Features
Efforts to improve things in university sector: More money poured down the drain?
Lee Kwan Yew thought downgrading English main reason for our downfall
In congratulating you on this latest initiative ( launch of Logos, the journal of the Department of Languages), I should add that I am deeply honoured by this gesture on the part of the University and the Faculty, to make this first issue a felicitation volume for me. It was also thoughtful of you to have invited Dr Chitra Jayatilleka to deliver the keynote address today, since she represents what is best about what I consider my other university, that of Sri Jayewardenepura.
I cannot take credit for her achievements, though she would be the first to recognize that, had it not been for the system I put in place at that University, she would not be here today. Her achievements are ample testimonial, as are those of your staff here, to the validity of our decision then to open up English degrees to those who had not done English for their Advanced Levels. And though I did not stay long at that University, I was lucky in that, just as in this University, I was able to recruit excellent staff who took forward my ideas and, as with Chitra and her promotion of Sri Lankan drama in English, developed new ideas on similar lines.
I am immensely proud then of what I managed to do at that university and this one, and of the students who have taken things forward. But with regard to the University of Peradeniya, where I began my teaching career, way back in 1980, since I made no mark at all, I cannot take pride in my brief stint there. But even had I stayed on, perhaps I would not have achieved much, since one of the brightest stars in the English academic firmament, Prof Arjuna Parakrama, who is very different from me in his approach but who shares a similar commitment to students and to productive change, has confessed himself beaten by the place. Having long aspired to the Chair there, he remarked after he had got it that it was even worse than Colombo.
Be that as it may, the point is that, though there are exceptions at both places, those institutions are hidebound in moribund traditions, and like Pope’s Addison simply sit attentive to their own applause. This is very different from the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, which Prof Arjuna Aluvihare, the best UGC Chairman to date, described soon after I joined it as the cutting edge of the university system.
Much has been achieved there, and much at this University. However I come here now at a time when there is a requirement of much more, if this country is ever to return to the leading position it had when the Prime Minister of Singapore hoped that he could bring that country to our level. And I fear that the current project to improve things in the University sector, more money poured down the drain to repeat what has been done again and again, from the year 2000 onward when the irksome IRQUE project first reared its head, money that future bankrupted generations will have to repay, will achieve very little. And that will then allow the World Bank and its cookie-cutting educationists to embark on yet another expensive project, with much more money having to be paid back by those who lack the skills to develop the country productively, and as a consequence try to get away as soon as possible.
Perhaps because of the comfort zone these World Bank projects have engendered, there is nothing of the imaginative radicalism that characterized the period when Arjuna Aluvihare was in charge. And so I feel that, while what I think of as both my institutions try to move forward, they work now in grooves, and do not promote the seminal change which we need.
This is particularly important with regard to English, the downgrading of which as you know Lee Kuan Yew thought the principal reason for our downfall. And that we get worse and worse was brought home to me forcefully when a former senior public servant, now engaged in teaching at higher levels, called to tell me he was in despair about the incapacity of students at one of the premier institutes of management to write correctly. Subject-verb agreement, he said mournfully, was unknown to them. I too, having marked papers recently for your potentially useful MA course in English and Education, which takes up what I tried to do a quarter of a century ago, I am horrified by the English usage of some of those supposed to have degrees in English.
That set me thinking about what might have been, and I make no apologies that what I have to say relates to my own initiatives. For though I can be happy about what I began in the university sector, for that has continued, with many more students able to obtain degrees in English as compared to when it was confined to a charmed circle coming from elite urban schools, I have to confess that my efforts in other areas, secondary education and vocational training, have failed.
The step by step teaching of English envisioned in the curriculum I introduced when I chaired the Academic Affairs Board of the National Institute of Education was promptly abolished when a new Chairman was appointed following a change of government in 2006. He cannot be blamed for the mess except for his failure to impose coherence. But when the dead souls of the NIE took charge, and appointed to advisory positions their incompetent friends, we had a spate of silly books which have completely failed to ensure understanding of basic structures in English.
It is true English medium still continues in government schools but, ever since the current President refused soon after we had commenced it to allow Karunasena Kodituwakku to extend my appointment to run the programme, standards declined, and in place of the systematic training and the excellent textbooks I had initiated, the incompetence of the Ministry and the National Institute of Education hold sway. And as for Vocational Training, the system I put in place to offer English courses at all levels was abandoned, and while Ministers bleat about the need for more English, they do nothing constructive about it.
