Midweek Review

Decolonising education, decentering the university – A response

Published

4 years ago

2022/03/9

By Andi Schubert

Kaushalya Herath, Harshana Rambukwella, and Darshi Thoradeniya, all friends and colleagues, have recently made some important interventions through the Kuppi Talk column on the topic of decolonising education. Framed within part of a larger conversation on the importance and value of arts education within the university, their interventions have brought a topic discussed globally to the attention of the local reading public. I broadly concur with much of their suggestions. But I want to highlight some thorny questions that decolonisation as a problem forces us to contend with and which I feel is not adequately highlighted in the interventions made thus far. In doing so, I aim not to devalue or discount their work but rather to nudge them towards more public interventions which grapple with the problems posed by decolonisation. My hope is that they will help all of us to think more critically about the possibilities for decolonising university education in Sri Lanka today.

The Unevenness of Colonial Power

It is often easy to fall into the trap of treating colonialism as a monolith when discussing the legacies of colonial rule in countries like Sri Lanka. Given that nationalist movements also frame colonialism in this way, it behooves those of us interested in critiquing both colonialism and nationalism to be vary of discussing colonial policies as a cogently theorised, cohesively implemented set of practices. As more recent research into colonial histories have shown, colonial policies were often ad hoc and haphazard, defined and re-defined in response to the pressures taking shape at the time both within and without the colony.

To give one relevant example that Prof. Rambukwella touches on, let me consider Thomas Babbington Macauley’s famous Minute on Indian Education which so clearly articulates the idea of an intermediary class between European colonisers and indigenous communities. The Minute itself was the culmination of a lengthy debate between British Orientalists who thought that indigenous literatures and languages (Sanskrit, Arabic, Pali for example) should be the basis for education in India and Anglicists who rejected indigenous languages in favour of English. Scholars trace this debate to 1781 and the establishment of an institution for Muslim higher education in Calcutta by the then British Governor, William Hastings. Hastings’ desire to set up an institution of this nature should be understood in the context of the precarity of British rule in Calcutta at the time and the need to win the support of powerful local elites by functioning as a patron for the development and promotion of indigenous cultures. Thus, an emphasis on its culmination masks the longer trajectories of the debate, particularly since some of these trajectories continue to influence our thinking today.

Colonial policies were also shaped by specific external and internal pressures. External considerations such as religious conflicts directly impacted colonial educational policies. For example, tensions between the Roman Catholic Portuguese empire and the Protestant Dutch empire are often identified as the reason why, after the exit of the Portuguese, the Roman Catholic church was not permitted to set up educational institutions in Ceylon until 1799, a few years after the British took control of the Coastal areas of the Island. Similarly, British priorities for education were also rarely monolithic and often complex. For example, as the memoirs of James Chapman, the first Anglican Bishop of Colombo show, there was a strong desire among Christian clergy to promote education in indigenous languages as a mechanism for developing the Christian church in the Island. Thus, decolonial efforts must engage with the fact that the colonial enterprise was complex and rarely unidirectional.

Most importantly perhaps, it is worth asking about the extent to which less critical presumptions about colonial policies fail to take into account the ways in which indigenous agency shaped colonial policies and practices. To give one example from the Sri Lankan context, as Anne Blackburn has shown in her well-research book Locations of Buddhism, Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala and his patrons were able to use the Orientalist educational commitment of Governor Gregory as well as changes in the way Government funding for education was offered to secure State support when setting up the Vidyodaya Pirivena in the 1870s.

When we frame Ceylon’s colonial education system within the parameters of English, we would also do well to keep in mind that the actual percentage of the population educated in the English medium was almost negligible. For example, census statistics from 1911 show that even with the inclusion of the primarily English literate European and Burgher populations, only around 3% of men and 1% of women in Ceylon were classified as being literate (able to read and write) in English. This is well below the percentage of the population considered literate in 1911 (40% of men, 11% of women), further proof that English was not the primary medium of instruction for most students in Colonial Ceylon. But to Prof. Rambukwella’s point about English education being critical to colonial rule, one of the major factors for this was that English medium education was the most critical requirement when voting was introduced for Ceylonese in 1910, a requirement that limited franchise to 0.07% of the population. However, the introduction of franchise in this very limited way was a direct result of pressure exerted by Ceylon’s indigenous elite. Further, the introduction of this limitation was also vehemently opposed by the then British Governor, Henry McCallum on the grounds that it would exclude the majority of the population.

