Midweek Review
Some heretical thoughts on educational reforms
The term education originates from the Latin words ‘educare’, meaning ‘to bring up’, and educere, meaning ‘to bring forth’. The precise definition of education is disputed. But if it is linked with the obvious expected outcome of it – learning, then the definition of education changes to a resultant outcome of ‘a change in behaviour’.
Let me say this at the outset. I am not going to get embroiled in the nitty-gritty pros and cons of the current controversies hogging the headlines today. Except to say this. As every discerning and informed person says, we need educational reforms. There is near unanimity on that. It is the process – a long, and even tedious process – that needs to be carried out that gives rise to disagreements and controversy. A public discussion, stakeholder viewpoints and expert opinion should be given due time and consideration.
Sex education – “the birds and bees” to start with – has to be gradually introduced into school curricular. When? is the critical question that needs specific answers. Do we need to go by Western standards and practices or by a deep understanding of our cultural milieu and civilisational norms? One thing is clear in my mind. Introduction of sex education into school curricular must not be used – or abused – to make it a ‘freeway’ for indiscriminate enforcement of the whole human sexual spectrum before the binary concepts of human sexuality has been clearly understood by children – especially during their pre-pubertal and immediate post-pubertal adolescent years. I have explicitly argued this issue extensively in an academic oration and in an article published in The Island, under the title, “The child is a person”.
Having said that, let me get on to some of my heretical thoughts.
Radical thinkers
Some radical thinkers are of the view that education, particularly collective education in a regulated and organised school system, is systematic streamlined indoctrination rather than fostering critical thinking. These disagreements impact how to identify, measure, and enhance various forms of education. Essentially, what they argue is that education channels children into pliant members of society by instilling existing or dominant socio-cultural values and norms and equipping them with the skills necessary to become ‘productive’ members of that given society. Productive, in the same sense of an efficient factory production line.
This concept was critiqued in detail by one of my favourite thinkers, Ivan Illych. Ivan Illich (1926 – 2002) was an Austrian philosopher known for his radical polemics arguing that the benefits of many modern technologies and social arrangements were illusory and that, still further, such developments undermined humans’ image of self-sufficiency, freedom, and dignity. Mass education and the modern medical establishment were two of his main targets, and he accused both of institutionalising and manipulating basic aspects of life.
One of his books that stormed into the bookshelves that retains particular relevance even today is the monumental heretical thought ‘Deschooling Society’ published in 1971 which became his best-known and most influential book. It was a polemic against what he called the “world-wide cargo cult” of government schooling. Illich articulated his highly radical ideas about schooling and education. Drawing on his historical and philosophical training as well as his years of experience as an educator, he presented schools as places where consumerism and obedience to authority were paramount. Illich had come to observe and experience state education during his time in Puerto Rico, as a form of “structured injustice.”
‘Meaningless credentials’
Ilych said that “genuine learning was replaced by a process of advancement through institutional hierarchies accompanied by the accumulation of largely meaningless credentials”. In place of compulsory mass schooling, Illich suggested, “it would be preferable to adopt a model of learning in which knowledge and skills were transmitted through networks of informal and voluntary relationships”. Talking of ‘meaningless credentials’ it has become the great cash-cow of the education industry the world over today – offering ‘honorary PhDs’ and ‘Dr’ titles almost over the counter. For a fee, of course. I wrote a facebook post titled “Its raining PhDs!”.
Mass education and the modern medical establishment were two of his main targets, and he accused both of institutionalising and manipulating basic aspects of life. I first got to ‘know’ of him through his more radical treatise “Medical Nemesis: The expropriation of Health”, that congealed many a thought that had traversed my mind chaotically without direction. He wrote that “The medical establishment has become a major threat to health. The disabling impact of professional control over medicine has reached the proportions of an iatrogenic epidemic”. But it was too radical a thought, far worse than ‘Deschooling Society’. The critics were many. But that is not our topic for the day.
The other more politically radical views on education comes from Paul Freire. Paul Freire (1921 – 1997) was a Brazilian educator and Marxist philosopher whose work revolutionised global thought on education. He is best known for his 1968 book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” in which he reimagines teaching as a “collaborative act of liberation rather than transmission”. A founder of critical pedagogy, Freire’s influence spans literary movements, liberation theology, postcolonial education, Marxism, and contemporary theories of social justice and learning. He is widely regarded as one of the most important educational theorists of the twentieth century.
Neutral education process?
Richard Shaull, in his introduction to the 13th edition of ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ wrote: “There is no such thing as a neutral education process. Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of generations into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes the “practice of freedom”, the means by which men and women deal critically with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world”.
Here are a few quotes from Paul Freire before I revert to the topic I began to write on: “Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of information.”; he believed that “true liberation comes from the oppressed taking agency and actively participating in the transformation of society”; he viewed “education as a political act for liberation – as the practice of freedom for the oppressed.”; He said that “traditional education is inherently oppressive because it serves the interests of the elite. It helps in the maintenance of the status quo.”
