Features
Visit to Britain, Canada and the United States
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister)
In early 1972, the US government extended an invitation to me and to the Public Trustee, Mr. Barnes Ratwatte, to visit America under one of their leadership grants. The period was to be close upon a month. I was reluctant to ask the PM time off for such a long program. But she had heard about it, and wanted me to go. She was convinced that I needed a break, and said “At this rate you will fall ill.” This was both unselfish and gracious of her.
Preparations were therefore made to go. In the making of these preparations Miss Diana Captain of the United States Information Service in Colombo, did an excellent job with great energy, understanding and commitment. She spared no pains to make our forthcoming visit to the United States both useful and enjoyable. In the meantime, the Canadian government, hearing that we were to go to the States invited us to spend a week in Canada. They suggested that I spend at least three days in the Privy Council and Cabinet office in Ottawa, and then go on to Manitoba, which had at the time a left-of-centre government, and view how that Provincial Government functioned.
A separate program was to be arranged for Mr. Ratwatte. When Tilak Gooneratne, our High Commissioner in London, heard about our visit, he telephoned the prime minister and told her that he was very keen that we spend about three or four days in London, where he was going to arrange a program for me in the Cabinet office and the Prime Minister’s office at No. 10, Downing Street. He was going to arrange a separate program for Mr. Ratwatte. The Prime Minister approved both the Canadian and British programs. This meant that I would have to be away for about six weeks. I discussed this aspect with her. But she said “You need a break, and this program will be very useful.”
Britain
So, in July 1972, Barnes and I went to London, on the first leg of a fairly long tour. In London, I had a useful meeting in the British Cabinet office and met Lord Bridges, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister for Overseas Affairs, in the Prime Minister’s office. Much was discussed during an interesting meeting. Tilak Gooneratne had arranged for us to meet the distinguished Lord Denning, Master of The Rolls, who was President of the Court of Appeal, and a friend of Tilak’s. We had a most cordial and interesting meeting in his Chambers, after which he invited us to sit in his court.
We spent a fascinating 45 minutes in court, with Lord Denning presiding with two other judges, listening to arguments in a complicated tax case. The court sat in a large room which was like a library full of law books and law reports neatly placed on shelves lining the room. Whenever counsel cited a case, three copies of the relevant law report opened to the correct page were placed before the three judges by assistants. It was an efficient process.
We were also taken to The House of Commons, because arrangements had been made for me in particular to see the Prime Minister answering questions in Parliament. The Prime Minister was Sir Edward Heath. We were the guests of two members of Parliament, one Conservative and one Labour. The Conservative M.P. was Mr. Norman Tebbit later, to be a Senior Minister, as well as Chairman of the Conservative Party. He was a charming person, who told us that he knew Ceylon well because as a BOAC pilot, once upon a time he came to Colombo many times. The Labour M.P. was Mr. James Tim, who in fact, joined us later.
By the time we took our seats in a viewing gallery, there was still time for the Prime Minister to answer questions. In fact, he was not yet in the chamber. But, there was someone answering questions, a lady. She was answering questions on education. The Labour benches were baiting her, and there was considerable noise. It was a very lively session. The most interesting feature however. was the style and manner in which she handled the supplementary questions, the interruptions and the general cacophony. She was impressively the master of her brief. She was confident and combative. What was hurled at her from the opposition benches, she hurled back with compound interest added.
We inquired who this lady was, and was told that she was the Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher, Secretary of State for Education and Science. I had heard that she was a grocer’s daughter. Her parents presumably were in the retail trade. But this lady was clearly in the wholesale business. There were no rationed quantities delivered in her countering of opposition belligerence. It was marvelous parliamentary theatre. After her display, we found the Prime Minister’s question time tepid and somewhat of an anti-climax.
