Features

A Bilingual Public Sphere of Visual Art Criticism:

Published

2 years ago

2024/03/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

SCRAP BOOK OF CHANDRAJEEWA

by Laleen Jayamanne

AJ Gunawardena, writing for The Island as Jayadeva, had the following to say about Sarath Chandrajeewa and his work in the ’90s, especially haunting to read now because he wrote it just one year before his untimely death, in 1998.

“I have known Sarath Chandrajeewa long enough to know to appreciate the vitality of his dream. He is still young and the best years are ahead. His exposure to art instruction, first in the UK under the aegis of his mentor Tissa Ranasinghe, and currently in Russia from a somewhat different angle has appreciably improved his skills and has enlarge his horizons without weakening the umbilical links that bind him to the clean clay of Dankotuwa. I have great hopes for him”

. AJ/Jayadeva, Marginal Comments, The Island, June 1, 1997.

Edwin Ariyadasa, reviewing Sarath’s first solo exhibition, Creations in Terracotta (1990), expresses similar sentiments. Both articles, in English, were republished in the Scrap Book of Chandrajeewa, 1985-2010, edited by Malsha Fernando (2011). Professor Carlo Fonseka, launching the Scrap Book at the Sapu Mal Foundation, in 2011, entertained the audience by saying that the quality of Sarath’s art may be measured by the number of enemies he has. Alas! Professor Carlo didn’t live to see how this distinguished fraternity of specialists grew exponentially, thus magnifying Sarath’s net worth. This is probably a Sri Lankan first, which we love to boast about! Even now, rather late in life, Sarath’s capacity to work creatively, collaboratively, has not diminished. These two distinguished bilingual critics (AJ, a University Professor of English and Edwin, a bilingual journalist writing for Sarasawiya newspaper), belonged to a generation of public intellectuals whose critical output is exemplary for its analytical precision and concision, based on wide art historical and other knowledges, complex lived experience, as well as intuitive understanding and intellectual generosity of spirit. I believe that ethical conduct was an essential part of their critical praxis in contributing to a democratic public sphere of discourse. They were not after either popularity or social status and power, though they were both very popular writers who are remembered with affection, decades after their deaths.

Prof. Kusuma Karunarathna, in her recent short review of Lamentation of the Dawn (2022) by Sarath, (writing even while convalescing), also recalled AJ’s sense of values as a public intellectual. She said: “After reading Lamentation of the Dawn, I remembered Professor AJ Gunawardena. If he was alive, he would have definitely written a review for this.” She brought to mind AJ’s several roles as a public intellectual; a scholar of Theatre, a University professor, a script writer for Lester James Peries and a journalist. So, it’s not surprising that on the 10th anniversary of AJ’s untimely death, Nalaka Gundawardene, writing in Gound Views (09/19/2008), expressed the hope that his ‘original Marginal Comments, in The Island would one day be compiled into a book’. I wonder if that has happened? That would have been an easier task as all the pieces would be filed in The Island’s English language archive. Whereas, Malsha’s task was made very complex (no doubt), because the reviews and articles on Sarath and his work were spread across many newspapers and ephemeral publications in Sinhala and English, over two and a half decades.

What was special about AJ was that he had both a stellar international reputation by having edited the bumper Special Issue on Asian Theatre for the prestigious Theatre Studies journal, TDR (1968) at New York University, while being integrally connected to the local. In this he was not alone in his generation of scholars but working internationally at the time. Gananath Obeysekere, Michael Roberts, SJ Thambaiya and Neville Weerarathna (but all working overseas), come to mind immediately. Because both Edwin and AJ were bilingual, their knowledge base was not parochial and crucially, what they knew they understood deeply, which is to say, contextually and historically. They also believed in the pedagogic function of criticism and wrote a lively and accessible, well-crafted prose always aware of the addressee. Their focus was, refreshingly, not on themselves but on the object at hand, while their prose was shot through with humour.