Where does our own ‘educational reforms’ stand? Is it transference, transformative, liberating or an attempt at maintaining the status quo with the help of the ADB? The history of educational reforms in Sri Lanka has been long. A quick check on the internet elicited the following:
Colonial Era (Pre-1940s): Colebrooke-Cameron Commission (1830s): Promoted English and standardised curriculum, laying groundwork for modern systems.
Buddhist Revival: Efforts by Anagarika Dharmapala to establish schools with Buddhist principles and English education.
The Kannangara Reforms (1940s): 1943 – Minister C.W.W. Kannangara introduced free education for all funded by general taxes; 1947 – introduced it from kindergarten to university. Central Schools (Madhya Maha Vidyalayas) established high-quality secondary schools in rural areas to ensure equitable access. Medium of Instruction was mandated to be the national languages (Sinhala and Tamil) for primary education.
Nationalisation and Standardisation
Nationalisation and Standardisation (1960s-1970s): 1961 – Denominational schools were taken over by the government to create a national education system. 1972 – New attempts at reform introduced following the 1971 youth uprising, focusing on democratising education and practical skills through a common curriculum and a national policy, responding to socio-economic needs. Introduction of language-based standardisation that in all likelihood triggered the ‘separatist war’. 1978 – change from language-based standardisation to district-based standardisation on a quota system for university entrance that was first introduced with a promise for only ten years, but persists until today, for nearly 50 years. No government dares to touch it as it is politically explosive.
Focus on quality and access (1980s-1990s): White Paper on Education (1981) – aimed to modernise the system together with components of privatising higher education. It faced severe criticism and public protests for its clear neoliberal leanings. And it never got off the ground. The National Colleges of Education (1986) were established.
1987 – Devolution of education power to provincial councils. 1991 – Establishment of The National Education Commission created to formulate long-term national policies. 1997 – Comprehensive reforms through a Presidential Task Force to overhaul the general education system (Grades 1-13), including early childhood development and special and adult education.
21st Century Reforms (2000s-Present): Mid-1990s-early 2000s – focused on transforming education from rote learning to competency-based, problem-solving skills; emphasising ICT, English, equity, and aligning education with labour market needs; introducing school restructuring (junior/senior schools) and compulsory education for ages 5-14; and aiming for national development through development of human capital.
Modernising education
2019 educational reforms focused on modernising education by shifting towards a modular, credit-based system with career pathways, reducing exam burdens, integrating vocational skills, and making education more equitable, though implementation details and debates around cultural alignment continued. Key changes included introducing soft skills and vocational streams from Grade 9/10; streamlining subjects, and ensuring every child completes 13 years of education; and moving away from an excessive focus on elite schools and competitive examinations.
This government is currently implementing the 2019 reforms in the National Education Policy Framework (2023–2033), which marks a radical departure from traditional methods. Module-Based System and a shift from exam-centric education to a module-based assessment system starting in 2026.
Already we have seen multi-pronged criticisms of these reforms. These mainly hinge on the inclusion – accidentally or intentionally – of a website for adult male friend groups. The CID is investigating whether it was sabotage.
Restricting access to social media
When there is a global concern on the use of smartphones and internet by children, and where Australia has already implemented a new law in December 2025 banning under-16s from major social media platforms to protect children from cyberbullying, grooming, and addiction, requiring tech companies to use age verification.
The U.S. does not have a federal law banning smartphones for under-16s, but a major movement, fuelled by the US Surgeon-General warnings and research on youth mental health, is pushing for restrictions, leading many individual states (like California, Florida, Virginia) to enact laws or guidelines for school-day bans or limits for students, focusing on classroom distraction and social media risks, with some advocates pushing for no smartphones before high school or age 16.
The UK doesn’t currently have a legal ban on smartphones for under-16s, but there’s significant political and public pressure for restrictions, with debates focusing on social media access and potential school bans, with some politicians and experts advocating bans similar to Australia’s, while others push for stronger regulations under the existing Online Safety Act to protect children from addictive algorithms and harm.
Sweden is implementing a nationwide ban on mobile phones in schools for students aged 7 to 16, starting in autumn 2026, requiring devices to be handed in until the school day ends to improve focus, security, and academic performance, as part of a major education reform. This national law, not just a recommendation, aims to reduce distractions and promote traditional learning methods like books and physical activity, addressing concerns about excessive screen time affecting children’s health and development.
Norway doesn’t have a complete smartphone ban for under-16s but is moving to raise the minimum age for social media access to 15 and has implemented strong recommendations, including a ban on phones in schools to protect children from harmful content and digital overexposure, with studies showing positive impacts on focus and well-being. The government aims to shield kids from online harms like abuse and exploitation, working with the EU to develop age verification for platforms like TikTok and Instagram.
Finland implemented a law in August 2025 restricting smartphone use for students aged 7-16 during the school day, empowering teachers to ban devices in classrooms, meals, and breaks, except for educational or health reasons, to combat distractions, improve focus, and support student well-being and social skills. The move aims to create calmer learning environments, reduce cyberbullying, and encourage more in-person interaction, giving teachers control to confiscate disruptive phones, though digital tools remain part of education.