Thus, a closer look suggests that colonial policies relating to education in Ceylon/ Sri Lanka were rarely unidirectional, flowing from a pernicious, ideologically unified source in London. Rather, it was a set of complex, negotiated, and transient practices that evolved in response to local as well as international pressures. This is why those of us interested in raising the problem of decolonisation in relation to education must begin by questioning our own assumptions about the uniformity and evenness of colonial power. If our practice of decolonisation does not account for these negotiations, we run the risk of perpetuating now well-worn, Manichean dichotomies between colonisers and colonized which inadvertently perpetuate colonial distinctions.

Anticolonial Resistances,
Decolonial Horizons

But perhaps the larger question that decolonisation throws up for me is the question of what to do with the university itself. All the writers mentioned above as well as in the larger Kuppi Talk column have highlighted the need to defend the university itself from neoliberal attacks that seek to constrain the possibilities for critical thinking and exploration afforded within that space. It is worth remembering that the university was a central platform in Ceylon’s anti-colonial imagination. Its earliest proponents in Ceylon saw the university as a means of decolonising the mind and resisting the intellectual, artistic, and cultural denudation of indigenous traditions and approaches through an over-emphasis on Europe. But can these conditions and imaginations be recuperated within our current context? And what is the role of a university within these decolonial horizons?

I want to conclude by adding my voice to a growing list of decolonial thinkers who are arguing for replacing the idea of a university with that of a ‘pluriversity’ and a ‘subversity, terms developed by the key decolonial thinker, Boaventura de Sousa Santos. De Sousa Santos reminds us that as a result of the influence of capitalism as well as the continued dominance of Europe in intellectual work, the university today is no longer the radical, alternative space it was once thought to be. Thus, the question arises as to whether there is any value in attempting to reform the university in its current form.

For example, would more interest in and funding for humanities and social sciences education really address the problems the university in Sri Lanka faces today? It would certainly go some way towards this, but the structural conditions that have denuded the radical possibilities within the space of a university would continue to be largely unaffected. We would merely have put off for tomorrow the problems of today.

This is why I want to end by echoing de Sousa Santos’ call for imagining the possibilities of polyphonic spaces he terms a ‘pluriversity’ and a ‘subversity’. These are spaces built outside the space of the conventional university with a commitment to challenging the continued function of capitalism and colonialism in pedagogy and intellectual production. Those of us seriously committed to the task of decolonizing education, particularly university education, must begin by imagining different horizons of possibilities and new structures and conditions for intellectual and pedagogical work. This may help us to engage more critically with our own anticolonial histories, reconsider our own commitments and positions, and perhaps most importantly, think and act beyond the limits capitalism and colonialism has set for us. This, for me at least, is the first and most critical step on the long and hard road to the decolonization of any university space.

Andi Schubert teaches at the Department of Language Studies of the Open University of Sri Lanka.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Unexpected focus on ‘pieces of tin’ worn by military men

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/8

Sahan Weerasooriya

Maj. Lalith Jayasinghe with Kaushalya on his wedding day. Jayasinghe, receipient of Sri Lanka's highest military honour, has been credited with unprecedented raids behind the enemy lines. He died in late November, 2008, in the Vanni east.

Second Lieutenant S.U. Aladeniya, the first recipient of the Parama Weera Vibhushanaya, died fighting the LTTE in the second week of July, 1990. The young commanding officer of the isolated Kokavil Army detachment refused an opportunity to leave his wounded colleagues. Instead, he chose to set an extraordinary example. The fate of the Kokavil detachment, as well as the unprecedented military debacle that forced the Army to vacate the Kandy–Jaffna A9 road, north of Vavuniya, in 1990, happened due to the late President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s folly. Premadasa trusted the LTTE to such an extent, he ordered several hundred police officers, in the East, to surrender to appease the LTTE. The rest is history.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris recently questioned in court as to why retired Air Force officer Shantha Jayathilake appeared in court wearing armed forces medals.