My idea to write this piece (on the critical evaluation of Sarath’s work by some of Lanka’s outstanding critics and also lesser-known ones, of both genders), occurred to me while dipping into the SCRAP BOOK as a primary resource while writing a review of Sarath’s recent 6th solo exhibition, Visual Paraphrase (Barefoot Gallery, 2023, Nov-Dec). I felt the need to understand the critical reception to his oeuvre as a whole, and its local context across time, starting from 1990. No longer young, Sarath rarely exhibits his work (the small 2023 show was 18 years after his retrospective also at Barefoot Gallery in 2005), spending more time on his research and publication ventures and teaching children art.

I wish to examine the SCRAP BOOK as a historical resource, an archive of sorts, to suggest its value in understanding the mutation of critical discourses on the arts from the ’90s on. My belief is that the plethora of critical journalistic writings in the SCRAP BOOK, (some nameless but sharp and intelligent), by both women and men have something to offer now, which might enrich the critical public sphere of discourse on visual culture.

I write as an old academic critic and theorist of cinema, still active in research with some three decades of teaching in Australia, and just one year at the University of Ceylon Peradeniya, with a specialisation on the Sinhala Cinema from a feminist perspective. I also take this opportunity to announce the forthcoming publication of my Island Essays (2021-2023): Walk Like an Elephant (Colombo: Contemporary Arts and Crafts Association of Sri Lanka, 2024). There, I have also written about AJ and his wife Trilicia as public-spirited intellectuals in the piece, ‘Visionary Educators: Trilicia Gunawardena at the Government College of Art & Crafts’. In particular, there, I focus in some detail on Trilicia’s praxis as a visionary teacher of English as a second language and mentor to her students, among whom was a young Sarath. As all dedicated teachers do, she understood well Sarath’s naturally endowed, unusual creative gifts, as well as his personality, decisively guiding him at various crucial junctures, even after graduation. This visionary couple (among several others), have been Sarath’s guardian spirits when he faced unceasing hostility.

A Dynamic Public-Sphere of Art: The ’90s

I understand that the unique dynamism of the critical discourses of the ’90s (when Sarath began his series of solo exhibitions), was partly due to several factors that began to intersect simultaneously. I list some in no particular order: a nascent art market; the internet enabling artists themselves to display and source buyers without a dealer which itself would have stimulated production; the rise of local art galleries, collectors and art fares; the civil war and attendant volatility of the nation and the pervasive violence; the growth of a cultural NGO sector connected with foreign funding of art centres focusing on ‘Human Rights and the civil war’ related art projects; introduction of new materials and genres, discussions, publications and the formulation of art manifestoes of sorts; the entry of foreign art historians and curators with generous funding, responding to the new global topic, ‘Art and Human Rights’, sourcing research material in the global south for their new publications and exhibitions, essential for their career advancement in the global north; the introduction of aspects of ‘Continental Critical Theory’ into the vernacular (verbal), critical discourse. It was the beginnings of the complex effects of globalisation and ‘deregulation’, on the visual arts of Lanka which opened up new possibilities for artists/critics, who began, importantly, to speak for themselves instead of waiting for critics to do so. I cite these multiple factors as a distant, non-specialist observer, while only having read a book or two in English about these changes in Lanka, written by foreign writers but with local inputs. I have also listened to various lecture-discussions in Sinhala and English, recorded on YouTube and on websites of Art Institutions, following certain seminars randomly. I expect that some art historians are by now researching the ’90s systematically, with the advantage of contextual experience and the vital temporal hindsight that distance provides for the discipline.

Critical Writing by Female Journalists

We know that in Sri Lanka the majority of art and film criticism of the early post independent periods have been undertaken by men, some celebrated, (including the irreplaceable Regi Siriwardena), but this has clearly changed with the advent of feminism, as is clear from the SCRAP BOOK. I was pleasantly surprised to note the very large number of female journalists whose writings appear in the SCRAP BOOK. Perhaps because this is probably a relatively new feature in the cultural public sphere (I stand corrected), I shall focus more on their writing than on the established male names. Approximately, the ratio of female to male critics (in a mix of discursive reports, articles and long interviews), is as follows: 14 women to 20 men. Gender identity was not always provided and I can’t read gender when the last letter is an English ‘a’. These figures are remarkable given that the public intellectual forums appear still to be largely dominated by very vocal male critics/artists/academics, who some-times brook no criticism from the audience, whether it be by a young man or a woman. I have observed several times with astonishment, this unacceptable undemocratic behaviour of shutting down any criticism, but once in an important cultural institution as well. I have also registered a pattern of just citing certain continental cultural critics such as Walter Benjamin as an authority, in a manner that is quite mystifying, unedifying. It is as though the mere mention of the name, like a mantra, (of this most subtle of thinkers with his carefully crafted prose), bestows his ‘aura’ on the Lankan theorist waving a collection of his essays in the air.