Trend in liberal west
When this is the trend in the ‘liberal West’ on the use of smartphones by children in schools, did not our educational reform initiators, experts and pundits in the NIE not been observing and following these worldwide trends? How could they recommend grade 6 children to go to (even a harmless legitimate) website? Have they been in hibernation when such ‘friend/chat room’ sites have been the haunt of predatory paedophile adults? Where have they been while all this has been developing for the past decade or more? Who suggested the idea of children being initiated into internet friends chat rooms through websites? I think this is not only an irresponsible act, but a criminal one.
Even if children are given guided, supervised access to the internet in a school environment, what about access to rural children? What about equity on this issue? Are nationwide institutional and structural facilities available in all secondary schools before children are initiated into using the internet and websites? What kind of supervision of such activities have been put in place at school (at least) to ensure that children are safe from the evils of chat rooms and becoming innocent victims of paedophiles?
We are told that the new modular systems to be initiated will shift assessments from an exam-centric model to a modular-based, continuous assessment system designed to prioritise skill development, reduce stress, and promote active learning. The new reforms, supposed to begin in 2026, will introduce smaller, self-contained learning modules (covering specific topics or themes) with integrated, ongoing assessments.
Modular assessment and favouritism
I will not go into these modular assessments in schools in any detail. Favouritism in schools is a well-known problem already. 30% of final assessments to be entrusted to the class teacher is a treacherous minefield tempting teachers into corrupt practices. The stories emanating from the best of schools are too many to retell. Having intimate knowledge of what happens to student assignment assessments in universities, what could happen in schools is, to me, unimaginable. Where do the NIE experts live? In Sri Lanka? Or are they living in ideal and isolated ivory towers? Our country is teeming with corruption at every level. Are teachers and principals immune from it? Recently, I saw a news item when a reputed alumnus of “the best school of all” wrote a letter to the President citing rampant financial corruption in the school.
This article is already too long. So, before I wind up, let me get on to a conspiracy theory. Why have the World Bank and the ADB been pumping millions of USD into ‘improving’ our education system?
World Bank
The World Bank is the largest source of external financing for education in developing countries, maintaining an active portfolio of approximately $26 billion in 94 countries reaching an estimated 425 million students— roughly one-third of all students in low- and middle-income countries.
The World Bank funds education globally through loans, grants, and technical assistance to improve access, quality, and equity, focusing on areas like teacher training, digital infrastructure, and learning outcomes, with significant recent investment in Fragile, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) settings and pandemic recovery efforts. Funding supports national education strategies, like modernising systems in Sri Lanka, and tackles specific challenges such as learning loss, with approaches including results-based financing and supporting resilient systems. Note this phrase – ” … with significant recent investment in Fragile, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) settings ….”. The funds are monumental for FCV Settings – $7 billion invested in Fragile, Conflict, and Violence settings, with plans for $1.2 billion more in 2024-25. Now with our Ditwah disaster, it is highly fertile ground for their FCV investments.
Read Naomi Kline’s epic “The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism”. It tells it all. It must be read and digested to understand the psychology of funding for FCV settings.
The 40.3 million USD World Bank’s IRQUE (Improving Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education) Project in Sri Lanka (circa 2003-2009) was a key initiative to modernize the country’s higher education by boosting quality, accountability, and relevance to the job market, introducing competitive funding (QEF), establishing Quality Assurance (QA) functions for the first time, and increasing market-oriented skills, significantly reducing graduate unemployment. I was intimately involved in that project as both Dean/Medicine and then VC of University of Ruhuna. Again, the keywords ‘relevance to the job market’ comes to mind.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is heavily funding education reform in Sri Lanka, notably with a significant $400 million loan (Secondary Education Sector Improvement Program – SESIP) to transform secondary education, aligning it with global knowledge economy demands, improving curriculum, teacher training, and infrastructure for quality access. ADB also provides ongoing support, emphasising teacher training, digital tech, and infrastructure, viewing Sri Lanka’s youth and education as crucial for development. The keywords are ‘aligning it with global knowledge economy demands’. As of 2019, ADB loans for education totalled approximately $1.1 billion, with cumulative funding for pre-primary, primary, and secondary education exceeding $7.4 billion since 1970 in the Asia-Pacific region.
Radical view of IMF and WB
A radical view of the Bretton Woods twins – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – and the ADB characterises them not as neutral facilitators of global economic stability and egalitarian economic development in poor countries, but as tools of Western hegemony, neoliberal imposition, and institutionalized inequality. From this perspective, these institutions, created to manage the post-WWII economic order, have evolved into instruments that perpetuate the dominance of the Global North over the Global South.
