in divided societies depends less on electoral victories than on institutionalised inclusion, consultation, and negotiated compromise. When problems are defined only through the lens of a single political formation, even one that enjoys a large electoral mandate, such as obtained by the NPP government, the policy prescriptions derived from that diagnosis will likely overlook the experiences of communities that may remain outside the ruling party. The result could end up being resistance to those policies, uneven implementation and eventual political backlash.
A recent survey done by the National Peace Council (NPC), in Jaffna, in the North, at a focus group discussion for young people on citizen perception in the electoral process, revealed interesting developments. The results of the NPC micro survey support the findings of the national survey by Verite Research that found that government approval rating stood at 65 percent in early February 2026. A majority of the respondents in Jaffna affirm that they feel safer and more fairly treated than in the past. There is a clear improving trend to be seen in some areas, but not in all. This survey of predominantly young and educated respondents shows 78 percent saying livelihood has improved and an equal percentage feeling safe in daily life. 75 percent express satisfaction with the new government and 64 percent believe the state treats their language and culture fairly. These are not insignificant gains in a region that bore the brunt of three decades of war.
Yet the same survey reveals deep reservations that temper this optimism. Only 25 percent are satisfied with the handling of past issues. An equal percentage see no change in land and military related concerns. Most strikingly, almost 90 percent are worried about land being taken without consent for religious purposes. A significant number are uncertain whether the future will be better. These negative sentiments cannot be brushed aside as marginal. They point to unresolved structural questions relating to land rights, demilitarisation, accountability and the locus of political power. If these issues are not addressed sooner rather than later, the current stability may prove fragile. This suggests the need to build consensus with other parties to ensure long-term stability and legitimacy, and the need for partnership to address national issues.
NPP Absence
National or local level problems solving is unlikely to be successful in the longer term if it only proceeds from the thinking of one group of people even if they are the most enlightened. Problem solving requires the engagement of those from different ethno-religious, caste and political backgrounds to get a diversity of ideas and possible solutions. It does not mean getting corrupted or having to give up the good for the worse. It means testing ideas in the public sphere. Legitimacy flows not merely from winning elections but from the quality of public reasoning that precedes decision-making. The experience of successful post-conflict societies shows that long term peace and development are built through dialogue platforms where civil society organisations, political actors, business communities, and local representatives jointly define problems before negotiating policy responses.
As a civil society organisation, the National Peace Council engages in a variety of public activities that focus on awareness and relationship building across communities. Participants in those activities include community leaders, religious clergy, local level government officials and grassroots political party representatives. However, along with other civil society organisations, NPC has been finding it difficult to get the participation of members of the NPP at those events. The excuse given for the absence of ruling party members is that they are too busy as they are involved in a plenitude of activities. The question is whether the ruling party members have too much on their plate or whether it is due to a reluctance to work with others.
The general belief is that those from the ruling party need to get special permission from the party hierarchy for activities organised by groups not under their control. The reluctance of the ruling party to permit its members to join the activities of other organisations may be the concern that they will get ideas that are different from those held by the party leadership. The concern may be that these different ideas will either corrupt the ruling party members or cause dissent within the ranks of the ruling party. But lasting reform in a plural society requires precisely this exposure. If 90 percent of surveyed youth in Jaffna are worried about land issues, then engaging them, rather than shielding party representatives from uncomfortable conversations, is essential for accurate problem identification.
North Star
The Leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Prof Tissa Vitarana, who passed away last week, gave the example for national level problem solving. As a government minister he took on the challenge the protracted ethnic conflict that led to three decades of war. He set his mind on the solution and engaged with all but never veered from his conviction about what the solution would be. This was the North Star to him, said his son to me at his funeral, the direction to which the Compass (Malimawa) pointed at all times. Prof Vitarana held the view that in a diverse and plural society there was a need to devolve power and share power in a structured way between the majority community and minority communities. His example illustrates that engagement does not require ideological capitulation. It requires clarity of purpose combined with openness to dialogue.