I have no doubt that nothing will now be done to make things better, but it might help if the universities at least took these problems seriously, and addressed themselves to identifying issues and suggesting remedies.
This was something I proposed when I was briefly State Minister of Higher Education, namely that there should be coherent research done by each university, instead of what we now have, projects chosen at random which cannot then be connected together to improve current practice in different fields.
I wonder now how many Vice-Chancellors, then or now, have any memory of what I proposed, that there should be concerted study of problems in the Divisional Secretariats that formed the catchment areas of each university, so these could contribute to a development plan which the universities could propose to authorities. Heaven knows that this is needed, when currently development funds are devoted to enhancing political popularity, not to development.
I also tried, when I was Minister, to address coherently another problem, though to my horror no one else seems to consider it a problem. I refer to the massive waste of time imposed by our education system. At its most obvious, whereas in other countries there is seamless movement from one level to another, we call a halt after the Ordinary Level examination, which means that our youngsters lose a minimum of four months of their lives, though more often it is six. Worse, the practice of learning in school is totally decimated, a process that had begun earlier with tuition classes from childhood, but now parents have no choice except tuition to keep children gainfully – or not gainfully – employed. Then there is massive waste after the Advanced Level Examination and, though some universities have tried to start soon after results are released, this is exceptional and in any case the release of the results only occurs months after the examination.
This needs to be addressed by reducing the delay, but until that happens there should be measures to use the time productively, with for instance remedial courses in English and Mathematics in Divisional Centres in the three months after the Ordinary Level, with basic core courses such as any modern university system offers in the period after the Advanced Level – Critical Thinking, Bilingualism, Communication Skills, International Awareness.
Interestingly, I was told by one of the MA students, who works for the American Centre, that she plans a Critical Thinking Conference early next week, which suggests that there is wider awareness of the problem. Coincidentally too, in the articles I am now writing about those I have worked with in the university sector, I have explored recently the range of core courses we introduced when this university first took in students for degrees, way back in 1997.
But sadly I believe that particular component was dropped from your curriculum when Sabaragamuwa too forgot the innovations its first Vice-Chancellor Prof Somasundara initiated. All of you will remember how the University Grants Commission tried over many years to destroy the three year Honours Degree Somasundara had started, and how finally they succeeded when conservatism briefly held sway here. So we too waste the resources of the nation, and make no effort to provide essentials for life to our students, working instead to a notion of academia that the world has long abandoned.
But let me move to some practical ideas, for I should not go on for too long, based on something I noticed in the latest Grade 11 English textbook. That at least is not full of misprints, as had been the case earlier, but it continues the practice of being one of a set of three books, all expensively produced, a Pupil’s Book, a Workbook, and a Teacher’s Guide. In other countries there is just the one book, but those other countries have not developed to a fine are the rent-seeking our system has engendered.
The last chapter is about ‘Choices in Life’ and tells you what five students want to do. All of them talk about what they wish to do at university and therefore what they will study for their advanced levels. There are three Sinhalese and one Muslim and one Tamil, and they come from Batticaloa, Kurunegala, Galle, Anuradhapura and Nuwara Eliya.
Admirable diversity, except that rural students do not figure. Even worse is the fact that there is no conception of the real choices students in this country have to make, and no effort to introduce them to vocational training.
Perhaps these and other such books would be suitable subjects for research for student projects at universities. A class of English students could divide the work up and, having gone to several schools in a designated area, find out how much students have learnt, both of English and what appear to be the life skills drilled into them in almost all lessons, what they think of the reading texts and the poetry, and above all what they actually need for their futures.
Surely they do not need flatulent knowledge, already done to death in history textbooks from Grade 1 onward, about kings who built tanks, including Agbo 1 and Agbo 2, particular favourites of the National Institute of Education? There is hardly anything about the former in Wikipedia, except that he reigned for 34 years in the sixth century and was succeeded by his nephew. But the Wikipedia entry for Agbo 2 had different dates for his reign, though doubtless it is considered essential to know in the 21st century that he built the Kantale and Giritale tanks. Perhaps you too will remember that, even if you forget everything else I said, since that it seems is what our current administrators want our students to know.