Later, when we got back to Sri Lanka, in discussing our visit with Mrs. Bandaranaike, I asked her, whether she had met Mrs. Thatcher. She said she had not. I then told her something which turned out to be prophetic. After describing her performance in the House of Commons that day, I said that if Britain was going to have a woman Prime Minister in the foreseeable future, it had to be Mrs. Thatcher. It was not a rash judgment. By this time, I had had occasion to meet a considerable number of Ministers, Prime Ministers and other senior political figures not only from Sri Lanka, but from several other countries as well. My judgement of Mrs. Thatcher was therefore based on perceived personality, confidence, thoroughness, clarity and obvious ability.
The visit to Britain was a packed program. Besides the visits mentioned, there were other appointments, and official lunches where speeches had to be made. We saw much and met many during the course of quite a brief visit.
Canada
The next leg of our journey took us to Canada. We were met at the airport in Ottawa by the High Commissioner William Silva, who had been a Cabinet Minister earlier in Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike’s government, and Canadian officials. Here again, we had a packed program. Apart from calling on the Foreign Secretary, and other dignitaries most of my time was spent in the Privy Council office. Here, I was welcomed most warmly and cordially by Mr. Gordon Robertson, Secretary to the Cabinet, and Secretary to the Privy Council.
Mr. Robertson was the senior Most public servant in Canada, and highly respected. He was a genial person with a sense of humour and we got on very well. On my first day, he escorted me to the conference room attached to his office, where four senior officials were waiting, including Mr. Michael Pitfield who succeeded Mr. Robertson in this key position. Against my protests, Mr. Robertson insisted that I take his chair at the head of the table, whilst he sat among the others and that is how we engaged in a fascinating discussion for the next hour.
The Canadians were very open in their analysis and comments. They treated me as a respected colleague and an equal from another Commonwealth country, and assumed that confidences would be kept. I was encouraged to ask any question, and always received frank answers. One of the questions I asked was “what do you regard as your most important responsibility?” The answer was instant, “managing Federal-Provincial relations.” Canada has a Federal structure with entities called Provinces and not States. These provinces have considerable power and authority.
According to the Privy Council team, there arise almost constant disputes between the center and the provinces, and managing these issues was a most important and sensitive task. These are matters which Sri Lanka should also address, in its pursuit of greater devolution. Models which look nice on paper and elegant legally may not be workable in practice. Reflecting on Canadian experience. one would urge caution and a thorough practical grasp of issues, which would require vision and an anticipation of how proposals would actually work out on the ground.
My attachment to the Privy Council office also included meetings with the Deputy Secretaries and some of the Senior Assistant Secretaries. They were handling different areas of work. Even at Assistant Secretary level the office was staffed with senior and experienced people. In fact when I went to see one of them, I found that her previous assignment was as Canada’s Ambassador to Poland. Such was the caliber of people even at Assistant Secretary level. All of them were very friendly and informal and virtually treated me as one of them.
I remember one occasion. when the discussion was on the format of Cabinet papers, one of them pulled out a paper from a sheaf and handed it to me saying “Take a look, this is going to Cabinet next week.- As I started reading it, I realized that it was a paper on defence, and promptly handed it back, saying “I don’t think I should read this.” This was appropriately acknowledged, and I was handed a paper on social security this time. Such was the spirit in which things were done, during a most interesting and instructive week. The High Commissioner hosted a well attended dinner in our honour, and this together with the lunches and dinners hosted by many on the Canadian side, including Mr. Robertson proved rich in the opportunities for social interaction.
From Ottawa we went on to Winnipeg, and were lodged in the excellent Fort Gary Hotel, by the Provincial Government. The Fort Gary was an old Fort built during the time of the Indian threat, and later it had become more like a trading post. The old timber structure suitably modified, with the addition of modern amenities had an excellent atmosphere, as well as very good guest comfort. Our stay here was only for a couple of days, and my program was a busy one. I had interesting and extensive discussions with the Secretary to the Prime Minister, and Secretary to the Cabinet of the Province of Manitoba. One person filled both posts, and in fact. this was another proposal that had come tip during our own constitutional changes. The province had also elected a socialist oriented government. So, I had much to discuss at my meeting with senior officials.