The highly decorated war hero Flight Lieutenant Jayathilake represented himself under Section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the trial of Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay, the alleged mastermind of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage.

During his submission, Dileepa Pieris looked at the medals worn by the retired officer and said: “He comes wearing pieces of tin.”

When Jayathilake objected to the ASG’s remark, Magistrate Pasan Amarasena warned the ex-officer not to interrupt proceedings. Then Peiris said that he couldn’t see Jayathilake’s medals properly. Jayathilake is the recipient of Weewa Wickrema Vibhushanaya (WWV), the second highest gallantry medal awarded to Sri Lankan military. The PWV is the highest gallantry decoration that can be received by a living military man. Jayathilake who joined the Air Force in 1989 at the height of the JVP-led insurgency, retired in 1999, and was also the recipient of the Rana Sura Padakkama (RSP).

Senior President’s Counsel Maithree Gunaratne, who represented Sallay in court, said: “The problem is not with your eyes, but with the red-tinted glasses you are wearing. You wore blue-tinted glasses for a while, and now you wear red-tinted glasses, so the gallantry medals, earned with blood, sweat, and tears for the country, look like pieces of tin to you”

Gunaratne requested that Pieris’s comments on the ex-officer be formally recorded in court records. This happened in the Fort Magistrate’s court on 2 July, 2026. The court proceedings caused controversy with various interested parties expressing differing views on Jayathilake wearing medals to a courtroom.

Some found fault with him for wearing medals while others strongly backed him. The issue at hand received social media attention. Obviously some sought political advantage at the expense of the government and the Attorney General’s Department. Others lambasted the former State Intelligence Service (SIS) Chief Sallay (2029-2024) for causing unnecessary developments. However, the gallantry medals worn by military, both officers and men, cannot be ridiculed by anyone, regardless of his/her position in the society. Gallantry medals remind the country of immense and untold sacrifices made by the military, during the war, and any attempt to dilute them should be strongly opposed.

Those who silently backed or publicly take action against war-winning Army Chief General (retd.) Sarath Fonseka, in 2010, after his defeat at the 2010 January presidential election, shouldn’t see the incident at the Fort Magistrate court as an opportunity.

Although Sri Lanka has been deeply divided over investigations into the conduct of armed forces during the war and after, no issue caused controversy like the arrest of Sallay, a post-war head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) over the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. Sallay served as the Director of State Intelligence Service (SIS) from 2019 to 2024 before President Anura Kumara Dissanayake replaced him. Perhaps President Gotabaya Rajapaksa shouldn’t have brought Sallay as Director, SIS, contrary to the practice of SIS always being headed by a senior police officer or he was quite right in bringing in a serving military officer with a proven intelligence track record, knowing the shameful behaviour of responsible top police officers in the run up to the Easter Sunday suicide attacks, despite there having been adequate advance intelligence warnings to prevent them.

The intervention made by the retired Air Force officer triggered an unexpected reaction from the Attorney General’s top representative and the subsequent continuing controversy influenced The Island to discuss the awarding of gallantry medals, namely Parama Weera Vibhushanaya (PWV), the highest, followed by Weera Wickrema Vibhushanaya (WWV), Rana Wickrema Padakkama (RWP) and Rana Sura Padakkama (RSP). The fourth medal, Weeradhara Vibhushanaya, is awarded for bravery, regardless of the risks to one’s own life, but for voluntary interventions outside the battlefield.

Bravery of an exceptional kind

During the war, Sri Lanka awarded 32 PVWs posthumously. The Army, Navy and Air Force shared 29, 2 and 1, respectively. The PVW is awarded to all ranks of armed forces, both regular and volunteer, for individual acts of bravery in the face of enemy, disregarding the risks to one’s own life. Of the 32 recipients of the PVW, the extraordinary case of Maj. J.A.L. Jayasinghe (Lalith Jayasinghe), posthumously promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, captured unprecedented public attention.

On many occasions, PWVs were awarded posthumously for sacrifices made in defensive action, while the armed forces were responding to enemy action. However, Lalith had initiated action deep within the enemy-held territory and his efforts reflected the overall military strategy.