Finally, may I suggest that those who have studied English here or at Sri Jayewardenepura set up a ginger group to urge reforms in the field? There are several products of the initiatives of the nineties who have done great jobs wherever they are, Dean Abeyweera at Uva Wellassa, Nandana Balasooriya who did so much for English at the Department of Technical Education and Training, Shashikala Assella who heads the Department of English at Kelaniya, to name just a few. You can make suggestions as to curriculum reform, the production of common materials, the introduction of community service centres to provide services to students in deprived areas.
You can produce a newsletter about best practices in the field, to disseminate for instance amongst the teachers who are on your training programmes. And most important, you can initiate through the universities Certificate courses, of three months duration, for English and perhaps Computer competence too, based on the three month courses developed a few years back with the support of the Skills Councils of the Tertiary and Vocational Commission.
I am grateful for this Festschrift, an honour I associate with venerable old age and, though I am not quite seventy, this is a sort of seal on my academic career. But having in a sense abandoned academic approaches half a life ago, I would also suggest that an even more fitting tribute would be aids to action which I believe several of you can help to get going. That, I hope, is what most of you would like to be remembered for, and what your teachers, including the indefatigable Paru Nagasunderam would expect, a continuation of student centred initiatives.
Of the several MOUs signed by the President of Sri Lanka during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka, the most consequential in respect of implications to Sri Lanka is the one associated with the Defence Cooperation. Neither the public nor the Parliament is aware of its contents. What the public could glean about the scope of this vital MOU are from articles written by concerned citizens, like the one by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka in the Daily FT of April 10, 2025. The source of his material is from statements made by the President during political rallies relating to the Defence Cooperation MOU. One such statement is cited below. This reflects a seismic shift in respect of Sri Lanka’s relations not only with India, but also with other Nation-States, that is disturbing to say the least, because of its implications on Sri Lanka’s autonomy to act independently as a sovereign Nation-State and define its own destiny; a status Sri Lanka defended for nearly 2500 years despite repeated interruptions over the years.
SECURING ASSISTANCE
Justifying the need for Defence Cooperation with India, President Dissanayake is reported to have stated the following at an election meeting in Galle:
“We need security in this region. We need to safeguard the security of this region. We should secure the assistance of those who have greater technological capacities in defence, greater skills in defence. If not, how can a country move forward? …. For 76 years the world developed rapidly in science and technology. The world developed rapidly in military science. Now, what should we do? We must secure the assistance of those states which have accepted new science and technology. Don’t we have to do that”? (Ibid).
There are two pivotal issues that arise from the President’s comments. The first is discarding the principle of SELF-RELIANCE (SR). SR is the bedrock of Sri Lanka’s civilizational values. The inspiration to rely on one’s SELF to evolve answers to inscrutable questions or to challenges that present themselves as insurmountable comes from the single-minded approach adopted by Lord Buddha in his search for liberation. His attempts to seek the assistance of others failed him. It was the relentless determination to find the answers himself to what he was looking for, that enabled him to realise his goal; a goal that has benefited mankind.
The role model set by him was what inspired the spirit of SELF RELIANCE that enabled Sri Lanka to create a civilisation that was unique over millennia. It was not created by military conquest. It was not created by developing “military science”. The monuments left behind are a testimony to the ingenuity and skills of the People of Sri Lanka. It was they, who developed the technologies needed for the Sri Lankan nation to lead a life of peace and contentment.
Throughout Sri Lanka’s history, its sovereignty has been repeatedly violated and its territory vandalised by invading armies. Whenever such invasions occurred, liberation and freedom came from military strategies developed and adopted by those within by relying on SR. They did not go running to sign MOUs seeking assistance from militarily powerful nations. On the other hand, whenever our Rulers sought the assistance of external powers, such as the Dutch, to get rid of the Portuguese who had invaded the country, the Dutch ended up colonising the whole country for nearly 150 years until they lost it to the British, who in turn colonised for a further 150 years. The Defence Cooperation MOU with India has the potential to repeat that history.
SAFEGUARDING REGIONAL SECURITY
The President has stated: “We need security in this region. We need to safeguard the security of this region”. If this is a policy of this government, in what way could Sri Lanka contribute towards the “security of this region”? Is there a clear understanding as to how Sri Lanka and India are going to undertake safeguarding the security of the region? Whatever it may be, there is no doubt that the contribution Sri Lanka can afford to make is insignificant compared with what India would be making because it is in India’s self-interest as an aspiring Global Power to make the region secure. Furthermore, because of this disparity, the MOU would entitle India to enforce its will as to how regional security is exercised. Does this not amount to sacrificing Sri Lanka’s strategic autonomy?
