by Jehan Perera

Four months after coming to power, the NPP government is facing growing criticism from those in the opposition and also scepticism regarding its ability to make policies necessary to revive the country and its economy. The catchy stories in the media are invariably in relation to some mishap or shortcoming in the past of government leaders.  Some of these relate to the inexperience of the new decisionmakers, many of them having spent their lives in academia rather than in politics or public administration.  The criticisms that ring true to the masses of people relate to the economic difficulties they continue to experience in full force. Those who contributed to the economic catastrophe of 2022 by their own actions over the past decades have little credibility to criticise.

The promise of an uncorrupt government made at the presidential and general elections continues to keep popular support on the side of the government.  There is a continuing belief that the government is sincere about keeping corruption under control and dealing with past abuses.  But there is also disappointment that the promises the NPP made about renegotiating  the IMF agreement and reducing its burden on  the masses of people are not being realised in the short term.  The gap between the rich and the poor continues to be very large with those who are owners of rice mills, hotels and stocks getting massive profits while those on fixed incomes and subsistence farmers eking out a living.

The basic problem for the government is that it inherited an economy that had been made to collapse by irresponsible governments of the past.  The agreements that the previous government signed with the IMF and international bondholders reflected Sri Lanka’s weak bargaining position.  This was why Sri Lanka only got a 20 percent reduction in its debt, whereas other countries got 50 percent reductions.  The NPP government cannot extricate itself from the situation.  The hope that a generous benefactor will extricate us from the difficult economic situation we are in underpins the unrealistic expectations that accompanied President Anura Kumara Dissanayake during his two state visits to India and China.

CAUTIONARY TALES

Nearly two centuries ago, in 1848, one of Britain’s 19th-century Prime Ministers, Lord Palmerston, declared “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests is our duty to follow.” His speech was meant to explain and defend Britain’s foreign policy, emphasising that the country’s decisions were guided by its strategic interests rather than fixed loyalties to other nations or ideologies. It justified Britain’s controversial alliances and interventions, such as supporting liberal revolutions in Europe while maintaining colonial dominance elsewhere. This explains the inconsistent use of legal and moral standards by the international community that we see in the world today.

When Sri Lanka engages with other countries it is important that we keep Lord Parlmerston’s dictum in mind.  Over the past three decades there has been a noticeable shift in the practices of countries that have claimed to believe in the rule of law and universal human rights.  There was a long period after the end of the second world war when the powerful countries of the world that had emerged victors in that war gave leadership to liberal values of human rights, democracy and justice in their engagements in the international arena. Together they set up institutions such as the United Nations, international covenants on human rights and the International Court of Justice, among others.  But today we see this liberal international order in tatters with happenings in countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Palestine reflecting the predatory behaviour of the strong against the weak.

According to international scholars such as Prof Oliver Richmond of the UK, the Liberal International Order (LIO) is losing its grip as global power shifts toward an emerging Authoritarian International Order (AIO).  In his writings, he highlights how the LIO’s failures to resolve key conflicts have exposed its weaknesses. The prolonged failures like the Cyprus peace talks and the breakdown of the Oslo Accords in Israel-Palestine have highlighted the limits of a system driven more by Western dominance than equitable solutions. The rise of powers like China and Russia, who openly prioritise state sovereignty and power over liberal values, marks the shift to a multipolar AIO in which every country tries to get the maximum advantage for itself even at the cost to others.

Prof. Richmond warns that neither the liberal or authoritarian international orders, as implemented, are equipped to deliver lasting peace, as both are driven by geopolitical interests rather than a commitment to justice or equality. He argues that human rights, development, pluralism and democracy as the outcome of peacemaking and political reform that the Liberal International Order once held out as its vision is more just and sustainable for ordinary people than the geopolitical balancing, and authoritarian conflict management which is now crudely pushed forward by the proponents of the Authoritarian International Order. Without a new approach that prioritises fairness and sustainability, the world risks further division and instability.

NOT GENEROSITY

Following upon the stately receptions accorded to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in India and China, there is much anticipation that Sri Lanka is on the verge of receiving massive support from these countries that will give a turbo-boost to Sri Lanka’s development efforts.  In the aftermath of India’s unprecedented economic support of USD 4 billion at the height of the economic crisis in 2022, the promise of as much as USD 10 billion in  economic investment from China reported by the media offers much hope.  India and China are two economic giants that are in Sri Lanka’s  neighbourhood who could do much to transform the economy of Sri Lanka to reach take-off into self-sustaining and rapid economic development. This accompanies the shift of economic power in the world towards Asia at this time.