The World Bank and the ADB (in our part of the world) have been investing heavily on education reform in poor countries in Asia and Africa. Why? Surely, they are not ‘charity organisations’? What returns are they expecting for their investments? Let me make a wild guess. The long-term objective of WB/ADB is to have ‘employable graduates in the global job market’. A pliant skilled workforce for exploitation of their labour. Not for “education as a political act for liberation” as Paul Freire put it.
I need to wind up my heretical thoughts on educational reform. For those of us who wish to believe that the WB and ADB is there to save us from illiteracy, poverty and oppression, I say, dream on.
“Don’t let schooling interfere with your education. Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned.” – Mark Twain
by Susirith Mendis
Susmend2610@gmail.com
Midweek Review
Daya Pathirana killing and transformation of the JVP
JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe, who returned to Sri Lanka in late Nov, 2001, ending a 12-year self-imposed exile in Europe, declared that India helped him flee certain death as the government crushed his party’s second insurrection against the state in the ’80s, using even death squads. Amarasinghe, sole surviving member of the original politburo of the JVP, profusely thanked India and former Prime Minister V.P. Singh for helping him survive the crackdown. Neither the JVP nor India never explained the circumstances New Delhi facilitated Amarasinghe’s escape, particularly against the backdrop of the JVP’s frenzied anti-India campaign. The JVP has claimed to have killed Indian soldiers in the East during the 1987-1989 period. Addressing his first public meeting at Kalutara, a day after his arrival, Amarasinghe showed signs that the party had shed its anti-India policy of yesteryears. The JVPer paid tribute to the people of India, PM Singh and Indian officials who helped him escape.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Forty years after the killing of Daya Pathirana, the third head of the Independent Student Union (ISU) by the Socialist Students’ Union (SSU), affiliated with the JVP, one-time Divaina journalist Dharman Wickremaretne has dealt with the ISU’s connections with some Tamil terrorist groups. The LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) hadn’t been among them, according to Wickremaretne’s Daya Pathirana Ghathanaye Nodutu Peththa (The Unseen Side of Daya Pathirana Killing), the fifth of a series of books that discussed the two abortive insurgencies launched by the JVP in 1971 and the early ’80s.
Pathirana was killed on 15 December, 1986. His body was found at Hirana, Panadura. Pathirana’s associate, Punchiralalage Somasiri, also of the ISU, who had been abducted, along with Pathirana, was brutally attacked but, almost by a miracle, survived to tell the tale. Daya Pathirana was the second person killed after the formation of the Deshapremi Janatha Vyaparaya (DJV), the macabre wing of the JVP, in early March 1986. The DJV’s first head had been JVP politburo member Saman Piyasiri Fernando.
Its first victim was H. Jayawickrema, Principal of Middeniya Gonahena Vidyalaya, killed on 05 December, 1986. The JVP found fault with him for suspending several students for putting up JVP posters.
Wickremaretne, who had been relentlessly searching for information, regarding the violent student movements for two decades, was lucky to receive obviously unconditional support of those who were involved with the SSU and ISU as well as other outfits. Somasiri was among them.
Deepthi Lamaheva had been ISU’s first leader. Warnakulasooriya succeeded Lamahewa and was replaced by Pathirana. After Pathirana’s killing K.L. Dharmasiri took over. Interestingly, the author justified Daya Pathirana’s killing on the basis that those who believed in violence died by it.
Wickremaretne’s latest book, the fifth of the series on the JVP, discussed hitherto largely untouched subject – the links between undergraduates in the South and northern terrorists, even before the July 1983 violence in the wake of the LTTE killing 12 soldiers, and an officer, while on a routine patrol at Thinnavely, Jaffna.
The LTTE emerged as the main terrorist group, after the Jaffna killings, while other groups plotted to cause mayhem. The emergence of the LTTE compelled the then JRJ government to transfer all available police and military resources to the North, due to the constant attacks that gradually weakened government authority there. In Colombo, ISU and Tamil groups, including the PLOTE (People’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) enhanced cooperation. Wickremaretne shed light on a disturbing ISU-PLOTE connection that hadn’t ever been examined or discussed or received sufficient public attention.
In fact, EROS (Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students), too, had been involved with the ISU. According to the author, the ISU had its first meeting on 10 April, 1980. In the following year, ISU established contact with the EPRLF (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front). The involvement of ISU with the PLOTE and Wickremaretne revealed how the SSU probed that link and went to the extent of secretly interrogating ISU members in a bid to ascertain the details of that connection. ISU activist Pradeep Udayakumara Thenuwara had been forcibly taken to Sri Jayewardenepura University where he was subjected to strenuous interrogation by SSU in a bid to identify those who were involved in a high profile PLOTE operation.
The author ascertained that the SSU suspected Pathirana’s direct involvement in the PLOTE attack on the Nikaweratiya Police Station, and the Nikaweratiya branch of the People’s Bank, on April 26, 1985. The SSU believed that out of a 16-member gang that carried out the twin attacks, two were ISU members, namely Pathirana, and another identified as Thalathu Oya Seneviratne, aka Captain Senevi.