If it did, would it not compel Sri Lanka to be under the hegemony of India; a condition that would only bolster the security of India based on India’s notion that the security of India depends on the security of Sri Lanka, meaning a weakened Sri Lanka under the control of India? On the other hand, if Sri Lanka exercises its independence and acts in pursuit of its own self-interests, and such actions do not mesh with that of India in its pursuit of becoming a global power, there would be consequences.
Therefore, any arrangement that compromises the independence of Sri Lanka and its ability to exercise its Self- Reliance has to be mindful of India’s interests. This does not mean that Sri Lanka should not heed India’s concerns and interests. Instead, it only means pursuing Sri Lanka’s interests while being conscious of India’s sensibilities, as it was with the Chinese “research vessel”. However, under a Defence Cooperation MOU, it would be India that would decide the parameters as to whether to permit entry of foreign vessels or not; a constraint that would compromise Sri Lanka autonomy to pursue its self-interests.
IMPACT on FOREIGN POLICY
An alignment with a power that the President describes as: “We sincerely applaud the way India has positioned itself not only as a regional power, but also as global power” (Ibid), means Sri Lanka has decided to disassociate itself with its long cherished position of being Non-Aligned as a founding member of Non-Aligned Movement, that morphed recently into being Neutral in the context of emerging Great Power rivalries in this region. By aligning exclusively with a country that is positioning itself to be a global power and at the cost of distancing itself in its relations with other Global Powers, comes not only at a cost that Sri Lanka cannot afford to bear in the background of overdue debt to them, but also a degree of dependence that is unknown and unfamiliar to independent Sri Lanka.
The need to seek exclusive relations with India is in the hope that India would assist Sri Lanka in case such a need arises because Sri Lanka does not have the needed “military science” to defend itself, not realising that there is no free lunch; a fact attested by Sri Lanka’s own history. The President and this Government must accept the hard reality that Sri Lanka or any other small country can ever hope to match the degree of “military science” capabilities that Global Powers possess. At the end of the day, it is a smart strategy that matters more than the stacks of military hardware by countries such as Sri Lanka; a fact demonstrated by David’s sling shot against the might of Goliath.
For instance, Sun Tzu, in “The Art of War”, states: “What is essential for leaders, generals, and ministers in running countries and governing armies is no more than … peak efficiency of knowledge and strategy is to make conflict altogether unnecessary. To overcome others’ armies without fighting is the best of skills”. It is clear from the wisdom of the ages that effective intelligence gathering and appropriate strategy is far more relevant for the security of a Nation such as Sri Lanka than relying on the unrealistic notion of military science to ensure its security.
CONCLUSION
During an election rally, the President is reported to have stated that there is a need not only to “safeguard security for the region”, but also that Sri Lanka “must secure the assistance of those states which have accepted this new military science technology” if Sri Lanka is to move forward. These objectives are to be incorporated in a Defence Cooperation MOU with India.
How Sri Lanka is to contribute to “safeguarding the security of the region”, or what form and type of the assistance Sri Lanka expects from India, is not made public. Despite such lacunae, the implication of any form of Defence Cooperation exclusively with a country such as India that is “positioning” itself to be a global Power or one that is already recognised as a Global Power, is bound to affect Sri Lanka’s relations not only with other Global Powers but also with other countries as well.
Furthermore, exclusive alignment with one Power means that Sri Lanka has decided to ditch not only the principle of Non-Alignment and its concepts that it championed for decades, but also, more appropriately, Neutrality, in the emerging context of Great Power rivalries in the region. Such exclusive arrangements for assistance with one country compel Sri Lanka to be in the vortex of India and its interests, the consequence of which for Sri Lanka is to be a vassal State of India.
The nearly 2,500-year old history of Sri Lanka has been to resist and defend such attempts. Throughout its history Sri Lanka has relied on its own strengths and abilities and created the spirit of Self-Reliance modeled on the example set by the founder of the religion of the majority of Sri Lanka. That is to develop its own strategies to create a unique civilization in which its People enjoyed peace and contentment. However, there were occasions when weak leaders abandoned the rewards of Self-Reliance and sought the assistance of the Dutch to overcome the threat of Portuguese occupation, and ended up being colonized for over nearly 150 years. The planned Defence Cooperation MOU with India could very well be a repeat of that history; an outcome that would permanently ensure India’s security.
