by Jehan Perera

The effort of the March 12 Movement, a civil society collective, to bring presidential candidates onto one platform and share their visions and hopes with the general population was successful in its second round. All six of the presidential candidates who had been scheduled for the debate participated as expected and shared their visions and aspirations for the future. Their message went through the electronic and mass media to the general public. Although titled as a “presidential debate” the structure of the programme was different from that practiced in the United States, where the presidential candidates engage in verbal sparring with one another.  The Sri Lankan version was to pose the same question to each of the presidential candidates and have them answer within a set time limit.

 The intention of the March 12 Movement was to provide an opportunity for the presidential candidates to present their views on issues of interest to the public rather than engage in debate on them. At the conclusion of the presentations, the audience was to be invited to submit their questions in written form where they would be screened for content by a committee and passed on the candidates for their responses.  However, despite all these safeguards to ensure the presidential candidates a safe environment, the first round of the debates held the previous day saw only one of the six invited candidates appear for the debate.  The others, including the three main presidential candidates, did not join.  They either declined in advance or failed to show up at the time of the event much to the chagrin of the audience, some of whom had come from Jaffna, Anuradhapura and Puttalam.

 It appears that the tight nature of the three-cornered race between the presidential candidates is leading to a stressful situation in which none of them is willing to take a risk and expose themselves to an audience that is not in their sphere of influence. This was a negative phenomenon, as an open clash of different positions, strategies and actions on common issues is beneficial to educating the general public as well as generating new ideas about facing the future in the spirit of a shared future.  Unfortunately, the tight nature of the presidential election time around, with three main candidates in the field, and not two as usual has also led to a significant amount of negative campaigning where the focus is on criticizing one or both of the nearest rival candidates.

TIGHTENING RACE

 In recent weeks, public opinion polls have shown President Ranil Wickremesinghe to be the biggest gainer (in proportional terms) in comparison to his two main rivals, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake.  However, these same surveys also show that the president continues to lag behind his rivals.  This may explain the measures being resorted to by the presidential candidates such as engaging in negative campaigning by critiquing the qualities of their rivals.  At the same time, they have also been engaging in positive campaigning regarding the need to address the country’s most pressing problems.  There has been a convergence among them on the need to abide by the basic framework of the IMF agreement which has opened the doors to the country’s economic ties with the larger world.

 There is also convergence on the part of the three main presidential candidates on the need to deal with the country’s ethnic conflict.  They have all promised to deal with the issue in a way that will unite the people on the principles of equality and justice.  They have all been making strenuous efforts to win the votes of the ethnic and religious minorities. This is very positive, as the ethnic conflict has been a part of divisive politics since the dawn of independence.  However, due to the tight nature of the competition, there is also negative campaigning vis-à-vis each other.  During a recent visit to Jaffna, the NPP leader called on the Tamil voters not to thwart his victory or be seen as not being on the winning side along with voters in the south of the country who will vote for him.  This has been portrayed as an implied threat to the Tamil people whereby he has called on them to vote for him and be a part of the electoral victory that the NPP/JVP is seeking rather than voting against him and losing the opportunity to be a part of this victory.

 The approach by ITAK spokesperson M A Sumanthiran has been positive in this regard.  He has disagreed with the negative interpretation given to the NPP leader’s speech in Jaffna and said he never thought the NPP leader made that statement with a view to expressing any racist feelings and that he has taken great care in eradicating racism in this country. The ITAK spokesperson said he would work with the NPP to eradicate corruption and misrule in the country. Indeed, these are the two most important aspects of the Aragalaya protest movement that led to the premature change of government two years ago but which have yet to be dealt with. These laudable statements by Mr Sumanthiran are now the subject of misinterpretation that he has changed sides.

 RECONCILIATION MODE

 The key role in the recent decision of the ITAK to endorse the presidential bid of Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa was also made by Mr Sumanthiran.   He led the ITAK to make a choice between the presidential candidates and to select the candidate whose manifesto and past commitment was believed to be the best for the Tamil people at this juncture.  At the same time, he has shown that he will not be hostile to other political parties and their leaders, even those his party has not endorsed, and be open to cooperate with them in the best interests of the Tamil people.  The spirit of leadership that the country needs is not to hold grudges, to look for the best in others and to hold them to the highest standards.

 The Sri Lankan people continue to suffer in the aftermath of the economic collapse that took place over two and a half years ago.  The need of the hour is national unity to face the local and international challenges that a world which is itself increasingly in conflict will find difficult to focus on.  This suggests that the Sri Lankan polity cannot afford to be torn apart by polarization and misinterpretation which can generate more of the same.  The vicious cycle needs to be addressed.  The country and its people need to be united to face the challenges.  In a situation where the people’s vote will be split more than three ways, the possibilities of polarization are increased.