The United States
From Canada, we flew on to the USA to begin our program there. Ambassador Neville Kanekaratne, whom I already knew, hosted a reception in our honour which was attended by three former American Ambassadors to Sri Lanka, Messrs. Satterwaite, Cecil Logan and Andrew Cory. Miss. Frances Willis was out of town and had sent in her regrets. In addition, there were officials from The State Department, AID, the IMF; The World Bank as well as prominent Sri Lankans and Americans within reach.
After the reception, we had a wonderful meeting with Neville and the three former US Ambassadors. It was an excellent start to our program. Over the next few days in Washington D.C.. I had meetings in important American Agencies, such as the State Department, as well as with the President’s Domestic and National Security Council staff at the White House. One of the more interesting discussions was with Mr. Harold Saunders of The National Security Council, considered to be an expert on Middle Eastern Affairs. One of the things that interested me most was the organizational aspects of running the White House and briefing the President. Here again, the senior officials 1 met were most co-operative and helpful.
Our visit to the USA, took us to several States, and we got to visit many places of interest such as the Stock Exchange in New York; the Ford Motor Headquarters in Detroit; the Tennessee Valley Authority; the US Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, the Boeing Aircraft factory in Seattle; Hollywood; the Grand Canyon and the island of Puerto Rico. Visiting so many places, and talking to so many people in various areas of activity was an education in itself. But one of the most fascinating parts of the visit was the opportunity we got, in late August, when we happened to be in Florida, to witness the launching of an orbiting Astronomical Observatory, powered into space by an Atlas Centaur Rocket 135 feet tall.
The Observatory which was named Copernicus, after the famous Polish Astronomer. was to study Planetary, Stellar, Inter-Stellar and Inter Galactic material. The actual launch from Cape Kennedy was to be at about 6.30 am. But we were bused in by 5.30 am. Seats were made available on a multi-tiered platform one and a half miles away, obviously for safety reasons. Anyone who had seen the launch of satellites or rockets on TV or film, cannot imagine what the real thing looked and sounded like.
It was a magnificent spectacle in the pre-dawn darkness. The power of the rocket shook our tiered seats One and a half miles away and the entire sky was one fiery glow. The noise was almost deafening, gradually reducing to the puny sound of a motor cycle engine. What was finally left for sometime was a circle of white smoke like a fleecy cloud. We were very fortunate to see this, because as we later discovered, we had seen one of only six launches during the whole of 1972.
Even in the 1970’s Sri Lankans seemed to be omnipresent in almost all parts of the world. We met them in various parts of Canada and the USA. About their presence in Britain, one does not have to say much. But, one of the most interesting encounters we had was in distant Boulder, Colorado. We had got into town at about two in the afternoon, tired and very hungry. It was not easy to find a place to eat, and we were wandering down a street getting somewhat desperate, until in the distance I saw a sign that read very much like Weerasinghe.
If in the desert, I would have put it to a mirage. But perhaps one also hallucinated in the rarefied air of mountainous Boulder. As we walked towards it, it became plain that we were indeed not seeing things. The board read Weerasinghe’s and it was a restaurant. It appeared to be closed. We rang the bell, and a gentleman, slightly built for an American opened the door. it turned out that he had been a Peace Corps volunteer, working in Bandarawela, where he had met and married a Miss. Weerasinghe. Both of them had opened this restaurant and given it the exotic maiden name of the lady. They were very glad to see us, and most hospitable, although the restaurant itself was closed on that day. This encounter was certainly an instance of what is termed serendipity.
We were in San Francisco, when I received a call from Susantha de Alwis, who was a senior diplomatic officer in our Embassy in Washington D.C. The Prime Minister had wondered, whether I could return a little earlier than originally scheduled, because she felt that WT Jayasinghe who was acting for me, was under considerable strain. By this time, I was out for almost five weeks, and had about a week more to go. Susantha emphasized that the Prime Minister did not ask me to come, but only wondered whether it was possible.