The attempt to seek external assistance to “move forward” is founded on the misguided concept that without the military and technological strength of external agents, Sri Lanka cannot move forward. In view of the fact that countries such as Sri Lanka cannot ever hope to match the capabilities of those who have advanced military technologies, the choice left to Sri Lanka is to be guided by the wisdom of the ages cited above, and develop “efficiency of knowledge and strategy”.
That means, the compelling need for Sri Lanka to develop its Intelligence and strategic capabilities to a very much higher level than what exists today so that Sri Lanka is in a position to make conflict both internal or external unnecessary. The importance of strategy over Military capabilities is starkly made evident by the experience of the US in Vietnam. Notwithstanding the fact that the US possesses the most advanced military hardware in the world, the US lost the war in Vietnam because of a wrong strategy. The US relied totally on the capabilities of their military hardware and forgot the strategy of David’s slingshot. The hope is that the President is made aware of these lessons of history.
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Professor Basil Laliputhra Tennekoon, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Moratuwa, was called to rest on 30 March 2025 at the age of 82. He was educated at S. Thomas’ College, Mt. Lavinia, where he won the Miller Mathematics Prize in 1960, an achievement that gets one’s name on a board in the college hall. The prize is named after Rev. Edward Miller, the fifth warden of the school, who had read mathematics at Cambridge. Young Tennekoon fulfilled this early promise, obtaining first class honours in civil engineering from the University of Peradeniya in 1965. There were many Thomians who entered the engineering faculty with him, including Shanthi Kumar Rasaratnam (now holding an MBE for services to water engineering in the UK), Mano Ponniah (who later played first class cricket for Cambridge and All-Ceylon), and Gerard Rodrigo (subsequently a Marxist development economist).
Lal Tennekoon went on to complete his PhD at Cambridge University in 1970, on the behaviour of foundations on sandy soils. Other notable Peradeniya graduates/academics who completed PhDs in Cambridge around this time included Alagiah Thurairajah (1962, on shear properties of soils), Munidasa Ranaweera (1969, on the finite element method applied to limit analysis) and Vickramabahu Karunaratne (1970, on plasma physics) – halcyon days for Peradeniya engineering, no doubt. For six years after his PhD, Tennekoon was attached to the Faculty of Engineering at Peradeniya, teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He joined the Katubedda Campus of the University of Sri Lanka in 1975 and became a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Moratuwa in 1984 and Senior Professor in 1994. Moratuwa was fortunate to obtain his services. When I once suggested that his moving to Moratuwa was a result of “the best people gravitating to the best places”, his rejoinder was that he would have found it difficult, after he got married to Preethi, to keep pace with Thurairajah’s work ethic in the Peradeniya soil mechanics lab!
He guided the fortunes of the Civil Engineering Department as its Head from 1980 to 1985, during which time the annual undergraduate intake was increased from 50 to 100, and a new civil engineering complex was constructed to accommodate that increase. He also steered the Faculty of Engineering as its Dean for 10 months in 1994/1995, when there was sharp division in the university regarding the continuation of the NDT programme within the Faculty.
Professor Tennekoon’s main research interests were based around the problems facing the geotechnical engineers of this country. These were in the areas of: (i) Shallow foundations in low lying areas containing peat and organic clays; (ii) Pile foundations terminating on rock; (iii) Landslides and the stabilisation of slopes; and (iv) Site Investigations for all types of civil engineering structures. He also chaired the Moratuwa University’s Senate Research Committee from around 1998 to 2002 and was responsible for setting up the Research Awards Scheme, which contributed significantly to raising research quality at the university.
Over his illustrious career, he provided assistance to many development projects in the country during their planning, design and construction stages, in the collection and interpretation of geotechnical data. Notable contributions have been in (i) the Environmental Improvement Project for the city of Colombo; (ii) the Southern Highway Project from Colombo to Matara; (iii) the Beira Lake Restoration Project; and (iv) several multi-storeyed building projects such as Ceylinco Celestial Towers, Crescat Towers, HNB Tower, Bank of Ceylon Tower, Central Bank Tower and Havelock City Project. He worked closely with Geotech (Pvt) Ltd, where his close friend Eng. Parakrama Jayasinghe was Managing Director. At times he enlisted the services of his colleagues, most of them his juniors. The consideration paid by this senior engineer to the disciplinary competencies of his younger associates only served to increase our own reciprocal respect for him.