The 29 recipients consisted of 27 Army: Second Lieutenant S.U Aladeniya, Lance Corporal (LC) Y.G.G. Kularatne (Hasalaka Gamini), Second Lt. K.W.T. Nishshanka, Staff Sgt. H.P.B. Gunasekera, LC W.I.M. Seneviratne, Lt. Col. A.F Lafir, Capt. G.S. Jayanath, Maj. J.A.L. Jayasinghe, Maj. K.A. Gamage, Capt. U.G.A.S. Samaranayake, H.G.M.K.I. Megawarna, Sgt H.G.S. Bandara, Corporal P.N. Suranga, Corporal P.M.N. Pushpakumara, Corporal D.N\M.S. Chandrasiri Bandara, LC K. Chandana, Private R.M.D.M. Ratnayake, LC A.M.M.P. Abeysinghe, recruit A.M.B.H.G. Abeyratne Banda, private T.G.R. Dayananda, Lt. P.N. Punsiri, Second Lt W.D. Jayathilake, Sgt. K.G.N.L.R. Perera, Corporal K.P.D.T. Gunasekera, LC H.A. Nilantha Kumara, LC S.V.A.M. Pushpamal. Navy: Lt. J.L.D.S. Wijetunga, Petty Officer K.G. Shantha and Air Force: Squadron Leader T.D.S. Silvapulle.

Although Jayasinghe paid the supreme sacrifice, while serving the Special Forces, he had been a proud member of the Gemunu Watch (GW). GW veteran Maj. Gen. K.B. Egodawele in his Hewayekuge Mathaka Satahan (Memories of a soldier), first launched in 2012, declared that Jayasinghe had been among four GW personnel, namely Captain U.G.A.S. Samaranayake, Captain H.P.M.K. Meghawardena and Corporal D.M.A.M. Pushpakumara to receive the PWV, posthumously.

All of them received the highest gallantry award for actions on the Vanni east region during Eelam War IV (2006 August to 2009 May).

Jayasinghe’s wife Kaushalya accepted the PVW on 19 May, 2012, at the annual Victory Day parade. Maj. Gen. Kamal Gunaratne read the awardee’s official citation. Kaushalya had been five months pregnant at the time Jayasinghe mounted a raid deep inside the LTTE-held territory in the Vanni east region. Gunaratne, the wartime General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the 53 Division declared that Jayasinghe had been in command of an LRRP (Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol)/Deep Penetration Unit tasked to eliminate LTTE leaders. That unit had moved about 40 kms into the enemy held territory in Oddusuddan and was positioned alongside the Mankulam-Oddusuddan road to kill LTTE leaders, on 26 November, 2008.

Suddenly, Jayasinghe had fallen sick but joined other members of the LLRP to fight the enemy after fierce fighting erupted between the two sides. In spite of having an opportunity to retreat, Jayasinghe, hero of many previous battles, suffered grievous injuries during the battle and succumbed to his injuries.

Jayasinghe had been an extraordinary soldier and was the recipient of the second highest gallantry medal, WWV, on three or four occasions. In one such occasion, Jayasinghe had received two WWVs at one ceremony and recalled retired Maj. Gen. Dhammi Hewage, who received the RSP at the same event. Hewage spoke admirably about what he called high risk and extraordinary LRRP operations undertaken by Jayasinghe over a period of time. Let me give you an opportunity to know more about Hewage whose no holds barred examination of the Army during the war received public attention ( https://island.lk/a-special-forces-officers-narrative/)

Those who risked their lives to earn battlefield recognition played a significant role in transforming the armed forces, particularly the Army. Gallantry medals had been earned by armed forces officers and men in various circumstances but the deadly LRRP strikes, deep within the LTTE held territory, made quite a difference in the overall direction of the war. Those who operated in enemy territory in a way functioned as suicide cadres/units as the probability of them being intercepted by the LTTE was very high. But, regardless of severe risks, they ventured out of government-held areas to infiltrate deep inside enemy held territory to carry out operations. The LRRP team, led by Jayasinghe, is a case in point.

