Features

Remembering Prof. Wiswa Warnapala: A Courageous Scholar

Published

7 months ago

2026/03/8

Wiswa Warnapala

Scholars who enter politics often lose something of their scholarship; politicians who return to scholarship rarely recover its discipline. Prof. Wiswa Warnapala belonged to that increasingly rare breed who moved between both worlds without surrendering entirely to either.

I never had the privilege of meeting him. Yet through years of reading modern Sri Lankan political history, I came to encounter his mind repeatedly in footnotes, arguments, and careful documentation. As we mark 10 years since his passing on February 27, 2016, it is not the politician alone who deserves remembrance, but the scholar whose works continue to anchor serious study of Sri Lanka’s political institutions.

He hailed from Pitihuma, Kegalle, and was born into a simple but respectable family. He received his entire school education at Kegalu Vidyalaya and excelled in both studies and sports. After a short stint at the Central Bank, he gained entrance to the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya. At that time, it was the golden era of the University, especially in the Faculty of Arts, which had lecturers who were pre-eminent in every endeavour they attempted. This was the era just after Ivor Jennings, and the holistic concept of a residential university was in progress.

Warnapala was a part of the Arunachalam Hall. Completing his bachelor’s degree majoring in Economics and Political Science, he displayed immense potential as an academic. Even before joining the University, he was well read in politics and was a committed Marxist. He considered the well known lawyer of Kegalle, Tissa Wijeyeratne (who later became an ambassador and entrepreneur), as his mentor and was exposed to valuable books through him. His contemporaries included individuals such as Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Justice Mark Fernando, Mark Cooray, Prof. J. B. Dissanayake, Dr. Wimal Wickramasinghe, and Prof. G. P. V. Somaratna.

Wiswa Warnapala became well known as a student while still at the University. Fearless and bold, he never compromised on matters he was convinced of. He made his public debut at the memorial of the great political scientist Dr. I. D. S. Weerawardena, who died at the age of 41 in 1961. Thereafter, he was involved in many student activities. It is no secret to many university students to this day that his famous “Warnapala Theory” was even subjected to debate in Parliament. This “theory,” dubbed by some as an urban legend, of how a young man would pursue his love interest, has many versions. In truth, it led to his marriage of nearly 50 years.

Upon receiving a Fulbright scholarship, he travelled to USA and subsequently obtained an MA from the University of Pittsburgh. Warnapala climbed the academic ladder steadily and by 1970 was awarded his Doctorate from the University of Leeds. Based on his thesis, he published his first book Civil Service Administration in Ceylon: A Study in Bureaucratic Adaptation (1974). This is perhaps the most scholarly and authoritative tome on the subject of Sri Lanka’s defunct Civil Service. Warnapala covered a wide range of facets concerning the Civil Service established by the British and continued by the Ceylonese until the early 1960s. The facets covered in this volume remain relevant today for those in power to understand the systematic and effective approach of the Ceylon Civil Service.

His foray into political analysis dawned at the tail end of the JVP insurrection of 1971, when he published the 16-page paper “The April Revolt in Ceylon.” This was the first scholarly study on the subject and gave Warnapala a reputation as a political analyst. Along with this paper, many of his other research articles were published in Asia Survey.

Prof. Wiswa Warnapala

For a few years in the mid-1970s, he served at the Sri Lankan Embassy in Moscow. The experiences of this diplomatic post were compiled as a book some 30 years later. It provides an interesting account of the Soviet Union and Sri Lanka at the height of the Cold War. Upon returning to Peradeniya, he was made an Associate Professor of Political Science. By this time, Warnapala was an active member of the SLFP and an Organizer for the Kegalle electorate. Befriending the academic-librarian Ian Goonetilleke (also a staunch leftist), Warnapala read widely on Sri Lanka’s political landscape as well as modern history.

In 1983, he wrote perhaps the most daring book of his life, analysing the Presidential Election and Referendum held the previous year. Recent Politics in Sri Lanka: The Presidential Election and the Referendum of 1982, published by Navrang of New Delhi, was a scholarly work which revealed the excesses of the UNP regime of the time. This was a courageous attempt by Warnapala and statistician Dr. Dias Hewagama to write a critical survey of two controversial events.

President Jayewardene purchased five copies of this book (I have found a few of them at the J. R. Jayewardene Centre) and was deeply angered by its contents. Though the idea of banning it was discussed, State Minister Anandatissa de Alwis advised that such a move would only make the book even more successful. Thus, the idea was dropped. This book elevated Warnapala to work closer with the high command of the SLFP.

After being appointed Associate Professor of Political Science, Warnapala was highly involved in many projects at the University of Peradeniya, including several foreign assignments in Tasmania and Belgium. With the SLFP stalwart P. B. G. Kalugalle leaving the party for a short time, he became Chief Organizer for Kegalle. This was a challenging period, as the 1988 Presidential Election and the 1989 General Election were held during the JVP insurgency.