There is no argument from authority in the work of the writers in the SCRAP BOOK, the best among them is well-researched, conceptually grounded and historically literate. They are not deferential to the ‘great artist’, they speak as equals, the playing field is level, as in cricket. The writers are all well prepared, they know what they are talking about and show a sense of intellectual curiosity and fascination with the aesthetic dimension of the art discussed and of its place within the long history of art in Lanka.

Sarath (with his art historical knowledge of the classical periods), is then able to map out important differences between the craftsmen of the feudal times of kings and the democratic polity of contemporary Lanka, in the fields of art and crafts subjected to market forces but also to authoritarian state patronage. Sarath is that rare craftsman/artist working unusually, in clay, painting and bronze, Lanka’s civilizational material culture and art, according to Ananda Coomaraswamy. The writers ask carefully thought-out questions which generate complex discursive responses from Sarath, who also knows his World art history well (including China, India and Japan), as well as theories of the European historical avant-gardes and their manifestoes. He is now editing and publishing a book in Sinhala, on the Russian painter Malevich, on abstraction. The interviewers are agile enough to follow a flow of ideas, clarify an argument as the dialogue expands and takes an unexpected turn. The book provides ways of understanding the complex formations of the ’90s art, its intricacies, which we learn was far more diverse than its ‘avant-garde’ ideologues’ accounts, presented as ‘The History’ of the present, to gullible foreign specialists and even some Colombo elite. Malsha has done a fine editorial job following the chronology of dates and yet arranging the pieces somehow, to make the pieces speak to each other, in our minds. The photographs also help. This kind of selection is the work of a skilled editor able to bringing together such a mixed bag of writings, across decisive periods of the artist’s life span, making the SCRAP BOOK a coherent text. It is also worth noting that there is a multi-ethic bunch of writers here.

I single out Chamila Somirathna’s long discursive interview (Rawaya – 2010, May 30), which concludes the book as its penultimate chapter, because her terms of reference are generative, with well researched and formulated questions signalling possible research pathways, should anyone care to take them up.

(To be continued)

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:SCRAP BOOK OF CHANDRAJEEWA

Up Next

Alston heats up scene at college celebrations

Don't Miss

The National Education Policy Framework 2023

Click to comment

Features

US-CHINA RIVALRY: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

During a discussion at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Sri Lanka on 9 December, Dr. Neil DeVotta, Professor at Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA commented on the “gravity of a geopolitical contest that has already reshaped global politics and will continue to mould the future. For Sri Lanka – positioned at the heart of the Indian Ocean, economically fragile, and diplomatically exposed- his analysis was neither distant nor abstract. It was a warning of the world taking shape around us” (Ceylon Today, December 14, 2025).

Sri Lanka is known for ignoring warnings as it did with the recent cyclone or security lapses in the past that resulted in terrorist attacks. Professor De Votta’s warning too would most likely be ignored considering the unshakable adherence to Non-Alignment held by past and present experts who have walked the halls of the Foreign Ministry, notwithstanding the global reshaping taking place around us almost daily. In contrast, Professor DeVotta “argued that nonalignment is largely a historical notion. Few countries today are truly non-aligned. Most States claiming neutrality are in practice economically or militarily dependent on one of the great powers. Sri Lanka provides a clear example while it pursues the rhetoric of non-alignment, its reliance on Chinese investments for infrastructure projects has effectively been aligned to Beijing. Non-alignment today is more about perceptions than reality. He stressed that smaller nations must carefully manage perceptions while negotiating real strategic dependencies to maintain flexibility in an increasingly polarised world.” (Ibid).