Clandestine operations received public attention in the run-up to the 2001 December parliamentary election when UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe all of a sudden alleged that the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) was planning to assassinate him. Within weeks after the UNP victory at the parliamentary election, the UNP unleashed the police on the DMI. The police raided the DMI safe house at Millennium City, Athurugiriya. In spite of Army Chief, the late Lt. Gen. Lionel Balagalle, personally assuring the UNP that there was absolutely no basis for such claims, Wickremesinghe was not prepared to change his political strategy. He gave Minister John Amaratunga in charge of police the go ahead for planned action.

The January 2, 2002, raid led to the arrest of Captain Mohamed Nilam, Staff Sgt. P. Ananda Udulagama, Staff Sergeant I. Edirisinghe Jayamanne, Corporal H.M. Nissanka Herath, Lance Corporal H. Mohamed Hilmy and an LTTE operative identified as Niyaz/Subashkaran. Others involved in that particular operation had been living in the East and were called into join operations, depending on the requirement. On the instructions of Lt. Gen. Balagalle, those tasked with carrying out attacks on selected targets received the opportunity to train under Special Forces instructors from Maduru Oya. They underwent training at the Panaluwa Test Firing Range, where firing special weapons was a key element in the training schedule.

In a bid to ensure secrecy, those operatives mostly operated on their own, and had their own arsenal, which included a range of weapons, including claymore mines. In fact, those involved in such operations functioned on a need-to-know basis. Even senior DMI officials, as well as the Army top brass, except a few, hadn’t been aware of what was going on. Even the then powerful Deputy Defence Minister, the late Anuruddha Ratwatte, hadn’t been told of the Millennium City safe-house, though he knew of the ongoing hits behind enemy lines.

Shortly after the exposure of the DMI operation, Balagalle met Premier Wickremesinghe to explain the secret operations undertaken against the LTTE. The Army chief had been accompanied by officials, including Hendarawithana, while one-time Attorney General Tilak Marapana, National List MP holding the Defence portfolio, and Minister Milinda Moragoda, too, were present.

“Except for Minister Moragoda, the others obviously didn’t realise what we were doing. They acted as if we were conspiring to do away with the political leadership so as to undermine the Norwegian initiative,” a source familiar with the dynamics of the project said. “We quickly realised we were up against a government, which simply wanted to negotiate a deal with the LTTE at any cost. The LTTE and the Norwegians exploited the situation to the hilt.”

Success in the East

Hitting the enemy in the area under its control had been Balagalle’s idea. The DMI hadn’t been successful in its first and the second attempts to take two specific targets. The targeted area had been Batticaloa south and the first and the second operations were mounted on 18 July 2001 and 12 September 2001. But both actions went awry and the targeted men identified as Jim Kelly (commander of Jeyanthan regiment) and Jeevan escaped death.

But, they succeeded on 17 September 2001. Operatives carried out a successful attack on ‘Major’ Mano Master, who was at that time in charge of the communications network in the Ampara-Batticaloa area.

But immediately after the UNP’s victory, the government terminated all such operations. The treacherous government betrayed those who risked their lives for the country. Ex-LTTEers and others who worked for the Army were exposed and the LTTE hunted them down. Scores of men were killed. Some were tortured and killed.

Apart from Mano Master, the secret raids claimed the lives of Batticaloa District Intelligence Head Lt. Col Nizam and Capt. Thevathasan.

Among those killed in the north were LTTE Air Wing Head Col. Shankar (Vaithilingam Sornalingam) and Sea Tiger Deputy Commander Lt. Col Kangai Amaran.

S.P. Thamilselvan, his Deputy Major S. Thangan, Vavuniya Special Commander Col. Jeyam and Deputy Military Chief Col. Balraj were believed to have been targeted in the North but escaped. In the East, among those who escaped targeted killings, were Col. Karuna, Karikalan, Jim Kelly and Intelligence Chief Lt. Col. Ramanan.