 The hope of the March 12 Movement in organizing the presidential debates has been to provide a platform where the presidential candidates can indicate the areas of their agreement on fundamental issues so that government policies would be consistent regardless of changes of government. President Wickremesinghe expressed this sentiment at a media conference when he said “We need a political system that supports basic fundamentals, even if we differ on details. This is what our country needs and what all desire.”  The challenge to each of the presidential candidates is to commit themselves to support the winner of the presidential election, even if it is not themselves that wins. The way they conduct themselves and address the people and their opponents during the election campaign will determine the prospects for reconciliation in the future.

by Udari Abeyasinghe

I recently had the opportunity to read Sari Andapu Pirimi (‘Men Draped in Sarees’) by Vishnu Vasu, a powerful narrative that sheds light on the lived experiences of the LGBTQ+ community in Sri Lanka. Through personal stories of discrimination, within families, in society, and by the country’s legal framework, the book offers a heart-rending look into the systemic marginalization faced by individuals who do not conform to the country’s dominant heteronormative norms.

This theme of exclusion is raised in Ramya Kumar’s Kuppi article “LGBTIQ+ matters: Creating positive space at universities” (20.08.2024), where she highlights deeply entrenched heteronormativity within Sri Lankan universities. Ramya discusses how ragging, rigid dress codes, and gender-segregated facilities further marginalize LGBTQ+ students and staff, while institutional support for these individuals remains almost nonexistent. Conversations around gender diversity, when they do happen, are often dismissed or trivialized.

Drawing from both Vasu’s book and Ramya’s article, and with the hope that this article reaches members of the academic community, I aim to explore how we can better understand gender and sexuality as a spectrum. More importantly, I wish to discuss why this understanding is crucial for creating a more inclusive and supportive university environment, one that recognizes and respects the diversity of identities that exist within its community.

Gender and sexuality as a spectrum

We often think of sex and gender in binary terms: as either male or female, man or woman. However, such binary understandings are increasingly being challenged. Even from a biological standpoint, there is a diversity of bodies and characteristics that don’t neatly fit into the traditional categories of “male” and “female.” Intersex individuals, for example, are born with biological characteristics that don’t conform to conventional definitions of male or female bodies.

Sociologically, the distinction between men and women is even more fluid. However, society often assigns roles, behaviours, and preferences to each gender, based on assumption such as that boys like to play cricket or play with cars while girls prefer to play with dolls, cook or do makeup. However, in reality, the way we express our gender identity is highly individual and cannot be strictly defined by societal expectations. For example, some boys enjoy cooking while some girls like to play cricket. (Sri Lanka’s women’s cricket team winning the 2024 Women’s Twenty20 Asia Cup refutes such societal expectations.) In other words, gender identity is not a simple, static binary, but rather a spectrum of behaviours, preferences, and identities that can evolve over time.

The spectrum of gender identity has idealized notions of masculinity and femininity at the two extremes. Individuals, whether they identify as men or women, align with these ideals to varying degrees throughout different stages of their lives. This means that a person’s experience of gender can change over time, depending on various factors such as personal growth, cultural influences, and social circumstances. For some, this might mean rejecting traditional gender roles entirely, while for others, it may involve embracing certain aspects of masculinity and/or femininity.

Similarly, people express their sexuality in diverse ways, not only through their choice of sexual partners but also in their behaviour, the language they use to describe themselves, and the way they relate to their bodies. This wide range of expressions challenges the assumption that heterosexuality is the “normal” or default sexual identity. In reality, heterosexuality is just one among many ways that individuals can express their sexuality. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and other identities exist within this spectrum of gender and sexual expression, each with its own distinct experiences and challenges.

In Sri Lanka, where traditional gender norms and heteronormativity are deeply entrenched, these ideas about gender identity as a spectrum face significant resistance. Conservative cultural values often emphasize the binary nature of gender, associating masculinity with strength, leadership, and authority, and femininity with nurturing and domesticity, within heterosexual partnerships. This narrow definition of gender roles leaves little room for those whose identities do not conform to these expectations.

Although contemporary Sri Lankan society frequently cites cultural values and traditions when discussing LGBTQ+ issues, this narrative overlooks the fact that Sri Lanka was relatively more sexually liberal during the pre-colonial period. Historically, under the Kandyan law, practices such as polyandry were not only accepted but institutionalized within communities. Yet today, same-sex relationships are illegal under Section 365 of the Penal Code implemented under British rule, contributing to the stigma that pervades both social and institutional spaces, including universities.

Discrimination at universities

University is a place where people with diverse sexual identities and orientations come together, creating an environment that should encourage understanding, respect, and acceptance. However, within the Sri Lankan university system, like many other institutions in the country, the dominant and often exclusively recognized sexual identity continues to be heterosexual. This heteronormativity marginalizes individuals who do not conform to these expectations, reinforcing a cultural atmosphere where non-heterosexual identities are either invisible or stigmatized.