I told him to inform her that I would return by the earliest available flights. She had been both gracious and liberal in permitting me to go for such a long period. I was also aware, that handling the dual duties of Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs, and Secretary to the Prime Minister was extremely taxing and stressful, and the responsibilities and work load heavy. It was not surprising that WT was feeling the strain. Therefore. I booked my flights Los Angles/Honolulu/Manila and on to Singapore, and next day to Colombo. This proved to be an odyssey. Los Angles/Honolulu was some five and a half hours flying, followed by a 45 minute wait; then a ten and a half hour flight to Manila. a two hour wait there: and thereafter a three hour flight to Singapore. It was therefore about 19 hours of solid flying plus about five hours at airports, including Los Angeles. By the time I got into Singapore. I was in a daze. I went to bed and slept for 17 straight hours! I knew the condition I was in and I took the precaution of keeping the front desk informed that I did not wish to be disturbed for 24 hours, for otherwise they might have looked to see whether I was dead!
There was much to attend to when I got back. The Prime Minister was apologetic about getting me back early. I assured her that the time spent out, and the rich experience gained were quite enough.
Features
Pakistan-Sri Lanka ‘eye diplomacy’
Reminiscences:
I was appointed Managing Director of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Chairman of the Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd (TPTL – Indian Oil Company/ Petroleum Corporation of Sri Lanka joint venture), in February 2023, by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. I served as TPTL Chairman voluntarily. TPTL controls the world-renowned oil tank farm in Trincomalee, abandoned after World War II. Several programmes were launched to repair tanks and buildings there. I enjoyed travelling to Trincomalee, staying at Navy House and monitoring the progress of the projects. Trincomalee is a beautiful place where I spent most of my time during my naval career.
My main task as MD, CPC, was to ensure an uninterrupted supply of petroleum products to the public.
With the great initiative of the then CPC Chairman, young and energetic Uvis Mohammed, and equally capable CPC staff, we were able to do our job diligently, and all problems related to petroleum products were overcome. My team and I were able to ensure that enough stocks were always available for any contingency.
The CPC made huge profits when we imported crude oil and processed it at our only refinery in Sapugaskanda, which could produce more than 50,000 barrels of refined fuel in one stream working day! (One barrel is equal to 210 litres). This huge facility encompassing about 65 acres has more than 1,200 employees and 65 storage tanks.
A huge loss the CPC was incurring due to wrong calculation of “out turn loss” when importing crude oil by ships and pumping it through Single Point Mooring Buoy (SPMB) at sea and transferring it through underwater fuel transfer lines to service tanks was detected and corrected immediately. That helped increase the CPC’s profits.
By August 2023, the CPC made a net profit of 74,000 million rupees (74 billion rupees)! The President was happy, the government was happy, the CPC Management was happy and the hard-working CPC staff were happy. I became a Managing Director of a very happy and successful State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). That was my first experience in working outside military/Foreign service.
I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention Sagala Rathnayake, then Chief of Staff to the President, for recommending me for the post of MD, CPC.
The only grievance they had was that we were not able to pay their 2023 Sinhala/Tamil New Year bonus due to a government circular. After working at CPC for six months and steering it out of trouble, I was ready to move out of CPC.
I was offered a new job as the Sri Lanka High Commissioner to Pakistan. I was delighted and my wife and son were happy. Our association with Pakistan, especially with the Pakistan Military, is very long. My son started schooling in Karachi in 1995, when I was doing the Naval War Course there. My wife Yamuna has many good friends in Pakistan. I am the first Military officer to graduate from the Karachi University in 1996 (BSc Honours in War Studies) and have a long association with the Pakistan Navy and their Special Forces. I was awarded the Nishan-e-Imtiaz (Military) medal—the highest National award by the Pakistan Presidentm in 2019m when I was Chief of Defence Staff. I am the only Sri Lankan to have been awarded this prestigious medal so far. I knew my son and myself would be able to play a quiet game of golf every morning at the picturesque Margalla Golf Club, owned by the Pakistan Navy, at the foot of Margalla hills, at Islamabad. The golf club is just a walking distance from the High Commissioner’s residence.