In spite of the LTTEers, particularly its leaders on a heightened state of alert, the Army ambushed Karikalan’s vehicle on 18 October, 2001. The destruction of the vehicle fuelled speculation of Karikalan’s demise, with a section of the media reporting him killed in a special operation. Shortly before the attack on Karikalan’s vehicle, the Army intercepted a radio conversation between Karikalan and his wife, a medical doctor by profession, serving in the Northern Province. “She simply begged him to leave Batticaloa and take refuge in the North to avoid the Army’s deep penetration operations,” a source familiar with LRRP operations told the writer many years ago.

The Army struck again on 26 November, 2001. ‘Major’ Swarnaseelan and ‘Captain’ Devadas were eliminated in the Pulipanjikkal area. It was the last operation before the December 5 General Election.

The UNP terminated the operation. But, the Army revived the strategy after the eruption of hostilities in 2005.

It would be pertinent to mention that hit and run attacks, deep within the LTTE held territory, troubled them to such an extent, they took up the issue with Norway. Fearing a relentless campaign, the LTTE got Norway to include LRRP operations in their negotiations, leading to a one-sided Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) signed in February 2002 by the Wickremesinghe regime. That CFA revealed the existence of a secret Army project to target the LTTE in their own area. The CFA called for termination of LRRP operations.

Three PVWs

Lieutenant J.L.D.S. Wijetunga was the first Navy recipient of the Parama Weera Vibhushanaya (PWV), Sri Lanka’s highest gallantry award given posthumously. Wijetunga, Commanding Officer of the Israeli built Dvora Fast Attack Craft (FAC), maneuvered his vessel to intercept an explosives-laden Sea Tiger suicide boat approaching a troop transport ship off Point Pedro on 30 March, 1996. Wijetunga, in spite of knowing his action was suicidal, went ahead with the risky maneuver that saved the lives of a large contingent of off duty servicemen on their way to Trincomalee from Kankesanthurai (KKS).

The Navy earned its second PWV on 1 November, 2008, off Point Pedro, during the Eelam war IV. A Petty Officer of elite Special Boat Squadron K.G. Shantha rammed an explosives-laden Sea Tiger suicide craft with his Arrow boat (Z-142 ). Shantha and his three SBS colleagues were blasted to smithereens, though their action saved an Inshore Patrol Craft (IPC) carrying a dozen SBS personnel.

Wing Commander T.D.S. Silvapulle received the nation’s highest gallantry award PWV for attacking Sea Tiger boats firing at Army defences south-east of Elephant Pass on 19 December, 1999. Silvapulle, flying a Mi 24 helicopter gunship in adverse weather conditions, regardless of the threat posed by surface-to-air missiles, engaged the enemy craft. Silvapulle compelled the enemy to flee but was hit during the confrontation. His individual act of gallantry was recognized in 2012, four years after the eradication of the LTTE. The then President Mahinda Rajapaksa conferred the PWV at a ceremony held on 19 May, 2012. Maj. Lalith Jayasinghe received his PWV at the same ceremony.

The betrayal of the armed forces in October, 2015, at the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, by the treacherous Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regime, underscored the mentality of those who wielded political power. The calling of gallantry medals ‘pieces of tin’ reminded the country of the pathetic and disgraceful state of affairs.

Midweek Review

Poor, little upper-middle income country

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/8

Sahan Weerasooriya

“Sri Lanka has been ranked among the least happy countries in the latest World Happiness Report 2026…standing alongside Ethiopia”- The Sunday Island March 2026

Sri Lanka was officially declared an Upper-Middle Income country by the World Bank in July 2026, regaining the classification it had in 2019.

On the 30th of June, the IMF delegation meeting the President at the Presidential Secretariat praised the government: “…IMF praised the government’s economic programme and noted that Sri Lanka has made greater progress than many other countries implementing IMF-supported programmes. The delegation commended the government for maintaining macroeconomic stability despite a series of external shocks and for remaining firmly committed to its reform agenda…” (Presidential Media Division, 30 June 2026)

Meanwhile, a UN-backed World Happiness Report 2026 compiled by the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford, ranked Sri Lanka 134th out of 147 nations. A daily newspaper which ran the story on the 19th of March 2026, added that the report showed that “Sri Lanka has slipped one place from its 133rd ranking in 2025, now standing alongside Ethiopia. The country also trails behind its South Asian neighbours, with India ranked 116th, Pakistan and Bangladesh positioned significantly higher.”