Professor Tennekoon served as the principal author for the development of two standards for the Institute of Construction Training and Development (ICTAD), in which his research findings were also incorporated. The two standards were in the areas of ‘Site Investigation’, and ‘Pile foundations end bearing on rock’; and were published by the Sri Lanka Standards Institution (SLSI). He was a Founder Member of the Sri Lanka Geotechnical Society (SLGS) in 1987; and held its Presidency from 1994 to 2000. He was recognised for his contributions to the Geotechnical Engineering profession in Sri Lanka by the SLGS at an International Conference organised by the Society in 2007. The Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka bestowed on him an Award for Excellence in 2008. He was elected a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka in 2013.
In April 2003, Professor Tennekoon was invited by the Government of Sri Lanka to be part of a team for implementing the World Bank funded project for the Improvement of Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education (IRQUE). This was a 6-year project where the major component was the establishment of a Quality Enhancement Fund (QEF). This was to be a strategy in which quality and relevance were to be improved through the entire university system by the implementation of a competitive funding scheme. Professor Tennekoon was responsible for the implementation of this QEF component, which often involved choosing between competing study programmes. His dispassionate judgment and clinical impartiality ensured the smooth operation of this project; it also endeared him to virtually the entire university community in Sri Lanka. Some of us wondered whether he was deserting his primary calling to engineering through this involvement, but he was only broadening his horizons. He later became passionate about outcome based engineering education, and chaired the Accreditation Board of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka, responsible for accrediting engineering programmes under the Washington Accord.
Twenty eight years ago, Lal Tennekoon suffered a massive heart attack and was in the intensive care unit for many days. His loving wife Preethi and his children Layanthi and Banuka rarely left the hospital premises, at times camping out on its staircases, as I recall. Theirs was clearly a very loving family. How fortunate that we all got him back from the brink of death. From a private communication he circulated to some of us soon after, I am aware that he was extremely grateful to all who attended on, ministered to and prayed for him. He himself looked after his wife caringly, eschewing all professional and other engagements, towards the end of her life. Preethi’s demise hastened his own.
Professor Lal Tennekoon was an illustrious but utterly unpretentious and much loved academic; a greatly sought after and highly respected geotechnical consultant; and a passionate advocate for outcome based engineering education. His twin concerns for practice oriented research on the one hand and engineering education on the other, continue to be nurtured by those he engaged with. His geotechnical expertise endures in the careers of his one-time students, all now emeritus or full professors themselves – Professor Anuruddha Puswewala (rock mechanics); Professor Athula Kulathilake (slope stability); Professor Saman Thilakasiri (piled foundations); Professor Udeni Nawagamuwa (environmental geotechnics); and Professor Nalin de Silva (shallow foundations).
Professor Priyan Dias (a student and later colleague of Professor Lal Tennekoon)
(Continued from yesterday)
China and Sri Lanka discovered that their interests were closely aligned in the evolving post-war strategic landscape. China served as a vital diplomatic shield for Sri Lanka, particularly in countering UN resolutions amid international scrutiny over its actions. For China, Sri Lanka was a crucial link in the Belt and Road Initiative, serving as a strategic hub for infrastructure investment in the Indian Ocean region.
Since 2009, Sino-Sri Lanka relations have expanded rapidly across multiple sectors. China has emerged as Sri Lanka’s leading source of foreign direct investment (FDI), funding large-scale infrastructure projects such as the Hambantota Port, Mattala Airport, the Southern Expressway, the Norochcholai coal power plant, and a $500 million expansion of Colombo’s South Harbour. In May 2013, the two countries signed a Strategic Cooperative Partnership (SCP), encompassing trade, investment, financial assistance, and strategic cooperation. The geopolitical implications of these developments are evident in projects like the Trincomalee-based Sri Lankan Air Force maintenance workshop awarded to a Chinese firm.
These initiatives triggered reactions from regional powers, particularly India and Japan, which view them as components of China’s expanding “Maritime Silk Road” and “String of Pearls” strategy in the Indian Ocean. India and the United States have formally conveyed concerns to Sri Lankan authorities about the strategic implications of China’s involvement in the Hambantota Harbour and Colombo Port City projects. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy has shown little strategic foresight and diplomatic acumen in managing this delicate situation.