When I took over as Sri Lanka High Commissioner at Islamabad on 06 December 2023, I realised that a number of former Service Commanders had held that position earlier. The first Ceylonese High Commissioner to Pakistan, with a military background, was the first Army Commander General Anton Muthukumaru. He was concurrently Ambassador to Iran. Then distinguished Service Commanders, like General H W G Wijayakoon, General Gerry Silva, General Srilal Weerasooriya, Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody, served as High Commissioners to Islamabad. I took over from Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama (former Chief of Staff of Navy and Governor Eastern Province).

A photograph of Dr. Silva (second from right) in Brigadier
(Dr) Waquar Muzaffar’s album
One of the first visitors I received was Kawaja Hamza, a prominent Defence Correspondent in Islamabad. His request had nothing to do with Defence matters. He wanted to bring his 84-year-old father to see me; his father had his eyesight restored with corneas donated by a Sri Lankan in 1972! His eyesight is still good, but he did not know the Sri Lankan donor who gave him this most precious gift. He wanted to pay gratitude to the new Sri Lankan High Commissioner and to tell him that as a devoted Muslim, he prayed for the unknown donor every day! That reminded me of what my guru in Foreign Service, the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar told me when I was First Secretary/ Defence Advisor, Sri Lanka High Commission in New Delhi. That is “best diplomacy is people-to-people contacts.” This incident prompted me to research more into “Pakistan-Sri Lanka Eye Diplomacy” and what I learnt was fascinating!
Do you know the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society has donated more than 26,000 corneas to Pakistan, since 1964 to date! That means more than 26,000 Pakistani people see the world with SRI LANKAN EYES! The Sri Lankan Eye Donation Society has provided 100,000 eye corneas to foreign countries FREE! To be exact 101,483 eye corneas during the last 65 years! More than one fourth of these donations was to one single country- Pakistan. Recent donations (in November 2024) were made to the Pakistan Military at Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology (AFIO), Rawalpindi, to restore the sight of Pakistan Army personnel who suffered eye injuries due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) blasts. This donation was done on the 75th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army.
Deshabandu Dr. F. G. Hudson Silva, a distinguished old boy of Nalanda College, Colombo, started collecting eye corneas as a medical student in 1958. His first set of corneas were collected from a deceased person and were stored at his home refrigerator at Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7. With his wife Iranganie De Silva (nee Kularatne), he started the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society in 1961. They persuaded Buddhists to donate their eyes upon death. This drive was hugely successful.
Their son (now in the US) was a contemporary of mine at Royal College. I pledged to donate (of course with my parents’ permission) my eyes upon my death when I was a student at Royal college in 1972 on a Poson Full Moon Poya Day. Thousands have done so.
On Vesak Full Moon Poya Day in 1964, the first eye corneas were carried in a thermos flask filled with Ice, to Singapore, by Dr Hudson Silva and his wife and a successful eye transplant surgery was performed. From that day, our eye corneas were sent to 62 different countries.
Pakistan Lions Clubs, which supported this noble gesture, built a beautiful Eye Hospital for humble people at Gulberg, Lahore, where eye surgeries are performed, and named it Dr Hudson Silva Lions Eye Hospital.
The good work has continued even after the demise of Dr Hudson Silva in 1999.
So many people have donated their eyes upon their death, including President J. R. Jayewardene, whose eye corneas were used to restore the eyesight of one Japanese and one Sri Lankan. Dr Hudson Silva became a great hero in Pakistan and he was treated with dignity and respect whenever he visited Pakistan. My friend, Brigadier (Dr) Waquar Muzaffar, the Commandant of AFIO, was able to dig into his old photographs and send me a precious photo taken in 1980, 46 years ago (when he was a medical student), with Dr Hudson Silva.
We will remember Dr and Mrs Hudson Silva with gratitude.
Bravo Zulu to Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society!
by Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Features
Lasting solutions require consensus
Problems and solutions in plural societies like Sri Lanka’s which have deep rooted ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages require a consciously inclusive approach. A major challenge for any government in Sri Lanka is to correctly identify the problems faced by different groups with strong identities and find solutions to them. The durability of democratic systems in divided societies depends less on electoral victories than on institutionalised inclusion, consultation, and negotiated compromise. When problems are defined only through the lens of a single political formation, even one that enjoys a large electoral mandate, such as obtained by the NPP government, the policy prescriptions derived from that diagnosis will likely overlook the experiences of communities that may remain outside the ruling party. The result could end up being resistance to those policies, uneven implementation and eventual political backlash.