Good News, Bad News

The Upper-Middle Income classification was declared by the World Bank during the Yahapalana government in July 2019. 6 months later, the Yahapalana government was swept out at elections.

Only 2 years later, in April 2022, the country was declared bankrupt, and by July that year the newly elected President was toppled by a people’s uprising for the first time in the country’s history.

To fill the vacuum, an unlikely combination of an unelected MP from the Opposition who was made President by the Parliament and an unpopular government that had barely survived the uprising, governed the country together. It was massively defeated by the people only 2 years later in 2024, despite ‘stabilising’ the economy.

An Upper-Middle Income status may give the impression of a prosperous people, but prosperous people are not an unhappy people. The World Bank report 2026 (World Bank, Sri Lanka Development Update) notes the anomaly: “the recovery is unfinished and has not translated into widespread improvements in welfare.”

The report adds:

* Real output remains below 2018 levels.

* Although poverty is projected to decline in 2025, it remains double the 2019 levels.

* Vulnerability remains high with an additional 10 percent of the population living just above the poverty line.

* Malnutrition continues to be elevated.

* The labour market recovery is slow with real wages and labor force participation well below 2019 levels.

The World Bank’s Poverty and Equity Brief (October 2025) sheds further light:

* Poverty is projected at 22.3-22.4 percent in 2025 and around 20 percent until 2027 without stronger inclusive growth.

* Real earnings remain below pre-crisis levels.

So, are Top of the Class in the IMF index and almost Bottom of the Class in the Happiness Index related?

As a friend who is a highly-placed economist explained to me, if people are poorer, undernourished, indebted, and insecure after stabilisation, then reserves, inflation, and primary balances alone cannot be relied on to judge the next IMF programme. Sri Lanka needs a national programme whose success metric is household recovery, jobs, nutrition, and productive capacity.

From the praise heaped on the President and this government’s strong leadership by the IMF for their performance thus far, sticking closely to the IMF conditionalities, we can only infer that things for the unhappy citizens will hardly get better as they negotiate the 18th IMF programme.

The AKD administration doesn’t haggle on behalf of the people. They see the rewards of that approach in fiscal consolidation and macroeconomic stability. This however, is not the only kind of stability they have to bear in mind, given recent history.

By the People, But Not for the People?

The new or renewed (from July 2019) ‘Upper-Middle Income’ classification has served to remind people where the government has failed, been weak, as much as where it has been strong and succeeded. The economy in the abstract is better off, but the majority of the people who gave the government a two thirds majority, are much worse off in material reality.

To return to my top economist friend, she explained that Sri Lanka should not reject fiscal discipline, but it must own the design of fiscal adjustment. The country needs a fairer tax mix, better tax administration, public investment discipline, and protection of health, education, nutrition, and climate-resilient infrastructure. Otherwise, fiscal discipline becomes socially brittle and growth-reducing.

The direction she recommended is hardly where the government is heading. The World Bank warns that the on-going reliance on regressive indirect taxes could worsen the poverty outlook, while the primary expenditure ceiling of 13 percent of GDP can constrain public investment and service delivery.

A leading financial daily (6 July) reported that at the CA Sri Lanka’s 5th Annual Economic and Tax Symposium, both the Government’s tax policies and the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) “came under sustained criticism from leading private sector tax professionals”. Gajma & Co. Senior Partner N.R. Gajendran argued that “…higher revenues had come largely from imposing a heavier burden on existing taxpayers rather than widening the tax base.”

He said that “When taxes become excessive and unbearable, and it is not coming from the widening of the base, it is coming from the same taxpayer, it erodes expenditure capabilities, it erodes saving capabilities, and it erodes investment capabilities,” warning that “sustained over-taxation ultimately weakens consumption, investment, and long-term economic growth.”

Sri Lanka has already lost a large number of skilled professionals who migrated in droves in the last two years. Factum reports (April 2026) that the annual departures for foreign employment have hovered above the 310,000 mark. This includes Healthcare Professionals (Doctors, nurses), Academics and Researchers (including 80-90% of State University graduates), Technologists and Engineers.