The latest twist to non-alignment is Balancing. Advocates of such policies are under the delusion that the parties who are being “Balanced” are not perceptive enough to realise that what is going on in reality is that they are being used. Furthermore, if as Professor DeVotta says, it is “more about perception than reality”, would not Balancing strain friendly relationships by its hypocrisy? Instead, the hope for a country like Sri Lanka whose significance of its Strategic Location outweighs its size and uniqueness, is to demonstrate by its acts and deeds that Sri Lanka is perceived globally as being Neutral without partiality to any major powers if it is to maintain its autonomy and ensure its security.

DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AS A POLICY

Neutrality as a Foreign Policy was first publicly announced by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa during his acceptance speech in the holy city of Anuradhapura and later during his inauguration of the 8th Parliament on January 3, 2020. Since then Sri Lanka’s Political Establishment has accepted Neutrality as its Foreign Policy judging from statements made by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Foreign Ministers up to the present when President Dissanayake declared during his maiden speech at the UN General Assembly and captured by the Head Line of Daily Mirror of October 1, 2025: “AKD’s neutral, not nonaligned, stance at UNGA”

The front page of the Daily FT (Oct.9, 2024) carries a report titled “Sri Lanka reaffirms neutral diplomacy” The report states: “The Cabinet Spokesman and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath yesterday assured that Sri Lanka maintains balanced diplomatic relations with all countries, reaffirming its policy of friends of all and enemy of none”. Quoting the Foreign Minister, the report states: “There is no favouritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach, he said…”

NEUTRALITY in OPERATION

“Those who are unaware of the full scope and dynamics of the Foreign Policy of Neutrality perceive it as being too weak and lacking in substance to serve the interests of Sri Lanka. In contrast, those who are ardent advocates of Non-Alignment do not realize that its concepts are a collection of principles formulated and adopted only by a group of like-minded States to meet perceived challenges in the context of a bi-polar world. In the absence of such a world order the principles formulated have lost their relevance” (https://island.lk/relevance-of-a neutral-foreign-policy).

“On the other hand, ICRC Publication on Neutrality is recognized Internationally “The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (June 2022)” (Ibid).

“A few Key issues addressed in this Publication are: “THE PRINCIPLE OF INVOILABILITY of a Neutral State and THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES.

“In the process of reaffirming the concept of Neutrality, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that the Policy of Neutrality would operate in practice in the following manner: “There is no favoritism. We do not consider any country to be special. Whether it is big or small, Sri Lanka maintains diplomatic relations with all countries – China, India, the US, Russia, Cuba or Vietnam. We have no bias in our approach” (The Daily FT, Oct, 9, 2024).

“Essential features of Neutrality, such as inviolability of territory and to be free of the hegemony of power blocks were conveyed by former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry at a forum in Singapore when he stated: “We have always been clear that we are not interested in being an ally of any of these camps. We will be an independent country and work with everyone, but there are conditions. Our land and sea will not be used to threaten anyone else’s security concerns. We will not allow military bases to be built here. We will not be a pawn in their game. We do not want geopolitical games playing out in our neighbourhood, and affecting us. We are very interested in de-escalating tensions. What we could do is have strategic autonomy, negotiate with everyone as sovereign equals, strategically use completion to our advantage” (the daily morning, July 17, 2024)

In addition to the concepts and expectations of a Neutral State cited above, “the Principle of Inviolability of territory and formal position taken by a State as an integral part of ‘Principles and Duties of a Neutral State’ which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved” enabled Sri Lanka not to get involved in the recent Military exchanges between India and Pakistan.

However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country.

Another sphere where Sri Lanka’s Policy of Neutrality would be compromised is associated with Infrastructure Development. Such developments are invariably associated with unsolicited offers such as the reported $3.5 Billion offer for a 200,000 Barrels a day Refinery at Hambantota. Such a Project would fortify its presence at Hambantota as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Such offers if entertained would prompt other Global Powers to submit similar proposals for other locations. Permitting such developments on grounds of “Balancing” would encourage rivalry and seriously threaten Sri Lanka’s independence to exercise its autonomy over its national interests.