Foreign policy Dilemmas of Yahapalanaya: Breakthroughs and Vacillations
The domestic context of foreign policy shifted once again when the National Unity Government (NUG), commonly known as Yahapalana government, came to power following the Presidential election on January 8, 2015. The blatant democracy backsliding since 2009, coupled with misuse of power, widespread corruption and state extravagance, gust a political wind—originating within civil society—that ultimately unseated the seemingly invincible Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. A new discourse on democracy and good governance emerged, shaping the narrative in guiding political development. Soon after coming to power, the Yahapalana government introduced the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on April 28, 2015, as an initial step toward broad democratic reforms. The amendment imposed checks on the President’s executive powers and included certain provisions to promote good governance. The country’s political atmosphere changed markedly after the unseating of the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the Yahapalana government signaled its willingness to engage more constructively with the international community, particularly the United Nations, departing from the confrontational approach of its predecessor. This shift was evident in several key developments. In March 2015, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) visited Sri Lanka, followed by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) in November—the latter marking its first visit in 16 years. The government’s changed approach was most notably demonstrated at the 30th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, where Sri Lanka collaborated with other Council members to co-sponsor the resolution Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability, and Human Rights in Sri Lanka, which was adopted by consensus.
The initial steps taken by the Yahapalana
government in democracy building and good governance helped restore democratic credibility of Sri Lanka before the international community. The focus on good governance, accountability, and anti-corruption resonated with Western countries that champion these principles in the international arena. In addition to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, there were other initiatives in that direction. The right to information was incorporated into the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution, making it a judicially enforceable right. A key milestone in this regard was the enactment of the Right to Information Act, which, after a prolonged gestation period, was finally implemented in February 2017. Meanwhile, the process of drafting a new constitution began with the transformation of Parliament into a Constituent Assembly. A Steering Committee was established, which submitted its interim report on September 26, 2017.
The international pressure that was mounting on Sri Lanka before 2015 was eased significantly due to the Yahapalana government’s approach to national reconciliation. This approach was built on four key main pillars: truth-seeking, the right to justice, reparation, and non-recurrence. As an initial step, the government appointed the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM) on January 26, 2016.
Amid changing domestic dynamics, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy priorities were redefined, particularly in relation to its three geopolitical spheres. The Indian Ocean once again became a priority in foreign policy, reflected in the establishment of the Indian Ocean Secretariat under the Prime Minister’s purview. Recognising shifts in the regional and global balance of power—across South Asia, the Indian Ocean, and beyond—the Yahapalana government sought to restore balance in its foreign policy. India, an emerging blue-water naval power, is Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour. China, a rising superpower with an expanding naval presence in the Indian Ocean, remains Sri Lanka’s principal source of foreign direct investment. Meanwhile, the United States, the dominant naval power in the region, continues to play a crucial role. Sri Lanka’s economic ties also shaped its foreign policy calculus. While India is its second-largest trading partner, China remains a major investor. At the same time, Western markets continue to be vital for Sri Lanka’s exports, with 27% of total exports going to the United States, 27% to the EU, and 10% to Britain. India is Sri Lanka’s second largest trading partner.
Sri Lanka has preferred to be in the Indian Ocean framework rather than the broader Indo-Pacific construct. Recognising the strategic volatility of the region, the Yahapalanaya government maintained that the dominance of the Indian Ocean by any single power would be detrimental to Sri Lanka’s national interests. At this critical juncture, a small island state like Sri Lanka cannot afford to be a passive observer. Sri Lanka has consistently championed a peaceful and stable maritime environment. Ensuring freedom of navigation and securing sea lanes of communication remain central to this vision.
The Yahapalana Government prioritized economic diplomacy. Recognising the global shift in economic and financial power toward ‘emerging Asia’, the government understood that the Indian Ocean was becoming a focal point of global economic influence. In this context, a key policy challenge was determining how best to leverage Sri Lanka’s strategic location and human capital to integrate into Asia’s economic growth.
Sri Lanka’s deepening economic crisis, particularly its mounting debt repayment challenges, had profound implications for its foreign policy under the Yahapalana government. In an effort to mitigate its balance of payment problem, the government signed a controversial agreement in August 2017 with China Merchants Port Holdings (CM Port), leasing a 70% stake in the Hambantota Port for 99 years in exchange for $1.12 billion. This deal not only underscored Sri Lanka’s growing dependence on Chinese investment to manage its financial distress but also highlighted the complex interplay between economic crisis and strategic foreign policy decisions. While the agreement carried significant political and geopolitical ramifications, Sri Lanka’s options at the time appeared severely limited.
