Features
Hashtag Havoc in Nepal
Just like in Bangladesh, we witness the same pattern in Nepal. Unwise groups of youth, armed with social media channels and a distorted sense of justice, have manipulated the sentiments of entire communities, transforming moral outrage into instruments of disorder. At the conclusion of Bangladesh’s upheavals, the country found Muhammad Yunus and a semblance of reconstruction. Nepal, in its own chaotic moment, now looks to a ‘messiah’ in former Chief Justice Sushila Karki.
The so-called ‘Gen-Z Movement,’ which emerged after days of violent protests and consultations with the Chief of Army Staff, recommended Karki to lead the interim government. Their initial agenda includes the dissolution of Parliament, the formation of an interim administration, and comprehensive revisions to the decade-old Constitution. Representatives of the movement emphasised that her name had been proposed through online votes within their networks, a mechanism that, in its ambition, perfectly captures the illusion of participatory democracy in the digital era, even as it dangerously divorces decision-making from political prudence.
The images that emerged from the streets of Kathmandu are seared into memory: former Prime Ministers stripped and paraded, political leaders’ residences set ablaze, and government buildings reduced to ruins. The ostensible trigger—a fleeting ban on social media platforms—quickly morphed into a grotesque pageant of street vengeance. Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, wife of former Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal, sustained severe burns when protesters set her house alight.
Sher Bahadur Deuba and his wife were beaten before cameras, and the nation witnessed the unfolding mayhem in real time via Instagram and X. The protests, led by Generation Z, began ostensibly as a campaign against corruption and social media restrictions but soon escalated into unmediated retribution, public humiliation, and mob rule. Moral fury, amplified through social media, cannot substitute for governance or revolutionary action; it generates chaos, raw and untempered.
Nepal’s historical record reveals a society perpetually perched on the edge of instability. From the monarchy’s overthrow in 2008 to repeated constitutional crises, political upheaval has been a recurrent feature. Young Nepalese have long been marginalised by endemic corruption, nepotism, and economic stagnation. Their frustration is neither new nor unfounded. Yet, the mode of expression—violent street eruptions, assaults on private citizens, and destruction of civic institutions—reveals a generation more attuned to digital signalling than strategic political thinking. As James C. Scott observed, “public acts of resistance are the tip of an iceberg of private grievances.” In Nepal, this resonates with tragic irony: while the protests are spectacular, they lack the intellectual scaffolding necessary for lasting reform. The visible chaos masks an incapacity for disciplined, structured civic engagement.
The role of social media in this generational turbulence cannot be overstated. Platforms such as Facebook, X, and Instagram, celebrated in the West as engines of freedom of expression, have acted as accelerants in contexts like Nepal. Western powers, insisting that digital liberties be “respected,” frequently overlook the fact that these tools, when exported to nations with fragile institutions, can destabilise society. Unlike in established democracies, where legal frameworks, media literacy campaigns, and accountable institutions moderate the impact of virality, in Nepal, social media created a feedback loop of outrage. Tweets, reels, and viral posts replaced dialogue, planning, and institutional oversight. The outcome was inevitable: moral indignation manifested as tangible destruction, exemplified by the torching of Nakkhu Central Jail and the release of thousands of inmates into an already fraying social fabric.
Historically, revolutionary movements that produced durable change combined moral urgency with strategic intelligence. Hannah Arendt warned that “power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent.” In Kathmandu, the crowd wielded violence without authority: government offices burned, leaders were humiliated, yet no coherent political programme emerged to channel the energy constructively. Chaos is not power; spectacle is not reform. The streets of Kathmandu became a theatre of barbarism, not a laboratory for meaningful transformation.
Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and the role of “organic intellectuals” is instructive. He noted that societies in crisis produce “morbid symptoms” when old orders collapse but no new leadership is ready to emerge. Nepal’s Gen Z movement exemplifies this: the political elite had long lost legitimacy, but the young insurgents, despite their moral outrage, lacked the organisational and intellectual framework to propose coherent alternatives. They replaced strategy with chaos, reform with humiliation, and governance with digital validation. The result is a society in which moral authority is conflated with destructive power, producing not progress but disintegration.
Alexis de Tocqueville provides another pertinent lens. He argued that democratic energy, unchecked by deliberation and institutions, is volatile and potentially destructive: “In a democracy, the people are both the most powerful and the most vulnerable; their energy can create freedom or chaos.” In Nepal, it created chaos. The rage of the crowd, born of decades of nepotism, corruption, and youth unemployment, was real. Yet, channelled through the unregulated architecture of social media, it yielded immediate destruction and public degradation rather than structural reform. Stripping former leaders, assaulting public servants, and burning civic institutions were not political statements—they were moral theatre masquerading as political action, barbarity mistaken for revolution.
