Connect with us

Features

Gender and sexuality in the classroom

Published

on

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan

The classroom is believed to be a site that nourishes scholarship, diversity, creativity and dissent. It should facilitate students and teachers of diverse genders and sexual preferences to live out their identities, if they wish to, without hindrance. However, in reality, the classroom, in Sri Lanka, remains a microcosm of the larger society and often re-produces the social hierarchies of gender and sexuality. One’s body, expressions and desires are policed heavily in this space through unwritten codes of conduct entrenched in discourses of gender and sexual normativity. Today’s Kuppi Talk explores how the classroom in the Sri Lankan context remains a space that marginalizes women and LGBTIQ+ persons and what needs to be done to make this space more inclusive.

Seeming Neutrality

Teachers and students, who belong to privileged groups and classes, view the classroom as a neutral space. Many of us tend to assume that interactions that happen in the classroom are unaffected by gender-based hierarchies. In academic institutions, heterosexuality is normativized and desires and relationships that fall outside heterosexuality are stigmatized as abnormal, abusive, Western and anti-social. In these spaces, expectations, related to attire, appearance and behaviour, stem from the understanding that there are only two genders – male and female. These expectations imply that the boundaries that separate the two genders are inviolable, and that masculinity and femininity are homogenous expressions unmediated by personal preferences, culture, ethnicity, religion and class.

While physical infrastructure, such as gender-specific staff rooms and bathrooms sometimes provide comfort and security for female students and teachers, such divisions are naturalized and result in the binaristic reification of gender and exclusion of transgenders. Many schools in Sri Lanka still remain uninitiated to conversations about sexual and gender diversity. As a result, adolescents who experience sexual preferences that do not align with cis-hetero norms go through immense agony, their struggles remaining hidden and unrecognized in policy-making.

Invisibility

The cis-heteronormative structures that operate within the classroom prevent LGBTIQ+ persons from expressing their identities openly. They fear facing stigma and isolation, if they openly discuss their identities, desires and preferences.

Thanks to efforts taken in the public sphere to combat homophobia and transphobia, there is an increased number of students and teachers, within our institutions, who openly identify as LGBTIQ persons today. While this is a welcome change, the flipside of such liberating articulations of sexuality is that the rest of the classroom is assumed to be heterosexual and cis-gender. Even as we strive for inclusivity, we have to keep in mind that all genders/sexual orientations are not equally visible. Teachers and students tend to assume that there are no or only a few LGBTIQ+ persons in their classrooms or institutions, whereas the actual numbers can be higher.

Even in the absence of any open signs of LGBTIQ+ presence then, we need to re-create the classroom as a safe and inclusive place for LGBTIQ+ persons. There is a need to assume that there is always someone waiting for safety, solidarity, comfort and acceptance in the classroom, even if that person does not want to express their sexual preferences, or gender, openly.

The Curriculum

The curriculum is an arena where questioning of cis-hetero normativity can be encouraged. An LGBTIQ-friendly curriculum has the potential to make LGBTIQ+ students find acceptance in the classroom and encourage them to engage in academic conversations about their identities, lives, experiences and struggles without any inhibition. The empowerment that happens via an inclusive curriculum may help these students navigate and resist the heteronormative structures that they encounter in their everyday lives, outside the academia.

The curriculum taught as part of different academic programmes, at our universities today, include one or two courses that focus on gender and sexuality. Sometimes these courses frame gender in narrow terms placing the cis-heterosexual woman as the only figure that merits academic attention. They do not give adequate room for discussions on how gender and sexuality are intertwined. Sometimes they are offered as elective courses and only those interested in the theme of gender (and sexuality) sign up for those courses. As a result, majority of our students may graduate without sufficient exposure to academic conversations related to gender and sexuality. Even these elective courses are sometimes not thought through well, and introduced in a haphazard manner merely to satisfy the diversity requirement included in policy frameworks.