Both India and China are keen that Sri Lanka should be in their orbit or minimise its position in the other’s orbit.  They each have strong rivalries and misgivings about each other, especially regarding security issues.  They have had border disputes that led to military confrontations.  The Authoritarian International Order that Prof Oliver Richmond has written about would influence their behaviour towards one another as well as towards third countries such as Sri Lanka.  President Anura Kumara Dissanayake appears to have been aware of this problem when he visited India and China.   In both countries he pledged that Sri Lanka would do nothing that would be injurious to their security interests.

 Lord Palmerston’s old dictum that countries act on permanent interests rather than permanent friendships is important to bear in mind when foreign governments make inroads into third countries.  Sri Lanka needs to protect its own interests rather than believe that foreign countries are going an extra step to help it due to shared political ideology, age-old friendships or common culture or religion.  Sri Lanka, its leaders and citizens, need to look at each and every offer of foreign assistance in a realistic manner.  Each offer should be assessed on its own merits and not as part of a larger package in which generosity is imagined to be the sole or main motivating factor of the foreign country.

For Sri Lanka to emerge stronger, it needs to evaluate every offer of foreign assistance with a clear-eyed focus on its own national interests, ensuring that the benefits align with the long-term well-being of its people. Pragmatism, and hard headed analysis, must guide the country’s engagement with the world. This would be best done in in a bipartisan manner at the highest level, without being distracted by partisan party politics and narrow political and personal self-interest which has been our failure over time with a few exceptions.

We didn’t see them in action here, during the festive season, and neither did they usher in the New Year, in our part of the world. And, since they were missing in action, music lovers were wondering what had happened to their favourite group!

Yes, of course, we did miss the music of Mirage but they were not idling; they were busy entertaining the folks in the Seychelles.

In fact, they are still there and are expected to return to base towards the latter part of February.

Mirage left for the Seychelles in mid-December and went into action at the Lo Brizan pub/restaurant, Hilton Seychelles, from 18th December, onwards, performing six nights a week – 8.30 pm till 11.30 pm.

Tourists, mainly from Russia, and locals, as well, patronize this outlet.

The group’s repertoire, at the Lo Brizan, is made up of songs, not only in English, but also Russian, Italian, German and the language spoken in the Seychelles, Creole.

Both Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve were celebrated with much gaiety at the Lo Brizan, with the 31st night celebrations going on till 2.30 am.

On a normal night at the Lo Brizan, only Mirage is featured, but for the two big nights (24th December and 31st December) the band had the company of a DJ – DJ Kasper.

DJ Kasper is a Sri Lankan (Isuru is his real name), and he is based in the Seychelles, and has his own setup, called Sound House.

Mirage made the lead up to the dawning of 2025 extra special with a medley of songs that brought nostalgia to the crowd present and, after ‘Auld Lang Syne,’ it was music that had everyone gyrating on the dance floor.

The next special event that will feature Mirage in a big way will be Valentine’s Night on 14th February.

The group is scheduled to leave for Colombo on 18th February.

This is the group’s second stint in the Seychelles. They were there in December 2023.

Mirage with the Sound House crew

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan

Reforming Sri Lanka’s education system in ways that cater to global needs appears to be a central focus of the new government. This pronouncement first appeared in the NPP’s election manifesto with reference to vocational education. Later, in October 2024, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake stated that our education system should be rebuilt in alignment with global demands. Prime Minister and Minister of Education Harini Amarasuriya mentioned in a speech in December 2024 that building a skilled workforce capable of meeting the needs of both local and global labour markets is a key objective of the government’s development vision.

While it may be important that we reflect upon how our education system facilitates (or does not facilitate) our school-leavers and graduates to secure jobs and contribute meaningfully to the national and global economies, it is equally necessary to unpack the lauded terms ‘global’ and ‘global job market’ and discuss the hegemonies and exclusions they produce as regards both education and employment.

Two Visions of the Global

‘Global’ as a frame or vision is invoked in two contrasting ways in contemporary political discourses. One points to the creation of a borderless world which facilitates the transmission of capital across national borders. Such a world, despite its promise of prosperity and progress, is haunted by the many tragedies that the global south has seen as a result of the precarity created by the free flow of transnational capital. The Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984 and the fires that burnt down garment factories in Bangladesh in 2012 are just two examples. These disasters are attributable to the workings of the global labour market and the logic and mechanisms that it deploys to create divisions within the global labour force along racial, gendered and national lines. Within this system that creates boundless profits for the wealthy, the global south and its working classes, especially women and subalterns, are pushed into experiencing extreme forms of vulnerability.

In juxtaposition to this cataclysmic view of the global, those with a commitment to social justice and internationalism frame the global as an ideal that strives for a world built around solidarities and a radical imagination of liberation and equality. This world is united by a shared desire to eliminate all forms of oppression, both locally and globally.