The SSU received information regarding ISU’s direct involvement in the Nikaweratiya attacks from hardcore PLOTE cadre Nagalingam Manikkadasan, whose mother was a Sinhalese and closely related to JVP’s Upatissa Gamanayake. The LTTE killed Manikkadasan in a bomb attack on a PLOTE office, in Vavuniya, in September, 1999. The writer met Manikkadasan, at Bambapalitiya, in 1997, in the company of Dharmalingham Siddharthan. The PLOTE had been involved in operations in support of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s administration.
It was President Premadasa who first paved the way for Tamil groups to enter the political mainstream. In spite of some of his own advisors expressing concern over Premadasa’s handling of negotiations with the LTTE, he ordered the then Elections Commissioner Chandrananda de Silva to grant political recognition to the LTTE. The LTTE’s political wing PFLT (People’s Front of Liberation Tigers) received recognition in early December, 1989, seven months before Eelam War II erupted.
Transformation of ISU
The author discussed the formation of the ISU, its key members, links with Tamil groups, and the murderous role in the overall counter insurgency campaign during JRJ and Ranasinghe Premadasa presidencies. Some of those who had been involved with the ISU may have ended up with various other groups, even civil society groups. Somasiri, who was abducted along with Pathirana at Thunmulla and attacked with the same specialised knife, but survived, is such a person.
Somasiri contested the 06 May Local Government elections, on the Jana Aragala Sandhanaya ticket. Jana Aragala Sandhanaya is a front organisation of the Frontline Socialist Party/ Peratugaami pakshaya, a breakaway faction of the JVP that also played a critical role in the violent protest campaign Aragalaya against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That break-up happened in April 2012, The wartime Defence Secretary, who secured the presidency at the 2019 presidential election, with 6.9 mn votes, was forced to give up office, in July 2022, and flee the country.
Somasiri and Jana Aragala Sandhanaya were unsuccessful; the group contested 154 Local Government bodies and only managed to secure only 16 seats whereas the ruling party JVP comfortably won the vast majority of Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas.
Let us get back to the period of terror when the ISU was an integral part of the UNP’s bloody response to the JVP challenge. The signing of the Indo-Lanka accord, in late July 1987, resulted in the intensification of violence by both parties. Wickremaretne disclosed secret talks between ISU leader K.L. Dharmasiri and the then Senior SSP (Colombo South) Abdul Cader Abdul Gafoor to plan a major operation to apprehend undergraduates likely to lead protests against the Indo-Lanka accord. Among those arrested were Gevindu Cumaratunga and Anupa Pasqual. Cumaratunga, in his capacity as the leader of civil society group Yuthukama, that contributed to the campaign against Yahapalanaya, was accommodated on the SLPP National List (2020 to 2024) whereas Pasqual, also of Yuthukama, entered Parliament on the SLPP ticket, having contested Kalutara. Pasqual switched his allegiance to Ranil Wickremesinghe after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster in July 2022.
SSU/JVP killed K.L. Dharmasiri on 19 August, 1989, in Colomba Kochchikade just a few months before the Army apprehended and killed JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera. Towards the end of the counter insurgency campaign, a section of the ISU was integrated with the military (National Guard). The UNP government had no qualms in granting them a monthly payment.
Referring to torture chambers operated at the Law Faculty of the Colombo University and Yataro operations centre, Havelock Town, author Wickremaretne underscored the direct involvement of the ISU in running them.
Maj. Tuan Nizam Muthaliff, who had been in charge of the Yataro ‘facility,’ located near State Defence Minister Ranjan Wijeratne’s residence, is widely believed to have shot Wijeweera in November, 1989. Muthaliff earned the wrath of the LTTE for his ‘work’ and was shot dead on May 3, 2005, at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. At the time of Muthaliff’s assassination, he served in the Military Intelligence.
Premadasa-SSU/JVP link
Ex-lawmaker and Jathika Chinthanaya Kandayama stalwart Gevindu Cumaratunga, in his brief address to the gathering, at Wickremaretne’s book launch, in Colombo, compared Daya Pathirana’s killing with the recent death of Nandana Gunatilleke, one-time frontline JVPer.
Questioning the suspicious circumstances surrounding Gunatilleke’s demise, Cumaratunga strongly emphasised that assassinations shouldn’t be used as a political tool or a weapon to achieve objectives. The outspoken political activist discussed the Pathirana killing and Gunatilleke’s demise, recalling the false accusations directed at the then UNPer Gamini Lokuge regarding the high profile 1986 hit.
Cumaratunga alleged that the SSU/JVP having killed Daya Pathirana made a despicable bid to pass the blame to others. Turning towards the author, Cumaratunga heaped praise on Wickremaretne for naming the SSU/JVP hit team and for the print media coverage provided to the student movements, particularly those based at the Colombo University.
Cumaratunga didn’t hold back. He tore into SSU/JVP while questioning their current strategies. At one point a section of the audience interrupted Cumaratunga as he made references to JVP-led Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB) and JJB strategist Prof. Nirmal Dewasiri, who had been with the SSU during those dark days. Cumaratunga recalled him attending Daya Pathirana’s funeral in Matara though he felt that they could be targeted.