Although the Yahapalana government prioritised economic diplomacy, its track record in this area was not impressive. Efforts to revive the economy through foreign investment yielded underwhelming results. The government worked hard to secure Sri Lanka’s qualification for the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact grant. Ultimately, in April 2019—toward the end of its tenure—MCC offered Sri Lanka a $480 million outright grant to upgrade urban transport, modernise the land registration system, and build rural roads connecting highways. Similarly, the Yahapalana government entered into an agreement with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for a Light Rail Transit (LRT) project under highly concessional terms. However, the project failed to take off before the 2019 presidential election.
The Yahapalana government’s indecision and delays were evident in the development of the East Container Terminal (ECT). After prolonged uncertainty, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) finally signed a tripartite agreement with the governments of Japan and India in May 2019 to develop the terminal. However, before finalising the restructuring of the India-Japan joint venture and the capital infusion plan, the Yahapalana government collapsed. The government’s hesitation in making critical policy decisions, even after initiating processes with major international partners, has eroded Sri Lanka’s credibility on the global stage.
Given the significance of the Tamil Diaspora in the international public sphere, engaging with them remained a key challenge in Sri Lanka’s post-war foreign policy. Successive Sri Lankan governments, both during and after the war, struggled to establish a constructive dialogue with the Tamil Diaspora, largely due to their failure to recognise its diversity. As Foreign Minister of the Yahapalana Government (2015–2017), Mangala Samaraweera made a concerted effort to engage with the Diaspora, particularly the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), aiming to integrate them into Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process. However, his initiative remained largely personal and lacked broader government support. Following his departure from the Foreign Ministry in mid-2017, the effort lost momentum.
The Yahapalana government struggled to sustain its initial momentum in promoting democracy and good governance, ultimately failing to maintain a consistent policy direction. Indecision and frequent policy reversals came to define its domestic governance. A key example was its approach to transitional justice. While the government initially demonstrated enthusiasm for establishing the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), this commitment soon waned. By the time the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM) submitted its final report in November 2016, the initial drive had significantly diminished. Notably, neither the President nor the Prime Minister attended the report’s handover, signaling a lack of political will. After prolonged delays, the OMP was finally established in March 2018—almost two years after its initial proposal, highlighting the government’s slow and inconsistent approach to key reforms.
Divisions within the government emerged before its second year in office, preventing a unified stance on key policies, including foreign affairs. On critical issues, the President, Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister often voiced conflicting positions, creating confusion. This persistent inconsistency left the international community uncertain and bewildered.
The rift between the President and the Prime Minister of the Yahapalana Government reached a crisis point on October 26, 2018, when the President dismissed the Prime Minister and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place. The Supreme Court later ruled the President’s actions unconstitutional and reversed his decisions. However, this exposed the underlying tensions within the Yahapalana Government, turning a hidden cold war into an open conflict that paralysed the country’s public administration. Meanwhile, the Central Bank bond scam inflicted irreparable damage on the government’s anti-corruption credibility. The faltering pace of democratic reforms, economic stagnation, and infighting within the political leadership created a bleak political atmosphere. In this context, the carefully coordinated suicide bombings on April 21, 2019, carried out by a little-known Islamic terrorist group, shifted the national discourse from democracy and good governance to security and strong leadership.
by Gamini Keerawella
(To be continued)
China races robots against humans in Beijing half marathon
US judge finds Google illegally monopolised ad tech market
US strikes on Yemen oil terminal kill at least 74, Houthis say
-
Business6 days agoMembers’ Night of the Sri Lanka – Russia Business Council of The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
-
Features6 days agoLiberation Day tariffs chaos could cause permanent damage to US economy, amid global tensions
-
Features6 days agoMinds and Memories picturing 65 years of Sri Lankan Politics and Society
-
Sports6 days agoLankan legends, Modi and the Jaffna dream
-
Opinion6 days agoEnd of an Era: Passing away of Raja Uncle (Mr. Rajapaksha)
-
Features6 days agoRepentance Leads to Passion
-
Features6 days agoRecollections of two past Aprils
-
News6 days agoRs. 200 Bn tutoring industry contributing to teacher shortage crisis