Everyday resistance further highlights the dilemma, as incremental, often invisible acts of defiance can produce more enduring change than spectacular uprisings. In Nepal, however, the spectacular violence overshadowed any prospect of sustained reform. The participants may have felt righteous, but without political intelligence, their actions were transient, leaving governance structures in shreds and citizens exposed. This embodies the “Gen Z illusion”: the belief that moral indignation and digital virality suffice as instruments of political change.
The consequences extend far beyond immediate destruction. Thousands of prisoners escaped from Nakkhu Central Jail, including juveniles, highlighting the state’s failure to maintain order. Government offices, court records, and historical archives were obliterated. A society once bound by legal and civic frameworks now finds these pillars weakened, and social trust eroded. Social media, with its selective outrage and punitive display, has supplanted due process, turning justice into humiliation. Former Prime Ministers accused of corruption were stripped and paraded before any judicial examination—social media acting as jury, judge, and executioner simultaneously.
Freedom of expression, when taken to extremes, has morphed into a tool of social barbarism. Western insistence on “respecting fundamental rights” has exported digital liberties without the accompanying institutional infrastructure. The result: moral outrage weaponised, social cohesion fractured, and state authority eroded. The Nepalese experience illustrates how digital tools, unmediated by governance, can inflame human psychology to uncontrollable levels, producing what Arendt might term violence masquerading as power.
Nepal’s Gen Z movement is not revolutionary in the classical sense. It is an emotional, performative eruption, fuelled by outrage and frustration, yet devoid of the strategic foresight, institutional knowledge, and political acumen essential for genuine reform. To claim otherwise is to conflate destruction with progress. Stripping ministers, burning jails, humiliating political elites—these are acts of vengeance, morally rationalised only in the imagination of a digital mob. They signal not the birth of democracy, but the collapse of civility.
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa ✍️
Features
Sustaining good governance requires good systems
A prominent feature of the first year of the NPP government is that it has not engaged in the institutional reforms which was expected of it. This observation comes in the context of the extraordinary mandate with which the government was elected and the high expectations that accompanied its rise to power. When in opposition and in its election manifesto, the JVP and NPP took a prominent role in advocating good governance systems for the country. They insisted on constitutional reform that included the abolition of the executive presidency and the concentration of power it epitomises, the strengthening of independent institutions that overlook key state institutions such as the judiciary, public service and police, and the reform or repeal of repressive laws such as the PTA and the Online Safety Act.
The transformation of a political party that averaged between three to five percent of the popular vote into one that currently forms the government with a two thirds majority in parliament is a testament to the faith that the general population placed in the JVP/ NPP combine. This faith was the outcome of more than three decades of disciplined conduct in the aftermath of the bitter experience of the 1988 to 1990 period of JVP insurrection. The manner in which the handful of JVP parliamentarians engaged in debate with well researched critiques of government policy and actions, and their service in times of disaster such as the tsunami of 2004 won them the trust of the people. This faith was bolstered by the Aragalaya movement which galvanized the citizens against the ruling elites of the past.
In this context, the long delay to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has earned notoriety for its abuse especially against ethnic and religious minorities, has been a disappointment to those who value human rights. So has been the delay in appointing an Auditor General, so important in ensuring accountability for the money expended by the state. The PTA has a long history of being used without restraint against those deemed to be anti-state which, ironically enough, included the JVP in the period 1988 to 1990. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), published in December 2025, is the latest attempt to repeal and replace the PTA. Unfortunately, the PSTA largely replicates the structure, logic and dangers of previous failed counter terrorism bills, including the Counter Terrorism Act of 2018 and the Anti Terrorism Act proposed in 2023.
Misguided Assumption
Despite its stated commitment to rule of law and fundamental rights, the draft PTSA reproduces many of the core defects of the PTA. In a preliminary statement, the Centre for Policy Alternatives has observed among other things that “if there is a Detention Order made against the person, then in combination, the period of remand and detention can extend up to two years. This means that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being charged with a crime. Such a long period again raises questions of the power of the State to target individuals, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long periods of remand and detention, which has contributed to abuse and violence.” Human Rights lawyer Ermiza Tegal has warned against the broad definition of terrorism under the proposed law: “The definition empowers state officials to term acts of dissent and civil disobedience as ‘terrorism’ and will lawfully permit disproportionate and excessive responses.” The legitimate and peaceful protests against abuse of power by the authorities cannot be classified as acts of terror.