With ethnic tensions heightening in the 1990s, Warnapala wrote several books including Ethnic Strife and Politics in Sri Lanka: An Investigation into Demands and Responses (1994). His work The Sri Lankan Political Scene (1993) gave the first critical study of the country’s politics from 1970 to the assassination of President Premadasa, covering the insurrections, by-elections, and constitutional developments. Devoting much time as a scholar while engaging in politics, he developed a strong understanding of local government through both research and personal experience in Kegalle. This led him to publish Local Politics in Sri Lanka: An Analysis of the Local Government Election of May 1991 (1993) and Provincial Politics in Sri Lanka: An Analysis of the Southern Provincial Council Election, 1994 (1997). Apart from Local Politics, all of these books were published in New Delhi by Navrang Publishers.

After the narrow victory of the SLFP in the 1994 General Election, Warnapala entered Parliament for the first time as a National List MP and was made Deputy Minister of Education under the regime of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. While his Minister, Richard Pathirana, handled school education, Warnapala, being a former university don, handled Higher Education.

After his defeat in the 2000 election, he remained active in documenting the history of the SLFP, in which he had been actively involved for four decades. Though Sri Lanka Freedom Party: A Political Profile (2005) is perhaps the most documented tome on a political party in Sri Lanka, it was uncritical and subjective. Under scrutiny, Warnapala the academic did not meet the same objective standards of his earlier works. It is a difficult role to play when one writes an academic work on a political party while being an active member of the same party.

After his return to Parliament in 2004 as a National List Member, Warnapala entered once again the inner chambers of public life, this time with the calm assurance of experience. He was appointed Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs under Lakshman Kadirgamar, a statesman of rare stature. In that office, Warnapala undertook several foreign assignments, representing Sri Lanka abroad at a delicate moment in its history. Following Kadirgamar’s tragic death, he was briefly entrusted with the portfolio of Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, a role suited to his constitutional mind.

In 2006, President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed him Cabinet Minister of Higher Education. It was an office that harmonised perfectly with his intellectual temperament. Warnapala was not merely a politician overseeing universities; he was a university man himself. He sought to elevate standards within state institutions while maintaining a measured openness towards private higher education at a time when the subject provoked intense debate. He also took a firm stand against ragging, then a grave and corrosive issue within campuses, believing that no system of higher learning could flourish in an atmosphere of intimidation.

After 2010, he gradually found himself distanced from the centre of party politics. Yet what might have appeared as retreat was in fact renewal. In semi-retirement, he turned to scholarship with renewed vigour and produced two of his most enduring works, each deeply rooted in his own professional life.

Having served nearly three decades as a university don and having associated with some of the finest academic minds of an earlier era, he authored The Making of the System of Higher Education in Sri Lanka: An Evaluative Study (2011). This volume stands as a definitive account of the origins of the University of Ceylon and the subsequent evolution of higher education in the island. Based on archival primary and secondary sources, it combines depth with lived insight, something only a participant-observer could achieve.

Equally significant was Parliament in Sri Lanka: A Study of the Working of Parliamentary Institutions in Sri Lanka (2013). Drawing from 12 years as a legislator, Warnapala examined parliamentary practice not as theory alone but as functioning reality. The work remains one of the most comprehensive studies of Sri Lanka’s legislative institutions.

Both volumes are authoritative and continue to serve as indispensable reference works on Sri Lanka’s higher education system and parliamentary life.

Since the mid-1990s, almost all of his works were edited by his youngest daughter, Dr. Kanchanakesi Warnapala, whom he fondly acknowledges in every publication. It must be mentioned that most of my recent work has been critically edited by her. A few years ago, Dr. Kanchanakesi co-founded The Ceylon Journal with me and others and has played a major role in ushering active scholarship in Sri Lankan studies, both relevant and popular.

In the distinguished Peradeniya tradition of political studies shaped by Sir Ivor Jennings, there emerged three notable political scientists. The first was Dr. I. D. S. Weerawardena, the second Professor A. J. Wilson, both teachers of Warnapala. Considering the breadth of his research, the rigour of his method, and the seriousness of his scholarship, it is not unreasonable to regard Warnapala as their intellectual successor.

Warnapala was, above all, a man formed in a tradition that believed scholarship required discipline, patience, and courage. Even on the night before his sudden passing, he was at his desk, typing the manuscript of what would become A Life Lived: An Unfinished Memoir (2019). Truly he was a scholar at work until the very end.

In an age where political commentary is often loud but rarely learned, and where public life increasingly drifts away from intellectual seriousness, Warnapala stands as a reminder of another standard. Today we see subjective and deeply polemical analysis of current affairs and politics by our so-called scholars. Gossip seems to be what one is most interested in, and this is a sobering reflection on our times. The consequence of their actions of propelling popularity in this manner has created an uninformed generation.

Prof. Warnapala belonged to a generation that believed ideas mattered, institutions mattered, and history demanded rigour. Whether Sri Lanka will see such a convergence of scholarship and statecraft again remains an open question. His works, however, endure as testimony to what was once possible.

By Avishka Mario Senewiratne, Editor, The Ceylon Journal

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

17 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

17 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(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.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

17 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.