LGBTQ+ students or faculty members face various forms of discrimination, ranging from subtle biases in classroom interactions to more overt forms of harassment or bullying. For example, the way a person dresses, speaks, or behaves could lead others to assess their worth or intellectual capability based on these external markers rather than their academic or personal achievements. A graduate from Peradeniya who identifies as gay recounted how he was socially isolated during his undergraduate years. “I didn’t have a girlfriend, and I wasn’t interested in drinking. I felt more comfortable spending time with my female friends rather than the male ones. The guys always had something negative to say about the way I was, I felt they never took me seriously”. This kind of prejudice, which manifests through microaggressions, undermines the dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ individuals, pushing them to conform or hide their identities in order to “fit in.”

Transgender students face significant challenges. A transgender student at Peradeniya spoke of challenges with finding accommodation as there are no gender-neutral hostel facilities on campus. This forced him to seek off-campus housing, which, despite being financially burdensome, was his only option. In a recent conversation I was part of, a senior academic expressed her belief that individuals with gender identities outside of what is considered “normal” should seek medical intervention, signaling what may be experienced when transgender students reach out for support.

The consequences of this exclusion are far-reaching. LGBTQ+ students find it harder to express themselves authentically, leading to feelings of isolation, stress, and mental health challenges. This marginalization also extends to university policies and curricula, where issues related to LGBTQ+ rights and sexual diversity are rarely discussed openly. The lack of support by student unions and the absence of safe spaces within the university where LGBTQ+ identities can be acknowledged, respected, and supported, further exacerbates this issue.

The way forward

To improve how members of the university community relate to each other, it is essential to foster a culture where diversity, including LGBTIQ+ identities, are valued within universities.

A promising initiative by the University Grants Commission’s Centre for Gender Equity and Equality (CGEE) is the introduction of the “Learning to Live with Diversity” course for university staff and students. This 15-hour course includes two important lessons specifically focused on gender diversity and sexual identities. By providing a comprehensive understanding of these topics and encouraging open discussions, the course has the potential to foster an attitudinal shift over time. To implement this programme, CGEE organized Training of Trainers (ToT) workshops across all state universities, ensuring that resource persons were equipped to deliver this vital content.

An effective way to overcome cultural conservatism is through continuous, open dialogue. Programmes, such as “Learning to Live with Diversity,” can serve as a platform to encourage these discussions in a respectful and informative manner. Such dialogue could also take place in the classroom by integrating relevant content into curricula. Having prominent faculty members and administrators act as allies and role models for LGBTQ+ inclusion will help mitigate resistance and empower students and staff to adopt more inclusive attitudes. Peer education programmes and support groups are also needed to create safe spaces where LGBTIQ+ students (and staff) can share their experiences and find allies among their peers.

To overcome institutional barriers, universities must adopt explicit anti-discrimination policies that protect students and staff based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. While the university leadership must actively support and endorse such policies, the administration could set an example by participating in discussion and dialogue and visibly advocating for inclusivity.

Through such interventions, universities can create a healthier social environment where all students and staff are able to express their identities without fear of stigma or discrimination.

(Udari Abeyasinghe is attached to the Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, 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.

Safoora Naseem, a Maldivian, did create a big impact in the scene here when she resided in this part of the world, especially during her son’s schooling days.

Better known as Sheru, she impressed many with her singing, and stage act, and was tagged ‘simply the best’ because of her awesome version of Tina Turner’s hit song ‘Simply the Best’.

Sheru was back in the island, after four years, just to do a guest spot of 30 minutes at a function held in Colombo last month.

“It was simply great to be back after so long a period and I enjoyed my very short stay.

“Perhaps, I may come this way again…maybe next month for another guest performance, but nothing has been finalised as yet.”

Recollecting the past, she said that her very first band was Aquarius, led by dynamic bassist Benjy Ranabahu.

She was a permanent member of Aquarius and also performed with them in Dubai.

“I owe my present position, as a singer/entertainer, to Aquarius. They made me a star.”

Thinking of making Sri Lanka her home

In addition to Aquarius, she was also associated with Mirage and N-Chord.

“I did guest spots with many other local outfits, and I, especially, loved performing with Sohan and the X-Periments.

“They were excellent and they made me feel so comfortable on stage.”

Sheru also mentioned the sing-along happenings organised by Shiromi Perera and Rhythm World Dance Studio.

They were held annually and Sheru was always in the spotlight at these events, performing with Sohan & The X-Periments.

She was also seen in action at many corporate functions and the setup here was turning out to be really good for Sheru.

Unfortunately, her singing career came to an abrupt end in Sri Lanka due to the Covid-19 pandemic and she had to return home.

“I love Sri Lanka so much that one day I may make your beautiful country my home. I really miss Sri Lanka.

“And, oh, how can I forget! I’m truly grateful to you and The Island newspaper for the publicity given to my singing career which has given me this star status.”

Sheru currently performs with a Sri Lankan guitarist/keyboardist in a resort in the Maldives.

For the record Sheru is the sister of the former Vice-President of the Maldives, Faisal Naseem.