The willingness to retain such powers reflects the surmise that the government feels that keeping in place the structures that come from the past is to their benefit, as they can utilise those powers in a crisis. Due to the strict discipline that exists within the JVP/NPP at this time there may be an assumption that those the party appoints will not abuse their trust. However, the country’s experience with draconian laws designed for exceptional circumstances demonstrates that they tend to become tools of routine governance. On the plus side, the government has given two months for public comment which will become meaningful if the inputs from civil society actors are taken into consideration.
Worldwide experience has repeatedly demonstrated that integrity at the level of individual leaders, while necessary, is not sufficient to guarantee good governance over time. This is where the absence of institutional reform becomes significant. The aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah in particular has necessitated massive procurements of emergency relief which have to be disbursed at maximum speed. There are also significant amounts of foreign aid flowing into the country to help it deal with the relief and recovery phase. There are protocols in place that need to be followed and monitored so that a fiasco like the disappearance of tsunami aid in 2004 does not recur. To the government’s credit there are no such allegations at the present time. But precautions need to be in place, and those precautions depend less on trust in individuals than on the strength and independence of oversight institutions.
Inappropriate Appointments
It is in this context that the government’s efforts to appoint its own preferred nominees to the Auditor General’s Department has also come as a disappointment to civil society groups. The unsuitability of the latest presidential nominee has given rise to the surmise that this nomination was a time buying exercise to make an acting appointment. For the fourth time, the Constitutional Council refused to accept the president’s nominee. The term of the three independent civil society members of the Constitutional Council ends in January which would give the government the opportunity to appoint three new members of its choice and get its way in the future.
The failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General has created an institutional vacuum at a critical moment. The Auditor General acts as a watchdog, ensuring effective service delivery promoting integrity in public administration and providing an independent review of the performance and accountability. Transparency International has observed “The sequence of events following the retirement of the previous Auditor General points to a broader political inertia and a governance failure. Despite the clear constitutional importance of the role, the appointment process has remained protracted and opaque, raising serious questions about political will and commitment to accountability.”
It would appear that the government leadership takes the position they have been given the mandate to govern the country which requires implementation by those they have confidence in. This may explain their approach to the appointment (or non-appointment) at this time of the Auditor General. Yet this approach carries risks. Institutions are designed to function beyond the lifespan of any one government and to protect the public interest even when those in power are tempted to act otherwise. The challenge and opportunity for the NPP government is to safeguard independent institutions and enact just laws, so that the promise of system change endures beyond personalities and political cycles.
by Jehan Perera
Features
General education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?
A new batch arrived at our Faculty again. Students representing almost all districts of the country remind me once again of the wonderful opportunity we have for promoting social and ethnic cohesion at our universities. Sadly, however, many students do not interact with each other during the first few semesters, not only because they do not speak each other’s language(s), but also because of the fear and distrust that still prevails among communities in our society.
General education reform presents an opportunity to explore ways to promote social and ethnic cohesion. A school curriculum could foster shared values, empathy, and critical thinking, through social studies and civics education, implement inclusive language policies, and raise critical awareness about our collective histories. Yet, the government’s new policy document, Transforming General Education in Sri Lanka 2025, leaves us little to look forward to in this regard.
The policy document points to several “salient” features within it, including: 1) a school credit system to quantify learning; 2) module-based formative and summative assessments to replace end-of-term tests; 3) skills assessment in Grade 9 consisting of a ‘literacy and numeracy test’ and a ‘career interest test’; 4) a comprehensive GPA-based reporting system spanning the various phases of education; 5) blended learning that combines online with classroom teaching; 6) learning units to guide students to select their preferred career pathways; 7) technology modules; 8) innovation labs; and 9) Early Childhood Education (ECE). Notably, social and ethnic cohesion does not appear in this list. Here, I explore how the proposed curriculum reforms align (or do not align) with the NPP’s pledge to inculcate “[s]afety, mutual understanding, trust and rights of all ethnicities and religious groups” (p.127), in their 2024 Election Manifesto.
Language/ethnicity in the present curriculum
The civil war ended over 15 years ago, but our general education system has done little to bring ethnic communities together. In fact, most students still cannot speak in the “second national language” (SNL) and textbooks continue to reinforce negative stereotyping of ethnic minorities, while leaving out crucial elements of our post-independence history.