A recent survey done by the National Peace Council (NPC), in Jaffna, in the North, at a focus group discussion for young people on citizen perception in the electoral process, revealed interesting developments. The results of the NPC micro survey support the findings of the national survey by Verite Research that found that government approval rating stood at 65 percent in early February 2026. A majority of the respondents in Jaffna affirm that they feel safer and more fairly treated than in the past. There is a clear improving trend to be seen in some areas, but not in all. This survey of predominantly young and educated respondents shows 78 percent saying livelihood has improved and an equal percentage feeling safe in daily life. 75 percent express satisfaction with the new government and 64 percent believe the state treats their language and culture fairly. These are not insignificant gains in a region that bore the brunt of three decades of war.
Yet the same survey reveals deep reservations that temper this optimism. Only 25 percent are satisfied with the handling of past issues. An equal percentage see no change in land and military related concerns. Most strikingly, almost 90 percent are worried about land being taken without consent for religious purposes. A significant number are uncertain whether the future will be better. These negative sentiments cannot be brushed aside as marginal. They point to unresolved structural questions relating to land rights, demilitarisation, accountability and the locus of political power. If these issues are not addressed sooner rather than later, the current stability may prove fragile. This suggests the need to build consensus with other parties to ensure long-term stability and legitimacy, and the need for partnership to address national issues.
NPP Absence
National or local level problems solving is unlikely to be successful in the longer term if it only proceeds from the thinking of one group of people even if they are the most enlightened. Problem solving requires the engagement of those from different ethno-religious, caste and political backgrounds to get a diversity of ideas and possible solutions. It does not mean getting corrupted or having to give up the good for the worse. It means testing ideas in the public sphere. Legitimacy flows not merely from winning elections but from the quality of public reasoning that precedes decision-making. The experience of successful post-conflict societies shows that long term peace and development are built through dialogue platforms where civil society organisations, political actors, business communities, and local representatives jointly define problems before negotiating policy responses.
As a civil society organisation, the National Peace Council engages in a variety of public activities that focus on awareness and relationship building across communities. Participants in those activities include community leaders, religious clergy, local level government officials and grassroots political party representatives. However, along with other civil society organisations, NPC has been finding it difficult to get the participation of members of the NPP at those events. The excuse given for the absence of ruling party members is that they are too busy as they are involved in a plenitude of activities. The question is whether the ruling party members have too much on their plate or whether it is due to a reluctance to work with others.
The general belief is that those from the ruling party need to get special permission from the party hierarchy for activities organised by groups not under their control. The reluctance of the ruling party to permit its members to join the activities of other organisations may be the concern that they will get ideas that are different from those held by the party leadership. The concern may be that these different ideas will either corrupt the ruling party members or cause dissent within the ranks of the ruling party. But lasting reform in a plural society requires precisely this exposure. If 90 percent of surveyed youth in Jaffna are worried about land issues, then engaging them, rather than shielding party representatives from uncomfortable conversations, is essential for accurate problem identification.
North Star
The Leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Prof Tissa Vitarana, who passed away last week, gave the example for national level problem solving. As a government minister he took on the challenge the protracted ethnic conflict that led to three decades of war. He set his mind on the solution and engaged with all but never veered from his conviction about what the solution would be. This was the North Star to him, said his son to me at his funeral, the direction to which the Compass (Malimawa) pointed at all times. Prof Vitarana held the view that in a diverse and plural society there was a need to devolve power and share power in a structured way between the majority community and minority communities. His example illustrates that engagement does not require ideological capitulation. It requires clarity of purpose combined with openness to dialogue.