Our conversations on education seem to be animated by these two varying visions of the global. On the one hand, there is an increased push by governments, international financial organizations, donor agencies and a section of the academia for our universities to produce a globalized labour force for the private sector that will subserviently meet the demands of transnational capital. On the other side, the glaring inequalities that we see in our communities and countries call for a revitalization of the education system which includes cultivating a critical consciousness and creative abilities that kindle imaginaries of togetherness and resistance among students, workers and citizens. As socio-economic inequalities fuelled by neoliberalism are widening in both Sri Lanka and most countries in the global south, there is an urgent need to bring to the front and centre this second vision of the global in our deliberations on educational reforms.

Global Job Market vs Global Crises

The global labour market is a neoliberal idea which forces education systems all across the world to produce and supply a docile labour force that can help global capitalism advance its exploitative, neocolonial agendas. The imperatives of this market are designed to ensure that the world remains a place of deep inequalities and only a limited number of people have access to jobs that can guarantee basic comforts and facilities such as housing, healthcare, transportation and electricity. Thus, one has to be skeptical of educational policies informed by the thinking and rationales that govern the global labour market.

There exists a huge disconnect between the expectations of the global labour market and the stark realities that characterize the current global moment which demand the attention of those involved in educational endeavours. The genocide in Gaza, the rise of right-wing populism in many parts of the world, the growing income inequalities within many countries, the alarming rates at which our environment is being denuded and the hostility women and sexual minorities face all across the world are some deeply worrying incidents and trends that we are watching today.

The reforms thrust upon our education systems by donor agencies, such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank tend to align with a neoliberal vision. They do not situate education and employment in relation to these economic and political crises that affect millions of people across the world today; nor do they have any interest in creating an understanding among students about the histories of these crises and how the failures of our education systems have contributed to the current global disarray.

Neoliberal Educational Reforms

Neoliberal donors are focused primarily on making our educational institutions meet the conditionalities of the global labour market. They push governments to privatize education and universities to introduce fee-levying academic programmes. Their goal is to turn education into a marketable commodity and education systems into profit-making sites. Rather than striving for an education that creates local and global solidarities for change, these donors lay emphasis on creating technologies that can link countries and continents in ways that can support the onward march of extractive capital. A good example in this regard is Sri Lanka’s educational reforms since the 2000s which have given a central place to the teaching of English and Information Technology. These two areas were marketed as qualifications necessary for graduates to survive in a job market dominated by transnational capitalist conglomerates.

Similarly, the current moves to remove critical content from the curricula and replace them with ‘soft skills’ such as leadership, ethics and morality, communication and public speaking as pre-requisites for employment is geared towards producing a corporate-attired, global, English-speaking class of entrepreneurs and those who assist them unquestioningly in their neoliberal pursuits. Such courses, while universalizing colonial values and ways of thinking, isolate skills from criticality, technology from politics, and employment from action and activism.

Creating disciplinary hierarchies, neoliberal reforms privilege hard sciences, technology education, management and accounting and the English language. As a result, in many countries the Humanities and Social Sciences are defunded and denigrated as disciplines without any use value. There have been attempts to remove courses with a focus on literatures and languages from the general curriculum at universities. In some settings, academics who teach these disciplines are faced with the threat of losing their jobs.

In Sri Lanka, degree programmes in English Language Teaching are presented as lucrative, whereas literature programmes and local languages are branded as disciplines that will not yield any monetary benefits to the learner. If Arts, Literatures and Humanities have any value within this system, their role is reduced to providing entertainment for those with material comforts. The classical Roman poet Horace said that poetry should both instruct and delight simultaneously.

The neoliberal labour market drives a wedge into this twinned goal, framing arts and literature in narrow terms as pleasure generating industries. It seeks to erase the role creative, affective labour plays in bringing about social change. This is why governments should be able to see through and, when necessary, see past the global labour market in rejuvenating our education system.

The Way-forward for the NPP Government

The NPP government, which won the elections with the promise of change, should not allow the neoliberal conditionalities of the global labour market to overdetermine its educational reforms. The economic crisis that led to the people’s uprising of 2022 and the NPP’s electoral victories was caused mainly by the country’s descent into neoliberalism. If the government is serious about taking the country out of the current crisis, it must fight neoliberalism head-on at all fronts, including within the education sector. Being indecisive and sending out confusing signals, such as commitment to social justice on the one hand and statements in support of the edicts and expectations of the global job market on the other, will weaken the education system further. This ambiguity results in part from the severe pressure exerted by donor agencies on whom the education sector of Sri Lanka and many other countries rely on for funding.

Identifying its budget priorities rightly, the new government should increase spending on state education and create and support educational pursuits that help students resist the hegemonies of global capital. There should be increased support for the Humanities and Social Sciences and increased encouragement for universities to re-frame degree programmes in natural sciences in ways that that help students explore technologies and remedies that minimize socio-economic inequalities and support ecologically viable development initiatives. Overall, the reform process should be approached with a new, liberationist outlook focused on egalitarian social transformation.

(Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the University of Jaffna)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.