Although SNL has been a compulsory subject since the 1990s, the hours dedicated to SNL are few, curricula poorly developed, and trained teachers few (Perera, 2025). Perhaps due to unconscious bias and for ideological reasons, SNL is not valued by parents and school communities more broadly. Most students, who enter our Faculty, only have basic reading/writing skills in SNL, apart from the few Muslim and Tamil students who schooled outside the North and the East; they pick up SNL by virtue of their environment, not the school curriculum.
Regardless of ethnic background, most undergraduates seem to be ignorant about crucial aspects of our country’s history of ethnic conflict. The Grade 11 history textbook, which contains the only chapter on the post-independence period, does not mention the civil war or the events that led up to it. While the textbook valourises ‘Sinhala Only’ as an anti-colonial policy (p.11), the material covering the period thereafter fails to mention the anti-Tamil riots, rise of rebel groups, escalation of civil war, and JVP insurrections. The words “Tamil” and “Muslim” appear most frequently in the chapter, ‘National Renaissance,’ which cursorily mentions “Sinhalese-Muslim riots” vis-à-vis the Temperance Movement (p.57). The disenfranchisement of the Malaiyaha Tamils and their history are completely left out.
Given the horrifying experiences of war and exclusion experienced by many of our peoples since independence, and because most students still learn in mono-ethnic schools having little interaction with the ‘Other’, it is not surprising that our undergraduates find it difficult to mix across language and ethnic communities. This environment also creates fertile ground for polarizing discourses that further divide and segregate students once they enter university.
More of the same?
How does Transforming General Education seek to address these problems? The introduction begins on a positive note: “The proposed reforms will create citizens with a critical consciousness who will respect and appreciate the diversity they see around them, along the lines of ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, and other areas of difference” (p.1). Although National Education Goal no. 8 somewhat problematically aims to “Develop a patriotic Sri Lankan citizen fostering national cohesion, national integrity, and national unity while respecting cultural diversity (p. 2), the curriculum reforms aim to embed values of “equity, inclusivity, and social justice” (p. 9) through education. Such buzzwords appear through the introduction, but are not reflected in the reforms.
Learning SNL is promoted under Language and Literacy (Learning Area no. 1) as “a critical means of reconciliation and co-existence”, but the number of hours assigned to SNL are minimal. For instance, at primary level (Grades 1 to 5), only 0.3 to 1 hour is allocated to SNL per week. Meanwhile, at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), out of 35 credits (30 credits across 15 essential subjects that include SNL, history and civics; 3 credits of further learning modules; and 2 credits of transversal skills modules (p. 13, pp.18-19), SNL receives 1 credit (10 hours) per term. Like other essential subjects, SNL is to be assessed through formative and summative assessments within modules. As details of the Grade 9 skills assessment are not provided in the document, it is unclear whether SNL assessments will be included in the ‘Literacy and numeracy test’. At senior secondary level – phase 1 (Grades 10-11 – O/L equivalent), SNL is listed as an elective.
Refreshingly, the policy document does acknowledge the detrimental effects of funding cuts in the humanities and social sciences, and highlights their importance for creating knowledge that could help to “eradicate socioeconomic divisions and inequalities” (p.5-6). It goes on to point to the salience of the Humanities and Social Sciences Education under Learning Area no. 6 (p.12):
“Humanities and Social Sciences education is vital for students to develop as well as critique various forms of identities so that they have an awareness of their role in their immediate communities and nation. Such awareness will allow them to contribute towards the strengthening of democracy and intercommunal dialogue, which is necessary for peace and reconciliation. Furthermore, a strong grounding in the Humanities and Social Sciences will lead to equity and social justice concerning caste, disability, gender, and other features of social stratification.”
Sadly, the seemingly progressive philosophy guiding has not moulded the new curriculum. Subjects that could potentially address social/ethnic cohesion, such as environmental studies, history and civics, are not listed as learning areas at the primary level. History is allocated 20 hours (2 credits) across four years at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), while only 10 hours (1 credit) are allocated to civics. Meanwhile, at the O/L, students will learn 5 compulsory subjects (Mother Tongue, English, Mathematics, Science, and Religion and Value Education), and 2 electives—SNL, history and civics are bunched together with the likes of entrepreneurship here. Unlike the compulsory subjects, which are allocated 140 hours (14 credits or 70 hours each) across two years, those who opt for history or civics as electives would only have 20 hours (2 credits) of learning in each. A further 14 credits per term are for further learning modules, which will allow students to explore their interests before committing to a A/L stream or career path.