Perhaps the most controversial and contentious issue raised by Cumaratunga was Ranasinghe Premadasa’s alleged links with the SSU/JVP. The ex-lawmaker reminded the SSU/JVP continuing with anti-JRJ campaign even after the UNP named Ranasinghe Premadasa as their candidature for the December 1988 presidential election. His inference was clear. By the time Premadasa secured the presidential nomination he had already reached a consensus with the SSU/JVP as he feared JRJ would double cross him and give the nomination to one of his other favourites, like Gamini Dissanayake or Lalith Athulathmudali.
There had been intense discussions involving various factions, especially among the most powerful SSU cadre that led to putting up posters targeting Premadasa at the Colombo University. Premadasa had expressed surprise at the appearance of such posters amidst his high profile ‘Me Kawuda’ ‘Monawada Karanne’poster campaign. Having questioned the appearance of posters against him at the Colombo University, Premadasa told Parliament he would inquire into such claims and respond. Cumaratunga alleged that night UNP goons entered the Colombo University to clean up the place.
The speaker suggested that the SSU/JVP backed Premadasa’s presidential bid and the UNP leader may have failed to emerge victorious without their support. He seemed quite confident of his assertion. Did the SSU/JVP contribute to Premadasa’s victory at one of the bloodiest post-independence elections in our history.
Cumaratunga didn’t forget to comment on his erstwhile comrade Anupa Pasqual. Alleging that Pasqual betrayed Yuthukama when he switched allegiance to Wickremesinghe, Cumaratunga, however, paid a glowing tribute to him for being a courageous responder, as a student leader.
SSU accepts Eelam
One of the most interesting chapters was the one that dealt with the Viplawadi Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna/Revolutionary Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (RJVP), widely known as the Vikalpa Kandaya/Alternative Group and the ISU mount joint campaigns with Tamil groups. Both University groups received weapons training, courtesy PLOTE and EPRLF, both here, and in India, in the run-up to the so-called Indo-Lanka Peace Accord. In short, they accepted Tamils’ right to self-determination.
The author also claimed that the late Dharmeratnam Sivaram had been in touch with ISU and was directly involved in arranging weapons training for ISU. No less a person than PLOTE Chief Uma Maheswaran had told the author that PLOTE provided weapons training to ISU, free of charge ,and the JVP for a fee. Sivaram, later contributed to several English newspapers, under the pen name Taraki, beginning with The Island. By then, he propagated the LTTE line that the war couldn’t be brought to a successful conclusion through military means. Taraki was abducted near the Bambalapitiya Police Station on the night of 28 April, 2005, and his body was found the following day.
The LTTE conferred the “Maamanithar” title upon the journalist, the highest civilian honour of the movement.
In the run up to the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord, India freely distributed weapons to Tamil terrorist groups here who in turn trained Sinhala youth.
Had it been part of the overall Indian destabilisation project, directed at Sri Lanka? PLOTE and EPRLF couldn’t have arranged weapons training in India as well as terrorist camps here without India’s knowledge. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka never sought to examine the origins of terrorism here and identified those who propagated and promoted separatist ideals.
Exactly a year before Daya Pathirana’s killing, arrangements had been made by ISU to dispatch a 15-member group to India. But, that move had been cancelled after law enforcement authorities apprehended some of those who received weapons training in India earlier. Wickremaretne’s narrative of the students’ movement, with the primary focus of the University of Colombo, is a must read. The author shed light on the despicable Indian destabilisation project that, if succeeded, could have caused and equally destructive war in the South. In a way, Daya Pathirana’s killing preempted possible wider conflict in the South.
Gevindu Cumaratunga, in his thought-provoking speech, commented on Daya Pathirana. At the time Cumaratunga entered Colombo University, he hadn’t been interested at all in politics. But, the way the ISU strongman promoted separatism, influenced Cumaratunga to counter those arguments. The ex-MP recollected how Daya Pathirana, a heavy smoker (almost always with a cigarette in his hand) warned of dire consequences if he persisted with his counter views.
In fact, Gevindu Cumaratunga ensured that the ’80s terror period was appropriately discussed at the book launch. Unfortunately, Wickremaretne’s book didn’t cause the anticipated response, and a dialogue involving various interested parties. It would be pertinent to mention that at the time the SSU/JVP decided to eliminate Daya Pathirana, it automatically received the tacit support of other student factions, affiliated to other political parties, including the UNP.
Soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake received the leadership of the JVP from Somawansa Amarasinghe, in December 2014, he, in an interview with Saroj Pathirana of BBC Sandeshaya, regretted their actions during the second insurgency. Responding to Pathirana’s query, Dissanayake not only regretted but asked for forgiveness for nearly 6,000 killings perpetrated by the party during that period. Author Wickremaretne cleverly used FSP leader Kumar Gunaratnam’s interview with Upul Shantha Sannasgala, aired on Rupavahini on 21 November, 2019, to remind the reader that he, too, had been with the JVP at the time the decision was taken to eliminate Daya Pathirana. Gunaratnam moved out of the JVP, in April 2012, after years of turmoil. It would be pertinent to mention that Wimal Weerawansa-Nandana Gunatilleke led a group that sided with President Mahinda Rajapaksa during his first term, too, and had been with the party by that time. Although the party split over the years, those who served the interests of the JVP, during the 1980-1990 period, cannot absolve themselves of the violence perpetrated by the party. This should apply to the JVPers now in the Jathika Jana Balawegaya (JJB), a political party formed in July 2019 to create a platform for Dissanayake to contest the 2019 presidential election. Dissanayake secured a distant third place (418,553 votes [3.16%])
However, the JVP terrorism cannot be examined without taking into JRJ’s overall political strategy meant to suppress political opposition. The utterly disgusting strategy led to the rigged December 1982 referendum that gave JRJ the opportunity to postpone the parliamentary elections, scheduled for August 1983. JRJ feared his party would lose the super majority in Parliament, hence the irresponsible violence marred referendum, the only referendum ever held here to put off the election. On 30 July, 1983, JRJ proscribed the JVP, along with the Nawa Sama Samaja Party and the Communist Party, on the false pretext of carrying out attacks on the Tamil community, following the killing of 13 soldiers in Jaffna.
Under Dissanayake’s leadership, the JVP underwent total a overhaul but it was Somawansa Amarasinghe who paved the way. Under Somawansa’s leadership, the party took the most controversial decision to throw its weight behind warwinning Army Chief General (retd) Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. That decision, the writer feels, can be compared only with the decision to launch its second terror campaign in response to JRJ’s political strategy. How could we forget Somawansa Amarasinghe joining hands with the UNP and one-time LTTE ally, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), to field Fonseka? Although they failed in that US-backed vile scheme, in 2010, success was achieved at the 2015 presidential election when Maithripala Sirisena was elected.
Perhaps, the JVP took advantage of the developing situation (post-Indo-Lanka Peace Accord), particularly the induction of the Indian Army here, in July 1987, to intensify their campaign. In the aftermath of that, the JVP attacked the UNP parliamentary group with hand grenades in Parliament. The August 1987 attack killed Matara District MP Keerthi Abeywickrema and staffer Nobert Senadheera while 16 received injuries. Both President JRJ and Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa had been present at the time the two hand grenades were thrown at the group.
Had the JVP plot to assassinate JRJ and Premadasa succeeded in August 1987, what would have happened? Gevindu Cumaratunga, during his speech also raised a very interesting question. The nationalist asked where ISU Daya Pathirana would have been if he survived the murderous JVP.
Midweek Review
Reaping a late harvest Musings of an Old Man
I am an old man, having reached “four score and five” years, to describe my age in archaic terms. From a biological perspective, I have “grown old.” However, I believe that for those with sufficient inner resources, old age provides fertile ground to cultivate a new outlook and reap a late harvest before the sun sets on life.
Negative Characterisation of Old Age
My early medical education and training familiarised me with the concept of biological ageing: that every living organism inevitably undergoes progressive degeneration of its tissues over time. Old age is often associated with disease, disability, cognitive decline, and dependence. There is an inkling of futility, alienation, and despair as one approaches death. Losses accumulate. As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, “When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions.” Doctors may experience difficulty in treating older people and sometimes adopt an attitude of therapeutic nihilism toward a life perceived to be in decline.
Categorical assignment of symptoms is essential in medical practice when arriving at a diagnosis. However, placing an individual into the box of a “geriatric” is another matter, often resulting in unintended age segregation and stigmatisation rather than liberation of the elderly. Such labelling may amount to ageism. It is interesting to note that etymologically, the English word geriatric and the Sanskrit word jara both stem from the Indo-European root geront, meaning old age and decay, leading to death (jara-marana).
Even Sigmund Freud (1875–1961), the doyen of psychoanalysis, who influenced my understanding of personality structure and development during my psychiatric training, focused primarily on early development and youth, giving comparatively little attention to the psychology of old age. He believed that instinctual drives lost their impetus with ageing and famously remarked that “ageing is the castration of youth,” implying infertility not only in the biological sense. It is perhaps not surprising that Freud began his career as a neurologist and studied cerebral palsy.
Potential for Growth in Old Age
The model of human development proposed by the psychologist Erik Erikson (1902–1994), which he termed the “eight stages of man,” is far more appealing to me. His theory spans the entire life cycle, with each stage presenting a developmental task involving the negotiation of opposing forces; success or failure influences the trajectory of later life. The task of old age is to reconcile the polarity between “ego integrity” and “ego despair,” determining the emotional life of the elderly.