The ethnic and religious peace that prevails today owes much to the efforts of people like Prof Vitarana and other like-minded persons and groups which, for many years, engaged as underdogs with those who were more powerful. The commitment to equality of citizenship, non-racism, non-extremism and non-discrimination, upheld by the present government, comes from this foundation. But the NPC survey suggests that symbolic recognition and improved daily safety are not enough. Respondents prioritise personal safety, truth regarding missing persons, return of land, language use and reduction of military involvement. They are also asking for jobs after graduation, local economic opportunity, protection of property rights, and tangible improvements that allow them to remain in Jaffna rather than migrate.
If solutions are to be lasting they cannot be unilaterally imposed by one party on the others. Lasting solutions cannot be unilateral solutions. They must emerge from a shared diagnosis of the country’s deepest problems and from a willingness to address the negative sentiments that persist beneath the surface of cautious optimism. Only then can progress be secured against reversal and anchored in the consent of the wider polity. Engaging with the opposition can help mitigate the hyper-confrontational and divisive political culture of the past. This means that the ruling party needs to consider not only how to protect its existing members by cloistering them from those who think differently but also expand its vision and membership by convincing others to join them in problem solving at multiple levels. This requires engagement and not avoidance or withdrawal.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Unpacking public responses to educational reforms
As the debate on educational reforms rages, I find it useful to pay as much attention to the reactions they have excited as we do to the content of the reforms. Such reactions are a reflection of how education is understood in our society, and this understanding – along with the priorities it gives rise to – must necessarily be taken into account in education policy, including and especially reform. My aim in this piece, however, is to couple this public engagement with critical reflection on the historical-structural realities that structure our possibilities in the global market, and briefly discuss the role of academics in this endeavour.
Two broad reactions
The reactions to the proposed reforms can be broadly categorised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. I will discuss the latter first. Most of the backlash against the reforms seems to be directed at the issue of a gay dating site, accidentally being linked to the Grade 6 English module. While the importance of rigour cannot be overstated in such a process, the sheer volume of the energies concentrated on this is also indicative of how hopelessly homophobic our society is, especially its educators, including those in trade unions. These dispositions are a crucial part of the reason why educational reforms are needed in the first place. If only there was a fraction of the interest in ‘keeping up with the rest of the world’ in terms of IT, skills, and so on, in this area as well!
Then there is the opposition mounted by teachers’ trade unions and others about the process of the reforms not being very democratic, which I (and many others in higher education, as evidenced by a recent statement, available at https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/ ) fully agree with. But I earnestly hope the conversation is not usurped by those wanting to promote heteronormativity, further entrenching bigotry only education itself can save us from. With this important qualification, I, too, believe the government should open up the reform process to the public, rather than just ‘informing’ them of it.
It is unclear both as to why the process had to be behind closed doors, as well as why the government seems to be in a hurry to push the reforms through. Considering other recent developments, like the continued extension of emergency rule, tabling of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and proposing a new Authority for the protection of the Central Highlands (as is famously known, Authorities directly come under the Executive, and, therefore, further strengthen the Presidency; a reasonable question would be as to why the existing apparatus cannot be strengthened for this purpose), this appears especially suspect.
Further, according to the Secretary to the MOE Nalaka Kaluwewa: “The full framework for the [education] reforms was already in place [when the Dissanayake government took office]” (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/12/wxua-a12.html, citing The Morning, July 29). Given the ideological inclinations of the former Wickremesinghe government and the IMF negotiations taking place at the time, the continuation of education reforms, initiated in such a context with very little modification, leaves little doubt as to their intent: to facilitate the churning out of cheap labour for the global market (with very little cushioning from external shocks and reproducing global inequalities), while raising enough revenue in the process to service debt.
This process privileges STEM subjects, which are “considered to contribute to higher levels of ‘employability’ among their graduates … With their emphasis on transferable skills and demonstrable competency levels, STEM subjects provide tools that are well suited for the abstraction of labour required by capitalism, particularly at the global level where comparability across a wide array of labour markets matters more than ever before” (my own previous piece in this column on 29 October 2024). Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) subjects are deprioritised as a result. However, the wisdom of an education policy that is solely focused on responding to the global market has been questioned in this column and elsewhere, both because the global market has no reason to prioritise our needs as well as because such an orientation comes at the cost of a strategy for improving the conditions within Sri Lanka, in all sectors. This is why we need a more emancipatory vision for education geared towards building a fairer society domestically where the fruits of prosperity are enjoyed by all.