With the distribution of credits across a large number of subjects, and the few credits available for SNL, history and civics, social/ethnic cohesion will likely remain on the back burner. It appears to be neglected at primary level, is dealt sparingly at junior secondary level, and relegated to electives in senior years. This means that students will be able to progress through their entire school years, like we did, with very basic competencies in SNL and little understanding of history.
Going forward
Whether the students who experience this curriculum will be able to “resist and respond to hegemonic, divisive forces that pose a threat to social harmony and multicultural coexistence” (p.9) as anticipated in the policy, is questionable. Education policymakers and others must call for more attention to social and ethnic cohesion in the curriculum. However, changes to the curriculum would only be meaningful if accompanied by constitutional reform, abolition of policies, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (and its proxies), and other political changes.
For now, our school system remains divided by ethnicity and religion. Research from conflict-ridden societies suggests that lack of intercultural exposure in mono-ethnic schools leads to ignorance, prejudice, and polarized positions on politics and national identity. While such problems must be addressed in broader education reform efforts that also safeguard minority identities, the new curriculum revision presents an opportune moment to move this agenda forward.
(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna).
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
by Ramya Kumar
Features
Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs
Certain songs become ever-present every December, and with Christmas just two days away, I thought of highlighting the Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs.
The famous festive songs usually feature timeless classics like ‘White Christmas,’ ‘Silent Night,’ and ‘Jingle Bells,’ alongside modern staples like Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You,’ Wham’s ‘Last Christmas,’ and Brenda Lee’s ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree.’
The following renowned Christmas songs are celebrated for their lasting impact and festive spirit:
* ‘White Christmas’ — Bing Crosby
The most famous holiday song ever recorded, with estimated worldwide sales exceeding 50 million copies. It remains the best-selling single of all time.
* ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ — Mariah Carey
A modern anthem that dominates global charts every December. As of late 2025, it holds an 18x Platinum certification in the US and is often ranked as the No. 1 popular holiday track.

Mariah Carey: ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’
* ‘Silent Night’ — Traditional
Widely considered the quintessential Christmas carol, it is valued for its peaceful melody and has been recorded by hundreds of artistes, most famously by Bing Crosby.
* ‘Jingle Bells’ — Traditional
One of the most universally recognised and widely sung songs globally, making it a staple for children and festive gatherings.
* ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ — Brenda Lee
Recorded when Lee was just 13, this rock ‘n’ roll favourite has seen a massive resurgence in the 2020s, often rivaling Mariah Carey for the top spot on the Billboard Hot 100.
* ‘Last Christmas’ — Wham!
A bittersweet ’80s pop classic that has spent decades in the top 10 during the holiday season. It recently achieved 7x Platinum status in the UK.
* ‘Jingle Bell Rock’ — Bobby Helms
A festive rockabilly standard released in 1957 that remains a staple of holiday radio and playlists.
* ‘The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)’— Nat King Cole
Known for its smooth, warm vocals, this track is frequently cited as the ultimate Christmas jazz standard.

Wham! ‘Last Christmas’
* ‘It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year’ — Andy Williams
Released in 1963, this high-energy big band track is famous for capturing the “hectic merriment” of the season.
* ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ — Gene Autry
A beloved narrative song that has sold approximately 25 million copies worldwide, cementing the character’s place in Christmas folklore.
Other perennial favourites often in the mix:
* ‘Feliz Navidad’ – José Feliciano
* ‘A Holly Jolly Christmas’ – Burl Ives
* ‘Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!’ – Frank Sinatra
Let me also add that this Thursday’s ‘SceneAround’ feature (25th December) will be a Christmas edition, highlighting special Christmas and New Year messages put together by well-known personalities for readers of The Island.
-
News22 hours agoMembers of Lankan Community in Washington D.C. donates to ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Flood Relief Fund
-
Midweek Review7 days agoHow massive Akuregoda defence complex was built with proceeds from sale of Galle Face land to Shangri-La
-
News6 days agoPope fires broadside: ‘The Holy See won’t be a silent bystander to the grave disparities, injustices, and fundamental human rights violations’
-
News6 days agoPakistan hands over 200 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Lanka
-
Business5 days agoUnlocking Sri Lanka’s hidden wealth: A $2 billion mineral opportunity awaits
-
News7 days agoBurnt elephant dies after delayed rescue; activists demand arrests
-
Editorial7 days agoColombo Port facing strategic neglect
-
News5 days agoArmy engineers set up new Nayaru emergency bridge