What Sri Lanka should explore instead, is to adopt a fresh approach to develop the Infrastructure it needs. This is to first identify the Infrastructure projects it needs, then formulate its broad scope and then call for Expressions of Interest globally and Finance it with Part of the Remittances that Sri Lanka receives annually from its own citizens. In fact, considering the unabated debt that Sri Lanka is in, it is time that Sri Lanka sets up a Development Fund specifically to implement Infrastructure Projects by syphoning part of the Foreign Remittances it receives annually from its citizens . Such an approach means that it would enable Sri Lanka to exercise its autonomy free of debt.

CONCLUSION

The adherents of Non-Alignment as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy would not have been pleased to hear Dr. DeVotta argue that “non-alignment is largely a historical notion” during his presentation at the Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Colombo. What is encouraging though is that, despite such “historical notions”, the political establishment, starting with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs extending up to President AKD at the UNGA and Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, have accepted and endorsed neutrality as its foreign policy. However, this lack of congruence between the experts, some of whom are associated with Government institutions, and the Political Establishment, is detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

If as Professor DeVotta warns, the future Global Order would be fashioned by US – China Rivalry, Sri Lanka has to prepare itself if it is not to become a victim of this escalating Rivalry. Since this Rivalry would engulf India a well when it comes to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC), Sri Lanka should declare well in advance that no Exploration or Exploitation would be permitted within its EEC on the principle of inviolability of territory under provisions of Neutrality and the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.

As a measure of preparedness serious consideration should be given to the recommendation cited above which is to set up a development fund by allocating part of the annual dollar remittances to finance Sri Lanka’s development without depending on foreign direct investments, export-driven strategies or the need to be flexible to negotiate dependencies; A strategy that is in keeping with Sri Lanka’s civilisational values of self-reliance. Judging from the unprecedented devastation recently experienced by Sri Lanka due to lack of preparedness and unheeded warnings, the lesson for the political establishment is to rely on the wisdom and relevance of Self-Reliance to equip Sri Lanka to face the consequences of the US–China rivalry.

by Neville Ladduwahetty ✍️

Features

1132nd RO Water purification plant opened at Mahinda MV, Kauduluwewa

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

Sponsors (senior management from M/S Perera and Sons), Principal and SLN officials at Opening of RO Plant

A project sponsored by Perera and Sons (P&S) Company and built by Sri Lanka Navy

Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

When the 1132nd RO plant built by the Navy with funds generously provided by M/S Perera and Sons, Sri Lanka’s iconic, century-old bakery and food service chain, established in 1902, known for its network of outlets, numbering 235, in Sri Lanka. This company, established in 1902 by Philanthropist K. A. Charles Perera, well known for their efforts to help the needy and humble people. Helping people gain access to drinking water is a project launched with the help of this esteemed company.

The opening of an RO plant

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) started spreading like a wildfire mainly in North Central, North Western and Eastern provinces. Medical experts are of the view that the main cause of the disease is the use of unsafe water for drinking and cooking. The map shows how the CKD is spreading in Sri Lanka.

School where 1132nd RO plants established by SLN

In 2015, when I was the Commander of the Navy, with our Research and Development Unit of SLN led by a brilliant Marine Engineer who with his expertise and innovative skills brought LTTE Sea Tigers Wing to their knees. The famous remote-controlled explosive-laden Arrow boats to fight LTTE SEA TIGER SUCIDE BOATS menace was his innovation!). Then Captain MCP Dissanayake (2015), came up with the idea of manufacturing low- cost Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants. The SLN Research and development team manufactured those plants at a cost of one-tenth of an imported plant.

The writer with his PSO’s daughter

Gaurawa Sasthrawedi Panditha Venerable Devahuwe Wimaladhamma TheroP/Saraswathi Devi Primary School, Ashokarama Maha Viharaya, Navanagara, Medirigiriya

The Navy established FIRST such plant at Kadawatha-Rambawa in Madawachiya Divisional Secretariat area, where the CKD patients were the highest. The Plant was opened on 09 December 2015, on the 65th Anniversary of SLN. It was an extremely proud achievement by SLN

Areas where the RO plants are located

First, the plants were sponsored by officers and sailors of the Sri Lanka Navy, from a Social Responsibility Fund established, with officers and sailors contributing Rs 30 each from their salaries every month. This money Rs 30 X 50,000 Naval personnel provided us sufficient funds to build one plant every month.