Will the Lawyers be next? The Island editorial of 6 July 2026 strongly supports the stand that the BASL has taken, (endorsed by the Colombo Law Society, Colombo High Court Lawyers Association, LAWASIA and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association) opposing the government’s effort to move a constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, denouncing political interference in the judiciary and urging the government to avoid a Zimbabwean crisis.

None of this makes for a happy citizen, stability notwithstanding.

By the People, for the Creditors

So, what of all those promises made with such passion to do better than all previous governments since Independence in 1948?

The World Food Programme has this to report:

* Households unable to meet essential food needs increased from 14 percent in 2024 to 20 percent in 2026.

* If price trends continue, another 1.3 million people could be unable to afford essential food needs, including nearly 300,000 urban poor.

* Child nutrition remains worrying: stunting 10.1 percent, wasting 8.6 percent, and underweight 16.1 percent. (WFP, Food Security Under Pressure)

Economists warn that a programme that ‘stabilises’ the economy while households sell assets, cut food, reduce education and health spending, and slide into coping strategies, i.e., de-stabilises the household economy and lives, will not be socially, politically or developmentally sustainable.

Those who care for the people recommend that Sri Lanka’s own programme must place adaptive social protection, nutrition, and livelihoods at the very centre.

The promised re-negotiation of the 17th IMF package to make the necessary economic recovery less taxing (pun intended) for the people, less painful, and more sustainable overall, never happened. The government acted as if it was elected by the People for the Creditors.

We have been warned that Sri Lanka’s shift toward commercial borrowing and ISBs changed the debt-risk profile, with ISBs carrying high interest rates and short maturities. The government’s promised negotiations didn’t resemble anything like what was expected by the people, and went the way of the ISB holders who celebrated the victory in Canary Wharf toasting our President in absentia.

IMF Country Report No 26/111 indicates that even after restructuring, debt sustainability risks remain high. Public debt is projected at around 100.1 percent of GDP in 2026, with central government gross financing needs at 19.8 percent of GDP.

Economists remind us that Sri Lanka’s recent graduation to the Upper Middle-Income classification means that we will have to pay more in debt repayments as per the macro-linked bond of the debt restructuring settlement with the creditors.

IMF 18, going on 19?

Who’d have thought it? In the last 77 years, the most pro-people, pro-poor administration has certainly not been the AKD government. There were much better ones, even during the 30 year war, when policies were more enlightened and served the people; were undertaken with confidence and determination, and some still continue to provide the foreign exchange to pay for subsequent errors of judgment. And with the courage of their convictions and confidence in their capacity to deliver, those leaders didn’t feel the need to postpone any elections.

Stabilisation was an immediate necessity. But my economist friend spoke for us all when she told me “Sri Lanka cannot stabilise its way to prosperity. It should not risk turning emergency discipline into a permanent development model”.

With the current state of play, is that what we are looking at? There is little evidence that this administration has the capacity to design an independent programme, not subject to the whims and fancies of IFIs, but as my friend put it, “our own programme: fiscally responsible, socially protective, production-oriented, climate-resilient, and politically owned. The IMF can support that programme, but it cannot be the programme.”

An unhappy people is surely as much of an indicator of the real health of the economy, as the Gross National Income per capita calculated in US dollars by the World Bank. A Sunday newspaper quoted a young economist, Rehana Thowfeek, co-founder/director at Arutha Research, who says: “There is no point in celebrating becoming an upper-middle-income country while 1 in 4 of our people is in poverty, two out of every 5 Sri Lankans cannot afford a healthy diet and 1 out of 3 of our children under 5 years is malnourished.”

This is not a situation that should be allowed to prevail by an allegedly pro-people government, or indeed any government that has been granted the privilege to govern, through the people’s vote. The planning, the policy choices are all in the hands of the government. Will they choose a better path?

People are not unhappy because they are too mean to acknowledge what a wonderful job this government is doing, and give praise to this administration like the IMF at the Presidential Secretariat. It is because they are in pain, they are suffering, they are hungry, they cannot pay the bills, and they are looking at a future where none of these things are going away, but is set to get much worse, as the government slouches towards its next IMF programme and the next debt repayment.