The ethnic and religious peace that prevails today owes much to the efforts of people like Prof Vitarana and other like-minded persons and groups which, for many years, engaged as underdogs with those who were more powerful. The commitment to equality of citizenship, non-racism, non-extremism and non-discrimination, upheld by the present government, comes from this foundation. But the NPC survey suggests that symbolic recognition and improved daily safety are not enough. Respondents prioritise personal safety, truth regarding missing persons, return of land, language use and reduction of military involvement. They are also asking for jobs after graduation, local economic opportunity, protection of property rights, and tangible improvements that allow them to remain in Jaffna rather than migrate.
If solutions are to be lasting they cannot be unilaterally imposed by one party on the others. Lasting solutions cannot be unilateral solutions. They must emerge from a shared diagnosis of the country’s deepest problems and from a willingness to address the negative sentiments that persist beneath the surface of cautious optimism. Only then can progress be secured against reversal and anchored in the consent of the wider polity. Engaging with the opposition can help mitigate the hyper-confrontational and divisive political culture of the past. This means that the ruling party needs to consider not only how to protect its existing members by cloistering them from those who think differently but also expand its vision and membership by convincing others to join them in problem solving at multiple levels. This requires engagement and not avoidance or withdrawal.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Unpacking public responses to educational reforms
As the debate on educational reforms rages, I find it useful to pay as much attention to the reactions they have excited as we do to the content of the reforms. Such reactions are a reflection of how education is understood in our society, and this understanding – along with the priorities it gives rise to – must necessarily be taken into account in education policy, including and especially reform. My aim in this piece, however, is to couple this public engagement with critical reflection on the historical-structural realities that structure our possibilities in the global market, and briefly discuss the role of academics in this endeavour.
Two broad reactions
The reactions to the proposed reforms can be broadly categorised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. I will discuss the latter first. Most of the backlash against the reforms seems to be directed at the issue of a gay dating site, accidentally being linked to the Grade 6 English module. While the importance of rigour cannot be overstated in such a process, the sheer volume of the energies concentrated on this is also indicative of how hopelessly homophobic our society is, especially its educators, including those in trade unions. These dispositions are a crucial part of the reason why educational reforms are needed in the first place. If only there was a fraction of the interest in ‘keeping up with the rest of the world’ in terms of IT, skills, and so on, in this area as well!
Then there is the opposition mounted by teachers’ trade unions and others about the process of the reforms not being very democratic, which I (and many others in higher education, as evidenced by a recent statement, available at https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/ ) fully agree with. But I earnestly hope the conversation is not usurped by those wanting to promote heteronormativity, further entrenching bigotry only education itself can save us from. With this important qualification, I, too, believe the government should open up the reform process to the public, rather than just ‘informing’ them of it.
It is unclear both as to why the process had to be behind closed doors, as well as why the government seems to be in a hurry to push the reforms through. Considering other recent developments, like the continued extension of emergency rule, tabling of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and proposing a new Authority for the protection of the Central Highlands (as is famously known, Authorities directly come under the Executive, and, therefore, further strengthen the Presidency; a reasonable question would be as to why the existing apparatus cannot be strengthened for this purpose), this appears especially suspect.
Further, according to the Secretary to the MOE Nalaka Kaluwewa: “The full framework for the [education] reforms was already in place [when the Dissanayake government took office]” (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/12/wxua-a12.html, citing The Morning, July 29). Given the ideological inclinations of the former Wickremesinghe government and the IMF negotiations taking place at the time, the continuation of education reforms, initiated in such a context with very little modification, leaves little doubt as to their intent: to facilitate the churning out of cheap labour for the global market (with very little cushioning from external shocks and reproducing global inequalities), while raising enough revenue in the process to service debt.
This process privileges STEM subjects, which are “considered to contribute to higher levels of ‘employability’ among their graduates … With their emphasis on transferable skills and demonstrable competency levels, STEM subjects provide tools that are well suited for the abstraction of labour required by capitalism, particularly at the global level where comparability across a wide array of labour markets matters more than ever before” (my own previous piece in this column on 29 October 2024). Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) subjects are deprioritised as a result. However, the wisdom of an education policy that is solely focused on responding to the global market has been questioned in this column and elsewhere, both because the global market has no reason to prioritise our needs as well as because such an orientation comes at the cost of a strategy for improving the conditions within Sri Lanka, in all sectors. This is why we need a more emancipatory vision for education geared towards building a fairer society domestically where the fruits of prosperity are enjoyed by all.