Observing great work done by SLN, then President Maithripala Sirisena established a Presidential Task Force on eradicating CKD and funding was no issue to the SLN. We developed a factory line at our R and D unit at Welisara and established RO plants at double-quick time. Various companies/ organisations and individuals also funded the project. Project has been on for the last ten years under six Navy Commanders after me, namely Admiral Travis Sinniah, Admiral Sirimevan Ranasinghe, Admiral Piyal de Silva, Admiral Nishantha Ulugetenna, Admiral Priyantha Perera and present Navy Commander Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda.

Each plant is capable of producing up to 10,000 litres of clean drinking water a day. This means a staggering 11.32 million litres of clean drinking water every day!

The map indicates the locations of these 1132 plants.

Well done, Navy!

On the occasion of its 75th Anniversary celebrations, which fell on 09 December 2025, the Navy received the biggest honour. Venerable Thero (Venerable Dewahuwe Wimalarathana Thero, Principal of Saraswathi Devi Primary Pirivena in Medirigiriya) who delivered the sermons during opening of 1132nd RO plant, said, “Ten years ago, out of 100 funerals I attended; more than 80 were of those who died of CKD! Today, thanks to the RO plants established by the Navy, including one at my temple also, hardly any death happens in our village due to CKD! Could there be a greater honour?

Features

Poltergeist of Universities Act

Published

2 days ago

2025/12/19

Thilina Walpola

The Universities Act is back in the news – this time with the present government’s attempt to reform it through a proposed amendment (November 2025) presented by the Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, Harini Amarasuriya, who herself is a former academic and trade unionist. The first reading of the proposed amendment has already taken place with little debate and without much attention either from the public or the university community. By all counts, the parliament and powers across political divisions seem nonchalant about the relative silence in which this amendment is making its way through the process, indicative of how low higher education has fallen among its stakeholders.

The Universities Act No. 16 of 1978 under which Sri Lankan universities are managed has generated debate, though not always loud, ever since its empowerment. Increasing politicisation of decision making in and about universities due to the deterioration of the conduct of the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been a central concern of those within the university system and without. This politicisation has been particularly acute in recent decades either as a direct result of some of the provisions in the Universities Act or the problematic interpretation of these. There has never been any doubt that the Act needs serious reform – if not a complete overhaul – to make universities more open, reflective, and productive spaces while also becoming the conscience of the nation rather than timid wastelands typified by the state of some universities and some programs.

But given the Minister’s background in what is often called progressive politics in Sri Lanka, why are many colleagues in the university system, including her own former colleagues and friends, so agitated by the present proposed amendment? The anxiety expressed by academics stem from two sources. The first concern is the presentation of the proposed amendment to parliament with no prior consultative process with academics or representative bodies on its content, and the possible urgency with which it will get pushed through parliament (if a second reading takes place as per the regular procedure) in the midst of a national crisis. The second is the content itself.

Appointment of Deans

Let me take the second point first. When it comes to the selection of deans, the existing Act states that a dean will be selected from among a faculty’s own who are heads of department. The provision was crafted this way based on the logic that a serving head of department would have administrative experience and connections that would help run a faculty in an efficient manner. Irrespective of how this worked in practice, the idea behind has merit.

By contrast, the proposed amendment suggests that a dean will be elected by the faculty from among its senior professors, professors, associate professors and senior lecturers (Grade I). In other words, a person no longer needs to be a head of department to be considered for election as a dean. While in a sense, this marks a more democratised approach to the selection, it also allows people lacking in experience to be elected by manoeuvring the electoral process within faculties.

In the existing Act, this appointment is made by the vice chancellor once a dean is elected by a given faculty. In the proposed amendment, this responsibility will shift to the university’s governing council. In the existing Act, if a dean is indisposed for a number of reasons, the vice chancellor can appoint an existing head of department to act for the necessary period of time, following on the logic outlined earlier. The new amendment would empower the vice chancellor to appoint another senior professor, professor, associate professor or senior lecturer (Grade I) from the concerned faculty in an acting capacity. Again, this appears to be a positive development.