The second broad reaction to the reforms is to earnestly embrace them. The reasons behind this need to be taken seriously, although it echoes the mantra of the global market. According to one parent participating in a protest against the halting of the reform process: “The world is moving forward with new inventions and technology, but here in Sri Lanka, our children are still burdened with outdated methods. Opposition politicians send their children to international schools or abroad, while ours depend on free education. Stopping these reforms is the lowest act I’ve seen as a mother” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). While it is worth mentioning that it is not only the opposition, nor in fact only politicians, who send their children to international schools and abroad, the point holds. Updating the curriculum to reflect the changing needs of a society will invariably strengthen the case for free education. However, as mentioned before, if not combined with a vision for harnessing education’s emancipatory potential for the country, such a move would simply translate into one of integrating Sri Lanka to the world market to produce cheap labour for the colonial and neocolonial masters.
According to another parent in a similar protest: “Our children were excited about lighter schoolbags and a better future. Now they are left in despair” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). Again, a valid concern, but one that seems to be completely buying into the rhetoric of the government. As many pieces in this column have already shown, even though the structure of assessments will shift from exam-heavy to more interim forms of assessment (which is very welcome), the number of modules/subjects will actually increase, pushing a greater, not lesser, workload on students.

A file photo of a satyagraha against education reforms
What kind of education?
The ‘pro’ reactions outlined above stem from valid concerns, and, therefore, need to be taken seriously. Relatedly, we have to keep in mind that opening the process up to public engagement will not necessarily result in some of the outcomes, those particularly in the HSS academic community, would like to see, such as increasing the HSS component in the syllabus, changing weightages assigned to such subjects, reintroducing them to the basket of mandatory subjects, etc., because of the increasing traction of STEM subjects as a surer way to lock in a good future income.
Academics do have a role to play here, though: 1) actively engage with various groups of people to understand their rationales behind supporting or opposing the reforms; 2) reflect on how such preferences are constituted, and what they in turn contribute towards constituting (including the global and local patterns of accumulation and structures of oppression they perpetuate); 3) bring these reflections back into further conversations, enabling a mutually conditioning exchange; 4) collectively work out a plan for reforming education based on the above, preferably in an arrangement that directly informs policy. A reform process informed by such a dialectical exchange, and a system of education based on the results of these reflections, will have greater substantive value while also responding to the changing times.
Two important prerequisites for this kind of endeavour to succeed are that first, academics participate, irrespective of whether they publicly endorsed this government or not, and second, that the government responds with humility and accountability, without denial and shifting the blame on to individuals. While we cannot help the second, we can start with the first.
Conclusion
For a government that came into power riding the wave of ‘system change’, it is perhaps more important than for any other government that these reforms are done for the right reasons, not to mention following the right methods (of consultation and deliberation). For instance, developing soft skills or incorporating vocational education to the curriculum could be done either in a way that reproduces Sri Lanka’s marginality in the global economic order (which is ‘system preservation’), or lays the groundwork to develop a workforce first and foremost for the country, limited as this approach may be. An inextricable concern is what is denoted by ‘the country’ here: a few affluent groups, a majority ethno-religious category, or everyone living here? How we define ‘the country’ will centrally influence how education policy (among others) will be formulated, just as much as the quality of education influences how we – students, teachers, parents, policymakers, bureaucrats, ‘experts’ – think about such categories. That is precisely why more thought should go to education policymaking than perhaps any other sector.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, 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.
-
Life style4 days agoMarriot new GM Suranga
-
Business3 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features4 days agoMonks’ march, in America and Sri Lanka
-
Opinion7 days agoWill computers ever be intelligent?
-
Features4 days agoThe Rise of Takaichi
-
Features4 days agoWetlands of Sri Lanka:
-
News4 days agoThailand to recruit 10,000 Lankans under new labour pact
-
News4 days agoMassive Sangha confab to address alleged injustices against monks