The second broad reaction to the reforms is to earnestly embrace them. The reasons behind this need to be taken seriously, although it echoes the mantra of the global market. According to one parent participating in a protest against the halting of the reform process: “The world is moving forward with new inventions and technology, but here in Sri Lanka, our children are still burdened with outdated methods. Opposition politicians send their children to international schools or abroad, while ours depend on free education. Stopping these reforms is the lowest act I’ve seen as a mother” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). While it is worth mentioning that it is not only the opposition, nor in fact only politicians, who send their children to international schools and abroad, the point holds. Updating the curriculum to reflect the changing needs of a society will invariably strengthen the case for free education. However, as mentioned before, if not combined with a vision for harnessing education’s emancipatory potential for the country, such a move would simply translate into one of integrating Sri Lanka to the world market to produce cheap labour for the colonial and neocolonial masters.
According to another parent in a similar protest: “Our children were excited about lighter schoolbags and a better future. Now they are left in despair” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). Again, a valid concern, but one that seems to be completely buying into the rhetoric of the government. As many pieces in this column have already shown, even though the structure of assessments will shift from exam-heavy to more interim forms of assessment (which is very welcome), the number of modules/subjects will actually increase, pushing a greater, not lesser, workload on students.

A file photo of a satyagraha against education reforms
What kind of education?
The ‘pro’ reactions outlined above stem from valid concerns, and, therefore, need to be taken seriously. Relatedly, we have to keep in mind that opening the process up to public engagement will not necessarily result in some of the outcomes, those particularly in the HSS academic community, would like to see, such as increasing the HSS component in the syllabus, changing weightages assigned to such subjects, reintroducing them to the basket of mandatory subjects, etc., because of the increasing traction of STEM subjects as a surer way to lock in a good future income.
Academics do have a role to play here, though: 1) actively engage with various groups of people to understand their rationales behind supporting or opposing the reforms; 2) reflect on how such preferences are constituted, and what they in turn contribute towards constituting (including the global and local patterns of accumulation and structures of oppression they perpetuate); 3) bring these reflections back into further conversations, enabling a mutually conditioning exchange; 4) collectively work out a plan for reforming education based on the above, preferably in an arrangement that directly informs policy. A reform process informed by such a dialectical exchange, and a system of education based on the results of these reflections, will have greater substantive value while also responding to the changing times.
Two important prerequisites for this kind of endeavour to succeed are that first, academics participate, irrespective of whether they publicly endorsed this government or not, and second, that the government responds with humility and accountability, without denial and shifting the blame on to individuals. While we cannot help the second, we can start with the first.
Conclusion
For a government that came into power riding the wave of ‘system change’, it is perhaps more important than for any other government that these reforms are done for the right reasons, not to mention following the right methods (of consultation and deliberation). For instance, developing soft skills or incorporating vocational education to the curriculum could be done either in a way that reproduces Sri Lanka’s marginality in the global economic order (which is ‘system preservation’), or lays the groundwork to develop a workforce first and foremost for the country, limited as this approach may be. An inextricable concern is what is denoted by ‘the country’ here: a few affluent groups, a majority ethno-religious category, or everyone living here? How we define ‘the country’ will centrally influence how education policy (among others) will be formulated, just as much as the quality of education influences how we – students, teachers, parents, policymakers, bureaucrats, ‘experts’ – think about such categories. That is precisely why more thought should go to education policymaking than perhaps any other sector.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya).
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
-
Life style4 days agoMarriot new GM Suranga
-
Business3 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features4 days agoMonks’ march, in America and Sri Lanka
-
Opinion7 days agoWill computers ever be intelligent?
-
Features4 days agoThe Rise of Takaichi
-
Features4 days agoWetlands of Sri Lanka:
-
News3 days agoThailand to recruit 10,000 Lankans under new labour pact
-
News3 days agoMassive Sangha confab to address alleged injustices against monks