Appointing Heads of Department

Under the current Act heads of department have been appointed from among professors, associate professors, senior lecturers or lecturers appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor. The proposed amendment states the head of department should be a senior professor appointed by the Council upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor, and in the absence of a senior professor, other members of the department are to be considered. In the proposed scheme, a head of department can be removed by the Council. According to the existing Act, an acting head of department appointment can be made by the vice chancellor, while the proposed amendment shifts this responsibility to the Council, based upon the recommendation of the vice chancellor.

The amendment further states that no person should be appointed as the head of the same department for more than one term unless all other eligible people have already completed their responsibilities as heads of department. This is actually a positive development given that some individuals have managed to hang on to the head of department post for years, thereby depriving opportunities to other competent colleagues to serve in the post.

Process of amending the Universities Act

The question is, if some of the contents of the proposed amendment are positive developments, as they appear to be, why are academics anxious about its passing in parliament? This brings me to my first point, that is the way in which this amendment is being rushed through by the government. This has been clearly articulated by the Arts Faculty Teachers Association of University of Colombo. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 9 December 2025, the Association makes two points, which have merit. First, “the bill has been drafted and tabled in Parliament for first reading without a consultative process with academics in state universities, who are this bill’s main stakeholders. We note that while the academic community may agree with its contents, the process is flawed because it is undemocratic and not transparent. There has not been adequate time for deliberation and discussion of details that may make the amendment stronger, especially in the face of the disaster situation of the country.”

Second, “AFTA’s membership also questions the urgency with which the bill is tabled in Parliament, and the subsequent unethical conduct of the UGC in requesting the postponement of dean selections and heads of department appointments in state universities in expectation of the bill’s passing in Parliament.”

These are serious concerns. No one would question the fact that the Universities Act needs to be amended. However, this must necessarily be based on a comprehensive review process. The haste to change only sections pertaining to the selection of deans and heads of department is strange, to say the least, and that too in the midst of dealing with the worst natural calamity the country has faced in living memory. To compound matters, the process also has been fast-tracked thereby compromising on the time made available to academics to make their views be known.

Similarly, the issuing of a letter by the UGC freezing all appointments of deans and heads of department, even though elections and other formalities have been carried out, is a telling instance of the government’s problematic haste and patently undemocratic process. Notably, this action comes from a government whose members, including the Education Minister herself, have stood steadfastly for sensible university reforms, before coming to power. The present process is manoeuvred in such a manner, that the proposed amendment would soon become law in the way the government requires, including all future appointments being made under this new law. Hence, the attempt to halt appointments, which were already in the pipeline, in the interim period.

It is evident that rather than undertake serious university sector reforms, the government is aiming to control universities and thereby their further politicization amenable to the present dispensation. The ostensible democratis0…..ation of the qualified pool of applicants for deanships opens up the possibilities for people lacking experience, but are proximate to the present powers that be, to hold influential positions within the university. The transfer of appointing powers to the Councils indicates the same trend. After all, Councils are partly made up of outsiders to the university, and such individuals, without exception, are political appointees. The likelihood of them adhering to the interests of the government would be very similar to the manner in which some vice chancellors appointed by the President of the country feel obligated to act.

All things considered, particularly the rushed and non-transparent process adopted thus far by the government does not show sincerity towards genuine and much needed university sector reforms. By contrast, it shows a crude intent to control universities at any cost. It is extremely regrettable that the universities in general have not taken a more proactive and principled position towards the content and the process of the proposed amendment. As I have said many times before, whatever ills that have befallen universities so far is the disastrous fallout of compromises of those within made for personal gain and greed, or the abject silence and disinterest of those within. These culprits have abandoned broader institutional development. This appears to be yet another instance of that sad process.

In this context, I have admiration for my former colleagues in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Colombo for having the ethical courage to indicate clearly the fault lines of the proposed amendment and the problems of its process. What they have asked is a postponement of the process giving them time to engage. In this context, it is indeed disappointing to see the needlessly conciliatory tone of the letter to the Education Minister by the Federation of University Teachers Association dated December 5, 2025, which sends the wrong signal.

If this government still believes it is a people’s government, the least it can do is give these academics time to engage with the proposed amendment. After all, many within the academic community helped bring the government to power. If not and if this amendment is rushed through parliament in needless haste, it will create a precedent that signals the way in which the government intends to do business in the future, abusing its parliamentary majority and denting its credibility for good.