Under neoliberalization of education, the inclusion of gender in the curriculum is reduced to a process of representing different gendered experiences. While representation is important, it cannot be isolated from the contexts associated with the gendered student, the economic and political systems that the gendered student is part of, and the systems of gendering and power that are at play. Neoliberalism has co-opted the discourse of gender diversity to achieve its own ends. It is now actively involved in producing marketable female graduates and possibly marketable LGBTIQ+ graduates, too. This is why gender and cultural diversity in the curriculum should be sutured to questions about political economy, class relations and material inequalities. An intersectional approach that questions and goes beyond notions of employable female graduates and women entrepreneurs should shape the larger social vision offered via the curriculum.

While the inclusion of courses with specific focus on gender diversifies the curriculum, such courses sometimes curtail our understanding of the way gender operates in society and within the workings of various academic disciplines. While these courses bring questions related to gender and sexuality to the front and centre, they may simultaneously create the false picture that the other courses are gender-neutral or gender inclusive. Therefore, one must ask to what extent the courses, which are not specifically about gender, shift emphasis towards women and LGBITQ+ persons. It is important that we understand gender and sexuality as concerns that run throughout what we teach. For example, a course with a focus on class relations should discuss how class relations are gendered and the ways in which gender and sexuality inflect political economy and material-based social relations. It is important to frame the entire curriculum as a site where a struggle for justice for the historical exclusion that women and LGBTIQ+ communities have suffered can be mounted. Given the historical dominance of heteronormativity within the academia, the curriculum as a whole should be revamped and re-vitalized from the vantagepoint of women and LGBTIQ+ persons.

Pedagogy

Teaching against cis-heteronormativity faces resistance, not just from institutional policies and restrictions imposed by the curriculum, but also from students. When I taught an English translation of Ismat Chugtai’s “Lihaaf”, a text that reveals how power operating along lines of socio-economic status produces relations and intimacy between women as a messy terrain of dominance, subversion, resistance and manipulation, a section of the students denounced the text as one that promotes ‘lesbianism’. On such occasions, it is incumbent upon the teacher to trigger processes of self-introspection so that the cis-straight student is encouraged to question the privileges and comforts that the student has taken for granted under a heteronormative social order.

On the other hand, the discussion, as in the case of Chugtai’s text, should orient the student to the understanding that sexual relations, regardless of whether they are straight or gay, are often inflected by power manifesting itself through the axes of class, ethnicity and caste and that non-heterosexual relations are not free of control and manipulation. This is why an emancipating pedagogy should give a central place to not just empathy and solidarity but also critical interrogation of power in gendered relations of all kinds.

While the Sri Lankan classroom has a long way to go to become a place that embraces gender and sexual diversity, we have seen moments of hope as well. In many academic departments, undergraduates, who do their research on LGBTIQ+ issues, find increased encouragement and support from academics. Some of our universities have provided their venues for discussions, cultural festivals and awareness raising events focusing on LGBTIQ+ communities. There have been instances where students came together to support and stand in solidarity with students of marginalized genders and sexual orientations when the latter faced hostilities in hostels and classrooms. It is important that we sustain, strengthen and build on these changes.

The classroom should not remain isolated from the larger struggles around gender and LGBTIQ issues. The favourable Supreme Court decision on the recent Bill to repeal Article 365, the Pride events that took place in Jaffna and Colombo last year, and the gains made by the LGBITQ communities in their various struggles for equality should encourage the academic community to take forward, with more enthusiasm, the task of making our free education sector more inclusive and democratic. This task also requires our willingness to de-centre the academia and learn from how working women and LGBTIQ+ persons from subaltern, minority, peripheral, oppressed caste communities resist male chauvinism and cis-heteronormativity alongside their everyday struggles against capitalist exploitation and ethnic and caste-based oppression.

(Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics and English at the University of Jaffna)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century

Published

on

Orban (center) Trump and Netanyahu

In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.

Ceasefire Hopes

Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.

Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.

Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.

In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”

Subversion from the Right

The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.

The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.

In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.

Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.

In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.

Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.

The rise and fall of Viktor Orban

Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.

At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.

To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.

Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.

During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.

Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.

The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.

Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.

For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.

The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.

EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries

Published

on

Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.

ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.

At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.

By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.

Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.

Exhibition Details:

Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5

Continue Reading

Features

Our Teardrop

Published

on

BOOK REVIEW

Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)

Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3

The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.

On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.

Ranoukh Wijesinha and friends at STC

Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.

Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.

However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.

There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.

There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.

L S M Pillai

Continue Reading

Trending