Ego integrity, according to Erikson, is the sense of self developed through working through the crises (challenges) of earlier stages and accruing psychological assets through lived experience. Ego despair, in contrast, results from the cumulative impact of multiple physical and emotional losses, especially during the final stage of life. A major task of old age is to maintain dignity amidst such emotionally debilitating forces. Negotiating between these polarities offers the potential for continued growth in old age, leading to what might be called a “meaningful finish.”
I do not dispute the concept of biological ageing. However, I do not regard old age as a terminal phase in which growth ceases and one is simply destined to wither and die. Though shadowed by physical frailty, diminishing sensory capacities and an apparent waning of vitality, there persists a proactive human spirit that endures well into late life. There is a need in old age to rekindle that spirit. Ageing itself can provide creative opportunities and avenues for productivity. The aim is to bring life to a meaningful close.
To generate such change despite the obstacles of ageing — disability and stigmatisation — the elderly require a sense of agency, a gleam of hope, and a sustaining aspiration. This may sound illusory; yet if such illusions are benign and life-affirming, why not allow them?
Sharon Kaufman, in her book The Ageless Self: Sources of Meaning in Late Life, argues that “old age” is a social construct resisted by many elders. Rather than identifying with decline, they perceive identity as a lifelong process despite physical and social change. They find meaning in remaining authentically themselves, assimilating and reformulating diverse life experiences through family relationships, professional achievements, and personal values.
Creative Living in Old Age
We can think of many artists, writers, and thinkers who produced their most iconic, mature, or ground-breaking work in later years, demonstrating that creativity can deepen and flourish with age. I do not suggest that we should all aspire to become a Monet, Picasso, or Chomsky. Rather, I use the term “creativity” in a broader sense — to illuminate its relevance to ordinary, everyday living.
Endowed with wisdom accumulated through life’s experiences, the elderly have the opportunity for developmental self-transformation — to connect with new identities, perspectives, and aspirations, and to engage in a continuing quest for purpose and meaning. Such a quest serves an essential function in sustaining mental health and well-being.
Old age offers opportunities for psychological adaptation and renewal. Many elders use the additional time afforded by retirement to broaden their knowledge, pursue new goals, and cultivate creativity — an old age characterised by wholeness, purpose, and coherence that keeps the human spirit alive and growing even as one’s days draw to a close.
Creative living in old age requires remaining physically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially engaged, and experiencing life as meaningful. It is important to sustain an optimistic perception of health, while distancing oneself from excessive preoccupation with pain and trauma. Positive perceptions of oneself and of the future help sustain well-being. Engage in lifelong learning, maintain curiosity, challenge assumptions — for learning itself is a meaning-making process. Nurture meaningful relationships to avoid disengagement, and enter into respectful dialogue, not only with those who agree with you. Cultivate a spiritual orientation and come to terms with mortality.
The developmental task of old age is to continue growing even as one approaches death — to reap a late harvest. As Rabindranath Tagore expressed evocatively in Gitanjali [‘Song Offerings’], which won him the Nobel Prize:: “On the day when death will knock at thy door, what wilt thou offer to him?
Oh, I will set before my guest the full vessel of my life — I will never let him go with empty hands.”
by Dr Siri Galhenage
Psychiatrist (Retired)
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]
Midweek Review
Left’s Voice of Ethnic Peace
Multi-gifted Prof. Tissa Vitarana in passing,
Leaves a glowing gem of a memory comforting,
Of him putting his best foot forward in public,
Alongside fellow peace-makers in the nineties,
In the name of a just peace in bloodied Sri Lanka,
Caring not for personal gain, barbs or brickbats,
And for such humanity he’ll be remembered….
Verily a standard bearer of value-based politics.
By Lynn Ockersz
-
Business6 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Latest News1 day agoNew Zealand meet familiar opponents Pakistan at spin-friendly Premadasa
-
Latest News1 day agoTariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda
-
Latest News2 days agoECB push back at Pakistan ‘shadow-ban’ reports ahead of Hundred auction
-
Features6 days agoGiants in our backyard: Why Sri Lanka’s Blue Whales matter to the world
-
Sports3 days agoOld and new at the SSC, just like Pakistan
-
News5 days agoIMF MD here
-
Business5 days agoGreen Minds: A new platform to rethink environmental governance in Sri Lanka

JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe, who returned to Sri Lanka in late Nov, 2001, ending a 12-year self-imposed exile in Europe, declared that India helped him flee certain death as the government crushed his party’s second insurrection against the state in the ’80s, using even death squads. Amarasinghe, sole surviving member of the original politburo of the JVP, profusely thanked India and former Prime Minister V.P. Singh for helping him survive the crackdown. Neither the JVP nor India never explained the circumstances New Delhi facilitated Amarasinghe’s escape, particularly against the backdrop of the JVP’s frenzied anti-India campaign. The JVP has claimed to have killed Indian soldiers in the East during the 1987-1989 period. Addressing his first public meeting at Kalutara, a day after his arrival, Amarasinghe showed signs that the party had shed its anti-India policy of yesteryears. The JVPer paid tribute to the people of India, PM Singh and Indian officials who helped him escape.